shootbrownelk
Member
Exactly Dave, right after sleepy Joe signed the "Gun control" law that the Democrats and RINO's came up with he called for an Assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban in a speech. It'll never be enough.
Do You Agree With ANY Gun Control Laws?
- Thread starter IJ1981
- Start date
- Status
That's probably because the kids you teach are raised by Stupid Parents; my kid is a teacher (17 years now I think) and she has plenty of Stupid Parents to deal with. But raising the age to buy a gun does not help; Now if we raised the Age to have kids to say 40 years old and you can only have one that mite fix the problem.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
I disagree, but adding "violent" to "felons" would make it a little more palatable to me. In addition, there seems to be a tendency to increase the level of many crimes to felonies if there's enough public outrage generated over them.
"Why, if driving in snow with tire treads of less than 1/8 inch depth were a Felony, we wouldn't have accidents like those!"
And our law manufacturers*, ever alert to the possibility of making or changing laws for the purposes of re-election, eagerly jump on changing the law.
Also, there are, even now, July 2022, a lot of crimes which don't reach the felony level for which a person can be barred from firearms possession.
I'm for making it 21,999 firearms laws!
Terry, 230RN
* I love to look at Legislators as manufacturers of laws, always looking for NEW or IMPROVED products to "sell" during re-election campaigns. Hey. It amuses me.
Last edited:
LaneP
Member
They are insane. Holding an industry legally responsible for the deliberate misuse of their product is backdoor gun control at its finest. This definitely needs to be fast tracked to a higher court and stricken.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,080
The title of this thread is, "Do you agree with any gun control laws". While I said yes, I don't agree with every gun control law, nor did I ever agree with the Three day waiting period that was enforced after the Brady Bill was passed. Thankfully, it like the hi-cap mag ban, it is gone.
Every society has boundaries. Raising kids you need to set boundaries. We Americans are all promised the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”. Still, we have laws, that are associated with our culture that don't take away those rights and freedoms, but ensure them. As I said before, some folks think child pornography, domestic abuse and other laws are stupid. Our society says otherwise.
As for common sense......hard for me to believe anyone does not think that keeping loaded firearms out of the hands of toddlers is not common sense. As is not allowing 1st graders to take loaded weapons to school. How about pointing a loaded gun at innocents?
An 18 year old living at home does not exist in the disciplined environment of one in the military. An 18 year old living at home, while another 18 year old is donning a uniform to defend his country, may not be the 18 year old I'd want in possession of a gun.
Last edited:
Targa
Member
I rarely get into these types of discussions but I don’t agree with raising the age, what I do agree with would be setting a very real, public example of the evil doers as they rear their heads.
Let’s all remember that the majority pushing for these gun control measures want 16 year olds to vote, celebrate the ability to kill infants, which confuses me all to hell as why they are even upset about kids being cut in half by a gun man in the first place and want complete control of you which requires you to be disarmed.
People better get their damn heads on straight and stop running on knee jerk emotions.
Let’s all remember that the majority pushing for these gun control measures want 16 year olds to vote, celebrate the ability to kill infants, which confuses me all to hell as why they are even upset about kids being cut in half by a gun man in the first place and want complete control of you which requires you to be disarmed.
People better get their damn heads on straight and stop running on knee jerk emotions.
N555
Member
The ones that say something to the effect of "don't let criminals have guns".
DeepSouth
Random Guy
That’s why I hate the “old enough to serve” argument. It’s just not apples to apples. I just don’t believe it’s a fair comparison. not that I think the age lime should be changed, or even in place, I just like better arguments than that one.
The problem with minors is that maturity doesn’t happen over night, or at the same rate for that matter. So it does make sense to slowly allow more rights as they get older, because we get more mature as we get older. However the problems with that is obvious to…. Like which rights and when and to who. Also you’ll have the constant question of “so I’m old enough to do A but not B?!” Which is a far point.
An alternative is simply all rights ar available on which ever birthday the government decides, we’ll say 20. Obvious problem right out the bat, that means we’ll arrest someone 19 years & 364 days old for doing something that would be perfectly legal in a couple days. That doesn’t seem reasonable either.
Their is also the option we chose, I’d call it a convoluted mess that makes no sense, follows no logic and is frequently politically driven. I’m not claiming to have any answers, I also acknowledge the system we have isn’t likely to change much at all, an age limit here or there maybe, but a honest thoughtful solution, well that’s not the world we live in.
