Should ID Checks Be Required for Gun Sales?

Comments

• and everyone else with themselves in all likelihood.

  • Report
  

  by Yeah-Yeah on December 23rd, 2009

• Criminals will have guns no matter how hard or easy it is for good, honest, well-trained people to buy guns.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on July 19th, 2010

• yes they will but we don't need to make it easier for them to get one

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 19th, 2010

Comments

• The privacy rights argument stems from people wanting to keep their gun ownership a secret.

  • Report
  

  by norezen on July 22nd, 2010

• And that's what puzzles me. I suspect that these are the same people who have NRA and "WARNING: This vehicle is protected by Smith & Wesson" stickers on their vehicles.
  
  So I'm thinkin' that maybe public disclosure isn't really the issue.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on July 22nd, 2010

• Governments love to keep lists; therefore, I don't want to be on them. Pretty simple.

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on July 22nd, 2010

• Oh let them keep their silly lists.
  They're too inept to know how to use them.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on July 22nd, 2010

Comments

• But having your name recorded into a registry of gun owners easily lends itself to striping you of your 2nd amendment right. Look what they tried to do in DC - and they almost succeeded!

  • Report
  

  by Nate on July 19th, 2010

• Oh so we should let just anyone own a gun? Should we sell guns to people previously convicted of murder and armed robbery? No that would be insane. What about school shooters, can they buy guns? As with any right, we the people need to use it responsibly. A background check isn't irresponsible, allowing just anyone to buy a gun no questions asked, is the definition of irresponsible.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on July 19th, 2010

• What you are proposing is taking away the right to bear arms and replacing it with the privilege to bear arms. Those convicted of armed robbery really ought to be executed but are already not allowed to own firearms. If they illegally obtain them they face punishment if caught.
  
  Your use of et cetera in the list of people not allowed to buy guns is the alarming part, because that would be the law. And year by year - term by term - et cetera would mean more and more.
  
  We are allowed the right to own lethal man killing weapons for the same reason we have the freedom speech, governments are not to be trusted and the people need to be able to overthrow them. Their ability to do so will keep it from ever being necessary.

  • Report
  

  by Nate on July 19th, 2010

• This "right" was added when circumstances and times were much different than today. However, along that line of reasoning, since the constitution guarantees religious freedom, should we allow religions to participate in human sacrifice or even execution by "stoning"? I would go so far as to vote for a movement eliminating that right on the basis that it is antiquated and obsolete.

  • Report
  

  by Koz - Passion Perseverance Patience on July 19th, 2010

• "governments are not to be trusted and the people need to be able to overthrow them."
  
  Are you insane? You think that owning an AK-47 or an M-16 is going to allow you to overthrow the government? Sweet jesus man, how do you plan on shooting down a super sonic jet? Or tanking out a tank? I was USMC for years, the military would crush a militia in a heart beat.
  
  If you're seriously worried about the government that much, you need to cut their funding. Which ironically most gun owners are totally against.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on July 19th, 2010

• "What you are proposing is taking away the right to bear arms and replacing it with the privilege to bear arms."
  Actually no, it's replacing the "right to bear arms" with the "right to bear arms as long as you don't have a problem identifying yourself to prove you are of age and don't have a violent background". What exactly is wrong with that?
   
  "If they illegally obtain them they face punishment if caught."
  And you'd like to take away that risk of punishment by allowing them to purchase a gun without an ID check? Why?

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 19th, 2010

• Execution by stoning? How barbaric!
  
  We need to criminalize possession of stones and require an ID check before anyone can purchase a stone!

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on July 22nd, 2010

• i found in a law dictionary the definition of "gang".
  
  it means "group."
  
  are you a group member? NO GUNS FOR YOU!!!

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on July 22nd, 2010

• "This "right" was added when circumstances and times were much different than today."
  
  And history never repeats itself.

  • Report
  

  by norezen on July 22nd, 2010

• History never repeats itself. Gun confiscation followed by genocide could never happen again ... after all the times it has happened before ... oops, I mean the one time.
  
  What circumstances were different? Men want power; Power corrupts; Bullets make holes; Men with holes bleed to death. Read Federalist Papers, I think it's #14 or 15.
  
  Relations between England and America are friendly now. England is no longer seriously trying to take its colonies back. That's the only thing that changed.

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on July 22nd, 2010

• Books can beat people to death lets have ID checks for them too! The problem with that idea is that that's not the main use of a book, nor the main use of a stone. A gun is a weapon, it's purpose is to kill. No one is saying law abiding citizens can't have a gun, we're saying that ID checks help prevent criminals from getting guns. No one is talking gun confiscation, that's just non-sense.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on July 22nd, 2010

Comments

• this ignores the fact that guns get into circulation via legal means to start with and the fact that in the US they are so unmonitored is why any high school kid in your country can get them so easily. if you had to show ID and account for any weapon you bought, things would be a little harder for criminals

  • Report
  

  by fluffylucy on July 22nd, 2010

Comments

• I guess no one thought of that here. 21 for a hand gun 18 for shotgun or rifle. I guess we should just go on their word that they are old enough, just as we go on their word they aren't a violent criminal.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 19th, 2010

Comments

Comments

• Well what about the gun laws in DC, the capital of our nation? Like the one recently shot down as unconstitutional. It outlawed pistol ownership! There's one on the books now that makes it illegal to carry a firearm in DC! Our capital should be the freest city in the nation, if not the world. Instead it is quite possibly the most oppressive.
  
  Now I'm supposed to trust the politicians in DC with a list of every gun owner? I think not.

  • Report
  

  by Nate on July 19th, 2010

• That was overturned in 2007 saying it was unconstitutional. 2008 people could have their guns again for the first time in 30 years. People in DC can have guns again. As of 2 years ago.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 19th, 2010

• They can own but not carry. Again, for 30 years people in the capitol of what should be the freest nation in the world could not carry firearms. And that was a narrow 5-4 ruling.
  
  We were one person away from saying that local governments can choose which constitutional rights we are allowed!

  • Report
  

  by Nate on July 19th, 2010

• concealed, not not carry at all

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 19th, 2010

• Why do they need to carry guns around D.C.? What purpose does that serve? Sure you may think it's protection if they get mugged but many people who own handguns have no clue how to use them in a real, stressful situation and would most likely end up losing the gun to the mugger...making the situation worse when they could have just handed over the purse or wallet.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 19th, 2010

• To Nate...do you drive a car? Do you believe the government is going to confiscate your car? What about a social security card? Do you fear it's confiscation? Marriage license? College degree? Membership card to some organization? Government has you on every list possible yet you worry about being on a list of registered gun owners. Don't you think it's a bit late in the game to worry about being on a list? Birth certificate? Think they'll confiscate that too? I don't mean to ridicule you because that isn't my intention. I just believe gun owners are kinda paranoid about this issue and I can't figure out why. The responsible gun owners should welcome such control to weed out the mentally unfit/criminals/gang members/mobsters/murderers/whateverers. So can you explain to me why a gun is more valuable than a car or social security card or birth certficate? Happy Tuesday Nate.

  • Report
  

  by RosieGHM Jetpacker on July 20th, 2010

• @aquatic, why is DC any different than anywhere else, why shouldn't they be able to carry? Yes, a lot of people may not know how to use a gun, but most do. Most of the time just seeing the gun is enough and you don't even have to pull the trigger. DC has a lot of crime, protection is needed.
  @nate, I agree responsible, law abiding citizens should welcome this extra protection to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 20th, 2010

• Medicgirl - First and foremost, I stand corrected. You are right about an individual having the right to carry a weapon in DC. The ban is in fact against concealed weapons only. I was wrong.
  
  The reason behind the fear of our guns getting taken away is not just paranoia. Politicians get elected running campaigns on reducing the amount of guns on the street. Celebrities argue for tight controls or elimination of gun ownership all together. Many powerful lobby groups do the same. There really are people bent on disarming the US populace and they're not far from success (recent 5-4 decision on gun ownership in DC for example).
  
  If you want extra protection from "bad guys," empower the police. Allow them to do suspicion checks for a set amount of time (say four years or so). If you look suspicious, they wave a drug detection wand over your clothes and verify your identity. If either give negative responses you're searched. There, now drug dealers and convicted felons are afraid to carry weapons.

  • Report
  

  by Nate on July 20th, 2010

• But that is constitutionally wrong. What if they thought I looked suspicious? I've never been in trouble, but I know it would be embarrassing as hell having that done to me. Profiling is illegal.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 20th, 2010

• I can tell you exactly where in the constitution the right to bear arms is located. Where is the right to not have to identify yourself to an officer while engaging in suspicious behavior?
  
  The forth amendment protects you from "unreasonable searches." Having to identify yourself and a quick non-invasive pass over with a trained dog or wand is not an unreasonable search.
  
