Do You Agree With ANY Gun Control Laws?

Do You Agree With Any Gun Control Laws?


  • Total voters
    115
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can also agree that at least some of the restrictions have at least a basis of logic but that doesn't mean that I support the restriction itself.



I'll explain why I personally don't see that as an infringement.

In my eyes prisons not allowing prisoners to have access to firearms is no different than an individual or private business "banning" firearms on their property. It's simply a rule that they have established as a part of accessing the property not a law that actually criminalizes it, yes I know that currently it is a crime (at least in most states if not all) for anyone who isn't specifically authorized to have a firearm in a prison and yes I think that law is an infringement on our (including the prisoner's) right to bear arms, the only difference is that as free citizens we have a choice about where we go and prisoners don't.

Their punishment is that restriction of movement and one of the "rules" of the property they are restricted to is that they are not allowed to have access to any firearms, just like they can't have knives, or street clothes, or even food and drinks that aren't specifically authorized by the property owners (the Government) or managers (prison staff). I will argue that the mere possession of those items by the prisoners should not be considered a crime and merely a violation of the rules of the facility and yes violating those rules should have consequences, even very harsh consequences, but just possessing them should not be a criminal act.

LOL, you are a classic example of what I am talking about. You can package or rebrand the infringement with some sort of rationalization, but that doesn't mean it isn't in infringement. You basically justified one infringement with another.
 
Last edited:
The gun law problem is unique to the U. S. in that we have a Second Amendment right to have and use firearms without having any federal infringement.
Any federal attempt to infringe upon this right endangers the continued existance of the federal government's right to continue to exist.
Individual states and municipalities may have the right to create firearm laws, depending upon their state constitution and other founding documents.
 
LOL, you are a classic example of what I am talking about. You can package or rebrand the infringement with some sort of rationalization, but that doesn't mean it isn't in infringement. You basically justified one infringement with another.

Considering that I would be perfectly fine with prisons allowing or even issuing inmates guns we'll have to agree to disagree.

ETA: While I personally don't believe that we should have any law that bans the ownership or possession of any item, I am also ok with any private business, residence, or entity "banning" anything from being on/in their area of responsibility, just not the government making it a crime. This applies equally whether the people in the area are there of their own volition or by order.

I know to some that sounds contradictory but to me the property rights of the owner/operator are every bit as important as individuals right to bear arms.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Like minimum age requirements, safe storage, no guns in Schools by unauthorized personnel, brandishing in public, etc. These are common sense laws that are not solely intended to stop intentional crime, but to avoid unintentional consequences.



In some cases maybe, but for the most part, regardless of the type of law, only law abiding citizens follow them. Using your mindset, why do we need any laws? Do rapists follow anti-rape laws? No, but the law make for punishment if broken. How about theft? You talk about gun theft, but what if your neighbor could come over and take anything he wanted....anytime, without fear of some form of punishment? Why should thee be any kind of restrictions against driving drunk? If a man is free to walk down the street without any qualifiers, why isn't he free to get in his car and drive after downing a dozen shots?



These kind of posts are just preaching to the choir on forums like this. Go to a sport bike forum and I bet there are threads against speed limits. Folks on these types of forums continuously whine about the accuracy of polls, that go against their thinking, yet establish polls to get verification of their mindset, knowing all to well, that the majority of folks here support it, even if in a small way. If every man(what no women or kids?) that walks down the street is perfect in everyway, maybe this mindset might work. But we know better, don't we?

As much as folks here whine about existing gun control laws, how many of us have actually been seriously affected by any? At 68 years of age I have all the guns and ammo I want(or can find) and other than a short period of having to wait three days to pick up a new handgun, I have never felt restricted to the point of feeling my 2nd rights were seriously "infringed".
Why should you have to wait to pickup your gun? It's stupid laws like these that beget more stupid laws. Each law is another inch till there is no more and then our government has complete control over us. This is why common sense arguments are impossible.
 
Anyone that says that this is a "uniquely" thing to the U.S., hasn't been paying attention to current events!

Stop spreading more lies, inform people, don't just listen to the 3 letter outlets!

Get off regular news that has agendas, plenty of real news out there, you just have to let your fingers do the walking.

I don't care about any Country But the United States. Been all over the world and this is the best place on earth. And for 220 years we lived without the terms "Baby's Daddy" and "Single Mother". The system broke down and needs to be fixed.
 
No, none except the one embodied in the Second Amendment. That's the law, and it is part of the highest law in the land.

I have a Darwinian outlook on gun violence. Everyone ought to keep and bear arms, and let the violent or stupid get weeded out by natural selective processes.

