Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gun Control that Abides by the Second Amendment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gun Control that Abides by the Second Amendment

    In light of this recent shooting I had a thought. I fully believe in the second amendment. People have a right to bear arms and the government has no right to tell them not to. However, noticing that most of these shooters we've had were transparent head cases that people were already uneasy with, and also fully believing that said head cases having firearms is a detriment to public safety, I wonder if there isn't a way of exercising gun control at the personal level.

    The spirit of the second amendment is to prevent the government from disarming its citizenry and preserving that citizenry's right to defend itself. It is clearly recognized that the government has no business disarming it's citizens. However, it is also a rule of the free market that a seller has the right to refuse service to potential clients, particularly in the interests of public safety. For example, a bartender has the right to refuse service to an extremely intoxicated client and can bounce clients that are unruly. We in this country have a right to drink alcohol. But the bartender isn't obligated to sell to us if he believes that doing so would jeopardize our health or others.

    Taking this into consideration I also take note of the fact that many of these losers have extensive internet manifestos and facebook rants. They pretty much broadcast their crazy to all and sundry.

    Therefore I wonder if we the people could/would/should exercise a form of gun control at the personal level. No government regulation. No government decision making. It is my opinion that perhaps gun sellers should, before selling firearms, take some time to scope out their clients. Check their social media feeds, do a little research. And if they find that said potential client has some disturbing content, they can reserve the right to refuse sale. This is not the government saying "you can't own a gun". This would be a private business making a personal choice based upon their own research. And the declined client has an appellate court in the form of going to another business. If they all decide he's crazy, he probably shouldn't have a gun. In my opinion, this does not violate the spirit of the second amendment. You have a right to bear arms but no one is obligated to provide you with one. The business is making a personal choice. And the only government regulation that might be needed is protection from lawsuits for the business. It should be written in stone that if they say no, that is their right.

    In this way we can have a form of gun control that does not involve the government interfering with the second amendment. The right to bear arms is upheld, but businesses can exercise control at the personal level against dangerous citizens. You have the right to bear arms but not the right to be provided with one at your leisure.

    I anticipate one criticism may be that if people know that their social media is being watched and can get them cut from gun sales then they simply will stop broadcasting craziness on social media. To that I have two answers.

    1. A sane person would think to conceal their motives. A mentally unbalanced person might not consider that.

    2. If they do stop with the public craziness then at least this hinders them from coming into contact with other crazy people that might fuel their insanity.

    These are my musings for today. What do you all think?
    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

  • #2
    Your proposed method effectively does nothing. Many people will just sell to whoever they want and make a profit. Rather than Facebook stalking all potential clients.
    First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

    Comment


    • #3
      When I relent and take my dad (who's senile.) to a gun store I make sure that I've contacted them first and notified them not to sell a firearm to him. This works well and keeps him from having a temper tantrum. Also I keep my guns in a gun safe.

      This makes me a responsible gun owner. I just wish others secured their weapons and monitored their own family. Safety first.
      Credo quia absurdum.


      Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

      Comment


      • #4
        Hatfield and McCoy scenario...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
          In light of this recent shooting I had a thought. I fully believe in the second amendment. People have a right to bear arms and the government has no right to tell them not to. However, noticing that most of these shooters we've had were transparent head cases that people were already uneasy with, and also fully believing that said head cases having firearms is a detriment to public safety, I wonder if there isn't a way of exercising gun control at the personal level.

          The spirit of the second amendment is to prevent the government from disarming its citizenry and preserving that citizenry's right to defend itself. It is clearly recognized that the government has no business disarming it's citizens. However, it is also a rule of the free market that a seller has the right to refuse service to potential clients, particularly in the interests of public safety. For example, a bartender has the right to refuse service to an extremely intoxicated client and can bounce clients that are unruly. We in this country have a right to drink alcohol. But the bartender isn't obligated to sell to us if he believes that doing so would jeopardize our health or others.

          Taking this into consideration I also take note of the fact that many of these losers have extensive internet manifestos and facebook rants. They pretty much broadcast their crazy to all and sundry.