  If you're wearing a necklace with a big marijuana plant on it and/or a t-shirt with the picture of a cop killer it's suspicious. You can't tell me that a competent veteran officer doesn't have the ability to look at a crowd and point out the two or three most likely to have drugs, weapons and/or have violent tendencies.

  • Report
  

  by Nate on July 20th, 2010

• Who said D.C. is different from everywhere else? I only mentioned D.C. because Nate seems to be stuck on it.
  &nbcp;
  "Yes, a lot of people may not know how to use a gun, but most do."
   
  What are you basing that statement? How do you know that most people know how to use a gun? Is that based on how many people have played a 1st person shooter game or is it based on statistics from your local weapons training facility?

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 20th, 2010

• A person's skill with a firearm is completely irrelevant. You don't need a degree in public speaking to take advantage of the first amendment. You don't need to pass a political science test to vote. You do not need to pass a firearm test to bear arms.
  
  I'm stuck on DC for two reasons. 1) it is the seat of our federal government and 2) they have a history of stepping on the 2nd amendment.

  • Report
  

  by Nate on July 20th, 2010

• "You don't need a degree in public speaking to take advantage of the first amendment. You don't need to pass a political science test to vote. You do not need to pass a firearm test to bear arms."
   
  Those are actually terrible comparisons. How many times have you been conversing with someone when a bullet flew out of their mouth? How many times has a person killed another with their act of voting? Neither public speaking nor voting is a violent act that can end a life in milliseconds so the comparison is ridiculous.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 20th, 2010

• Ever hear of the term "hate speech?" One man with a voice can be far more dangerous than one man with a gun.
  
  My comparisons illustrate that the Bill of Rights are too important to ever remove from a citizen for any reason. One can argue that burdensome fees and registrations are perfectly legal to apply to firearms. But then the same measure could be applied to all rights. It is unconstitutional to require tests and taxes for the right to vote and the same holds true for the 2nd amendment.
  
  Are you proposing that the right to bear arms is too dangerous and the constitution is wrong? Should we just repeal that one? What other rights should be taken from the people for their own good.

  • Report
  

  by Nate on July 20th, 2010

• Speech is accomplished by biological processes. Therefore it is a biological right. Owning a firearm is not a biological right. Speech is not physically violent, bullets are.
   
   
  The constitution is not wrong, just misunderstood. I don't think that the constitution meant that any average idiot should be allowed to carry a deadly weapon.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 20th, 2010

• the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
  
  The people are us.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 20th, 2010

• Garry Wills cites Greek and Latin etymology:
   
  "... "Bear Arms" refers to military service, which is why the plural is used (based on Greek 'hopla pherein' and Latin 'arma ferre') – one does not bear arm, or bear an arm. The word means, etymologically, 'equipment' (from the root ar-* in verbs like 'ararisko', to fit out). It refers to the 'equipage' of war. Thus 'bear arms' can be used of naval as well as artillery warfare, since the "profession of arms" refers to all military callings."

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 20th, 2010

• I have never seen it referring to military. That was never addressed in PoliSci either. It was about individual rights. "of the people", is said in those words, AFTER it addresses military. There were 2 distinctions made. The militia and the people.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 20th, 2010

• "the people" is a term for a group. If it had said "of every person"...I would take it as meaning that individuals have the right to own firearms.
   
  "people: the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people."

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 20th, 2010

• Thankfully, the supreme court disagrees with your definition of "the people" and of "bear arms."

  • Report
  

  by Nate on July 20th, 2010

• It's not my definition, it's Webster's. The fact that the supreme court may disagree with it doesn't change the meaning.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 20th, 2010

• You want to know how else the word people is defined? "citizenry: the body of citizens of a state or country," that one comes from Princeton. As does, "weaponry: weapons considered collectively," as the definition for arms.
  
  So the 2nd amendment would read, "... the right of the citizenry of the United States to keep and bear weaponry, shall not be infringed."
  
  I could go ahead and define keep, bear, and infringed if there's any doubt left.
  
  You can't just scroll through the dictionary and find the one definition that suits you. - Yes, that's what I did but I did it to prove a point.

  • Report
  

  by Nate on July 20th, 2010

• You may have a different opinion of the definition, but that doesn't change the fact that the definition is what it is, and to the people that wrote it, and can change it think differently than you.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 21st, 2010

• Your definition of "citizenry" fits right in with mine; the BODY of citizens. Not the individual citizens.
   
  Following the definitions you picked...
   
  "the right of the body of citizens of the United States to keep and bear collective weapons, shall not be infringed"
   
  So...the right of the people, as a group, to keep arms collectively...as a militia.
   
  Either way you look it is beside the point of this question. It's asking about checking IDs for the purchase of guns. What is the problem with that as you see it?

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 21st, 2010

• What do you think BODY means. It means the people that make it up. The militia was specifically addressed, as well as the people. It made a distinction, so that people understood BOTH were allowed guns.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 21st, 2010

• A quick flash of an id is one thing. The danger is a background check, registration and a waiting period.

  • Report
  

  by Nate on July 21st, 2010

• Well, if there is something on the background check that would prevent a gun purchase, that person shouldn't have one anyway. If you get denied, it is because you are a felon, that is the ONLY reason. The waiting period is not an issue. They run your ss # through a computer, it takes like 20 minutes. I walked in paid, and walked out with my gun, SAME DAY. The waiting period thing has been long done away with. Registration, is done when you buy, they write down the serial #, register it to you, and send it in to the state.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 21st, 2010

• I really don't understand what's wrong with a background check. The ID flash is only going to verify age unless the clerk has every felon's name memorized. The only people that would understandably have a problem with a background check are those who have something in their background that means they shouldn't own a firearm.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 21st, 2010

• I agree, I don't see what the big deal is. If you are a law abiding citizen you get a gun.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 21st, 2010

Comments

• Simpleton's arguement.
  
  Incidentally, Jefferson had little to do with the Bill of Rights except writing a letter to James Madison urging adoption of all 10 amendments. He was in France serving as ambassador at the time.

  • Report
  

  by Possum on July 19th, 2010

• Ironhand: How does checking an ID prevent you from keeping or bearing arms?

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on July 19th, 2010

• So you are ok with someone who has committed armed robbery just going and buying another gun, to hold someone else up. It doesn't take away the rights of the one's who haven't done wrong. Violent criminals don't need to be able to buy guns.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 19th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

• They do check the criminal record. The Brady Bill passed after an attempted assassination on Reagin. There used to be a waiting period, now they can do it right then. I do agree with all the people saying criminals will buy guns, but like you, I don't think we need to make it easier for them.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 19th, 2010

• I thought some states didn't check.
  Exactly though, depending on the criminal past (and maybe throw in a psychological test also, because they have to go through a crisis center), I think that should determine if they have the stability of owning a gun. But the ID thing also because how are you going to know where that person is from and if you're selling them a firearm that's illegal in their state? Or even if they're of age? My boyfriend is 20 in a few months, but because of his beard he looks 28, he wouldn't get carded for buying anything (meanwhile, I'm older than him and I get carded to even see a rated-r movie..). Why are we going to treat criminals with a MAJOR criminal past as a regular citizen and allow them to buy any type of weapon that easily?

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 20th, 2010

• Right, I get ID'd for rated R movies, too, so what is the problem with IDing for a gun?

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 20th, 2010

• Exactly. Shouldn't be a problem whatsoever.
  Another person is arguing on the fact that it would limit families who need protection from actually getting it, but it would also limit criminals or would-be criminals of getting a firearms legally anyway. And as long as the people who need protection are buying a firearm that's legal in their area and are of age to buy a gun, I don't see how they would be denied a gun anyway, it's business.. it's not about playing God and saying what's right and what's wrong.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 20th, 2010

Comments

Comments

• Violent criminals will still get guns. That's unavoidable. The resistance to a gun registry (or anything that could lead to one) is that our government cannot be trusted to protect our rights.
  
  Look at DC, the very capital of our nation. They have passed laws to makes guns illegal. That law was ruled unconstitutional but they still have a law to out law the carrying of a firearm!
  
  I'm supposed to trust our leaders in DC to protect my 2nd amendment rights? I think not.

  • Report
  

  by Nate on July 19th, 2010

• So you think we should make it easier for them? Just let them walk in a store and get it? Your rights aren't being violated by having to show ID. Your right to life is being protected, actually.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 19th, 2010

• In DC it's more than having to show an id at the time of purchase. You cannot legally carry a firearm in DC. It's the politicians in DC I do not trust to protect my right to own firearms.
  
  Criminals are criminals and they will get weapons. Frankly we should expand the death penalty to reduce the chances of a repeat armed robbery.

  • Report
  

  by Nate on July 19th, 2010

• Ok, well the question and my statement was about showing ID to buy guns. Not carrying one in DC. I know criminals will get them, but we don't need to make it easier.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 19th, 2010

• Nonviolent felonies also disqualify people from possessing guns. Dunno about owning. I guess a felon could have ownership as long as he didn't have possession.

