TheFireArm guy’s video starts with “If you know me I support . . .” and then quickly and seamlessly segues to “however . . .” Sound familiar? It’s the ISSAB approach to gun control. Its adherents assert that “I support the Second Amendment, but–” followed by a list of conditions on gun ownership that so infringe on Americans’ constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. In this case, the FireArmGuy lists five types of people who shouldn’t own guns: dumb you-know-whats, Rambo wannabes, safety-challenged gun owners living with gangbangers, alcoholics and drug addicts, and people who don’t train/clean/spend quality time with their firearm. Maybe so, but I take the position that every American should be able to buy a gun without any preconditions. Regardless of what gun control advocates or The People of the Gun consider appropriate. What’s your take?
I think only 3 types of people should be allowed to possess firearms: the police, the military and ME!
I don’t care so much for Government having firearms. Only citizens should be armed.
I think the only firearm law we need is the one which keeps criminals and thugs from having guns.
People convicted of spousal or child abuse or pedophiles fall into the thug/criminal category!!
I wish it was black and white regarding DV.
Claims of spousal abuse can be exaggerated and/or made up to intimidate a spouse and to strategically achieve a better legal settlement later on in a divorce. The more a divorcing spouse can claim DV the greater or more unjust the settlement depending on your perspective. While I do not know what the latest stats are on DV, a few years ago before they made the latest definition changes wives and girlfriends were found to initiate the majority of the violence against the husband or boyfriend in one-way DV cases.
Wiki: Domestic Violence
“Verbal abuse may include aggressive actions such as name-calling, blaming, ridicule, disrespect, and criticism…”
They forgot to mention a spouse rolling their eyes in disrespect at what a spouse says or does, and attempting to talk a spouse into not visiting their parents. I think men are too proud and adult-like to complain about such experiences.
Having been thru a divorce where Dav was claimed by my ex and then proven to be falsely claimed in court I understand the cause and effect of such claims.
I should have specified persons found guilty by trial by jury of DV and the other things I stated. Sorry for not being clearer, thank you for pointing it out!!
“I think the only firearm law we need is the one which keeps criminals and thugs from having guns.”
Which firearm law does that?
Violent crime rates were lower before the Gun Control Act passed. Felons were able to buy guns just like everybody else.
Ron….the NICS system, for the most part, seems to be working ok in most cases. Whether you agree with it or not we do need some type of law to keep felons convicted of DV, child abuse, molestation,etc from owning firearms unless there were some way to guarantee they would not commit those types of crime again.
That being said I have no problem going through a NICS check to buy a gun. Now having to pay a stupid ass tax/fee for a CCW License I don’t like but would rather pay it and be armed than not pay it and be unable to defend my family when needed.
Monday morning in Paragould Ar police found a 90 yr old man in his home after responding to a 911 call. The man later died from gunshot wounds, that may or may not be connected to a home invasion that occurred Sunday night around 11:45pm when two armed men forced their way into a woman’s home in the same area and stole an undisclosed amount of money. I would say she got real lucky. And the older gent probably put up a fight.
Tougher laws on prosecuting violent offenders might help curb some of this to a small degree but being able to defend ourselves legally will definitely make a difference in the long run!!
There’s a whole long list of folks who SHOULDN’T own a gun. His list is probably a part of that one. I’ve got a cousin who definitely shouldn’t own, possess, look at, or be within 100 miles of a gun. He can, however, do so.
The list of folks who SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO own a gun is a lot shorter.
There are also long lists of people who shoudn’t drive a car, make financial decisions, raise children and vote. At least in my perfect world.
Yet most of them are allowed to do all these things
And most of them do these things to excess
Video is ignorant as is its maker.
People I approve of.
I contend that some of douchebags that post comments on this blog shouldn’t own guns….
I’ll bet you’re right about that.
Not having much success in achieving that goal, though.
Which ones? Or are you just making a stupid generalization?
Maybe we should put limits on your First Amendment rights – would that be fair?
It’s called parody….lighten up there Chaz.