All that to say, the fact is young people fight in wars, always have always will. And yeah, if you take a teenager and put him through boot camp, give him/her training and essentially put them under government control, I think most people would be good with that person, owning a gun, buying alcohol, tobacco and voting. We’d likely grant them a waver. But the real debate is about the other 98+% of teenagers. So let’s just have that debate honestly.
N555
Member
I had a mini14 when I was 15, then when I was 16 I got a 357 revolver at the time that was and as far as I know is still legal in maine. I started reloading because I couldn't buy ammo.
citizenconn
Member
The crafters of the Declaration of Independence were certainly prescient in recognizing our future needs to fight the coming tyranny in our then fledgling country.
citizenconn
Member
I graduated in 1985 and we certainly had an area on campus where students congregated to smoke. The teachers had a faculty lounge to smoke in. Unless they had an office and then they smoked there too. Lots of smoking in West Texas in the 80s.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.
Handshaker
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2018
- Messages
- 309
I hate to agree with any or them, just because of what's been said before, Give then an inch, they want a mile. That said, I would agree with the age change to 21, Its a little closer to the brain being fully developed and more rational thinking. I would also agree with the gun show loop hole. Too many weapons can be bought by terrorists and gangsters and walk out with them with no tracking of a dangerous individual. While I live in a state with no gun registration and open and concealed carry, I think guns should have to be transferred to the buyer at an ffl just to vet the buyer. I know this never stops there, they will always want more, even though the laws on the books do nothing.
Handshaker
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2018
- Messages
- 309
Its really hard to agree with any of them at the end of day.
There are always exceptions to what I said in post #131 and I realize many young folks are well disciplined in gun safety. Still (and not referring to anyone specifically), a youngster with an acute gun safety awareness may not be mature enough to exercise wise decisions in a confrontation.
There's no magic bullet here.
We have a mess and all the age limits and laws are not going to fix it until we the discipline back in the kids.
In the military I finished raising a lot of kids who's parents somehow thought it was done automatically by the kid.
Sometimes I was just truly amazed at the parents having such a low expectations of their Children.
In the military I finished raising a lot of kids who's parents somehow thought it was done automatically by the kid.
Sometimes I was just truly amazed at the parents having such a low expectations of their Children.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,130
That is your prerogative. But I know plenty of non violent felons who should not own firearms. Just one close example, I know of a woman who pimped out and rented her three children for sex with adults. Went to jail as a non violent felon. She should be nowhere near firearms, as a "non violent felon." Firearm theft is an automatic year and day felon in Alabama. Many cases are non violent, shoplifting tactics from gun stores. Someone shoplifting a firearm is a non violent felon, they shouldn't own firearms if they aren't willing to get them legally. The argument of making traffic incidents in your case, a felony, is a logical fallacy. The classification felon exists for a pretty good reason. Someone spending longer than a year in prison (not jail) is not going to earn back citizen rights easily.
Besides domestic violence, name some. I am interested.
Old Dog
Member
Six pages and yet no one has even mentioned that it doesn't matter a bit how we (members of an internet forum dedicated to the RKBA) feel about any gun control laws. Yeah, I'm in favor of an age limit to buy an AR-15. Yeah, I'm in favor of never allowing someone convicted of a violent felony -- or any sex crime -- or any crime involving children --to legally possess a gun for the rest of his (or her) life. Yeah, if you break the social contract, there should be consequences. Even our founding fathers believed this.
Nor has anyone touched on the difference between "gun control laws" and laws regulating possession, carry and use of firearms. Reason I bring this up is that there are laws regulating the sale and carry of firearms that some would not regard as "gun control laws."
'Pears some here believe that any law no matter how peripherally it pertains to guns is a "gun control law." If you're an absolutist and don't believe in age limits to possess any firearm, and don't believe any place should be off-limits to carry a gun, is it okay for a classroom full of sixth-graders to be packing handguns? Is it logical to allow a family member (or fellow gang member) to carry a concealed handgun when visiting their incarcerated brother or buddy inside the prison? Where do you draw the line? Sometimes, the absolutist position that no gun laws are necessary doesn't pass the common-sense test.
So if one defines a gun control law as any law designed to control access of any individual or group to firearms, then one should reasonably be able to make a case for why any individuals or groups should not have access to firearms. This seems to be where everyone else gets wrapped around the axle.
Why do we all still marvel about the hypocrisy of those on the anti-gun side?
Why do we still become amazed at the stupid things our elected leaders say ("We should make illegal all guns intentionally designed to kill people!" - K. Harris).