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on July 22nd, 2010

Comments

Comments

• Joe-Citizen wouldn't get denied a gun unless he is a felon.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 19th, 2010

• 2012, your comment has nothing to do with requiring IDs for gun sales it has to do with the banning of gun sales period. That was not the question.
   
  To answer your question though, I would be willing to bet that 9 times out of 10, Joe Citizen has no clue how to handle a firearm in a stressful situation and could easily end up losing his firearm to the robber and making the situation much worse than it already was. Guns should be owned by those who have been professionally trained and licensed to use them in the line of duty. Nobody else needs them in my opinion.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 19th, 2010

• Line of duty? So, law enforcement only? No, I don't go for that. I have a gun, most of my friends have guns. We know how to use them. Most people with guns do too. There are some who don't I agree, but they are the exception, not the norm. I would think that making people take a course should be required, but that would really make crime higher, if the average citizens constitutional right to bear arms was given to law enforcement only.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 20th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

• a well regulated militia lol. there is a USA in my universe too but in mine it is just firearm anarchy. if you consider even the requirement to show ID as an infringement, I assume that you are happy with the idea of an American Islamic terrorist or convicted mass murderer buying weapons freely.

  • Report
  

  by fluffylucy on July 22nd, 2010

• Islamic terrorists, criminals and that ilk do not get their weapons legally anyway. Making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase weapons will not stop terrorists from obtaining weapons, it will only allow the government to which law abiding citizens have them, that is all.

  • Report
  

  by AB is an asylum run by the inmates, ciao! on July 22nd, 2010

• where do all the illegal guns in the US come from? could it be from unregulated legal sales!

  • Report
  

  by fluffylucy on July 23rd, 2010

• Potentially, but that still should not allow amendments to be tossed out the window. The Patriots abrogation of due process is already too much. As Thomas Jefferson implied, a people who will trade freedom for security will have neither.

  • Report
  

  by AB is an asylum run by the inmates, ciao! on July 23rd, 2010

• Above should read "the Patriot Act's abrogation..."

  • Report
  

  by AB is an asylum run by the inmates, ciao! on July 23rd, 2010

• Federal law requires a firearms purchaser to be 18 for a long gun or 21 for a handgun.... How are dealers to know the age of the purchaser without looking at their ID ?

  • Report
  

  by Sheldon_B on December 29th, 2010

• Irregardless it is an abrogation of the constitution.

  • Report
  

  by AB is an asylum run by the inmates, ciao! on December 29th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

• In order to license gun owners, the U.S. Constitution would have to be amended. The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to drive cars, which is why driving can be licensed, and drivers can be expected to prove who they are. Unlike gun ownership, car owndership is considered a privilege, not a right.
  
  I agree that gun owners should be trained, but without amending the Constitution, the government cannot mandate such training, or say who is trained and who is not, anymore than they could require tests before people register to vote. Since the U.S. Congress seems more concerned with propping up wealthy corporations than having a level playing field, I wouldn't trust them to oversee gun ownership anyway.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on July 20th, 2010

• This is where me being a Canadian has me at a disadvantage. I don't think the U.S can or should ever amend the constitution because then its a slippery slope from democracy to dictatorship. Even if one amending makes sense, it opens the door to other changes.

  • Report
  

  by Maul on July 20th, 2010

Comments

• it will make it harder for them. It won't prevent it.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 19th, 2010

• Agreed.

  • Report
  

  by Fancy-Ghoul on July 19th, 2010

• Why not make it harder for them?

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on July 20th, 2010

• There needs to be something more than just an ID check. Thats why I voted no.

  • Report
  

  by Fancy-Ghoul on July 20th, 2010

• Oh see I thought you meant you didn't want ID checks at all.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on July 20th, 2010

• My fault. I should have put put that down in my original answer.

  • Report
  

  by Fancy-Ghoul on July 20th, 2010

Comments

• Felons can't buy guns. I have no problem with not allowing violent criminals to have a gun. I'll gladly show my ID, since I am not a felon, and will get a gun if I want. You don't get denied a gun without a felony conviction.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 19th, 2010

• Oh, I see, you're French, no wonder you have absolutely no clue how to understand English and don't understand US culture or law at all.
  
  Do some research, please.
  
  Or better yet, commit suicide.

  • Report
  

  by Siyanor on July 19th, 2010

• Self defense is not being infringed upon by asking to make sure you're not a felon and you're of legal age. You can't cash a check in this country without 27 forms of ID but a gun no need? What if the person you're selling to lives in a state where that particular firearm is banned? The dealer would be an accomplice to a felony. What if they sold a gun to a felon on the run from the police? What about a known terrorist?
  
  No one is saying that most people wouldn't be able to buy a gun, simply that you prove you're legally allowed to own a gun. We card for cigarettes and alcohol, why not guns?

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on July 19th, 2010

• If a felon really cannot be trusted with a gun, then why are they even out of prison? It probably means that too many crimes are considered felonies, and released 'felons' should have their rights restored. The U.S. has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.
  
  Identification for check cashing is reasonable because only you have a right to your money, but every free citizen has a right to gun ownership which makes ID checks for guns an infringement on our rights.
  
  No firearm permitted to government officials, aside from nuclear and other weapons that no government should have either, should be denied to a private citizen. Using an ID to keep a firearm away from someone simply because of what state they live in is a perfect example of what is wrong with requiring ID checks. The government should never be able to check our identification without a warrant, except perhaps for a serious traffic violation. (Cars kill a lot more people than guns and car ownership is not protected under the Constitution.)
  
  We shouldn't card for alcohol either. The average high schooler drinks more responsibly than the average celebrity. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how legal it is.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on July 19th, 2010

• You are far to insane to talk to.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on July 19th, 2010

• I actually agree with CL (for the first time)...
  
  Christine, you're talking about owning firearms for even "protection".. well, protection from what? From people who don't have guns? Not likely. No one said that anyone was going to get denied the right of having a firearm, but it's important to know where the person lives (if lives in a different state), their age, and what the law is on firearms because CL is right, the seller would be an accomplice to a felony. Even selling cigarettes and liquer you have to check for ID, why does anyone think that you can sell a weapon to someone without checking for verification of who they are?
  The number of people who own a gun and don't use it other for hunting outweights those who use a gun to kill someone, but why even take the chance?
  
  And the whole "security over freedom" thing is a tad ridiculous.. look at Black Panthers (worst case scenario, I know), they have freedom.. but because they use their freedom the wrong way, they're taking the security away from people, and without any security, what freedom do we really have? None. It's just one thing to protect citizens from gun violence, it's not like they're taking away your right to eat whateve ryou want... even though the government kinda does make us eat what they want us to eat, and learn what only they allow us to learn, but that's besides the point.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 19th, 2010

• What kind of twisted logic do you have. Felons need their rights reinstated? Teens are responsible drinkers? The government has no right to check ID's? Too many crimes are felonies. Violent crimes are felonies. Are you saying they shouldn't be. Oh, lets let the rapist out on misdemeanor charges, and give him a gun, so he can do it again.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 19th, 2010

• I was a responsible drinker...
  =[

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 19th, 2010

• Ms good for you, I went to 3 funerals my senior year, because others weren't.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on July 19th, 2010

• Yeah, I had a few too.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 19th, 2010

• "If a felon really cannot be trusted with a gun, then why are they even out of prison? It probably means that too many crimes are considered felonies, and released 'felons' should have their rights restored."
   
  Christine: I recently read an article about two people who gave their infant methadone for 6 months to make her stop crying. Those "parents" received no more than 18 months in jail. Then they will be released and considered free. Many people are convicted felons for extremely good reasons but are given prison sentences that are ridiculously slack for any number of crazy reasons. Do you really think that just because a convicted murderer had a short sentence they should be allowed to own a firearm? Seriously?

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 19th, 2010

• Murderers, rapists, and kidnappers should never get out of prison, so no ID checks necessary.
  
  There are plenty of irresponsible teenage drinkers, but there are also plenty of irresponsible drinkers in their twenties and thirties. Should we raise the drinking age to 40? Then 35 year olds can drink in secret and learn to fear law enforcement.
  
  We cannot have a police officer in every home. It would take a robber less than five minutes to kill an entire family if they don't have a means to defend themselves. So yes, protection. Gun registration of any kind gives the government a tool to come collect everyone's means of self defense. Given that Congress is already abusing the power they have, no matter which party is in power, they do not need any more. You're treating government as some sort of infallible deity when it is made up of the same private citizens whose right to self defense you want to infringe.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on July 20th, 2010

• Don't start trying to defend or make reason to your teenage drinking thing. Damage to your credibility has already been done, there. Murderers don't get out, no one mentioned murder, but rape, robbery, they do get out after a decade or two. It is just the way it is. Your opinion doesn't change the max sentence. So, since it is what it is, lets look at the ID thing based on reality, not your opinion. It isn't going to prevent anyone from getting a gun except the people who don't need one. I got IDd when I bought my guns. I walked right out of the store that day with it. No issue, no big deal. You get IDd to vote, buy cigarettes, beer, rated R movies, why do you think a GUN should be an exception. You have to be 21 to buy one, so how can you check age without checking ID?