Maybe you should give us a hint next time. Not only are we not douchebags, but we aren’t mind readers either.
I think Mr. Bonomo fits in both categories.
He fits in both categories? He doesn’t even fit in his clothes.
So that’s his excuse for flashing the lady in Washington.
As a a responsible gun-toting alcoholic Rambo wannabe, I’d like to suggest we compile a list of people who shouldn’t be allowed to make videos on the internets.
1. TheFireArm guy….
^^^^^^
THIS
Who shouldn’t own a gun, that’s easy. 1) Mentally unstable people, 2) violent criminals, 3) terrorists. Also, every gun grabber should be forced to shoot several thousand rounds from a variety of pistols and rifles before they ever try to give an opinion on guns. If that happened, I’d bet there would be a lot less gun grabbers.
See that’s where freedom comes into view. Antigunners can be as antigun as they wan’t as long as they don’t antigun (translate: p00p) on my freedom. Everyone has the ability to be happy when freedom reigns.
Personally I’d make it a punishment.
They have to shoot 50 rounds of the heaviest recoiling rounds out thete in the lightest guns, no recoil pads and no breaks.
Then they know how it feels to listen to them talk.
A right is not contingent on the responsible use of said right.
Amen. Social Darwinism will take care of the idiots and criminals.
And that would be just fine if they only killed each other. It’s those pesky innocent bystanders that get in the way that usually suffer.
A right is not contingent on the responsible use of said right.
The three main rights recognized by the Constitution are life, liberty and property. All three can be taken away by due process of law. The ability to enjoy rights are dependent on not breaking the law.
I am not comfortable with laws prohibiting citizens from owning firearms. Joseph Stalin was very fond of labeling his political opponents as “criminals”. Adolph Hitler like to label his opponents as “insane”.
Laws can be passed by tyrants declaring any and all citizens criminals or insane. Furthermore… there are millions of laws on the books. Not even the best lawyers know all the laws. What this means is that we all break laws without knowing it. Any minor infraction can be elevated to a felony… and many have.
American Revolutionary Hero John Paul Jones on the other hand was a “wanted pirate” prior to taking up the revolutionary cause. Most of the patriots who participated in the Boston Tea Party were also of questionable background.
I believe that if a person does a crime the punishment must fit the crime. Once he serves his sentence, he should be restored to society with all rights. Now if the crime is so bad that he deserves capital punishment… so be it, let a jury decide.
The current system brands people as “felons”. Given that most employers have access to background checks, these people are now prevented from gaining lawful employment and have no choice but to return to a life of crime. The war on drugs only gives them an incentive to go after some quick money. If drugs were legalized they would reduce crime by 80%. The only reason drugs are not legalized is because they would have to fire 80% of the cops, lawyers, judges and prison guards.
The legal system in America does everything it can to create “return business” for itself.
I agree with almost everything Pocono. the exception is legalized drugs. The European countries that tried it have been a disaster. Switzerland with the “Needle Park” attempt to restrict heroin use of the the 600 users, soared to 20,000 users showing up from all over. Netherlands, England, Sweden, likewise, MAJOR problems. One little example, use by 9th graders soared by 200% on weed alone. All hard drugs also went thru the roof.
Other than that, yeah, with you on the rest.
Not sure this is really correct reporting of European situation re legalised drugs. Drugs remain illegal in UK with disastrous effects. Cannabis legal in Portugal with apparent success. I fear thiscomment must be filed under ‘sweeping generalisations’ subcategory ‘factual misrepresentation’ and ‘misleading conclusion.’
My understand is, that Amsterdam has the same rate of drug use is the same as in the US. My conclusion is that a certain percentage of the population will do drugs, no mater what… and a certain percentage will not do drugs, no mater what.
Amsterdam is usually what is studied, I am not sure about your drug use statistics from England. What is the overall drug rate of the country? How does that rate compare to Amsterdam where it is legal? What percentage of the population does the 20,000 represent. If “needle park” is the only place that allows for drug use, it may represent people moving from other areas into this one to use drugs.
