Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit

Why are gun enthusiast opposed to stricter psychological testing and a ban of fully automatic weapons?

These stricter guidelines don't appear to infringe on anyones right to bear arms unless you are psychologically challenged or building a militia. Please understand that my knowledge on this is limited and I really want to understand. No rants please.

Report as

Gun nuts....are afraid if they give an inch, they'll lose a mile and probably afraid that they're in need of some testing themselves.
Responsible gun owners understand compromise and common sense.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (15)
Report as
ClaraListensprechen
Star. Gun nuts are just that: NUTS. There's no real rhyme nor reason to their fire-arm religion.
Report as
I was just editing to emphasize that point as you were commenting ;)
Report as
Thank you. I have noticed that few responsible gun owners make their opinion public. We usually read comments from extreme zealots and I just feel that they are not representative of the general American public who are willing to meet somewhere in the middle. I think your right about the fear of losing an inch. It's not the best approach but it seems to prevail.
Report as
Extremists always make the loudest noise.....as does an empty steel drum.
Report as
ClaraListensprechen
Well done, Mona. If I could give u another star, I would.
Report as
Wow. Great comment. I will quote you.
Report as
thanks ladies....I'm very flattered
Report as
Shall not be infringed doesn't mean some compromise.
Report as
And guess what? I don't even own a gun although I am considering getting one and taking some lessons since their are so many people out their ready to give up their freedoms for a little safety.
I'm nut a gun nut but I am sure a LIBERTY nut and proud of it! Shame on all of you for forgetting history.
Report as
Mona, this is one of the few times I feel the need to disagree with you. I'm concerned about criminals just as much as anyone, but the way to defend ourselves agains them isn't by forfeiting our basic rights and passing more "Patriot Acts". I think we're better served by trying to fix the causes. Tim McVeigh killed 168 people, wounded 680 and destroyed/damaged 300+ buildings with fertilizer. If a person is determined to cause harm, they will...

I got my carry permit when a local gang attempted to kill two of my children. If feel that, if weapons were in the hands of more responsible people, maybe some of these tragedies might be avoided.
Report as
ClaraListensprechen
...in short, the NRA deludes many of even the best of us.
Report as
The topic has turned to "the right to carry a gun" but that is not the question. The question is about stricter guidelines. Psych testing etc. Why not stricter testing and why not ban semi-automatics. Carrying a gun is one thing. But mentally challenged people with simi-automatics?That's the question. Who objects and why?
Report as
ClaraListensprechen
Cons object to anything that costs money, and that means being against any sort of testing, any sort of bureaucracy. Money is worth more to them than life even though they also claim to be right to lifers.
Report as
@bigred50: you want to quote and take that passage literally? Well, "shall not be infringed upon" was written back in the 18th century...gun owners are still free to own/carry "those" guns. I doubt that those who wrote it would feel it's necessary to have assault weapons either....if so, then shouldn't the "right to bear arms" include tasers, bazookas, missile launchers and maybe even tanks?

As you said, "their are so many people out their ready to give up their freedoms for a little safety" I willing to bet there are at least 40 parents and 20 children that would "compromise" SOME gun rights to be alive.
Report as
@Orkamemnon: when did I say "forfeiting" basic rights? I'm not talking about a complete ban....just assault weapons/fully automatic. And the purchase of fertilizer is now very strictly and carefully monitored and controlled....I never heard any farmers protest about their rights and freedoms.

If as you said, "we're better served by trying to fix the causes", then why not fix that and more? Would any victims be disappointed if we did too much to save them?
On a personal note, if a gang had made an attempt on the lives of any of my family members, I would get out of that neighborhood, town or country rather than arm myself. I wouldn't continue to stay in harm's way. Have you armed yourself with assault weapons? Bigger guns may give you some reassurance, but escalation is not prevention.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." ~ Gandhi
Report as
Add a comment...

I haven't heard of anyone being against psychological testing, and automatics have been banned for awhile now.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (4)
Report as
ClaraListensprechen
That ban expired years ago and was not renewed.
Report as
Your wrong , fully automatic, aka machine guns have and are still banned from civilian gun ownership!
Report as
waterwell is right, here. A marine in I think Wisconsin was arrested because his AR 15 malfunctioned and fired 2 rounds at once, making it an "Assault rifle"
Report as
ClaraListensprechen
There was a time when automatics were banned, kids. I was born at night but it wasn't last night.
Report as
Add a comment...