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 20th, 2010

• CL, you're not the only teenager to ever go to a funeral. Life sucks, and it sucks even more when a person loses their life because they don't take care of their body, or because they're paying for someone else's mistake, or because life just happens.
  
  Personally, and realistically (despite my comment to try and loosen things up and be a smartass), I don't think it matters how old you are, with the more you drink you're still losing your reaction time, your control and your mind process in order to make choices, and I think it's irresponsible and should be an accessory when people who are sober allow you to do things in which you would need to do sober.
  
  But besides that, which is a topic for a different discussion, first off... if you were to psychologically analyze a male, their subconscious is attracted to (on average) those at 14 years old. Yes, they should control their actions, but kids should also cover up (the way parents let their kids go out these days is disgusting), if you're not in business, don't avertise. I'm not saying I agree with raping minors and kidnapping, but I've seen a ton of cases where I live of young girls playing the "jail bait" card and seducing older men, my state has a high rate of rape and especially among minors. Again, another topic, I was just mentioning that because you mentioned rapists and kidnappers.
  
  "So yes, protection. Gun registration of any kind gives the government a tool to come collect everyone's means of self defense."
  but wouldn't it also allow the government to collect everyone's means of killing people, especially when they try to get the gun legally? You can't just say "it's taking away protection from families who need it" without thinking that it's also going to take away the firearms from criminals or would-be criminals who would use it.
  
  If you're selling guns, let's look at this realistically... you're making business. Now, you're job isn't to look at someone's ID and say "no, I don't like you, so I'm not going to sell this to you" it doesn't work like that, you're not a judge, you're a sales person making business and money. They would have to say "This firearm is illegal to sell to you because of age/location". No one can deny a firearm because they "just feel like it", it's dealing with the law, there has to be something illegal in order to not sell someone something. When I sold cigarettes (I was a cashire), I couldn't say "No, I'm not selling you these because I don't like you, or I don't want you harming people and yourself from first, second, and third hand smoking". It doesn't work like that, that is their right to smoke a cigarette, unless they weren't of age, if I sold a cigarette illegally or to a minor, I would have to pay a fine and I would lose my job. It's not personal, you're not playing God and trying to build a Utopia, it's business.
  What I think they should do is check ID (because they have to see where the person is from and consider what the law is on firearms there, and they have to check the persons age), and check their computer to see if the person has a serious criminal record and considered a threat, and have them go through a psychoanalysis to see if their brain pattern has changed or if they are mentally stable (which they should have happen before people are released from jail), and also get a police officer to sign that they can be trusted among citizens while owning a weapon.
  That way, you're making it harder for criminals to get a weapon legally, and you're still keeping families protected, cause let's face it... checking someone's ID doesn't mean that that person can't have a gun, you're checking an ID just as you would if you were selling cigarettes, alcohol, or even selling movie tickets (I've been carded several times to see a rated-r movie).. and you know what? Say someone can buy firearms legally but they go out of state to get a firearm, now.. if that's JUST for protection, why couldn't they find a simple pistol to protect thei

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 20th, 2010

• "Murderers, rapists, and kidnappers should never get out of prison"
  That's a different issue. As it stands, they do get out of prison so, as it stands, why should they be allowed to by a gun?

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 20th, 2010

• I'm generally opposed to checking IDs in most cases, not just firearms. It is certainly not justified for movies or for food and drink allowed to adults. Someone who drinks and drives even once should take the bus for the rest of their lives, whether they are 17 and a student or 57 and a senator. The penalty should not be any different based on how old they are. Assuming that everyone under 21 who has a drink will drive drunk is no different then assuming every person with red hair who has a gun will shoot someone. It is wrong to place prior restraints on our rights, and even more wrong when it is done in a discriminatory manner.
  
  I agree the outfits that some teenagers wear are immoral, but rapists deserve death no matter what their victims were wearing. The only reason I say to keep them in jail for life is because the justice system is not infallible.
  
  Letting rapists go free and then using that as an excuse to infringe upon the rights of the rest of us just highlights how twisted our society has become.
  
  The other thing I fail to understand is why the government, which is made up of private citizens, and which cannot even be trusted with our money, should continue to have weapons of mass destruction if a private citizens should not have more than a pistal. I agree that there should be a lot less weapons in the world, but lets focus our disarmament initiatives on the nuclearly armed before we go after everyone else.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on July 20th, 2010

• Right.
  How many Americans have used a gun to fight off a terrorist?
  
  It doesn't give the terrorists any advantage if we take extra measures to ensure that neither crazy people nor violent criminals can legally buy guns.
  
  Just because criminals can get guns through illegal means doesn't mean that gun sellers should sell guns to anyone. That would be irresponsible.
  
  Remember Virgina Tech and Columbine? This is why we need to be careful who we give weapons to.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on July 20th, 2010

• Captain Fantasy, Virginia Tech and Columbine highlight what happens when the gun ownership of private citizens is restricted. Imagine if even one law abiding teacher at Columbine or one law abiding student at Virginia Tech had been armed? The death toll would have been much lower, and just maybe, the murderers would have thought twice before going on their rampages, given that they knew they could not get as far.
  
  I'm not that worried about terrorists. I'm worried about the released rapists and robbers that could silence me long before the police arrive. Even if they weren't armed, they are probably faster and stronger than I am.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on July 20th, 2010

• "Imagine if even one law abiding teacher at Columbine or one law abiding student at Virginia Tech had been armed? The death toll would have been much lower, and just maybe, the murderers would have thought twice before going on their rampages, given that they knew they could not get as far."
   
  Or those untrained, yet law-abiding, citizens could have caused more unnecessary deaths by enraging the attackers more or even shooting other innocent bystanders because they haven't been trained in accuracy or real-life firefights. Owning a gun does not make someone proficient in using that gun. You think that any teenager should be allowed to own a gun? You must either still be a teenager or have never met one.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 20th, 2010

• Then showing your ID to ensure that you're not a criminal or a mentally ill person should be a very small hurdle for you in the process of protecting yourself.
  
  And why is it that all gun owners think they're a crack shot like in Clint Eastwood westerns?
  Clearly that's not the case. Arming teachers with guns is absolute reactionary nonsense.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on July 20th, 2010

• Typical ridiculous reply. Imagine Columnbine and Virginia tech, if those people hadn't been allowed to have guns in the first place.
  
  Christine the Firearm Owners' Protection Act prevents the Federal Government of keeping a database of the names of gun owners. Yet another point of yours which viewed in the light of reason fails the test of rationality.
  
  Lets examine your burglary/rapist scenario. It only takes a robber 5 minutes to kill your entire family. It takes a robber with a gun what 35-40 seconds to kill your entire family? Just as fast as he or she can navigate their way through your house. Yet again we see much fear based irrationality.
  
  But once again we're off topic. Gun sales should be monitored to make sure that we're not handing guns to dangerous felons. Not to prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns, but to make sure criminals have that much harder of a time getting their hands on them.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on July 20th, 2010

• I don't ever want to hear how I'm crazy - -'
  She's so worried about general citizens not being able to own a gun for protection, that she completely forgot about monitering those who pose as a potential threat from buying a gun.
  
  You really don't think that salespeople shouldn't ask for ID for those under the age? You think it's okay for a 16-17 (or age of consent) to be in porn? You don't think age is a factor, so then it's not illegal for people age of consent to be in porn, or even wrong for 14 year old to be in porn, even if it is by law stat. rape. Because hey, why check age, right? Why go along with the law, right? This is why Girls Gone Wild had to face several lawsuits, because they didn't check the age of the girls and they believed them. That's child pornography.. it's illegal.
  So.. age does count for something.
  There's no reason why a 14 year old should be admitted into a rated-r movie without a parent. There's no reason why a child should be buying alcohol when there's an age limit, there's no reason why people who pose as a threat should be allowed to have an easy and legal access to buying a gun. I don't know how old you are, if you're under 18 or not, but why would you need access to these things? Why is right for a 14 year old to even walk into a tattoo shop and get a tattoo? Really, you had the whole world figured out when you were younger? The laws select the ages because that's when you have an idea of what you're doing and what you're getting into.
  Age is a big deal, doesn't matter if you think it is or not.
  
