What gun control measures do you support?

Federal/state licensing like drivers license, commercial DL, pilots license, etc. You can't register a car/truck/plane (boats) without your DL.

This was everybody is properly educated and license renewal will require written / functional tests for the license. But you can buy whatever you want (FA, NFA, etc) as long as you have your license. Just like a vehicle!

You may think the government will then be able to track your firearms and purchases. THEY ALREADY KNOW!!!

s

The NFA covers a lot of ground; from .22cal pen guns to machine guns, to silencers to hand grenades and RPGs.

The act of buying and possesing MEK, or any other thing for that matter, should not be illegal.

Click to expand...

So, I'm a very rich person, I should be able to walk down to the hardware store and buy a nuke?

Would it matter if I am very anti goverment and mentally unstable?

Like it or not, there are something the general public should not be able to walk into a store and walk out with it.

I voted "absolutely none," because that was the closest. I think that one should have to be over 18 to purchase a firearm. That's the only gun control regulation that I support: no guns for children.

If a person is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, then they are too dangerous to be a free member of society. Keep them in prison or the looney bin until they're legitimately rehabilitated. If someone is trusted to roam free, then he/she should be trusted to own a firearm, vote, and enjoy all other rights and duties of a citizen.

Any gun restriction should have to seperate criminals from law abiding citizens. To make a law that encompasses everyone doesn't work. Once that could be accomplished my vote would be "none". Law abiding citizens should be able to purchase whatever their pocketbook can afford. Criminals shouldn't get anything unless/until they meet some criteria.

Shooting in the backyard? c'mon, let's talk about issues that are actually a problem to the restriction of guns.

If a person is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, then they are too dangerous to be a free member of society. Keep them in prison or the looney bin until they're legitimately rehabilitated. If someone is trusted to roam free, then he/she should be trusted to own a firearm, vote, and enjoy all other rights and duties of a citizen.

Click to expand...

So we should lock up the current VP? he has proven that he can not safely handle a firearm.

Hi Realbigo,

Now imagine if he could just walk in and buy the shortest barrel length, in full auto.

Click to expand...

And should this person use that weapon in a manner that shows a disregard to the peace and dignity of the state s/he should be arrested and confined for the good of society. Straight out of the 'Social Contract.'

I've known people that if they carried an M2 heavy machine gun in the back of their truck I wouldn't pay any mind to it. I've know others that make me nervous if they pick up a butter knife. It's not the tools it's the people!

Selena

Convicted, violent felons only!

I want to say absolutely none since I know a repeat felon will get a gun illegally anyway, however I feel that if the felon continues to commit crimes then this can be an additional charge to add and they can keep him in jail longer.
I don't feel this will have any affect on us law abiding citizens whatsoever. It would probably be good to make an exception of some sort for those who made a "youthful" mistake.

definitely violent felons. I also belive that we should restrict them from being able to cut deals so that they only serve two years of a fifteen-year sentence before being back on the street as well, but of course that won't happen, because that just makes too much sense for a liberal.

I picked ABSOLUTELY NONE, because it isn't clear to me that gun control advocacies restrict themselves to sensible propositions, and also because current laws already restrict gun ownership in regard to felons.

/

I'm against all restrictions.

Absolutely none.

Convicted, violent felons. The main part being "violent."

I've never understood the concept of not allowing someone who is 18 the ability to purchase a handgun. At 18 you can vote, join the military, get a driver's license, buy tobacco products, and if you're a male you have to register with the selective service (personaly I think that should be everyone 18+), and in most states buy a rifle. But you can't but alcohol or a handgun--sorry makes no sense with me.