Some people are going to die no mater what from drug use. The question is how do you prefer those deaths. Do you want addicts overdosing on cheap legal drugs? Or do you want Drug Cartels killing people in turf wars over expensive drugs? Do you want to spend the money on more prisons? or would you rather build more schools? Would you rather put drug users who OD in graves… or would you rather put in graves innocent bystanders who are at the wrong place at the wrong time?
The best case for legalizing drugs in America is that it would weaken the power of the Federal Government which have used it as an excuse to grow itself.
Besides habitual, violent felons and those adjudicated as being a risk to themselves and others, I have no objection to adults, of any stripe, possessing and carrying firearms. Life and liberty have associated risks. Rights should never be predicated on “feelings” or someone’s arbitrary and unreasoned idea of “common sense”.
Who should own a house? Who should own a bible? Who should own a drill press? Who should own a pickaxe?
Everyone who actually ascribes to the principles of true liberty understands that every single individual human person has an inherent natural right to obtain property through licit means which they may use for licit purposes.
Let’s put this into perspective…who should be allowed to speak? Or worship? Or peaceably assemble? Until there are reasonable restrictions on the NYT editorial board, militant muslims and occupy wall street I can’t accept any “reasonable” restrictions on firearms.
My take is pretty simple, if a convicted criminal is too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun, he’s too dangerous to be allowed out of prison period.
Thus I pretty much agree with Pocono above.
if a convicted criminal is too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun, he’s too dangerous to be allowed out of prison period.
Agreed. Which is why I believe that most violent criminals should never see the light of day. They are too dangerous to be released, and up to 70% of them will re-offend. The main reason why I own firearms is to protect myself against them.
Ralph, wouldn’t that be unfair to the 30% who don’t re-offend? You don’t want the slightest restrictions on gun rights because it would “punish” the good gun owners, yet you punish ALL violent offenders indefinitely. That doesn’t sound very consistent. As a lawyer, you should be able to spin a more convincing argument.
The Questions on a 4473 form are not the only questions perspective gun owners should answer. TheFireArmGuy uses bad comedy and stereotypes to convey some of the serious topics that come with gun ownership. I am ok with TheFireArmGuy’s opinions. To answer the question, Who Should Own a Gun? People who are ready to accept the responsibility that guns carry should own guns.
To answer the question as straightforwardly as it was asked: Anyone who wants to provide effectively for their personal defense, the defense of their Family, the defense of the innocent or defenseless, the defense of their Country and/or wants to use it for any legal, humane and safe recreational purpose they wish.
I sort of get where the guy in the video is coming from, and his list can be shown from life experiences to have basis in observed fact. BUT I don’t like anyone composing a list of who’s rights should be preemptively abrogated because they “might do something bad”. That is just contradictory to the cause of Human Liberty and Freedom.
Obviously in the case of the mentally ill adjudged to be a “danger to themselves and/or others” by a competent professional (having to assume there is such a thing), it would be wise to prevent them from owning a gun(s) before they had actually done harm to themselves or others, a precaution which is also supported by observed facts. So, there is the proverbial “exception to the rule”.
You need to post an article that asks the other straightforward question: Who should not own a gun?
I do think that people can forfeit the rights provided by the state if they demonstrate they are incapable of cooperating in civil society (violent criminals and the like). This goes for life and liberty.
The state provides no rights. Our rights exist prior in logic and in time to any government. What a properly functioning state does is add protection to our rights.
Greg, this is what the government indoctrination centers are teaching now – that our rights come from government. Is it any wonder that so many people don’t have a clue about how this country was formed or what it really means to be free?
I do what I can in my classes. Another problem is that so many students have no facts and no intelligent interpretations whatsoever.
My take is that you missed his point. I’m not defending the guy – I think he might self-qualify under his first category. But he never asserted that these are people who should not be allowed to have firearms. Rather, he very explicitly said these are people who, in his opinion, should reconsider their inclinations to become armed, or should voluntarily disarm themselves due to their supposed risk category.
You jumped all over his ass even though he clearly said nothing about infringing anyone’s 2nd amendment rights. In fact I have read similar, all be it more erudite, advice for those considering a firearms purchase on this very site.