Many are trying to make the point that none of these things would have done anything to change most of these shootings.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (4)
Report as
I believe that Psych testing would have.
Report as
Several past shooters were tested.
Report as
Well, psych testing would probably help a little, but more gun bans wont.
Report as
I agree more bans won't work. I believe it's time we reevaluated how we handle mental illness in thus country.
Report as
Add a comment...

Maybe some might fail the test or suspect they might.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Lets see... You want the government to be able to determine who is sane enough to have a weapon. Ya.. That sounds like something the founders had in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment. Ever wonder why so many returning soldiers are diagnosed with PTSD? Weren't they also on Janet's possible terrorists lists?
The last thing we should do is let the possible enemy to our freedoms determine who can fight their tyranny.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
That's a great answer.
Report as
Thanks big guy. Too many people will give up freedom for security. That's how we got stuck with Bush's unconstitutional Patriot Act that Obama has double downed on.
They also forget why we have the second amendment. Too many think its about hunting or even protection from crooks. (Well the later is kind of true - our leaders can often times be crooks.)
Report as
Oh my GOD. People like you are paranoid and insecure. Anyone with reason and a basic understanding of how America operates knows that tyranny is not a threat! And the Constitution is archaic and not applicable to such a dynamic environment. We don't have a society of 50,000 anymore, half armed with simple muskets - ie. the context under which your Constitutional authors wrote. Present gun enthusiasts are scared and insecure about this perceived threat to their old-school sense of masculinity, as any seasoned psychologist would concur. The irony would be comical if it wasn't so sad for inhibiting MY freedom of feeling safe when I walk down the street. People who carry guns are your quintessential "scardey cats," and what drives violence, anarchy, and tyranny is fear and paranoia- as history reveals. Hence the NEED to restrict gun acquisition - especially auto-firearms.
Report as
Add a comment...

I disagree. I've been forced to use my sidearm to defend myself and family against teenaged kids in a drug trafficking gang. NOWHERE, was it legal to get the firearms they had or the materials they used to make the bomb that they put in my mailbox. Thank God and the foresight of my founding fathers that Gave me the basic right to own the handgun, which enabled me to be here today and write this.

Tragic things have always happened in this life, I want the right to protect myself. To those out there who want to define "reasonable" restrictions... have never been an honest citizen trying to navigate them... they're not so reasonable in practice for me, but I haven't seen them make a DENT in a criminals access.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

They believe they have a right to bear arms with absolutely no restrictions or interference from government. I have even heard the term "God given right".Im for the right to bear arms,but there have to be restrictions, that's just common sense. We don't even have a right to drive a car without restrictions. It's a privilege that you have to qualify for. It's a safety issue, for the protection of yourself and others , so it should be with guns.Can you imagine the mayhem if people could just buy a car,jump in and drive with no restrictions, no training. that's what's going on with guns right now.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (4)
Report as
Driving a car is not an inalienable right which means a natural right, a right you are born with or God given to us by birth.
Protecting your right to live is.
A government restricting these rights such as the right to bear arms, goes against our basic right to live.
It makes no common sense to let a government that could turn tyrannical restrict this right in any way. They really could care less about your safety, as registration of your weapon does nothing to prevent crime and has everything to do with control.
Having the govt control our rights or regulate them is not inalienable. Our constitution puts limits on the govt not on we the people.
Bad people will always get weapons to do their dirty deeds. Us good people must be able to stop them even if those bad people turn out to be our own government, as was the intention of the second amendment.
Report as
Btw that is exactly how people drove cars when they were first put on the market. My own parents did not need a license to drive. They did use their heads though and had someone show them how to drive.
Report as
I wrote that I believe in the right to bear arms, that's not my argument, I just believe it must be controlled. Some people have no business with even a handgun, much less an assault weapon. Restriction would not stop a qualified person from obtaining a gun for protection. We need them to protect ourselves from unsavory people who have guns .
Report as
Red, your parents were responsible people, many are not.
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches