Do you support ANY gun-control laws?

[TexasRifleman]

In any case it should not be a sexcrime to take a leak unless one is blatently wagging their stuff at folks.
__________________

Oh I agree completely, but some prosecutors have completely gone off the deep end.

I read the other day where a 13 year old girl sent a dirty text message to her 14 year old boyfriend and HE was branded a sex offender because he didn't delete the message.

It's getting very hard to distinguish crimes that are "really bad" and those that are just "paperwork bad".

Hmm, not sure why the first link is broken.

http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2007/03/florida_banishe.html

 

[Yankee]

One more thing. This will be very unpopular with some on this board but I would like to see some kind of requirement for training. I'd be willing to bet that most of us were taught how to handle a gun by our fathers or other family/friends and I agree that that is the way it should be. Unfortunately this cannot be taken for granted any more. I'm not comfortable with somebody buying a gun when their only experience with firearms has been through movies or video games. Many new shooters have never heard fundamental concepts like keeping your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot and not pointing your gun at something you are not willing to destroy. I don't know if it needs to be a law or a guideline or a program of incentives but I do know that there are far too many people out there who need some serious talking to with regards to their dangerous handling practices.

Gun safety is something that needs to be taught. It is not something learned through trial and error.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm not comfortable with somebody buying a gun when their only experience with firearms has been through movies or video games.

So you do realize that people can buy cars, airplanes, motorcycles, model airplanes, model rockets, skateboards, bb guns, paintball guns, nail guns, potato guns, slingshots, crossbows, compound bows, boats, jetskis, etc with no training?

Many of those kill or injure more people every year than firearms.

So what you want is a complete nanny state?

 

[Lou McGopher]

they did assert that we have certain inalienable rights which they then enumerated in the deceleration. But 2A was written and ratified within the context of this nation's governing principals. You cannot necessarily say they they considered 2A a right because we are people. In the context of the constitution it could be validly argued that it is a right because we are citizens.
and 2A was both proposed and ratified AFTER the separation from Britain.

The 2A was ratified to protect a pre-existing right, not create a new one. The right of self-defense was recognized by them as the first law of nature.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The 2A was ratified to protect a pre-existing right, not create a new one. The right of self-defense was recognized by them as the first law of nature.

You've convinced me.

 

[t165]

AKElroy...I was able to find some Federal case law where a person was convicted of lying/falsifying on a Firearm Transfer Record (form 4473). A google search will turn some up. I found an Indiana Case which was very on point but did not write the Address down and lost it. I did find "HUDDLESTON V UNITED STATES 415 U.S. 814" which deals with lying about a felony conviction while trying to purchase back firearms the felon had pawned. The other cases were dealing with mulitple charges/convictions and were not very descriptive. I do not have access to WestLaw at my residence which would help me narrow the search criteria down to something more on point. However, I could not find a single case where a person lied on form 4473 who did not receive a firearm being charged or convicted. Apparently there are many thousands of individuals who lie on form 4473 who never get punished unless they receive the firearm and commit a subsequent crime. For the most part lying on form 4473 goes largely unenforced and the Government pretty admits it. I was a bit surprised to learn that.

 

[Lou McGopher]

90% of murders are by convicted felons.

That's an interesting number, considering 40% of murders go unsolved.

 

[Ruggles]

"What I am saying is the same thing I've said all along, that laws in and of themselves do not stop crime."

Never said they did, it does not in anyway change this debate. Just because murder laws do not stop murder does not mean it should be legal to plan a murder.

That a motivated criminal will find a way, and a tool, to carry out whatever it is they want to do.

And making it easier for them to do so is a good ideal?

Laws stop honest people, that's about it.

True but you can not punish the dishonest people for breaking a law that does not exist.

All laws do with people that are intent on committing a crime is increase the punishment.

And it does stop some folks from committing crimes in the first place, not everyone one but some.

Gun laws do not reduce crime.