If you insist on seeing boogey-men everywhere, your ability to discern the real ones is going to get compromised.
You beat me to this comment. He never calls for a new law. Using exaggeration for humorous effect, he’s saying that idiots aren’t well served by owning firearms. True, that.
Who should be able to own a gun? Anyone that respects and appreciates the right to do so, and has not, or shown that they may, abuse that god given right.
My take on it is I need to redo my Famous 10%. Even this pro-gun guy places the percentage higher than that. I’m guessin’ it’s really about 50%/50%-
Please read the forthcoming post: how is a bridge like gun control? Meanwhile, click here.
How dare you present facts, Robert? You know Mikey hates that!
Better make an emotional appeal with lots of sound bites quickly!
Well you know Robert…he opens his mouth and starts spewing supportable facts.
Our Constitutional Rights should never have been nor should ever be infringed upon by any government or individual.
But it happens. As long as you have people who fear, don’t understand and won’t learn about something, or are just too damn dumb to see the truth there will be people who want the Average American to not have this or that because they themselves are scared of it, don’t know about it and won’t even try to see or learn about.
“people who want the Average American to not have this or that because they themselves are scared of it”
This does not apply to most gun control people I know, myself included. We want qualified people to have all the guns they want. We want to deprive only the unfit. It’s not our fault if the percentage of unfit and irresponsible gun owners among you is so high.
Ok, who determines the unfit?? By what standards?? As you know I have read your 6 ideas for gun control, if you remember what i said about the 3 day waiting period and the other ideas(btw..the fee’s I quoted in that post were loosely based on what most states charge for ccw license, fingerprint fees,etc)!!
We really can’t trust the federal level politicians to determine it, look at their track record for felonies, dwi’s, etc.
So who?? Each individual state government?? What a mess National Reciprocity would be in then!!
Most, not all, people who want to ban something or put unnecessary restrictions on something, whether it be guns, religion, free speech, whatever, do so because they are either afraid of it, don’t believe in it, don’t like it, or feel that only they know what is best for the general population.
I for one, would love to hear some sensible ideas for keeping guns away from unfit persons, and what the guidelines would be for determining who is or is not fit to own a firearm.
I don’t see any sensible ideas forthcoming simply because too many people/politicians can’t agree on anything 50% of the time and the other 50% of the time they can’t agree who should be in charge or how much money they should make from it!!
Just my opinion but for the last 32 years that I have been eligible to vote,(since I turned 18), I haven’t seen a whole lot of sensible anything from our government.
Per our discussion before when I told you something about me and my background, and let me add to it the fact that I have not been in trouble with the law or had a ticket of any kind since I was 17, which would be for the last 33 years, would I qualify to own a gun of any type, qualify for a ccw license?? No mental health problems ever, no drug or alcohol abuse, Just curious you know.
Well, as far as the legal business goes, you would qualify. But, I’m not too sure you’d pass the psyche exam. You sound a bit unraveled to me.
Although I have been called crazy I am pretty stable actually. All the voices in my head agree so “The Majority Rules”!!!
Facts:
100,000,000 +/- gun owners in this country
300,000,000+ guns
About 100,000 injuries and deaths due to gunfire of all causes–suicide, accident, negligence, murder, self-defense, and police action.
For those who can’t do the arithmetic, that’s much less than one percent of gun owners who discharge their weapons in a way that harms anyone. Some of those discharges are legitimate as well.
Mikeb, if 50,000,000 gun owners are unfit–that’s what your not-so-famous revised claim says–how do they manage not to kill millions of Americans? That makes the word, unfit, suspect here.
Greg, I told you before you cannot keep claiming kinship with the 100M. Most of them think you’re a fanatic and agree with my side of the argument. Many if them are gun owners in name only, their gun’s in the closet or garage and they never touch it.
You’re even funnier when you cite the 300 M firearms. I thought they were inanimate objects that cannot act unto themselves.
