Yes.

I know, I know; I'm supposed to be a libertarian, right? So how can I say this?

Well, I am libertarian...but I'm not completely ignorant to how guns are treated in my country. So I have certain non-negotiable points to the "shall not be infringed" argument.

1. No selling guns to - or ownership by - minors. If a child's parent wants to train them up, that's their call. But just as someone on a learner's permit can't drive without a licensed driver in the car, neither does junior get to carry dad's rifle around without an adult present. Period.

• As a corollary to #1, if junior gets possession of your gun and someone dies as a result, then you legally committed the crime and must pay the debt to society. I don't care if it's your rugrats who found your loaded gun and were "playing with it," accidentally killing a playmate, or if it's your sullen teen going all trenchcoat mafia on his fellow students, YOU have a responsibility for both your arms and your ammo and who has access to it. And if you have a problem with the idea of not having a loaded weapon available for emergencies then FFS, invest in a biometric safe. If you can afford to buy the gun, you can afford to buy a safe.

2. No selling guns to - or ownership by - those who are mentally or emotionally unfit to own a gun. Yes, this is law now, and no, the way it is currently implemented is crap, because these folks are still getting their hands on guns. I don't know what the solution is. I don't know how society is supposed to tell the garden variety crazy people who would be perfectly responsible gun owners from the ones that'll shoot up a bowling alley from having a bad day. I'm just saying we sure as Hell better figure it out. Don't you think?

3. No selling guns to - or ownership by - felons guilty of violent crime. Yes, I know everyone's got a story and everyone makes mistakes when they're young, dumb, and desperate that they truly regret. But there are some things in life you get exactly one chance at, and this is one of them. Would you let your daughter go out with a guy convicted of sexual assault & rape when he was "young and dumb?" Would you let a convicted pedophile babysit your kids? No, I do not believe you would, no matter how much they've come along in their rehabilitation because the weight of the negative consequences are not worth even a modicum of risk. Same holds true with giving a violent felon legal access to guns.

4. No selling guns to - or ownership by - anyone dishonorably discharged from the military. Again, I get "young & dumb," and I repeat this is one of those things in life you get one chance at.

5. If you use a firearm to wound or kill someone, then you WILL be tried by a jury of your peers. Period. I don't want to hear about, "looked like a classic self-defense scenario so the police didn't press charges." No, screw that. You know exactly how that kind of thing gets abused. If Rooster Cogburn can be called before the court and asked to justify why he shot a wanted criminal, then your ass can do the same. Everyone always says, "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six," so prove it. If you want to come up with some program where you trade in some civil liberties - such as registering yourself as gun owner, getting a carry license by passing a written and practical exam, doing all the work necessary to renew that license every six months or so - THEN we can start talking about giving you some benefit of the doubt in shooting scenarios. But for JimJoeBob average, you need to go to court if you shoot someone.

• As a corollary to point #5, if you hit a bystander, then your ass is toast. Do not pass GO; do not collect $200. Where your bullets go is YOUR responsibility; not the wall's, not the car's, not the body you're shooting at (and possibly overpenetrating), and certainly not the bystander's. Society is not a war zone where your survival is paramount regardless of the cost. You aren't Robocop and can shoot a target in the head as he's got cover behind someone's wife, so don't take the shot.

Now, you all want to flame me, go right ahead. There was a time I believed there should be no infringements, but the overall stupidity and apathy of too many gun owners made me think otherwise.

If you really want to get down to it, I'm about making people think very, very hard about when it is appropriate to pull that trigger, when it is necessary to pull that trigger, when the situation is worth the consequences, and limiting ownership to people who do not have a disqualifying condition that demonstrates they do not have the ability to make that determination. I think every gun owner can appreciate that point of view, even if they believe in unfettered access to guns.

Following up on my previous post. If you don't understand group selection and how unconscious instinct rules the world you can't understand this issue.

We are engaged in a genetic struggle between the open and the conscientious. The technocrats fall into the former group and Trump supporters the latter. Unconsciously the technocrats are intent on the same solution that was applied when blacks were denied their gun rights. They want to put Trump supporters in the same ghetto as blacks where they are only a threat to each other. The proof of the process being systematic is in how little concern there is for black on black crime or economic development. If blacks had been allowed a militia tradition inner city violence would be almost non existent and their economic condition much improved. Openness as it turns out can be systematic but it is seldom conscientious.

Openness is associated weakly with intelligence but ironically with a fast lifestyle. That things such as stable marriages and economic success are associated with intelligence says less about personality type than simply exploiting opportunities. The preference for a fast lifestyle is seen more in culture than the individual. It's not surprising that openness leads to an easy acceptance of the mechanistic and naturalistic philosophy. To a denial of the values of freewill, agency and dignity. Eventually to the kind of genocidal attitudes prevalent in the socialist utopia of the Soviet Union. To a genocide by cancel culture today. You cannot get morality from an amoral or naturalist philosophy. Don't be fooled into thinking empathy is the same as caring.

depends on what you mean by "control" -

If on one hand by "gun control" you mean gripping the gun firmly, properly aligning the front sight w/ the rear sight and exercising good trigger control repeatedly until the threat is dead and or gone then HELL YES! I am all for "gun control"

On the other hand if you mean any - any Gov't interference with the God Given Rights of the people to possess and to carry guns - then HELL NO! I am steadfastly against that!

no

Not under any circumstance...

[bigthink.com]