If they keep the guns out of the hands of the criminal they do. Do gun laws do this even most of the time, no. Is the ideal of revoking all gun laws going to make getting a gun for a criminal easier, yes. Is that a good thing for you or me, no.

Crime can be reduced by honest and law abiding men fighting back. Yet, we read here in this thread about how the means to fight back should be restricted.

And where did you read that in this thread? Again you go to the extreme with your debate without any regards for the middle ground. Just because I and others believe that some firearms have no place for sale at Sears for absolutely anyone to buy does not in anyway imply that.

Your logic is being pushed aside by your emotions in this and thus your points are flawed.

 

[TexasRifleman]

True but you can not punish the dishonest people for breaking a law that does not exist.

See this is where it turns confusing and into a word game.

It's illegal already to kill, rob, rape, assault, etc people. Where do gun laws play into that? Is it MORE bad if someone kills with a gun than a knife?

If they keep the guns out of the hands of the criminal they do. Do gun laws do this even most of the time, no. Is the ideal of revoking all gun laws going to make getting a gun for a criminal easier, yes. Is that a good thing for you or me, no.

As has been shown, the crime rate is the same today as it was in 1988, years before the background check was put into place. What exactly did it do (as an example)?

Crime can be reduced by honest and law abiding men fighting back. Yet, we read here in this thread about how the means to fight back should be restricted.And where did you read that in this thread?

Well the biggest area was on airplanes. If concealed gun carriers were allowed on commercial flights do you believe 9/11 would have ended the way it did?

 

[Ruggles]

Good (if long) debate everyone. If nothing else we all have a passion for the 2ndA even if we view if somewhat differently.

Night all.....

 

[AKElroy]

A freedom to choose to CYA or take the risk of making what could be a very costly misteak. I hope that clears it up for you.

Your original post on this topic is under the header of "do you support any common sense gun control laws". If you are now saying you do not support this as a federal requirement, then we are totally on the same page.

 

[sm]

HellNO!

I do not believe in any gun laws - period!


If a five year old kid, wants to buy a box of .22 rim-fire, they should be able to do so. If that same five year old kid wants to buy his mom, dad, or grandparent a box of ammo, they should be able to do so.


Folks got a right to carry a gun concealed, we don't need these stupid "permission papers".
We did not have these "restrictions" when I was coming up, folks carried a gun - period.

I started carrying a gun concealed about 3 rd grade.
So I think having a "legal age" is "restrictive". I have no problem with a teenager having a gun, and having it to commute to and from school, part time job, or checking on grandma...or...

Evil knows darn well a person under age 21 cannot carry concealed. Evil knows a person cannot have a gun on school property.

It did not used to be this way...
We had knives and guns in school, on the property, and in vehicles. We did not have problems.
And these were troubled times, and we still did not have problems.

If Anti Gun want their 16 year old daughter to submit, that is their right to do so.
Some of us feel a 16 year daughter has a right to have a gun, in her travels, and not become a victim of rape, and death, when she has car trouble.



A convicted felon, that gets out, has a right to protect themselves, and laws exist already, that deny a convicted felon gun rights, and other rights, as well.

Now a person such as a Creative Accountant, that served their felony time, should have their firearms rights restored, and other rights too.


The older I get, the more I see how Little Bitty Jesus and his Great Society has dumbed down American Society.

The Propaganda, and Brainwashing has worked, and is getting worse.

Where the hell is the America I was born and raised in!



And did they get you to trade
Your heros for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?
-Wish You Were Here Pink Floyd, 1975

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1moiym6-Nk

*spit!*

 

[Yankee]

So you do realize that people can buy cars, airplanes, motorcycles, model airplanes, model rockets, skateboards, bb guns, paintball guns, nail guns, potato guns, slingshots, crossbows, compound bows, boats, jetskis, etc with no training?

Many of those kill or injure more people every year than firearms.

Really? things like slingshots, potato guns, skateboards and model rockets kill more people each than guns? Provide stats please.