Wriggle all you want, but you can’t get over the fact that you just claimed that 50,000,000 American gun owners are unfit. If that’s the case, why aren’t we all dead? Again, “unfit” means something to you that it doesn’t mean to the rest of us.
Unfit does not mean about to commit murder. A lot of gun irresponsibility is less than deadly, but it still has to go.
Be more specific. Please.
Are you asking what I mean by “still has to go?” One strike you’re out, baby.
Miley, we, for the most part, as gun owners are responsible, well grounded people who enjoy the shooting sports, believe in being able to defend ourselves, families and friends if necessary to the point of giving our lives for them.
That in and of itself proves not only mental stability but a sense of responsibility above and beyond the normalcies of modern society.
Much more than a lot of modern people who dont want to get involved in anything but their own little self righteous world.
And we all want and need to have a little fun once in awhile to relieve the stress and strain of modern life.
There are bad apples in every bunch but it seems that the gun grabbers seem to have a higher percentage than the gun owners do!!!
“Miley, we, for the most part, as gun owners are responsible”
I don’t think “for the most part” is good enough. It’s not a question of a “few bad apples.”
Your whole argument depends upon downplaying this.
So what do you propose Mikey?? We already know your 6 standards for gun control won’t work. Not downplaying anything. Like I said for the most part, not all of us. Again there are bad apples in every group.
We see everyday the dumbasses who have ND’s(police and civilian). But they are a very very small percentage.
On your side of the argument All of the gun control advocates want to so severely restrict our rights to own and carry that it is both biased and discriminatory.
Would you explain exactly how you think it should be determined who can or cannot own a handgun and be eligible for a concealed carry license, or are we going to automatically allowed to open carry by default since we are so responsible and safe.
I’ve told you several times. Your response is that it won’t work. Of course you say that even though you know it’s not true. You have a lot at stake, all that convenience that you don’t want to give up even if it meant less people would die. You and you gun-rights buddies are real princes.
In reference to earlier discussions Mikey we both agreed on a 3 day wait period, my suggestion of allowing those who need one without the wait period was not answered by you, ie: someone who has been stalked/being stalked, has a violent ex who is still harassing or threatening regardless of a restraining order, should be allowed to purchase a firearm without the waiting period.
As for the fee’s you said that I was too high on the amount so I asked about a lower amount and you gave a lower amount but never said if that would be the only fees involved.
Is the government going to foot the bill for your “psych evals”?? Who will set the standards for the test’s?? You know as well as I do that the anti’s will have the mental standards so out of proportion and reach that only the rich and very influential will be able to own firearms because they will be the only ones who can afford it, by buying a passing grade.
We aren’t the ones causing all the deaths in places like Chicago,LA, Detroit and NYC!!! It is the direct fault of the anti gun politicians and wealthy who are too worried about their own asses and do not care about the common man, and of the lack of strict enough laws and punishments for those convicted of felony’s with a firearm or other weapon!!!
If I were to shoot someone in a fight for instance I would probably get more prison time than a thug who used a firearm in a robbery or as a retaliation for a bad drug deal, even if the thug killed someone!
Why? Because we, as ccw license holders, are generally held to a higher standard than most Police and Military!!
If you can cone up with a better,more sensible set of rules regarding firearms ownership, to include licensed concealed or open carry, then I will be more than glad to read them and offer an honest opinion.
In a free society? Anyone who wants one. If you can’t be trusted with any type of firearm, you need a custodian anyway.
Many people do need a custodian, which is why we need more prisons.
People convicted of violent felonies and those committed involuntarily and found to be mentally incompetent.Illegal aliens shouldn’t be allowed to possess firearms.They shouldn’t be here at all.I know the Soviets used “mental illness”as a catchall to detain people.They did a lot of abominable things.This is the USA and hopefully we only commit seriously disturbed people.My mother in law suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and was committed a few times-she was prone to extremely violent outbursts and on one occasion got hold of her husband’s 1911 and started shooting at him in the house because she was getting command hallucinations.The gun was thereafter not accessible to her.She definitely didn’t need a firearm in her life.Fortunately she couldn’t hit shit with the pistol 🙂
This is the USA and hopefully we only commit seriously disturbed people
Actually, we elect them.