  And I understand that there's people out there who care about their privacy, but really.. when you go to the bank and sign up for an account, you give them all your info. When you go to the doctors, you're giving your entire family history. When you go and grab an application for a job, that's all your information and you put all your info on 401k and tax paperwork... really, people will do ALL that but you're worried about what? The fact that they have to show how old they are and where they live for whatever reason?
  Get realistic.
  A shopowner isn't going to deny someone of buying ANYTHING as long as it is legal for them to have it.. and as long as someone isn't going to kill someone, or run around like a terrorist or rob a bank.. whatever, then what the hell are they so paranoid about?

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 20th, 2010

• "Christine the Firearm Owners' Protection Act prevents the Federal Government of keeping a database of the names of gun owners. Yet another point of yours which viewed in the light of reason fails the test of rationality."
  
  She likely doesn't know US law, since she doesn't live in the US.
  
  Oh, never mind, scratch that... I read her comment as something that made sense in the least, not as stupid ramblings about nothing logical... I guess she doesn't know anything about France.
  
  "what the hell are they so paranoid about?"
  
  Who's paranoid? Christine is just retarded, not paranoid.

  • Report
  

  by Siyanor on July 20th, 2010

• CL, I gave a conservative estimate for how long it would take a robber to kill a family. You're right. It could be done in less than a minute. It would take more than five minutes on average for the police to arrive. Guns were not allowed at Columbine or Virginia Tech, and so only the criminal had one.
  
  I am willing to concede that the current law on the checking of IDs for gun ownership should be kept in place until a better distinction is made between which felons are actually dangerous, and the dangerous felons are kept in prison. I tend to speak in terms of where we should be, but I know it will take lots of steps to get there, and some steps have to come before others.
  
  Ms. SA, Porn objectifies women and impairs the ability of people to maintain healthy relationships. It is not good for anyone regardless of age.
  
  People who are old enough to have sex are old enough to take responsibility for their own actions, at least as long as whoever they marry is close to them in age. Society has kept raising the age at which a person can be considered an adult, and then made it economically unrealistic for most to have their own place even at 25. The effect of this is that we have a nation of children where even 30 and 40 year olds expect the government to take care of them. Teenagers will become more responsible when responsiblity is demanded of them. It is our failure as a society to treat people as adults that stunts everyone's growth.
  
  I put up with my job's invasion of my privacy because I have to eat, but the checks that employers, banks, and so forth are mandated to do are excessive invasions of privacy. You cannot get hired simply from what an employer finds from a Google search on your name, or from an erroneous credit report. It may make our society a little more secure, but the price is too high and contrary to everything this country was founded on. The erosion of our freedom has happened so gradually that we're all acting like frogs in slowly heating water.
  
  Siyanor, If you think I'm retarded, I hope that means you no longer want me to commit suicide.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on July 20th, 2010

• 1) The criminal wasn't allowed a gun either. He got one anyway. I don't see your point.
  
  2) You do not know what pornography is. At all.
  
  3) Just because the country was FOUNDED on freedom does not mean it actually exists. France has a much higher degree of freedom, and the US is much more secure.
  
  4) What? That makes absolutely no sense. I want you to commit suicide BECAUSE YOU ARE RETARDED.

  • Report
  

  by Siyanor on July 20th, 2010

• Christine your lack of intellectual honesty is quite simply disturbing.
  
  If you outlaw guns, very few criminals will have guns. In America guns start out legal. Then they enter the black market one way or the other. So if you have less legal guns then there will less guns entering the black market and consequently less outlaws owning guns. Think about it. Nations with very strict gun control laws such as the UK, Australia, and Japan have much lower gun crime rates than the US. The most probable explanation for this is that criminals in the US have much greater access to guns due to less gun control. Saying "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns" is completely absurd. If you outlaw guns, less outlaws will have guns. Would you rather have more or less outlaws owning guns? The answer is obvious.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on July 20th, 2010

• VA tech? Seriously, you must really be clueless. First off, to have a handgun you have to be 21. Most college students in dorms are not OLD enough to have a gun. So, since you don't want ID's you just allowed the killer to get a gun, since he is underage. Why not just take his word he is old enough. He may have done it sooner if it was easier for him to get the gun.
  
  You talk about robbers killing families, the families aren't robbed of their rights to own a gun, they just have to show an ID, and still get their gun. No one is saying the rights are taken away.
  
  The porn thing was to show proof of age. Porn isn't only about women, so saying it objectifies women means yet another subject you know nothing about. There are plenty of videos, that don't have women in them at all. I didn't hear you say it objectified men.
  
  As far as jobs and credit reports, you have to sign permission for them to do a credit report, and any google search is public information. That is why they say keep your profiles private, and don't put shit on there that you wouldn't want your boss to know. That is just common sense. If you are too stupid to make sure your boss isn't on your damn facebook, you really do deserve to lose your job.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 20th, 2010

• Whoa, whoa, whoa...
  Let's look at this for a sec..
  "Ms. SA, Porn objectifies women and impairs the ability of people to maintain healthy relationships. It is not good for anyone regardless of age."
  
  Objectifies women? So you don't think those women objectify themselves? That they're just abducted and FORCED to sign contracts and to spread their legs for the camera? I think I know a bit more about the industry than you do, but let me tell you something, a woman could be objectifying herself without even realizing it, women do not know how men look at things or how other people look at things. If a woman is talking about sex in a raunchy and distasteful fashion, she's objectifying herself. If she's wearing a top that has too low of a v-neck, she's objectifing herself. I've heard "porn makes women into objects" so many times, but people don't realize that people in the porn industry aren't robots, they make their own choices. Do PEOPLE, men AND women get psychological truama and stuck between what is who they are and then who they are in the life of a porn star? Possibly, if they get sucked into the lifestyle. If anything, they're allowing themselves to become objects. If you wear a shirt too revealing, you're objectifying yourself, you could say "I'm comfortable in my body" but you're allowing that door to open. Supply and demand, there's no demand if there's no supply... no supply for Snicker bars if it doesn't exist right? Right. So.. don't even make statements on the inside of the porn industry, I've seen it, I've seen men and women go through it, and I think you need to shut your mouth and open your eyes before you start getting all feminist about it, because it's way more than that and you'd be surprised.
  And another thing, how does it ruin the potential for a healthy and successful relationship? By your standards it's not healthy? Well.. I doubt you're studying psychology because the first thing I learned from sex therapy 101 is that whatever feels comfortable in your relationship sexually, no one can tell you that's wrong. Sure, I don't agree with swingers... but hey, not my relationship, it's not my personal choice. Sorry, I fail to see where porn creates failing and unhealthy relationships, so if you would like to explain, please go ahead.
  
  You do know that the average age of sex starts at 15, right? While I do agree parents shouldn't be saying "No. Don't have sex, you'll die" and instead prepare them for the consequences and raise them right with respect for themselves and to know there's more out there than just sex, I think it's wrong to say "those who have sex are ready for what comes for it", because that's not true. No one is going to ever be ready for STD's or for kids, or any other complications. So.. sorry, if I had a daughter at 15 and she got pregnant, I wouldn't subject her into dropping everything for a possible child. I'd rather be a "fetus murderer" before ever murdering the childhood of a kid who is 15 years of age and in 3 years about to be an adult. No thanks.
  
  And people who are 25 probably don't have their own place considering the economy is still shit and the cheapest apartment anyone could find (in my area anyway) is 800 a month, and that's in a crappy area. People have bills, people want luxury more than ever, and people need roommates, especially since that's when people are also in college and trying to find jobs instead of internships. Let's get realistic, every spring and fall there's a huge thing of apartments that go up for college kids where they need roommates to help pay for things.
  And you also look at age 25, people get married at that age too and sometimes get their first home, and they still have to build credit, pay off any credit card bills they have, get the wedding and college paid off and get the house payments all situated, really.. 20-30 is going to be the most challenging part of life because it really is the beginning of it all.
  
  As for 30-40 year olds relying on the gov

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 20th, 2010

• As for 30-40 year olds relying on the government, do you realize how many people are living from paycheck-to-paycheck and how some people are so close to being homeless because of everything? Yeah, if I lost my job to downsizing because the economy is shit because of wallstreet and all these crashes, I'd be relying on the government too. I'd hate to say that I'd be living off of welfare, but you know what? What the government needs to do on that is take the people who live on welfare and make them do a certain amount of volunteer work a month in order to work it off.
  If you're that paranoid that employers are going to look you up on google, then don't put your name or information on the net. Don't even have your wifi turned on because then some hacker could very well steal your information also. You don't think that someone could track your IP address, even from this site and find out where you're logged in from and see where you live? You don't think someone could pay some website 20 dollars a month and get your phone numbers and where you work and your criminal record? If you were ONLY putting up with the invasion of privacy from your work in order to put bread on the table, I doubt you would be on the internet other than being at work because there's a ton of viruses, spyware, and other things out there that could get into your computer. You need to wake up, because if your phone even has wifi connection, that could get hacked. You may say that you put up with the "invasion" of privacy to put food on the table, but you had no problem getting a bank account, no problem in getting a credit card, no problem in signing up for this website and being on the internet, and you had no problem getting a drivers liscence, because we all know since 9/11 the government has been anal with ID's. So.. I'm sorry, but... you completely just contradicted yourself more than you could probably ever think.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 20th, 2010

• I'm not sure we are going to find consensus on this one!
  