As for the other things you mentioned, I'm sure you know that most of them do require training. Check your wallet - do you have a little thing in there called a "drivers licence"?. Last time I checked, new drivers have to pass both written and practical tests in order to obtain one. I'm a pilot and for some bizarre reason the flying school insisted that I actually undergo training before I could borrow one of their planes. Yes, we still have car, plane and boat accidents but nowhere near as many as we would if drivers, pilots and boat captains never received training. How many of the thousands of gun "accidents" could be prevented each year if people had even just a five minute lecture on the four rules.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Really? things like slingshots, potato guns, skateboards and model rockets kill more people each than guns? Provide stats please.

Your argument is empty or you wouldn't have to respond as you did.

Just to make it simple for you, let's choose cars.

You can sell a car, buy a car, in every state, without a drivers license.

Where is your outrage?

Check your wallet - do you have a little thing in there called a "drivers licence"?. Last time I checked, new drivers have to pass both written and practical tests in order to obtain one. I'm a pilot and for some bizarre reason the flying school insisted that I actually undergo training before I could borrow one of their planes.

You do not have to have a drivers license or a pilots license to buy a car or plane. Not in any of the 50 states and there is NO Federal law requiring it.

There is NO requirement that one show a pilots license to buy ANY private aircraft. NO requirement to show a license to buy a car or motorcycle or boat.

Where is your outrage?

I had to go through extensive theoretical and practical training before I was set free with a plane.

Do you know why Cessna stopped building small aircraft for so many years? It's because a guy bought his wife a 152 and she crashed it and killed herself after 4 hours of dual. It was perfectly legal for her husband to buy the airplane. Do you protest the freedom to buy a plane without a license?

Come on. Apply these same arguments to anything else in life and you would think them absurd. Why do guns all of a sudden change that?

 

[Eric F]

If you are now saying you do not support this as a federal requirement, then we are totally on the same page.

I dont care whos requirement it is, as long as it is a requirement in all 50 states.

 

[AKElroy]

do you have a little thing in there called a "drivers licence"?. Last time I checked, new drivers have to pass both written and practical tests in order to obtain one.

When driving is amended and ratified to the bill of rights you will have a really fine point there.

 

[paintballdude902]

violent felonies, crimes involving firarms endangering others, sex offenders, violent misdomeaners depending on the situation

thats it everyone else should be allowed to own a gun

 

[blkbrd666]

Never said I was. What percent of convicted sex offenders would fall into this category would you say? I would guess it would be well under .05%. Again with the extreme examples you are trying to use it appears
you are out of logical defense for sex offenders being able to legally own firearms.

Ah, but you did. You went off the deep end over my post. You did not read what I wrote. You read INTO what I wrote what you were thinking.

And no, I'm not out of logical defenses. You only think in black and white and it's a bit tiresome. I'm going to go watch something more stimulating...like The Andy Griffith show, where the players possess some common sense and true American values.

Ya'll have fun...ya hear?

 

[AKElroy]

I dont care whos requirement it is, as long as it is a requirement in all 50 states.

Cool--Now if we could just get reporters to submit to background checs in order to buy a pencil....., or preachers before they buy a Bible; maybe we could even force backround checks for anyone before they march to protest the dangerous freedoms supported by right wing wackos like me...After all, the government GAVE all these rights, they better make sure we are worthy.

 

[Yankee]

When driving is amended and ratified to the bill of rights you will have a really fine point there.

Fair point and as I said in my post, I'm not sure how I would like to see safety training implemented but I do know that it is needed.

 

[t165]

Actually TexasRifleman in Illinois you have to have a license to buy a firearm or purchase ammunition. They call it a FOID Card. I would hate to live there...thank god I live about 2 miles away across the Wabash River in Indiana.

 

[Yankee]

Your argument is empty or you wouldn't have to respond as you did.

You made a claim which I think is false. I can't see how your failure to back up your claims is a failure on my part.

You do not have to have a drivers license or a pilots license to buy a car or plane. Not in any of the 50 states and there is NO Federal law requiring it.

