Do you support ANY gun-control laws?

Artillery falls under the general definition of "arms." But I'll have to continue looking to find the historical references to artillery as arms. I know I've seen them.

Click to expand...

I wont' argue that point with you.

Even today grenades, artillery shells, mortars, claymores, you can buy those. Destructive Devices are legal, so I'd go along with that definition of arms.

Nukes? Eh, prolly not

felons and known criminals should not own guns legally...PERIOD... anyone who says otherwise is only supporting further putting themselves and others in danger...

Click to expand...

Refer to sig.

what about laws that arnt there for crimes? Like you can not kill its a crime........there are other laws set forth for safety, like seatbelt laws, and speed limits.

Common sense laws. Is there no room for common sense laws involving firearms?

regarding legal missles

http://tr.youtube.com/watch?v=OmjtAJgIsLI&feature=related

lets ban those because maybe one day those guys will get drunk, put a few pounds of gunpowder on the tip, drive it to the local walmart, tilt it at a 45 degree angle and fire it off!

"
I see no reason to argue with that, our rights are only good for the people which means citizens of America. Same as POW's are not entitled to our rights either.

Yeah I'll buy into that one too. Constitution is for us, if others want in on it they are free to apply for citizenship ."

I have a friend in the US at the moment. He's been there a year - so couldn't apply for citizenship yet. He worked for an American company in the UK. He does some highly technical work involving calibrating MRI machines that the US was crying out for. Long and the short of it is that the company offered him a huge sum to entice him to relocate to America and calibrate machines for them there. Which he did. He's doing valuable work for the USA and paying lots of taxes into the system. On what grounds do you feel that my friend should be denied the right to own firearms for either his enjoyment or protection? If you really feel that he should be denied rights available to every other honest, legally working stiff do you also feel he ought to get some kind of tax break by way of adjustment?

what about laws that arnt there for crimes? Like you can not kill its a crime........there are other laws set forth for safety, like seatbelt laws, and speed limits.

Common sense laws. Is there no room for common sense laws involving firearms?

Click to expand...

First off, there are no seatbelt laws or speed limit laws ON YOUR OWN PRIVATE PERSONAL PROPERTY.

Second, you are correct, there is no 'common sense' test refering to our basic human rights.

For instance, if an illegal search turns up a bloody knife which leads to a murdered baby-sitter, common sense says 'admit the evidence anyways'

However, we don't do that. We supress that evidence, and any 'fruit of the poisonous tree'

The killer walks free.


You get 1 juror out of 12 to talk the other 12 into a not guilty vote, we do NOT apply 'common sense' and say 'have another trial!'

instead the person goes free. This isn't 'common sense' it is protecting our freedoms.

legal

n what grounds do you feel that my friend should be denied the right to own firearms for either his enjoyment or protection? If you really feel that he should be denied rights available to every other honest, legally working stiff do you also feel he ought to get some kind of tax break by way of adjustment?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was just talking to someone in PM about that.

You have a very valid point. I can't honestly say that I've put much thought into this applying to non citizens so I will just say that I posted my "gut" and that was likely a mistake since I haven't actually given it any thought, and I'll retract what I said til I can think about it some.

I appreciate your views on that one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoMbtXMXOIw&feature=related

legal

First off, there are no seatbelt laws or speed limit laws ON YOUR OWN PRIVATE PERSONAL PROPERTY.

Click to expand...

ok fine I agree but there are laws say about burning rubbish on dry windy days in the spring and fall. again common sense. In relation to firearms common sense says a person who wishes harm to themselves and/or the public should not be armed with anything at all.

You dont walk up to an ash tray fire and toss 5 gallons of gas on it and say it will be out in a minute do you?

Specifically what weapons systems would you outlaw from the possession of law-abiding private citizens?

Click to expand...

I am not on the Supreme Court.

If I were, I would say that arms/weapon systems etc that are not "commonly used by soldiers of the time" and deal with them as they come up, which is basically what Justice Scalia said.

A surprising array of things are already legal to own; grenades, 20mm rifles, mortars, cannons, etc.


So, clearly things like nuclear warheads would not be protected since they are not in "common use" by solders of the time.

Now, I think STATES should be able to have them but that's another thread

Regardless of your simplistic narrow views the facts remains that the 2nd Ad is much like the 1st Ad in that it has it's limits.

And rightfully so.

I have no further interest is debating something so clear as this with folks who really have no ideal of what they are really saying. It is much like debating with a group of teenagers who have no real world / real life experience.

Night all.....

regarding legal missles

http://tr.youtube.com/watch?v=OmjtAJ...eature=related

lets ban those because maybe one day those guys will get drunk, put a few pounds of gunpowder on the tip, drive it to the local walmart, tilt it at a 45 degree angle and fire it off!

Click to expand...

a Rocket is a rocket, a missle is a guided rocket , which are banned from civilian use, not sure about class 3 or not

I can't honestly say that I've put much thought into this applying to non citizens

Click to expand...

Remember the founding fathers asserted we have our rights because we are people, not because we are citizens. They weren't citizens of the U.S. when they made this assertion, they were subjects of Britain.

TexasRifleman. Cheers for that.

I have to admit bias. As soon as my wife becomes bored with the UK and we move to America I am getting my hands on as many firearms as I can when I'm legally qualified. With so many antis about some fresh blood on the pros side can only be a good thing.

Regardless of your simplistic narrow views the facts remains that the 2nd Ad is much like the 1st Ad in that it has it's limits.

Click to expand...

Don't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

Don't shoot innocent people.

OK, there are the restrictions on the first 2. What's next?