  I'll concede that porn also objectifies men, and I think I already said that immodest clothing was immoral, at least in most public places. I also conceded that checking IDs is understandable in the short term, but only until we stop letting murderers, rapists, and so forth go free, and never to prevent someone old enough to reproduce from having the same rights as every other adult. I’ll even concede that checking the IDs of people who might be under 13 is okay. I realize that many people start having sex at 15 or earlier. They should be able to marry. It is the responsibility of parents to raise responsible children so that when they are old enough to create life, they will choose responsibly.
  
  I agree that the economy is awful, but it is because our tax dollars are being used to lend money to corporations that already demonstrated they can't manage it. Even in the best of times in the last decade, the economy is priced for the already successful. Government regulations drive up the cost of everything. In my area, apartments that would be just fine for a frugal family of four are restricted to a single resident which keeps rent high. The people making the laws are completely out of touch with economic reality.
  
  On top of that, whenever the government uses our tax dollars to buy something we cannot afford, it drives up the prices for everyone. Just look at Medicare and Medicaid, insurance regulations that prevent people from purchasing insurance across state lines, and the consequent soaring cost of healthcare. Whenever the government tries to solve something, they do so with more money than any individual will ever have, and from then on, everyone is forced to depend on the government for something else. Most cannot live without medicare and social security because money we might have saved on our own is taken away to pay for it. If I ever end up unemployed again, God forbid, I will certainly take my share of government benefits because I've already paid for them. Even when I made less than 15,000 a year I payed hundreds of dollars in taxes for the year that I could have spent far more effectively than any government agency. Anyway, I'm guessing we disagree on this too.
  
  We disagree on when people should start taking responsibility for their actions, and so we disagree on how much the government should act the role of parent. We also disagree on whether the government is competent enough to be trusted with responsibilities some of you do not trust to human beings. One of you even thinks that "retarded" people should commit suicide.
  
  If we cannot even agree that the government is not an infallible deity or otherwise superior to the governed (and that people shouldn't kill themselves!) then I don't see how we will ever find consensus on gun rights.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on July 21st, 2010

• It may help if people can stay on topic. You go off about porn and sex, when it was about ID checks to buy a gun. Ok, here ya go. You have to be 21 to buy alcohol. How do they prove it? They ask for your ID. You have to be 21 to buy a gun, how do they prove you are 21, they ask for ID. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your brain around. Do you feel ID checks for other things take rights away?

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on July 21st, 2010

• I agree.
  Even in this statement of hers
  "I’ll even concede that checking the IDs of people who might be under 13 is okay."
  How are you going to know a person is 13 years old without checking?
  My boyfriend is 19 and because of his Billy May's beard he looks 28. I mean, really.. you're suppose to have common sense when looking at someone and seeing how old they are, but you're NEVER going to be 100% right. I've carded 30 year olds because they looked 15, and I'd rather do that then take the chance any day of losing my job and paying a fine.
  
  Christine, you never told me how porn creates unhealthy relationships.
  And I agree with you it's the responcibility of the parents, but when you only have one parent raising their kid right and others around you don't care.. well, then in that case it takes a village to raise a kid. And people can raise their kid right but there's still sex on tv, sex in music, and sex in popculture. And old enough to marry? Why does a person have to be "old enough" to marry? See? You're the one who is heightening the age of adults, not other people. I'm engaged even now and I'm 20, I don't suppose I'm old enough?
  The gap has always been getting bigger between rich and poor, because money is taken from the middle class and given to lower class.
  "In my area, apartments that would be just fine for a frugal family of four are restricted to a single resident which keeps rent high"
  and I don't understand that. How is one person going to have a 2-4 bedroom apartment when one bedroom apartment even costs around 500-1000?
  Everyone pays hundreds of dollars in taxes. Really, I live in New Jersey which has some of the HIGHEST taxes, my parents probably pay well over 5,000 on taxes a year. It happens. My fiances check get 50 dollars of taxes taken from it, everyone pays taxes, you can't complain with that.
  
  I just deleted everything else I wrote because I'm so sick and tired of the whole crazy "anti-government" thing. If you're so anti-government, write a letter, or better yet.. quit your job, sell your house and live in the woods and live off of the earth. There's people out there the government doesn't know existed and if you have that many problems with the government, instead of going on and on about your trust issues and paranoia, solve it, don't keep complaining.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 21st, 2010

• "It is the responsibility of parents to raise responsible children so that when they are old enough to create life, they will choose responsibly."
   
  I and I think most people will agree with you there. That doesn't happen though. Not all parents are equal. Not all parents are good parents. That will always be the case when you have 6 billion people on the planet. There's a lot of variety. Even just 300 million in the US is way too many to think that all parents can be good and raise responsible children. The only way to accomplish this dream is to license ONLY responsible people to raise responsible children. Would that not infringe on the others' right to reproduce?
   
  So until this dream is achieved, children will not be allowed to marry just because they are old enough to reproduce. Why? Because children are not old enough to make such serious decisions. That's why they are called children.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 21st, 2010

• We went off topic because the reason we disagree on gun rights is tied to our disagreements on a whole host of other issues. I don't think we are going to reach consensus on them all, at least not in this comment thread. So I will just address a couple of points and try to move on to something else.
  
  No one should be penalized for the irresponsibility of others. I am fine with a village raising children, including setting their own rules within their own borders, but it depends on the size of the village. When a village of a thousand people goes astray, it is relatively easy to elect new leadership. When a village of 300 million goes astray, it barely matters who you elect to lead. Besides using proper grammar, there is little substantive difference between Obama and Bush. (I know some disagree; did not mean to introduce new topic!)
  
  I wish everyone could marry by 20, and no one should stop two people from marrying just because they are younger than 20 or younger than 15. Consensual sex (and therefore marriage) is a fundamental human right, and you cannot place prior restraints on it, or redefine consensual to include an age requirement. Given the population of the world, we should however be placing restraints on those who abuse that right. No one who abandons even a single child should be permitted to conceive another one until he or she meets his or her obligations to the first one. (Yet another topic!)
  
  Besides government for the people or not we also disagree on one-size-fits-all definitions of adulthood. I think now that we at least know why we disagree. That's probably as far as were are going to get.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on July 21st, 2010

• Christine, because you believe things aren't how they should be, you're an atheist.
  
  At least, according to you, because that's what you said atheism is.

  • Report
  

  by Siyanor on July 21st, 2010

• I'm done with this. Christine you're obviously unwilling to see reality for what it is.
  .
  MsSmart, quit stalking me :P

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on July 21st, 2010

• Oh please, Christine. Honestly, we're not disagreeing with guns because of how we feel children should be raised, give me a damn break. I disagree with you on guns because you're worried about peoples privacy and also the right to own a gun, and as long as they are buying the gun LEGALLY, they can LEGALLY get a gun in order for defence. Really, you're fighting more for criminals or people who want to conduct criminal activities into owning a gun. "Well... ugh, we're taking away the right for people to use gun for protection" and unless criminals have guns also, which we would be stopping, there's no sense in having a gun in a knife fight for
  protection". Really, I don't think you understand what you sound like.
  Sorry Christine, what the hell does proper grammar have to do with Bush and Obama and tie into gun control? Because now you're intoducing Grammar 101 into politics, which is going to transfer to Debate Class, and then Gun Control.
  So, if you could create a bridge on how Proper Grammar comes between Bush and Obama and then how it has to deal with gun control, that'd be nice, because I'm pretty sure you just confused the living hell out of all of us.
  
  And why are you talking about the age when people could get married? All I said on that was people tend ot get married 20-25 so they have payments for that, for housing, bank loans, college, ect, and that you picked a horrible age to try and give an example.
  
  And no, I don't agree that "one size fits all" when it comes to adulthood and that has nothing to do with purchases of firearms either! How does this tie into everything?
  I don't even think we're speaking english anymore because I have no idea where you're getting topics from or your examples. I mean, I know I have a habit of getting into other stories and everything, but atleast they go with the point I'm trying to make. You're just talking about, "Yeah.. gun control, people shouldn't be ID'd so that they can purchase guns because who cares if someone legally can't own a gun? They should buy one anywa- oo... there's a chipmunk! I like chipmunks and I love the movie Bambi." I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.
  
  CL, I would stop, but I can't help but feel that my heart has been longing for you like a cannibal longs to eat the flesh of those around him. I know, I'm so romantic.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 21st, 2010

• Tease.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on July 21st, 2010

• Adulthood does matter because lack of it is used to deny people's rights, including the right to bear arms. I don't think marriage at 15 is advisable, but sex without it is far worse.
  
