Do you support ANY gun-control laws?

[TravisB]

Are there any gun-control laws presently on the books that you favor?

For example, the 1934 NFA made it very difficult to legally acquire a "machine gun." An argument in favor of this provision would be that as a result of this gun-control measure there are few automatic weapons in circulation in the United States today, and relatively few crimes are committed with legally or illegally owned automatic weapons. Notable exceptions such as the North Hollywood shootout only point out how much more devastating to innocent life violent crimes such as gang gunfights and murder sprees would be if the perpetrators had easy access to automatic weapons.

I agree with this logic, although I'm open to an argument that I may be wrong. It seems to me that the near-banning of automatic weapons has had good results for the protection of innocent life, even if it does take away from the unorganized citizen militia a useful tool for warfare.

So this is one present gun-control measure that I support. Do you? Any other gun-control laws that you support?

[Note for clarity: TexasRifleman below says my description of the 1934 NFA is "not correct." I suppose this hinges on one's definition of a weapon being "very difficult to legally acquire." Guncite says: "It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department." However, further important restrictions were signed into law in 1986 by Ronald Reagan. See the Guncite link for more.]

 

[Hungry Seagull]

Not anymore.

Used to be like sheep accepting whatever control there are.

No. The control is written in the 2A and also into Common Sense and punishment for those who break the law.

Criminals have obviously divorced themselves from any self control or any Laws written against them and thier intended activity.

It is one thing to open the Armory door and write down bullet numbers during peace time training and when in time of war, throw it wide open and let it all go. Right away.

 

[TexasRifleman]

or example, the 1934 NFA made it very difficult to legally acquire a "machine gun."

It seems to me that the near-banning of automatic weapons has had good results for the protection of innocent life

That is not correct. You could still make all you wanted. That didn't change until 1986.
They were nowhere near "banned" in 1934. It wasn't until 1986 that the number of legal machine guns became a fixed quantity.

If you are going to bring these debates up at least be familiar with the laws in question please.

Also, please cite facts or some kind of evidence when you say things like

there are few automatic weapons in circulation in the United States today

Please cite your source for showing how many illegally manufactured machine guns are in circulation today.

Anyway, back to the law....

Before 1986 it was simple and legal to make a machine gun, by paying a tax.

It is still simple to make a machine gun, just illegal. A Lightning Link for example can be made with a piece of sheet metal and some tin snips.
They sold for a whopping $45 before 1986. Make one today and it gets you prison, but they are still easy to make.

And as you show, crimes are still committed with this kind of weapon even after the laws were in place, so what did it really do?

It is no more difficult from a technical point of view today to make a machinegun than it was then. In fact you could probably make a machinegun easier now with the availability of low cost machine tools sold at every Northern Tool store in the country.

The NFA and the 1986 Hughes Amendment have simply driven the price up for law abiding citizens that would like a machine gun.

Criminals who want them can spend a few minutes and a few dollars at a machine shop and have all they want.

Is it your position that the 1934 NFA is why machineguns are not used often in crimes? Seriously?

ETA: The OP adds
""It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department." "

That is not correct either. It is not "permission" it's simply paying a tax. Any law abiding citizen can buy the tax stamp, They are $200 each.

DO NOT attempt to spin this, most of us know these laws very very well. You will get caught trying to spin things.
If you can't debate the topic honestly then your position is weakened before you even start. I say this sincerely. If you believe in what you are saying please make sure the facts are behind you. If not, please be prepared to admit your basis for your beliefs is wrong as well.

The debate is welcome but it is absolutely dishonest to just make things up to fit your belief.

 

[Vonderek]

The law you cited was supposedly created to cut down on organized crime in the 30's. In the intervening years we have seen the fallacy of gun control as it relates to the prevention of crime. As in the 30's, criminals today disregard law and obtain whatever tools they want regardless of what laws are passed to prevent them (just as in the North Hollywood shootout you mentioned). The Act you are in favor of is unconstitutional as are 99% of the gun laws passed since then.

 

[indoorsoccerfrea]

i support restricting gun rights for convicted sex offenders and felony violence offenses, but thats about it

 

[pbratton]

The only gun control I'm interested in is the type that keeps it on target...

 

[Phatty]

I had to think about this for a while, but I ended up voting yes, even though I'm very strongly against almost all gun-control laws.

So what do I support? I don't think children should be able to walk into a gun store and purchase a firearm, unless a parent is present or consents in some fashion.

 

[EHL]

Yes,
I do support at least one or two gun control laws. As much as I hate gun control laws, I think criminals should still not be legally able to own firearms. I know that won't stop the ones that want to use them for more crimes, but why open the door for them? They lose the right to vote after they serve time, so I figure we might as well deny them the 2nd as well. Also, I support criminal/mental background checks on people buying firearms. We don't need any stalkers or Cho's to be picking up guns when they either ought to be locked up or in a mental hospital. (again, they can get guns else where, but why facilitate it for them?) Apart from that, no I don't support any other form of gun control at all.

Oh, and Travis, you are dead wrong about full autos being a danger to the public. The public is in no more danger from gun fire from a full auto than they are from a semi-auto. That's the anti gunners point and they are right. (for once) That's why they want to outlaw even semi autos. Obviously the problem isn't the weapon itself, it's the violent criminals that we keep letting out onto our streets. If we are justified in outlawing something because it "might" cause deaths, how long before we start outlawing automobiles and cheeseburgers?

 

[chadintex]

"shall not be infringed"
Seems simple enough to me.

 

[CoRoMo]

Welcome to the board Travis.

