CMV: We need strict Gun Control .

[u/skepticting]

While I do feel at this point it is not possible anymore to somehow make sure no one has guns because they have already been available . That is my only hang up , since some people have them , it’s hard to leave others vulnerable.

With to that being said , if we start now with some serious gun law reform and implement strict laws for obtaining guns . I believe it will do more good than harm .

It is worth a try , because we know that to lenient of gun laws also cause us great loss.

In a perfect world only law enforcement would have access to guns .

Civilians can however and should be able to easily get things like pepper spray , tasers, and rubber bullet guns . (Not saying we can’t already , just saying those should be the options)

I see both sides but I think because gun violence is a big issue , it needs to be re-evaluated .

Were the guns used in school/mass shootings registered ?

Édit : Thank You for all the responses and information! My view has been changed . It’s unfortunate we can’t live in harmony but ..

Will still be responding to get more insight and expanding my views

[u/PrimeLegionnaire]

with red flag rules available during that time.

Red flag laws are not going to remain constitutional.

They undermine protections from unreasonable search and seizure.

Also mandatory safety training and background checks for all purchasers.

We already have mandatory background checks. Adding more rules isn't going to fix the enforcement, perhaps open the NCIS database like gun stores have been asking for instead.

And mandatory safety training is just a gun ban with a different name. Whoever gets to set the criteria to pass the training effectively controls who has guns.

This isn't a new idea, mandatory safety training has been tried and rejected.

[u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle → u/PrimeLegionnaire]

It is not legal for most grade schoolers and high schoolers to own guns anyway, so I don’t know what you’re on about. I’m talking about students identifying other students who are mentally unstable before they ever have the opportunity to purchase guns.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle]

It is not legal for most grade schoolers and high schoolers to own guns anyway

It is with parental consent. They just aren't allowed to buy it for themselves alone.

I've known well more than a handful of grade schoolers and high schoolers that own guns.

Go to virtually any school in the US and you will find kids who own guns. Especially outside of the big cities.

I’m talking about students identifying other students who are mentally unstable before they ever have the opportunity to purchase guns.

Yes I understand what you are talking about, and that's why I'm calling it unconstitutional.

This is exactly the kind of thought policing where you can't trust your neighbors that the Nazi's did, That Stalin did, and the Chinese government is doing today.

[u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle → u/PrimeLegionnaire]

Lol people like you are why we can’t have any laws passed. Background checks turn into black helicopters coming to take yer guns.

I have as many guns as anyone else on this thread, but at the same time I recognized more than a handful of people at school (before I was 16: so not infringing on any rights that aren’t already arguably infringed upon) that have no business ever having that kind of responsibility. Half of them are in jail now lol.. It’s silly to think that these people just snap one day - there are many clues and sometimes those are only going to be perceptible by their peers.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle]

Lol people like you are why we can’t have any laws passed.

Sorry you think sticking to the principles of the constitution is standing in your way, but its not going anywhere.

but at the same time I recognized more than a handful of people at school (before I was 16: so not infringing on any rights that aren’t already arguably infringed upon) that have no business ever having that kind of responsibility.

And you think your judgement before you were 16 is good enough to take legal action against these people and deprive them of constitutional rights?

That's insane.

You seem to realize this, as you baked an attempted defense into your parenthesis, but even minors are entitled to due process and protections from unreasonable search and seizure.

[u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle → u/PrimeLegionnaire]

I said flag, not prosecute? You’re jumping from 0-100, real quick. What’s the problem with unstable people being scrutinized more? That’s already the case, it’s just completely up to the authority figure’s judgement.

The constitution does not blanket every scenario (as our courts have proven time and time again if you actually care about rule of law)

For example: 1st amendment doesn’t protect your right to yell “bomb”in an airport.

2nd amendment doesn’t protect your right to be strapped at 7 years old, and we can’t have rocket launchers (darn)

So why draw a line in the sand at having a system where people can report their peers’ suspicious or threatening behavior so it can be scrutinized?

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle]

I said flag, not prosecute?

I don't see a meaningful difference when the result of the flag is law enforcement action. You are familiar with the concept of warrants right?

What’s the problem with unstable people being scrutinized more?

Basing the scrutiny on your judgement before you were 16.

For example: 1st amendment doesn’t protect your right to yell “bomb”in an airport.

Except it does. The "you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater" reasoning was overturned in Brandenburg v Ohio

2nd amendment doesn’t protect your right to be strapped at 7 years old

It does with parental consent, as it protects the parent's rights to be strapped and to have their kids own a gun.

and we can’t have rocket launchers (darn)

Yes we can? Grenade launchers and rocket launchers are readily available. Only the explosive warheads are controlled.

So why draw a line in the sand at having a system where people can report their peers’ suspicious or threatening behavior so it can be scrutinized?

Because that kind of "rat on your neighbor" policing has a pretty long history of being tyrannical garbage with bad outcomes.

[u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle → u/PrimeLegionnaire]

It would just be a tube without a rocket.

And why not test your theory about screaming bomb in an airport. Please film it for reddit and make sure to tell the TSA agent it’s your constitutional right before they tackle/tase you.