  Obama has better grammar than Bush but is still not leading the U.S. in a sustainable direction.
  
  I prefer the animals in Sleeping Beauty to the animals in Bambi :)
  
  Siyanor, You've raised a really profound issue, though that was not quite how I defined atheism. The very short answer is that we have free will, and therefore the obligation to make things within our control better than they are. 'How it should be' includes the consequences of free will and the opportunities to right the wrongs that those consequences sometimes entail.
  
  Infringement on the right to bear arms is just a symptom of the enormous opportunities we have to restore freedom to the supposedly free world.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on July 21st, 2010

• Christine, if that is what you meant to say, your are HORRIBLY inarticulate and also have absolutely no point, because no one would argue otherwise.

  • Report
  

  by Siyanor on July 21st, 2010

• Adulthood is used to deny peoples rights? Umm.. last I checked, the difference between "adulthood" and "childhood" is that of age and also the ability of reasoning and reaction and personal growth. You're looking at children as not having their "rights", what rights does a teenager need to have? Why does a teenager need to drink? Why does a teenager need to buy firearms? Why does a teenager need to smoke cigarettes? I can understand if you were to say "well, people buy those things and it's fine", but look at all the stupid shit teenagers do these days.. sure, I'll agree with you by saying that there's a majority of decent kids out there compared to bad kids, but OVER 60% of 15 year olds alone are having sexual activity because their world is highschool and that's all they know.
  You're treating them like adults when their world isn't around the real world or what your real world may be, they don't have to deal with the same things adults have to. Majority of them don't have to support a family, majority of them don't pay bills, the majority of them goof off in highschool and experiment with sex and drugs.
  Christine, I'm sure you take your job seriously and everything you worked hard for... but I don't believe that you should have to put yourself on the same level as a child because they haven't earned their way yet.
  I'm 20, when I was in highschool I thought that was the real world, it's a part of changing and being an adult. Your world is different from when you're 5 to 10 years old, and then it changes when you're 15, and then it changes again when you're 20, and so on. A senior citizen's view on the world and reality isn't going to be the same as mine, they're not going to react the same way I do with certain things. That's reality, the more we age, the more our worlds change and the more we change.
  And on the subject of "children" having the same "rights" as adults, no.. because if a child does something illegal, that child doesn't get the blame, the parent or guardian does. Legally, the difference between a child (minor) or an adult is that when you're an adult, there's no more pointing fingers at other people and having them take the blame for your actions, that's what people don't realize these days, you have the right to deal with your actions, that's it really. Smoking isn't all that great, you're breathing to your death. Drinking isn't all that great, you're sipping your way to death, and firearms? Show me what teenager needs a gun and I'll show you a person who can't communicate.
  I don't have the right to drink legally in public or to buy/sell alcohol, and that's fine. I don't have the right to buy a gun legally, and that's fine because I don't need a gun at my age. You want to treat a child like an adult? Alright, hand a child an alcoholic beverage, hand them a gun, allow them to smoke cigarettes, give them all the rights that a 21 year old would have, see how far you get with that.
  
  As for your Obama vs. Bush comment, who the hell cares who has better grammar? Both have speech writers anyway, at the end of the day, you're concerned with how they say a sentence instead of what they're doing? And Bush isn't in office anyway, so why does it matter?
  
  Watch it, Siyanor... she knows her grammar, so we're all in for it.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 21st, 2010

• Oh, I didn't even notice that typo.

  • Report
  

  by Siyanor on July 21st, 2010

• "I don't think marriage at 15 is advisable, but sex without it is far worse."
   
  Please explain. How is sex without marriage so terrible. Please refrain from religious nonsense in your answer.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 21st, 2010

• AE, Sex without commitment often leads to children being conceived without committed parents. That often leads to poor outcomes for the child, and we're too overpopulated for people to be treating sex as recreational. (That's my final word on this in this thread, as this is pretty far from the topic.)
  
  MsSA, Part of adulthood is being held responsible for our own actions. If we hold teenagers responsible for their own actions, they will think and act more carefully. Most only act like children because society lets them get away with it, and the responsible are penalized along with the irresponsible. Teenagers grow up when they have to, and I've met a few that are far more mature than their parents ever were.
  
  I'm not sure why anyone needs to drink, and I don't think anyone should smoke, but prohibition doesn't work any more on teenagers than it did on the rest of us. Irresponsible drinkers should face the consequences, but we should not be placing prior restraints. For the record, I don't own any firearms. (I don't mind admitting this online because no one here knows where I live.) I feel safer when potential robbers think someone in my home could own one, and when I can afford one, I'd like the option to buy one without worrying whether or not anyone besides the seller ever knows I have it. I also realize some of my views are outside the mainstream, so it would not surprise me if I'm on some secret watch list because some overzealous neocon reported me as a potential terrorist for thinking we should bring our troops home.
  
  I completely agree that grammar is trivial next to the other qualities a President should have. My point was that we don't get real choices in Presidential elections. Governments that are too big for the people to change should have no more power than what is necessary to prevent tyranny. Everything else the government does can be done more effectively and economically by churches and private charities.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on July 22nd, 2010

• Christine is right about kids outside of marriage. Think about it, the first five years of marriage is the hardest, and it's the time frame that has the highest divorce rates (and then it gets lower with time), so I can't imagine how much harder it is for parents who aren't married to stay together.. considering the fact that either one of them can say "well, we're not married, so I can leave right now and go to family court". And children do learn from their parents, even how to be in a healthy relationship, how they should treat the other person, how they should be treated, etc.. so when parents aren't together for the child to learn, the child can grow up to have social issues, trust isues, and issues with relationships. So.. she is right on that. However, that's why people invented pills and condoms, and not sure if any of you agree with this but, abortion.
  
  As a civilization, yes.. we can hold teenagers to their actions, I agree, but when the law is involved, they don't get punished. If they're in public drunk, they don't spend one night and jail and get a ticket, if they do something and get a ticket, it's still in the householders name, they still have to pay for it and show up to the court date. That's where the difference is. Our school had a police officer working there and that's people our whole school was filled with gangs, and I watched everything go back and forth and out of control, and you know what? Nothing was done about it because that's the law. If two kids get into a fight, the law isn't going to do anything about it. Awhile ago, I had a friend kill someone over a drug issue (he didn't kill on purpose, it was out of self defence and he hit a main artery under the guys arm) and he didn't serve jail time for murder, nothing. He had to volunteer, but that's it.
  
  And if you're going to treat kids like they're an adult, and make them act like an adult, then you need to give them the rights than an adult would have. There's a different between law, and what it counts as a minor and an adult, and then how people define the two. Sure, there's some REALLY mature kids out there, doesn't mean they're actually adults. Mature doesn't equal adult.
  
  Whoa, whoa, whoa... okay, slow down.
  "I feel safer when potential robbers think someone in my home could own one, and when I can afford one, I'd like the option to buy one without worrying whether or not anyone besides the seller ever knows I have it."
  If they THINK you have one, what is the difference between that and KNOWING you own one? If I think someone has a gun, that's still a 50/50 chance. If I know you have a gun, that's a 100% chance you have one. And out of all the customers a firearms store would have, I don't think they'd obviously care who you are and what you're doing, now you're just being paranoid and cocky. If you live in a large town, no one cares who you are. If you live in a small town, no one cares if you own a gun because it's a small town, who cares? You need to drop the paranoid act because no one in the real world gives a shit about what you buy or what you're doing, unless you're a huge threat to the government, and I doubt that. What if you go to the grocery store, you're not paranoid that the government is using scanbars in order to see what you're buying? Let's get serious, because a gun is just one object out of thousands you have purchased in your life.
  
  You think you're outside of the box ecause you want our troops home? And you think that makes you a terrorist? You need a therapist because you have some paranoia problems, and it's either because of a past truamatic event, or because of a mental condition, but you have complete paranoia. You're not the only one who wants troops home... you consider yourself a terrorist because how? A terrorist against war? Yeah, that's always nice, but it's not like you're going to blow anything up. Terrorists are those involved in terroristic acts, so.. i don't get it. Like I said, you need to put money as

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 22nd, 2010

• aside and go see a psychologist or a hypnotist or something because whatever happened in your past that's created you to be like this or whatever your parents did to you, you need to get help because you're completely trapt behind a wall that's just getting smaller and smaller and your children are going to be the same way - worrying all the time and thinking that someone is after them or watching them, you're putting yourself in a personal jail. So...
  
  There's a difference between state and church. And some churches actually have finacial issues, and some of them are more corrupted than anyone could ever possibly think, they're all about money, money, and more money. So..

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 22nd, 2010

• "AE, Sex without commitment often leads to children being conceived without committed parents."
   