Good point
No right is absolute. 1A gives us freedom of speech, but we cannot slander, libel or yell “fire” in a theater. Likewise, there will always be exceptions to 2A. For example, violent criminals, as they are often repeat offenders.
Brent, All of our Rights are unalienable.
So as long as you are living and breathing in this world, you are endowed with those Rights.
So you’re against prison for offenders? Or is the right to liberty alienable?
You’re confusing the Declaration of Independence — which is not law — with the Constitution, which is law.
No worries Ralph, I’m here to educate.
The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe, as you have unfortunately been mislead to believe, that the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.
The United States Code Annotated (the laws that Govern our country) includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading “The Organic Laws of the United States of America” along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance.
Our American Declaration of Independence is the supreme, unamendable moral law of the United States. Declarational law preceded and trumps our supreme, amendable secular law, the Constitution. As stated in our Declaration, the purpose of secular law (Constitution) is to secure our sacred, unalienable, equal, individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness….
While our Constitution and Bill of Rights are the greatest secular laws ever written, it must be acknowledged that our secular Constitution has a sacred mandate — the Declaration of Independence.
But don’t take my word for it, go look it up for yourself. You can find scanned versions online at the Library of Congress.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”
Don’t let anyone convince you that you have “inalienable Rights”, because you don’t. We are all created equal and endowed with unalienable Rights by our Creator.
Inalienable = not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights
Unalienable = incapable of being sold and/or transferred
In summary, EVERYONE is equal therefore EVERYONE is endowed with the Right to Bear Arms and said Right is incapable of being sold and/or transferred.
A well armed society is a polite society 🙂
But you do know that the Declaration of Independence is not law, right? So all the flowery language (used to defend our declaration of war against England) has nothing to do with the Constitution, or with our law. One is a political document, one is a legal document. You might as well be citing the Bhagavad Gita.
+1
You can deny that the sky is blue or that 2+2=5, but it doesn’t make it true.
Denying (or hopefully just not understanding) that the Decleration of Indepence is not law doesn’t change the fact that it has been and will continue to be law.
Again, nothing could be further from the truth. I appreciate your attempted ruse, but you are wholeheartedly misinformed on what is and is not law.
The Deceleration of Independence is most certainly law and is part of “The Organic Laws of the United States of America”. It has been repeatedly cited (and will continue to be cited) by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.
You can verify this for yourself by researching and reading The United States Code Annotated which is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal laws of the United States. This compilation includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading “The Organic Laws of the United States of America” along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance.
Hope that helps clear things up for you.
No guns for cops in places where other citizens are denied their 2A rights. New York City, San Francisco, Chicago — turn ’em all in. If decent “civilians” are denied the ability to defend themselves, why should your corrupt and brutal police be armed?
100% Dead on
He starts talking about financial responsibility, then the government can’t own firearms. Rambo attitude applies to allot of federal agencies who would like nothing less than to use all their equipment on someone. And the person who wrote is a AH
If you…
are just dumb and don’t have the ability to make good decisions;
think that a gun makes you tough, empowers you to get your way in areas that you normally wouldn’t;
have somebody in your life who has a gangster mentality;
have a troubled teenager in your household and don’t have a safe;
think that all there is to owning a firearm and protecting yourself is knowing how to pull the trigger;
You shouldn’t own a gun, and if you don’t already, shouldn’t consider owning a gun.
Agreed.
Now. For those having recognized only a few subtle changes in wording would be necessary to alter the perspective and establish much of the aforementioned as entirely sensible advice for womb owners — you’re also correct in thinking such an opinion as expressed would most certainly be deemed by others as, well, at least somewhat inappropriate.
I believe legally restricted persons should be:
1.) Convicted violent felons
2.) Those adjudicated of certified mentally incompetent
We all agree that there shouldn’t be a registry of firearms/owners but there does need to be some system for checking if people fall into the categories above before they can take possession of a firearm.