That is correct but I'm sure you know that you cannot so much as start the engine of the car, plane or boat without having gone through mandatory training and earned a licence. It is a misdemeanor in most states for the car and boat and a felony for the plane. With that in mind, I'll ammend what I said and state that I'm perfectly happy with a person buying a car, boat, plane, motorbike or gun without any training but I'm not happy with a person using one.

Do you know why Cessna stopped building small aircraft for so many years? It's because a guy bought his wife a 152 and she crashed it and killed herself after 4 hours of dual. It was perfectly legal for her husband to buy the airplane. Do you protest the freedom to buy a plane without a license?

Umm, thats exactly my point. The woman was not trained. She commited a felony and killed herself in the process. If she had been trained and tested, she would most likely still be here today and safely enjoying the freedom of flight. As I mentioned above, the woman or the husband should be perfectly free to buy the plane but not free to operate it until adequately trained. You have perfectly illustrated the consequences of using a potentially deadly tool without adequate safety instruction.

Just to clarify, I certainly do not advocate licencing of shooters but I would like to see the introduction of some policy which promotes the safe handling of firearms. I do not want to infringe on the right but I would like to see steps to encourage the responsible excersing of it.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Just to clarify, I certainly do not advocate licencing of shooters but I would like to see the introduction of some policy which promotes the safe handling of firearms. I do not want to infringe on the right but I would like to see steps to encourage the responsible excersing of it

I will agree that training is a great idea but absolutely will not agree that proof of training should be a requirement of purchasing a firearm.

We don't require that of ANY other potentially deadly item; cars, motorcycles, knives, boats....

We legislate that the USE of the item is the crime, not the buying. As you say, STARTING the airplane engine is the crime, not buying it.

GUNS are the only thing where we legislate the actual purchase even though cars kill 5 times or more citizens. Why is that?

(leave illicit drugs out, that's not a protected item)

You have perfectly illustrated the consequences of using a potentially deadly tool without adequate safety instruction.

Never said otherwise, just said that showing proof of training BEFORE purchase for guns was silly since we don't do it for countless other dangerous things.

 

[kyo]

I support the ban of fully automatic weapons, such as full auto shotguns, machine guns, and pistols. In my opinion they are dangerous even to an experienced person. One accident and you have like 10 bullets flying in random directions...and it is my belief that it isn't if you have a negligent or accidental discharge, its when.
I also support background checks. I support sending firearms to FFL dealers across states. Thats about it.

 

[runrabbitrun]

This isn't a debate.
This is antis saying we want more gun regulations so we can 'feel' safer.
A false premise at that and it has been PROVEN time and time again with DOJ and FBI stats.
(The Brady Bunch is grasping as straws here, that's all)...

What they don't understand is that there is a growing concern
that powerful people want to disarm this population so as to control us further.

Some one said 'it's a new world out here today'.
They are right and there are those who want a one world government, and guess what?
It's NOT based on freedom for the people of the world, it's base on their greed power and corruption.
Those in power want little to no resistance from the rest of us.
So they set out to incrementally take away our ability to resist.
Antis are foolish and strange people, who apparently can't think for themselves.
They can't see they are being manipulated and being lead to slaughter and/or enslavement.
May not be high road but you antis are too stupid to see this.

Bottom line:
You do a violent crime YOU DO the time. Min. 25 years for rape, robbery assault ANY violent act.
With or with-out a certain 'tool'. If you commit a violent crime with a 'tool'
(any item you use in the commission of your felony VIOLENT crime) tack 5-10-20 more years on.
So what we need here is reform of the laws/sentencing guidelines already on the books.
NOT more laws/restrictions.

If these laws are reformed and violent offenders do more time or DIE if they commit murder.
I believe we will see a significant reduction in crime.

Once you done your time, and paid your debt to society, you are a free man and as such,
you get to enjoy the freedoms we all do.

You can't get from A to Z with out going through the steps though, and I do have a plan
(some ideas) on how to achieve that.
But that's for another thread.