• Deftdrummer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    “minimal oversight and rules” he says. Tell us you’ve never bought a gun without telling us.

    Please don’t speak about things you have no clue on. There are plenty of rules and restrictions. The fact that our federal government can’t or doesn’t enforce them properly means the law abiding citizen should suffer?

    The fuck outta here with that nonsense.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Yeah. You don’t know anything about my firearms knowledge, and that’s fine with me. I don’t give a damn about some dick measuring contest over whatever is in someone’s arsenal.

      What oversight? Most rural places you pass a nominal background check at best. Buy your gun, and nobody bothers you about it again. Urban areas? Yeah, more rules; but again, fill out the paperwork, pass the background checks, buy your gun and that’s it. The majority of rules apply to handguns. I can head on down to my local gun shop and pick up a deer rifle with almost no hassle at all. Or maybe you mean a tax stamp? Same story. Fill out the paperwork, pass the check, pay the money, get the gun.

      Yet again, nobody pays attention to what you do with the gun once you have it. That’s the oversight part I’m talking about. Nobody is making you re-test for anything. There’s no license to maintain to own a long gun or even a handgun in the vast majority of places.

      I’m not even going to touch CCW because that’s not buying a gun or owning a gun, that’s how you carry it.

      What is apparent is that you haven’t a clue what real oversight is. Gun ownership in the rest of the civilized world is highly regulated, licensed, tested, and monitored. So is how the firearm is stored, where and when it can be transported and used.

      So “get outta here with that nonsense” when you consider a single background check or a tax stamp “monitoring” your ownership.

      • Narauko@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        This is the other side of the argument that I don’t really understand. There shouldn’t be “monitoring” of your ownership. A law abiding citizen going in, filling out a background check and proving they aren’t prohibited from owning a gun and then buying said gun and ending their involvement with the government from that point on is just normal. We are innocent until proven guilty. We have a right to privacy. We have a right against unwarranted searches. Exercising one of your other constitutional rights shouldn’t and doesn’t mean you give up others.

        The government shouldn’t be monitoring it’s citizens with regular check-ins, making sure they are good worker drones. I don’t understand the desire for the government to dictate or arbitrate every action you take, because the government doesn’t care about you as an individual. Allowing the government to monitor your personal life is a distopian trope for a reason. I don’t want to live in a police state like the UK or China, and our own police state is already bad enough.

        • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Well, law abiding citizens shouldn’t shoot up schools, concerts, or businesses. But that doesn’t matter when it’s a right to own guns, because somehow magically a law abiding citizen with guns suddenly isn’t so law abiding, but gun owners never really want to deal with that. Wash their hands and walk away.

          • Narauko@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Just dropping the whole basis of our legal system because lives could be in jeopardy, just throw out innocent until proven guilty and your right to privacy. Let me guess, you also disagree that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted, especially if the crime is severe enough?

            Law abiding citizens shouldn’t steal, use illegal substances, or assault people either, but that doesn’t matter because a statistically significant percentage of people suddenly aren’t so law abiding. Are you prepared to allow law enforcement to regularly enter your home and inventory your property to match with receipts backed up by your pay stubs to make sure your not stealing anything or committing fraud, while also ensuring you don’t have any drugs? How about regular interviews with your friends, family, and coworkers to make sure you always conduct yourself in a upstanding manner? Having to get evidence and/or reasonable articulable suspicion to search your person or property prevents police from stopping you from commiting crime before you do it.

            You want to buy whipped cream? People can use those cannisters illegally. You need to go to a drug counselor for an evaluation, and pass a drug screen proving you aren’t a drug user of any kind, then you can get a permit. It needs to be renewed every year to make sure you remain sober.

            A guy down the block broke the law by driving drunk, but you law abiding drivers never really want to deal with that by putting interlock systems in all motor vehicles and requiring the cops to do a blood draw, breathalyzer and field sobriety test before you are allowed to drive anywhere. Just wash their hands and walk away as if they couldn’t prevent people they don’t know from driving drunk.