And the "junk gun" arguement--what agency or person is going to be granted the power to make that decision. To one person a Hi-point is junk, but to another a Glock is, and another it's Beretta. So what's the standard? This is where the market gets to make the decision. If you make something that proves to be untrustworthy, then the market will be the deciding factor (no sales=no future for the product)

I support restrictions on violent felons and on certain types of weapons.
Some people will say that's infringement, but violent felons have had their right taken away by something called "due process".
No nukes as they will lead to tyrrany and death on a massive scale.
Only restrictions on junk guns is that they must be safe to fire.
Shall-issue CCW, at least until I research the effects of no-permit CCW on crime.
If you're 18, you're old enough to CCW. So I didn't vote on those last three, because saying yes is far more away from what I'm thinking than saying no.

None of the above. Convicted, violent felons should not have access to an automobile, a bow/arrow, a hatchet, a hammer, a butterknife, a television remote control or a tweezers. They should be incarcerated.

If they are somehow "safe" enough to get out of prison...they should be able to excercise their rights. It's the person that's dangerous, not his tools.

Good poll, but IMHO, the rest of the options are not even worth debating from a Constitutional perspective.

As far as shooting in your backyard. It's a matter of noise and safety, not gun control.

The NFA and GCA monstrosities have been on the books for so many decades now, many folks apparently choose to accept them as the Holy Writ and carved in stone.

Of course, we desperately need these Acts of Congress in order to avert the decline and apocalyptic collapse of civil society, with such devastating consequences...

Convicted violent felons
Age restrictions (21 was the only option given).

No form of gun control. It is a right, not a privilege.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is a right, but you can lose this right just like the others through due process of law. If the DC sniper ever gets out of prison, should he be able to buy a rifle legally ever again? Sorry, I don't play that.

The government didn't give you the rights, they shouldn't be able to take them away.

If they are somehow "safe" enough to get out of prison...they should be able to excercise their rights. It's the person that's dangerous, not his tools.

Click to expand...

Good point, except people aren't released from prison based on anyone's estimate of whether they are "safe" to release. They get out when their sentence is up.

The government didn't give you the rights, they shouldn't be able to take them away.

Click to expand...

Why not? That's what governments are for. The government didn't give you the right to life, but it certainly can take that away, and rightly so.

Firefighter4884 Said:
"I personally think that if someone is a violent criminal who should be prohibited from having firearms, then there is absolutely no reason not to let them out of jail at all. If they are let out of jail, then society considers their debt paid, and they should go back to being full members of that society."

I don't say this often enough but you just changed my mind.

I voted yes on the violent convict part of the poll but now my mind is changed.

Lets re-check the 2nd Amendment.
What does it say?
What does "shall not be infringed" mean?
That's why my answer is, and always will be, "absolutely none" to the OP's question.

Old-west-style working is fine with me. You get let out of prison? Here's your guns back.

You want a machinegun? Enjoy.

Nail the irresponsible users, not at the cost of screwing those who are not.

Is society really safer because Mr. Mall Ninja can't have the auto switch, or is it just a matter of bias against people owning and shooting guns you don't like, don't see a 'need' for, or don't want 'others' to have?

I don't think felons, mental defects or under 21's should be able to own or carry handguns.

I think any business or property owner should be able to decide whether or not firearms are allowed on their premises.

I'm not a fan of 'junk' guns, but that should be a choice.

And anybody commiting a felony with a gun should get life.

Other than that, unrestricted.

I so dislijke threads like this

The reason..........every one should have guns............Violent felons should not have guns.........a 3 year old should be alowed to have a gun...........old folks cant drive and there fore should have guns..................


There has to be rules or no one is acountable for any thing. To be honest I would rob a bank every day if it were legal but its not so I dont.

This includes laws and rules on guns. Can any one give me a good reason to allow a convicted violent felon a gun that just got released today? They just proved they can not be trusted in society. We must use common sense no 5 year old need a gun either. Absolutes never work for every situation.

In short these threads are very opinionated and I respect all opinions on this, I just feel like there needs to be some rules if for nothing else to keep folks in line based on fear of loosing gun rights. Like felony ofenses=loss of gun rights. Hence forth I will not rob a bank murder people or deal large quanties of drugs. I dont want to loose my gun rights. OF course this can be taken to an extreem also like making not recycleing a felony......I am guilty. Again common sense.