Why are we so good at preaching to the choir (and spending hours typing up insightful and witty posts on internet forums), but can't drag our sorry butts to the polls in November or even spend ten minutes filling out our mail-in ballots and then dropping them in a drop-box or mailbox? In our rural, gun-owning counties in my state, we had abysmal voting rates, like 17% of all eligible registered actually voting!
Why there will never be agreement on gun control measures in this country:
- Even the scholars and legal experts cannot agree on whether the the text of the Second Amendment speaks to an individual or a collective right to own weapons. Yeah, yeah, I know: what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? Most of us arrived here believing that the 2A certainly speaks to the individual right. But if you don't understand that we're the minority now, you've not been paying attention.
- Supreme Court rulings have established that the Second Amendment allows for certain gun control measures. For now. When there are twelve justices... or sixteen... stand by.
- There will never be a consensus among the populace as to whether existing gun control regulations are sufficient to ensure public safety. Particularly as "mass shootings" become more and more commonplace. And now that survivors of gun violence, and family members of victims of gun violence, are annointed as experts on the "gun problem" in this country by the media and politicians (or even elected to office themselves), the momentum is tilting toward more gun control. And how someone that lives in a community of 8,000 in rural Nebraska feels about their level of public safety is different that how someone that lives in South Chicago feels about their level of safety...
Nor has anyone touched on the difference between "gun control laws" and laws regulating possession, carry and use of firearms. Reason I bring this up is that there are laws regulating the sale and carry of firearms that some would not regard as "gun control laws."
'Pears some here believe that any law no matter how peripherally it pertains to guns is a "gun control law." If you're an absolutist and don't believe in age limits to possess any firearm, and don't believe any place should be off-limits to carry a gun, is it okay for a classroom full of sixth-graders to be packing handguns? Is it logical to allow a family member (or fellow gang member) to carry a concealed handgun when visiting their incarcerated brother or buddy inside the prison? Where do you draw the line? Sometimes, the absolutist position that no gun laws are necessary doesn't pass the common-sense test.
So if one defines a gun control law as any law designed to control access of any individual or group to firearms, then one should reasonably be able to make a case for why any individuals or groups should not have access to firearms. This seems to be where everyone else gets wrapped around the axle.
Why do we all still marvel about the hypocrisy of those on the anti-gun side?
Why do we still become amazed at the stupid things our elected leaders say ("We should make illegal all guns intentionally designed to kill people!" - K. Harris).
Why are we so good at preaching to the choir (and spending hours typing up insightful and witty posts on internet forums), but can't drag our sorry butts to the polls in November or even spend ten minutes filling out our mail-in ballots and then dropping them in a drop-box or mailbox? In our rural, gun-owning counties in my state, we had abysmal voting rates, like 17% of all eligible registered actually voting!
Why there will never be agreement on gun control measures in this country:
- Even the scholars and legal experts cannot agree on whether the the text of the Second Amendment speaks to an individual or a collective right to own weapons. Yeah, yeah, I know: what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? Most of us arrived here believing that the 2A certainly speaks to the individual right. But if you don't understand that we're the minority now, you've not been paying attention.
- Supreme Court rulings have established that the Second Amendment allows for certain gun control measures. For now. When there are twelve justices... or sixteen... stand by.
- There will never be a consensus among the populace as to whether existing gun control regulations are sufficient to ensure public safety. Particularly as "mass shootings" become more and more commonplace. And now that survivors of gun violence, and family members of victims of gun violence, are annointed as experts on the "gun problem" in this country by the media and politicians (or even elected to office themselves), the momentum is tilting toward more gun control. And how someone that lives in a community of 8,000 in rural Nebraska feels about their level of public safety is different that how someone that lives in South Chicago feels about their level of safety...
OP
OP
IJ1981
Member
An articulate well thought out post giving us a lot to think about. Well done, Old Dog.
Stay safe.
Stay safe.
Will Munny
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
- Messages
- 336
Yes, those that prohibit certain persons from possessing them. Felons mainly.
OP
OP
IJ1981
Member
I have been looking at the overall results as we wind down.
A small margin for the no voters 47 to 44%
A similar poll run on THR about 10 years ago showed the No at over 80% . A vast sea change.
What has brought this about, THR?
A small margin for the no voters 47 to 44%
A similar poll run on THR about 10 years ago showed the No at over 80% . A vast sea change.
What has brought this about, THR?
227,631 members seems like a pretty good voting pool....
OP
OP
IJ1981
Member
SunnySlopes
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,223
(Soon to be deleted because "We don't do politics.")
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