          Therefore I wonder if we the people could/would/should exercise a form of gun control at the personal level. No government regulation. No government decision making. It is my opinion that perhaps gun sellers should, before selling firearms, take some time to scope out their clients. Check their social media feeds, do a little research. And if they find that said potential client has some disturbing content, they can reserve the right to refuse sale. This is not the government saying "you can't own a gun". This would be a private business making a personal choice based upon their own research. And the declined client has an appellate court in the form of going to another business. If they all decide he's crazy, he probably shouldn't have a gun. In my opinion, this does not violate the spirit of the second amendment. You have a right to bear arms but no one is obligated to provide you with one. The business is making a personal choice. And the only government regulation that might be needed is protection from lawsuits for the business. It should be written in stone that if they say no, that is their right.

          In this way we can have a form of gun control that does not involve the government interfering with the second amendment. The right to bear arms is upheld, but businesses can exercise control at the personal level against dangerous citizens. You have the right to bear arms but not the right to be provided with one at your leisure.

          I anticipate one criticism may be that if people know that their social media is being watched and can get them cut from gun sales then they simply will stop broadcasting craziness on social media. To that I have two answers.

          1. A sane person would think to conceal their motives. A mentally unbalanced person might not consider that.

          2. If they do stop with the public craziness then at least this hinders them from coming into contact with other crazy people that might fuel their insanity.

          These are my musings for today. What do you all think?
          1. I agree with you all the way.

          2. The gun sellers will never do it because the cost to them would be prohibitive, and the lawsuits would be overwhelming as each rejected purchased because a "victim" of something or other.

          We need to scrap America and start over, and this time we need to do it right.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
            When I relent and take my dad (who's senile.) to a gun store I make sure that I've contacted them first and notified them not to sell a firearm to him. This works well and keeps him from having a temper tantrum. Also I keep my guns in a gun safe.

            This makes me a responsible gun owner. I just wish others secured their weapons and monitored their own family. Safety first.
            Your problem is that you belong to a minority - adult, intelligent and morally responsible. You, sir, are an obvious enemy of the government and should be treated as such. Of course, if you go on welfare none of what I said applies.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Again I say, Hatfield/McCoy...

              Comment


              • #8
                Does controlling bullets violate 2nd amendment rights?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi

                  Limit each person to 1 gun!

                  Regards

                  Andy H
                  "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

                  "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Andy H View Post
                    Hi

                    Limit each person to 1 gun!

                    Regards

                    Andy H
                    Got it, restrict the law abiding citizen but do nothing for the mentally ill or criminals........
                    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      So in order to achieve 'safety' you would be willing to surrender freedom of speech.

                      Interesting.

                      Gun ownership is restricted to those who are Right Thinking Folk, as determined by random Wal Mart employees.

                      Yeah, that will stop bad things from happening ever again!
                      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Nikki View Post
                        Does controlling bullets violate 2nd amendment rights?
                        If you mean the entire cartridge, and not just the projectile launched, then yes, interfering with the ammunition supply is indeed a violation of the Bill of Rights.
                        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Ban nuts, not guns!
                          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                            For example, a bartender has the right to refuse service to an extremely intoxicated client and can bounce clients that are unruly. We in this country have a right to drink alcohol. But the bartender isn't obligated to sell to us if he believes that doing so would jeopardize our health or others.
                            Bartenders do not cut off customers out of any sense of moral responsibility or for the health of others. They do so because successful lawsuits against those who over-serve make them vulnerable to prosecution. They do it out of self-preservation. Otherwise, they would likely serve them until they ran out of money.
                            ScenShare Guidelines:

                            1) Enjoy creating it
                            2) Enjoy playing it
                            3) Enjoy sharing it
                            4) Enjoy helping others create them

                            The PlayersDB - The Harpoon Community's #1 Choice.

                            FAQ http://www.harplonkhq.com/Harpoon/Fr...dQuestions.htm

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BKnight3 View Post
                              Again I say, Hatfield/McCoy...
                              How so? Are you saying that this latest shooting was a centuries old family feud?
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X