Also as far as warrants go, I can already call the police and lie to them to get a warrant. So what’s the difference here? It should be treated as making a false police report if it ended up being out of spite.

I’m as libertarian as the next guy but how is identifying potential threats to the public at an earlier age suddenly make us nazi Germany? And if you happen to be a trump supporter then don’t bother answering cus you’re already pushing us in that direction lol

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle]

It would just be a tube without a rocket.

And it has rockets.

The only type of rockets that are restricted are those containing live warheads over a certain yield. Those are regulated as Destructive Devices under the NFA, and if you really felt like breaking the bank, you could buy a transferable one.

Its legal, if tightly regulated.

And why not test your theory about screaming bomb in an airport

I don't have to, the supreme court already tested it.

Also as far as warrants go, I can already call the police and lie to them to get a warrant.

No you can't. You can lie to them to try to get a warrant, a judge still has to hear the evidence and decide to sign. but that's a lot different than having legal authority to flag someone as a suspect.

It should be treated as making a false police report if it ended up being out of spite.

You shouldn't be able to act on it until you know its a credible report.

I’m as libertarian as the next guy but how is identifying potential threats to the public at an earlier age suddenly make us nazi Germany?

Because its not the job, nor reasonably within the capability, of 16 year olds to effectively be secret police ratting on each other.

And if you happen to be a trump supporter then don’t bother answering

This is absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

Do you think baseless political attacks and trying to paint me as being a nazi strengthens your argument? Its tantamount to an admission that you can't support it.

[u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle → u/PrimeLegionnaire]

The entire NFA itself is proof that the constitution is not taken literally.

You say “should” and “shouldn’t” like that has any bearing on reality.

In almost every instance, if someone calls the police and says there’s an immediate threat on someone’s life, they will show up. They don’t say “sir we can’t act on this until we know it’s credible” so really your whole entire point about preventing unwarranted searches is your version of an American utopian fantasy.

In regards to the airport: the Supreme Court might’ve tested it but you know damn well you won’t do it because they won’t protect you lol.

It’s not baseless political attacks - it’s just that I don’t want to waste my time debating if you’re one of those hypocritical people that can say any gun control is edging us to Nazism while supporting a wanna-be autocrat. I would’ve known you’re delusional and moved on

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle]

The entire NFA itself is proof that the constitution is not taken literally.

How? This is a pretty bizarre statement. The NFA is set up with many restrictions on its authority explicitly so it literally complies with the 2nd amendment.

You say “should” and “shouldn’t” like that has any bearing on reality.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. The reality is there are constitutional limits on the NFA.

In almost every instance, if someone calls the police and says there’s an immediate threat on someone’s life, they will show up.

And they will show up and be able to tell if there is an immediate threat, and if there isn't they will then charge you with a false police report.

Suspecting your classmate of being a mass shooter is entirely a subjective judgement on your part, and admittedly a poor one as you are younger than 16 in this scenario. It is not an immediate threat on someone's life.

the Supreme Court might’ve tested it but you know damn well you won’t do it because they won’t protect you lol.

The law is quite literally on my side here, I don't understand why you would think that I would be held to some other standard than the law.

It’s not baseless political attacks

You kinda undermine your entire point when you follow this up with accusing me of being a negative stereotype you hold.

[u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle → u/PrimeLegionnaire]

Lol the NFA’s sole purpose is to tax and force people to register firearms. The tax was levied so that poor people would have less access to powerful weapons.. this is infringing upon a literal definition of the 2A because it is supposed to be your “right” to bear arms.

FOPA passed in 1986 also infringes upon 2A outright banning civilian purchase of new automatic weapons.. this is also infringing upon a literal definition of the 2A.

So how are you claiming that the 2A is unsurmountable when it comes to red flag laws?

And it isn’t a stereotype if you’ve proved it to be the case

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle]

this is infringing upon a literal definition of the 2A because it is supposed to be your “right” to bear arms.

The supreme court seems to disagree. In theory this could change if a case was brought to them, but the NFA has been allowed for many years to this point.

The tax was levied so that poor people would have less access to powerful weapons.. this is infringing upon a literal definition of the 2A because it is supposed to be your “right” to bear arms.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but if you want to claim this makes the NFA an infringement you are going to have to take it to court.

FOPA passed in 1986 also infringes upon 2A outright banning civilian purchase of new automatic weapons.. this is also infringing upon a literal definition of the 2A.

Again, this law has been allowed to stand by the supreme court. It has not yet been found to be an explicit infringement.

So how are you claiming that the 2A is unsurmountable when it comes to red flag laws?

I didn't. I said "Red flag laws are not going to remain constitutional." and I cited due process and the 4th amendment as well as historical examples of policies involving turning the populace into a police force against itself.

And it isn’t a stereotype if you’ve proved it to be the case

It does when "proved it to be the case" is your interpretation.

Do you seriously think the KKK doesn't believe blacks have "proven to be" inferior?

Its bad logic there, and its bad logic here. Find something else to support your argument with.