Undoubtedly, innocents will be harmed under this schema, but I have strong feelings that the "collateral damage," that is, innocents harmed or killed, will be less than we have right now.

Let's face it. Just about every critter on earth, including plants, have some sort of natural defense mechanism except humans, who have delegated their "defenses" to society.

How's that workin' out?

Let's face some more... even kittens carry concealed weapons. Part of natural law, and even atheists can point to these "natural rights," with no necessity to refer to "G-d given" rights, which unfortunately, offends some people.

Like atheists, some of whom vote.

Terry, 230RN
 
No, none except the one embodied in the Second Amendment. That's the law, and it is part of the highest law in the land.

I have a Darwinian outlook on gun violence. Everyone ought to keep and bear arms, and let the violent or stupid get weeded out by natural selective processes.

Undoubtedly, innocents will be harmed under this schema, but I have strong feelings that the "collateral damage," that is, innocents harmed or killed, will be less than we have right now.

Let's face it. Just about every critter on earth, including plants, have some sort of natural defense mechanism except humans, who have delegated their "defenses" to society.

How's that workin' out?

Let's face some more... even kittens carry concealed weapons. Part of natural law, and even atheists can point to these "natural rights," with no necessity to refer to "G-d given" rights, which unfortunately, offends some people.

Like atheists, some of whom vote.

Terry, 230RN

A great post. Thank you, Terry!
 
Over 22,000 and growing what the hell is the matter with us?

It was about 20,000 30 years ago; it's good PR for politicians and that's all it is.

It's about the children but if that were really the case they would make sure little Joe could read, write, spell and get a job. So we know it's not about the children.
 
I am okay with felons not being allowed to own firearms. There are lots of reasons why felons are allowed to be out in public. Very few of those reasons involve actual rehabilitation. At the revolving door that is our justice system between jail, prison, rehab, and the street, criminals don't need any help being armed. Giving back their 2A rights just because they aren't behind steel doors would be a huge mistake.

Also am okay with a minimum age to legally buy a firearm. 18, 21, 25. Doesn't really matter, just pick what age someone magically becomes an "adult" and make it across the board. Firearms, alcohol, tobacco, enlist, pay taxes. All the "fun" things us adults do. Pick an age and stick with it.

Otherwise trash the rest. The NFA, GCA and all the annoying state levels. It should be no harder to get a suppressor than anything else. Same with full auto firearms. If you want to risk ammo at the cost it is now, you should be able to.
 
Doesn't really matter, just pick what age someone magically becomes an "adult" and make it across the board. Firearms, alcohol, tobacco, enlist, pay taxes.
Why? Just to be consistent? As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." There are reasons why different ages apply to different things.
 
Why? Just to be consistent? As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." There are reasons why different ages apply to different things.

Because the government likes to put a magical age when someone "becomes" an adult. For most things, its 18. For alcohol and tobacco, it is 21. To enter into rental or hotel agreements, it is 25. You can enlist with parental permission at 17. And with wiggles, 16. I won't even comment on using Emerson to try making a point.
 
See that's the crazy part of age thing in 1974 my high school had a smoking area for the students. There were kids as young as 13 right in presence of faculty smoking.
 
See that's the crazy part of age thing in 1974 my high school had a smoking area for the students. There were kids as young as 13 right in presence of faculty smoking.
Wow! I googled it, and I found out cigarette ads have been banned on TV and radio since 1970, yet your high school had a "smoking area" for students in 1974. That's crazy! I graduated HS in 1966, and the students who smoked sure weren't supposed to do it on school property back then. Of course, some did. ;)
 
This is from the 1975 year book; that guy on the left is the assistant principal I call him the worst name I could ever call him. I said " hey OLD GUY you know you are suppose to enforce the rules not try to be teenager again"

Good looking bunch aren't they ;)

AFCFFA0B-EF29-4A2F-906D-06004C60D5A1.jpeg
 
See that's the crazy part of age thing in 1974 my high school had a smoking area for the students. There were kids as young as 13 right in presence of faculty smoking.

My high school was about that old. In the center of the school with multiple doors leading to it was an outdoor smoking area. By the time I attended, all the doors were left permanently locked and no one was allowed in the area. I think it would have been a great place to eat lunch during warm months.
 
As a high school teacher, I can easily support raising the gun purchase age to 21 for all guns. Even a bit older wouldn't bother me, but I don't think there would be much support for that.
 
I really think they should raise the age to purchase a gun to perhaps 22 years old.

Although I have been shooting a gun since I was 10 years old (now 75), I believe I am more levelheaded than most people. My wife would probably disagree.
So, you think that an 18 year old is OK to serve in the military and use a gun to defend our country but can't buy a gun when he comes home, and should have to wait for another 4 years? WTH?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top