As TexasRifleman points out, some of your statements need some correcting. If you are up for some education, you might read some of the gun control myths that are documented over at the GOA & NRA websites. I have never seen or heard of a single gun control law, measure, restriction or regulation that I would put my support behind.

Simply put,

No Permits
No Restrictions
No NCIS
No Exceptions

 

[patrick526]

Yes, I do support the Gun Control Law in California, banning "pink" pistols! Imagine if it were legal, Hello Kitty will be all around town!

 

[Phatty]

"shall not be infringed"
Seems simple enough to me.

That's a little too simplistic and doesn't add anything to the debate. What does it mean to "infringe"? Are you arguing that a prisoner has a right to a firearm in his cell? Does a five-year-old have a constitutional right to carry a loaded gun into his kindergarten classroom? Should I go to a nuthouse and pass out guns to all the crazy people?

 

[WardenWolf]

I support unrecorded instant background checks and the machine gun portion of the original 1934 NFA. I cannot endorse the silencer or SBR / SBS restrictions, but the machine gun restrictions are good.

Reasons: even though background checks rarely stop criminals from acquiring a weapon, they do sometimes work, and the instant checks are not really an inconvenience to buying a gun.

As for the NFA, machine guns, as fun as they can be to shoot, allow a single individual to mow down a large group of people. They allow someone to "hose down" an area without even specifically aiming at an individual. Semi-autos, at least, must be individually aimed and fired. That is the real difference. The ability to kill 5 or more people in 1 second before they can react would not even give an armed citizen an opportunity to respond and prevent the tragedy.

 

[runrabbitrun]

I support restricting gun rights for convicted sex offenders and other violent felony offenders too.
I'd add that an age requirement for lawful purchases of firearms of say 18, would be ok with me.

Other than that. Throw the rest of it out.
We are a free nation for a reason. We have guns

 

[TexasRifleman]

That's a little too simplistic and doesn't add anything to the debate. What does it mean to "infringe"? Are you arguing that a prisoner has a right to a firearm in his cell? Does a five-year-old have a constitutional right to carry a loaded gun into his kindergarten classroom? Should I go to a nuthouse and pass out guns to all the crazy people?

No, it's not simplistic.

It has been long held that some people may be deprived of their rights.

These include felons, those under the age of consent, etc.

Since the right to bear arms is a right recognized in this country, anyone that is still in possession of their rights should have uninfringed access to purchase firearms.

For those who have had their rights removed, or are under the age to exercise them should be prosecuted extremely harshly for violating those laws.

You guys gotta stop just making this stuff up as you go...... Be honest, don't put BS spin on everything just to make it fit your beliefs.

 

[larry starling]

I don't have a problem with background checks. And I'm sorry but there needs to be some kind of mental check as well. There are way to many people who own firearms that have no business owning them. Proper training could fix most of the safety issues. But I don't think everyone has the mental confidence to own firearms. If and when your mental check is complete you should at that time be allowed to own and purchase any type of firearm you want!

 

[Eric F]

I said yes only because I beleive violent criminals no matter what sort of punishment or reform they have had do not need to posess a gun of any kind for any reason. An age restriction seems proper also.

As long as we are on the subject Shall not be infringed should not apply to criminals in jail. I have seen this argued on other forums as to where some thing all regardless of location or circumstances should be allowed to be armed. Common sense needs to be in play also folks, if your in jail you dont need a gun!

 

[TexasRifleman]

If and when your mental check is complete you should at that time be allowed to own and purchase any type of firearm you want!

OK, Nancy Pelosi gets to be in charge of determining what constitutes passing this mental test of yours.

Think YOU would pass it?

The American Medical Association is on record as being against privately owned guns 100% of the time. So, if you let AMA do the tests they will say that by definition anyone who wants a gun is mentally ill. That work for you?

These are great ideas folks, Brady should put some of you on the payroll.

 

[Dan Crocker]

I don't believe felons should own guns. Felons had their chance, chose to disobey the law, and that needs to live with them. Violent, unviolent, whatever. We have rules and law for a reason.

 

[Arbor]

i support restricting gun rights for convicted sex offenders and felony violence offenses, but thats about it

Remember that felony sex offenders are already prohibited from owning guns. I do not support any law that prevents people with only a misdemeanor from owning weapons. You can get a misdemeanor sex offense from peeing in public.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I only support taking 2A away from people with a violent felony conviction. So I voted yes, grudgingly.

 

[Yosemite**Sam]

Lets see the few I support:

Bans selling to the mentally ill

Bans sales to those who have renounced their citizenship

I think thats it.

 

[Phatty]

For those who have had their rights removed, or are under the age to exercise them, then keeping them from buying guns is not infringement, since these people don't have rights anyway.

I see, so if I'm anti-gun I will just start to define who is entitled to the right, that way I'm never infringing on anybody's rights.

By the way, the title of this thread is "Do you support any gun-control laws?" Your response seems to indicate that maybe you support restrictions against felons and those under the age of consent. If so, you're answer to the poll is "yes, restrictions against felons and those under the age of consent."

How in the world does it inform anybody what gun control restrictions a person supports (or doesn't support) by simplying saying "shall not be infringed." How am I supposed to know what he defines as "infringment." Maybe he doesn't support any restrictions against violent felons.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I see, so if I'm anti-gun I will just start to define who is entitled to the right, that way I'm never infringing on anybody's rights.

They are doing that already. That's news to you?

That however is a different topic since revocation of rights generally involves many more things than loss of firearm rights.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I don't think violent criminals should be allowed to own guns.

 

[neverjeg]

1. US Citizen
2. 18 years of age.
3. No violent criminal felony convictions.
4. No mental issues.
5. No substance issues.

I voted yes, but didn't want to.