Yes, I support at least one law that currently restricts gun ownership.

No, I do not support any laws that currently restrict gun ownership.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm a stickler for not replacing the word infringed with restrictions or control or any other replacement word.
After all that is what we're talking about, making laws contrary to the 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed."

I voted for no infringements.

I tried to resist, but.....

TexasRifleman, as always, your posts are well-written, I enjoy reading them.

Ok, here's my 2 cents:

I did not vote, because I don't like how the poll is worded. I think it could be described as how we define different words and concepts. A minor not able to purchase a firearm by themselves? To me, that's not gun control, that's minor control, (AKA: Parenting- I know, what a concept!). A convicted felon not being able to own a firearm? To me that's not gun control, that's the penal process. Remember, they CAN petition the court to restore firearm rights, and voting rights, then its up to the court to decide if they have fulfilled their sentence and are they competent to own a firearm and/or vote.

So, no, I don't support any firearm control laws. As a matter of fact, I'd love to be able to afford to own a fully automatic firearm. (with today's ammo prices, I probably still couldn't shoot it)

I'm going to go out on a limb, and offer a comparison: Let's compare guns to cars. Would it be reasonable to say that a fully automatic firearm would loosely equate to a race car? For the sake of this example, I think it would. So, anyone can own a race car. You don't even have to license it! And there is not fee or tax to simply own it. (just to pay the cost of the consumables: fuel, tires, etc.) But, in order to use that race car, you have to go someplace special to use it and It must be transported properly: (you can't drive your Indy-car down Meridian Avenue to the race track, or you're top-fuel funny-car down the interstate to the local drag-strip.) But there is NO law saying you cannot own one. And keeping with this example, by behaving in an irresponsible or unsafe manner can you kill/injure more people going 200 MPH than going 55 MPH? Uh-huh. Most of those race courses will require you to have some sort of education as to safely drive that car on their property. So, should we be able to own one without special taxes or fees? Darn right we should. Would it be appropriate to limit where you can go shoot such a gun to certain areas? I think that could be fair. Yes, I'm well aware there are street legal race categories, just as there are shooting competitions using your carry gun. And, I'm sure someone out there can find holes in my comparison, but I hope you get the general drift.

With regards to full auto's in the hands of folks wishing to do evil, the first thing that enters my mind with regards to who would want a full auto, is hoodlums and gang-bangers. Now, I could be wrong, as I have no statistics to back up my 'notions'. The high-finance bad guys already have them if they want them. I've been around machining some, even taken some HS and College classes that dealt with metal fab, and machining, and while I've never tried to convert a SA into a FA, it strikes me that the folks in my little 'mental picture' don't really have the brains, education or access to equipment to manufacture or make modifications that would result in select fire capability. I suspect its the higher order of criminals that have access to the machining to make this an option, and for them, its a piece of cake. I am fully aware that tin snips and some sheet metal can do wonders in certain designs, but in order to know this you have to have a working knowledge of the parts and their functions, right? And even so, it only works in certain designs.

So, I find myself in a bit of a contradiction: if we make select-fire guns more available to law-abiding citizens, the will also have a trickle down of making them more (even if it's only slightly more) available to the evil bad guys, and I don't like that. But, if more of the American public was actually educated, practiced, and carried a gun, you'd have 5 law abiding citizens who when they see a drive-by start to happen, or some whack-job open fire in a school, they might be able to do something to protect themselves and their loved ones. DO NOT confuse this paragraph to say we should be carrying select fire guns. We don't take our dragster to the mall in case our main car breaks down, do we? (nope)

Doesn't the "neutral" country of Switzerland still issue a select-fire weapon to all of it's adult males? And they historically have one of the (if not THE) lowest gun-crime rates in the world. But, they have always trained to proficiently use them.

Ok, I've jumped in with both feet. Let the criticism begin.

I am Firmly in favor of gun control.
I control my trigger, I control my sight picture, and I practice breathing control.
My firearm hits what I aim at.

I think restricting gun purchases to those 18 or over is probably a good idea.

I'll refrain from voting so as not to throw off the poll, but:

Yes.




I support VT/AK style laws only.

legal

But if we restrict "arms" to mean the standard equipment of a guerilla fighter, I think that leaves open the outlawing of all weapons except rifles designed for human combat.

Click to expand...

That sound like "common sense" to you Erik F? I actually voted Yes, to the poll because I do believe certain restrictions ought to apply. Not what though, but on Whom. If you'd read my earlier posts, you'd see that I actually make the case for certain restrictions on certain kinds of people. Then Travis starts talking about outlawing all sorts of other things (straight off the Brady Campaign website)and presents it as "common sense".

Quote:
n what grounds do you feel that my friend should be denied the right to own firearms for either his enjoyment or protection? If you really feel that he should be denied rights available to every other honest, legally working stiff do you also feel he ought to get some kind of tax break by way of adjustment?

Yeah, I was just talking to someone in PM about that.

You have a very valid point. I can't honestly say that I've put much thought into this applying to non citizens so I will just say that I posted my "gut" and that was likely a mistake since I haven't actually given it any thought, and I'll retract what I said til I can think about it some.

I appreciate your views on that one.

Click to expand...

I agree, I've never put it to thought. after thought and talkin in PM I'll agree that anyone comming into the country legally should be granted our rights immediatly. but thats just not how the government runs things. even people who've been here for most their lives arent always treated fair.

There is an accused Nazi war criminal not far at all from me. He has been tried in Israel and AQUITTED. now our government is willing to put him twice in jeopardy by sending him to be tried in Germany. I thinks it's complete crap