  Not often, but CAN. Compare the number of times people have sex out of wedlock to the amount of children conceived from it and you'll find that it rarely happens when people take precautions. My personal ratio of children to out-of-wedlock sex is incredibly low.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 22nd, 2010

• I agree with AE on that too.
  People don't take proper precautions while having a sexual relationship with someone outside of marriage.
  But she did say often and I agree that parents often don't end up staying together for the first 18 years of a child life.
  And I agree there's ALWAYS exceptions, can't paint every situation or every being with the same paintbrush. I'm sure there's couples out there who get married after the birth of a child and stay together.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 22nd, 2010

• I always use the same paintbrush. I use different colored paints.
  
  Christine, if YOU are on a watchlist, the FBI killed me a decade ago. You are not on a watchlist.

  • Report
  

  by Siyanor on July 22nd, 2010

• That's what happens when you let the church dictate abstinence only education. Teen pregnancies shoot way up.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on July 22nd, 2010

• Honestly, I don't want to blame the church for anything, considering Europe has gone through a CRAZY church history, and people there are more familiarized with sex than those in America and their sexual activity among teens is lower as well as teenage pregnancies. Also, as America goes on, the number of people who have a faith towards a religion becomes less and less.. so... if the numbers are growing less, how can you blame a church for the increase of teenage parents?
  
  I just think it's the parents fault and how they handle the sex that comes into culture. When you have parents (who were horndogs when they were teenagers) say "Don't have sex, you'll die.", I think it's more of a fear that they don't want their kids to grow up like they do. What's a parents number one goal besides raising a happy and healthy child? Giving them more than what you had and not having them do your mistakes you did when you were their age, I know that's what I would want, I would never want my child to go through what I had to go through and I would want better for them.
  So, it mostly is the ignorance of parents... I don't think any parent should be handing condoms out to their kids (like schools do), but I definately don't agree with shutting them off from sex because eventually, they're going to want to learn things for themselves, and sex IS a natural thing, no one can deny that. But.. it doesn't make sense to say that the Church is responsible for teenaged parents and sexual activity while the number of those who are religiously faithful are getting lower, and the numbers of teen parents are getting higher.
  
  Like I said, it's ignorant parents who don't want their kids to make mistakes and who teach them the wrong lessons.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 22nd, 2010

• What's wrong with having condoms available to kids in schools? Shouldn't we be teaching kids that if they're going to do it, use protection? Otherwise you're either telling them not to do it and stay abstinent or you're telling them it's okay to do it but not providing a way for them to protect themselves. Why not make condoms available for kids to pick up anonymously from the doorway outside of the guidance office instead of making them feel more embarrassed by buying them at the store? Why shouldn't we make protection as easy to get as possible?

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 22nd, 2010

• I think the school is over-stepping it's boundaries. I think the schools need to send something home or give notification that they're going to be handing condoms out or that kids need the Sex Talk. I'd rather talk to my child about sex and the emotional, physical, and mental responsibilities of it instead of someone who I wouldn't know thinking it's okay to be passing minors condoms without any parent activity involved. I feel like that's the parents role to educate their kids and I feel like the school is being an enabler to those who don't understand everything that comes with sex. I would rather buy my kids condoms then to have someone I don't them give them a condom.
  I'm not telling any kid "don't have sex" by rejecting whatever condom the school provides, that's a tad out there, but I feel like if I were to be a parent, that would be my role to play, not the schools. The schools where I live try to take full control on how kids should be raised by telling parents that their kids need to be on drugs to "focus" and "be organized" (when really they need vitamin B), and they step in way too much.
  
  And yeah, a school can leave a basket full of condoms for minors to take, but then you have those kids who go overboard and personally I just don't trust it, you have kids who are assholes and who put pins through the condoms and just other stupid behavior. I think sex is an intimate thing, I do.. it's a natural instint but I would rather be a parent, and play my role as a parent and educate my kid and protect my kids than to have the school step in and try to do the job for me.
  
  I'm not going to be telling my kids "don't have sex or you'll die", I won't be anything like that. I would want to educate them and allow them to protect themselves. The last thing I would want is to have my child have 10 partners before they turn 16, but it happens, and I would rather have them be safe, yes... but I would want to educate them on sex as well as self respect and not selling themselves short, because teens these days also don't get educated on relationships and how much work it is, they decide they love someone after a week and end up sleeping with them at the drop of a dime, and that's something I wouldn't want and that's what I would try to prevent.
  But that's the problem, kids want to grow up and be like people they see on tv and want an adult relationship, even if they can't emotionally or mentally handle it... you have to agree that tv does glamorize sex and an adult lifestyle and it's misleading, but some minors don't understand that, and they don't get educated on relationships and how they should act and treat other people... kids learn from their parents, the divorce rate is about 45%, how is the majority of kids going to learn what a healthy and successful relationship is when they don't have people to look up to and when they're also not being educated or have an extra parental figure they can trust? And granted, there's exceptions, my fiances parents are divorced and he kinda got lucky because he did have good father figures to help him.
  There's a ton of factors with teens, but.. I live in an area where More than half of the people I went to highschool with have kids, and it's been 2 years since graduation, and I just wouldn't want that for my kid.. like I said before, parents are always going to want better for their kids.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 23rd, 2010

• Well of course I would never support giving out condoms WITHOUT education. That would be just irresponsible. Education is key and including the parents is, of course, key.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on July 23rd, 2010

• I've never seen condoms being given out in any school except a university, where the vast majority are over 18 anyway. And yeah, they can just be picked up anonymously for free... they don't just go to the classrooms and say "Here everyone, have condoms," they're in a box in the health office.

  • Report
  

  by Siyanor on July 24th, 2010

• I guess it depends on what school you're at.. like I said, some schools try to get too involved and take over a role that the parents should be playing. Schools aren't like what they used to be, that's for sure. A first grade teacher can't even button up a kids jacket in the winter without some parents going completely crazy.
  
  Parents either take things too crazy or they don't take it crazy enough.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 24th, 2010

• I'd think a 6 year old would be able to button his/her own jacket...

  • Report
  

  by Siyanor on July 24th, 2010

• Oh don't take things too literal. - -'
  You know what I meant.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 24th, 2010

• Actually, I thought you were being literal.
  
  Asperger's ftl.

  • Report
  

  by Siyanor on July 24th, 2010

• ftmfw.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 25th, 2010

Comments

• Possum, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or your IQ is below 40.
  
  I'm going to assume the former.

  • Report
  

  by Siyanor on July 19th, 2010

• Hey, it makes as much sense as some of the answers. ;-)

  • Report
  

  by Possum on July 19th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Not to own at least one and be trained and willing to use it in defense of self or others allows criminals to rob,rape and murder fearlessly

  • Report
  

  by Sheldon_B on December 29th, 2010

• Sheldon
  I do not know where you live, but, in Australia I do not see any reason to own a gun. I would not allow a gun to be in my home.

  • Report
  

  by Account Closed on December 29th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• too true

  • Report
  

  by Sheldon_B on December 29th, 2010

Comments

Comments

• An ID check is hardly a hundred hoops. And yes, you should ask for permission. Just like you need to apply for a passport to move around the world freely, and you need to pass a test to drive a car, you should pass something to show the government you are a responsible citizen and know how to handle a gun.
  
  ID checks are not even close to gun licensing, so you're getting off easy here.

  • Report
  

  by harlekkin on July 23rd, 2010

Comments

• You sound paranoid... just a little. Welcome to the world of economics and politics. Before you've even blinked one eye, things have turned 180 degrees and you don't even know about it.
  
  Guns don't really protect. Stop watching so many movies. IF someone is out to get you, they'll do it professionally anyway. As if.
  
  False sense of security those gun laws if you ask me.

  • Report
  

  by harlekkin on July 23rd, 2010

• Paranoid, no just the reality of ... 180 degrees the pendulum swings that's the polarity and duality of the religious political system they have created at our expense and guns don't kill people people kill people by the use of them and before guns it was swords and before swords it was sticks and before sticks it was rocks and before rocks it was with teeth and nails so the beat goes on and it is the INDIVIDUAL that makes the difference always has been ..

  • Report
  

  by Nemo_S on July 28th, 2010

Comments

• An airplane ride is not a constitutional right. That's the difference.

  • Report
  

  by Sarah M on July 29th, 2010

• So?

  • Report
  

  by Isaac on July 30th, 2010

• If you don't understand the difference between a constitutional right and a ride on an airplane there is no point in continuing the conversation.

  • Report
  

  by Sarah M on July 30th, 2010

• I do, I just don't see how that's justification for changing the rules for that right.

  • Report
  

  by Isaac on July 30th, 2010

Comments

• Don't forget about the "black" or "mexican" tests.

  • Report
  

  by TWA on July 24th, 2010

• Skin tone scanners for all gun shops!

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on July 24th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments