Do you support ANY gun-control laws?

[TravisB]

Not sure there's going to be a single straight answer to that question. It seems to be a requirement that one become very, very vague while treading toward the line where one supports the illegality of weapons. After all, you wouldn't want to say, "RPGs are a hard limit. We can't have RPGs being sold by the checkout counter at Wal-mart."

Because someone is sure to outdo you at that point by saying, "The no-hassle availability of RPGs at the Wal-mart checkout stand is a GOD-GIVEN AMERICAN RIGHT! How dare you try to draw a line on my essential liberties just to obtain a little temporary safety from stray RPGs blowing up your house!"

 

[sm]

First off, those elected swore an oath to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Second, The Constitution defines what the role of government is.

On April 18th 1775, a silversmith named Paul Revere announced "The British Are Coming", as he rode his horse to warn...

To warn a people that left Tyranny, so they could be Free.

April 19, 1775, a Revolutionary War began, and Free People won that war.

The Constitution is designed to protect a free people from a government, ever becoming Tyranny.

Damn politicians would be wise to read COTUS, and BoR, and perhaps read what their "job descriptions" are, as set forth in COTUS.

Hint: It ain't being Tyranny's puppets.

Gov't does what the COTUS says Gov't is to do, and leave WE The People the hell alone!


The Second Amendment is the Keystone, that keep all the Amendment in check.

You do NOT start chipping away at the keystone. Gun Control is just one hammer and chisel chipping away.


Re: Age.

Why have an age restriction? I know 13 years olds I trust with guns more than I do 40 year olds.
These 13 year olds are sure as heck are more mature and responsible than many folks I have been around with guns, from age 21 and older.

Hey, I trust a nine year old more, our own hso's daughter, as she has more maturity, and is more responsible with firearms than many members of THR.

Don't like that, tough. Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Gov't meddlin' does not do diddly-squat on the War on "[ ]".

Still some have drank from the fountain of Utopia, and feel a person under age 21 should not be able to buy a gun, or ammo, or carry concealed.

Bull Chips!

Gov't said one cannot buy Sudaphed unless they signed for it, and restricted quantity for 30 days, to deal with the War on Meth.

-Now you cannot buy a supply to have on hand when pollen season hits.
You are sick as a dawg and you cannot send your 16 year old to the drug store to get you Sudaphed.

-To overide this restriction, you have to make an appointment, to see a Doctor, and be out time, and money for Co-pay.

Meth makers, they never paid attention to laws in the first place, the only folks affected were the law abiding...


As a kid, I would collect soda bottles for money. At first they paid 2 pennies for each bottle, later 3 pennies.
I was a wittle kid, and had my very own .22 revolver. It was in my dresser drawer crib when I came home from the hospital.

I would collect bottles, save my pennies, and then "MY" .22 ammo was on a shelf.
I would run errands for not only my household, also for neighbors. Neighbors included War Vets, and elderly.

Yep, I stepped on that bottom shelf, and looked at "my" ammo for "my"gun.
I cannot type how I felt being able to get a box of .22 ammo all by myself.

I also picked up ammo for others too.
Maybe just two .410 shells, or three .38spls...

You see, one could buy loose ammo, it was right there on the counter.
Someone shot two .410 shells, or three .38spls for property pests, or felling small game, or...
Since I was at the store, I could get it for them.

I have carried back boxes of ammo.

Veterans of War, and some were in better shape than others.
Some had amputated legs, and used wheelchairs...
If I was going to the store anyway, why not pick up a box of ammo?

Common courtesy , respect of not only Elders, also Vets.

So you folks are going to tell me, if matters get goofy where your 19, or 20 year old daughter attends school, then she should be "restricted" and not be able to buy a gun, or buy ammo, or get a CCW?

If I was that daughter, I would fire you as family and suggest you go fornicate yourself.
If she has questions about how to fire family, have her PM me. I fired mine too many years ago.



Some folks don't get "it", some folks don't want "it", and some folks would not know "it", if "it" walked up and kicked them in the gonads. - Lee Lapin


Gov't brainwashed some in giving up their gonads, as I see it.

I hope like heck, some of the members full of piss-n-vinegar never get down, they are DOOMED
All that video game crap and parroting horse manure to be kewl and act like part of the firearm community is not going to worth spit, when they get in a car wreck, or hurt.


Other members that believe giving up some liberties, deserve what happens to them.

They will get hurt, injured, have a surgery, something. Evil likes easy prey.
That son or daughter, under age 21 taking them to the ER, cannot carry a gun.
They cannot carry one while they take you home from surgery, or chem treatments, or anything else.

You are a walking easy Prey.
Doctor's Orders, "no recoil" with that detached retina, busted neck, shoulder, back...etc.

Hey, with the attitude of giving up MY liberties, I say the kid should fire your butt, and tell you where to go.
No reason to stand there with a gonad-less , easy prey and become a victim too.

Call a cab...
Don't call if you survive an encounter, and whine about it, I don't want to hear it.


Suggestion: Make sure you have a gun you can shoot under no recoil orders, and have ammo for it while laid up at home.

You cannot send your kids out to get ammo for you...


-

 

[JTW Jr.]

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.

Everything is dangerous if you dont give it the respect it deserves.

Why is it that people will think nothing of driving a 2 ton vehicle , 70 mph down the highway , talking on the cell phone while drinking their coffee ? Are they so highly skilled in their driving ability that they are above everyone else ?

Personally I think the hoop you have to dance thru to get a NFA item is stupid. Fingerprints , background check , $200 check , etc.

People go down and test for their drivers license , most do it in a small car , usually econ-box with an automatic , then pass the test , go home and jump in their SUV and feel they are good to go. Maybe they should have to test for compact , midsize , full size , mini-van and SUV ?

Heck , let em start putting background checks on cell phones and cars , Background check indicates you own a car , sorry you cant have a cell phone. ( Makes sense right , since I can't have a DIAS and an AR ).

Apply your logic to everything else around you. You can have a car , but it can't have over 150HP , or cant exceed 65mph. Why ? Its too dangerous , if you lose control you could go thru 3 houses instead of 1 with the slower car. When these cars go out of control things fly everywhere. Instead of running over one person , you could run over 10.

Your opinion , may be your own , but you might want to really look into your point of view. It's not holding water.

I have been running the firing line for a local subgun/machinegun match for over 8 years now , without a single injury or incident.

Yes , we are experienced , we also understand there are others ( such as yourself ) who are not , so when they ask to fire something full auto , we politely decline. Gotta keep society safe from those un-experienced people ya know

 

[BhmBill]

"The no-hassle availability of RPGs at the Wal-mart checkout stand is a GOD-GIVEN AMERICAN RIGHT! How dare you try to draw a line on my essential liberties just to obtain a little temporary safety from stray RPGs blowing up your house!"

Yep.

Sounds like something straight out of the Bradys mouth. Assume people are too idiotic to own something that might hurt them or others, so ban or restrict it, whether or not there's evidence of the contrary (or that pesky lil' piece of paper known as COTUS)

Start restricting and taking away peoples rights and liberties under the guise of "it's for the good of society" or "it's for the children" or "it's for your own good" or "no one NEEDS (insert anything here)", and you'll end up with another revolution, which according to many founding fathers, was good every once in awhile to keep the government in check.

 

[Pack]

A favorite of mine, from the man himself

"False is the idea of utility... that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it."- Thomas Jefferson

 

[rawhide]

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

They're not.

 

[renegade1alpha]

Only the ones keeping them out of the hands of convicted felons and illegal aliens. Other than that, if you are a law abiding citizen of the United States you should be able to own ANYTHING you want.

That is just my opinion.

 

[sm]

WE The People...

I do not have a problem with someone from the UK, Australia, New Zealand or wherever they are from, owing or carrying a gun.

I don't care if they are in the US for vacation, business, or going through the process of becoming a citizen, People are People, and People got rights.


Folks in the US get targeted as Prey as "they talk funny".

Yankees travel to FL, and got nailed because of Rental Cars, and how they talk.
FL, got on the ball with Non Res CCW, and this allowed People, to have a legal means to defend while in FL.
Reciprocity meant, People were also able to defend while traveling to FL.

Rebel heads to Chicago, or New Yawk, and they are denied...
Southern drawl and being used to speaking and waving to folks, freaks out Nawthern folks.
Criminals look for prey...


Nope, you in the US, you can have guns and carry one in my book.

Maybe relatives from the "old country" come to the US...
Perhaps they want to "drive the USA in a Chevrolet", to see not only kinfolks, also historical places and scenic areas.


Trust me, their was a time or three I would have felt a lot more comfortable being able to carry concealed in Jamacia...

At least I was not denied Breadfruit, Blue Mountain Coffee, Jerk Chicken, Jamaican Rum, and Red Stripe Beer because I was not a citizen of Jamaica.


Careful what you wish for, you might just get it. anon

 

[Kind of Blued]

sm, how was it, drinking blue mountain coffee in Jamaica?

"False is the idea of utility... that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it."- Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was quoting Cesare Beccaria, who published that line in 1764 in "On Crimes and Punishments". Here's the entire quote:

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.

I disagree with "reasonable restrictions" across the board. I'm a libertarian of sorts. I disagree with sobriety checkpoints, the prohibition on yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater OR theatre, and the fact that a felon who has done his time can't buy a machine gun at Wal*Mart.

I'm for individual freedom, a few well-written laws, bright-line rules, and acting on a well-conceived philosophical principle instead of changing the rules to fit timeless situations, such as those involving what is commonly considered "natural law".

 

[sm]

Oh the coffee is wonderful!
This is what I was served any time I had coffee...spoiled rotten and I am worth it!

Did you know bananas in Jamaica are red instead of the yellow we in the US are accustomed to?

Oh, Jamaica has a Bobsled team as well. I was sorting hoping a deal would work out where we could meet these folks.
Jamaica has a right to have a bobsled team, despite their location on a world map...


People have human rights.
We already have too many countries, with a history of denying human rights, and the results speak for themselves.

Still, there are those brainwashed by TPTB, that despite verifiable historical evidence, and records, still believe giving up liberties for some freedom works.
This is called Insanity.

Countries are still denying human rights, and the only persons that are doing well with the restrictions, are the criminals.

 

[Pack]

Kind of Blue:

Thanks! I didn't know of the original statement.

It really says something for the healthy American "anti-intellectualism", when we see a man as unbelievably brilliant as Jefferson distill something so verbose and eloquent into something almost terse by comparison, but no less profound. To have a mind like his, and resist showing off... hyperbolizing the talents of our founders often seems a literal impossibility.

Oh, and on this...

I'm for individual freedom, a few well-written laws, bright-line rules, and acting on a well-conceived philosophical principle instead of changing the rules to fit timeless situations, such as those involving what is commonly considered "natural law".

I really could have used you as an ally over the past three years, when "debating" the many vapid statists (they almost make it impossible to call it that) who apparently manage to feel, rather than think, their way into law school.

 

[HK G3]

I would love a law that would greatly increase the chance that a criminal actor trying to attack me would likely not be armed with a gun, guaranteeing that I would be at a significant advantage over them, as I would be armed with a firearm.

As it stands however, no such law has been passed.

 

[Hot brass]

No felons to own guns.

 

[sernv99]

read a better record of History. Our founding fathers wrote the constitution as a guarantor of pre-existing rights against the encroachment of Government.

ummm, most of the founding fathers were part of the gov't. You seemed to be skipping tha tpart for some reason and trying to take the argument off tangent. What don't you understand? If you don't have a counter-argument, just admit so and move on.


The fact that you read otherwise, presumably in public school, is the reason these rights could be gone in a single generation without the hard work & diligence of everyone of us
I think you need to get with the program. Tell us what school did you go to that teaches the founding fathers were NOT part of the gov't? This should be amusing

 

[Eric F]

Well folks after a long long read from where I left off to bed last night, I have made this decision.

Common sense laws are the way to go. But common sense for me is insanity to others. Just imagine if you will, the ability to even own a gun, how threatning, no matter that I am a good person and pass a background check. On the other hand there is the crowd that thinks even putting sales tax on guns is an infringement. So with a utter lack of common sense, some one in a position of power will pervert common sense into extremism.

Therefor I must now change my vote to no gun control, because its just common sense

after reading through all this I now see if you do one little thing to change the law in 200 years it will get changed to exactly the oposit of what it was intended.

I would rather take my chances with any gun I want against a criminal with what ever gun he wants, as opposed to my having nothing and the criminal having what ever gun he wants.

Common sense has died

 

[rbernie]

Cleanup in Aisle 12 has been completed. If your post was deleted, it was because it was off-topic or a response to an off-topic post.

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

I'm still waiting for someone to prove that any form of restriction on the ownership of firearms has caused any measurable decrease in the use of firearms in the commission of crimes.

Some folk FEEL that to be a common-sense conclusion, but I'm looking for proof. Since the majority of what we now call 'gun control laws' were enacted within the last forty years or so, we should have lots of solid empirical data on all that.

BRING IT.

 

[ArmedBear]

I do not think convicted felons should be automatically banned from gun ownership.

I think the judge should be able to make that a condition of release, parole or probation on a case-by-case basis.

However, I don't think that someone who BASE jumped in Nevada at age 19 (a felony) should be banned from lawful self-defense, skeet shooting, or whatever, when he's 40 and has never in his life even tried to hurt anybody. That's just plain stupid.

People don't understand what "felon" means these days. There are many boutique felonies that really are nothing like what regular people would think of as serious crimes like robbery, grand theft, etc.

WRT sex offenders, if they're a threat, lock them up and keep them locked up. If not, well, then what difference does it make if they have guns?

"Sex offenders" might be forcible rapists, but they might also be guys who were caught messing around with their girlfriends as high school seniors. Again, the justice system has become so perverted that it is ridiculous to connect the loss of rights with the "crime."

Do I have a problem with armed robbers and violent rapists being denied their rights as a condition of parole? Hell, I wouldn't have a problem with having them strung up.

But anyone who thinks that "felon" and "sex offender" are synonymous with "serious criminal" these days is utterly deluded.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I would rather take my chances with any gun I want against a criminal with what ever gun he wants, as opposed to my having nothing and the criminal having what ever gun he wants.

In 18 pages someone finally gets it. THAT is what this has been about always.

Criminals are always going to do what ever they want, ALWAYS.

All these restrictions have gotten us is to make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves on a level playing field.

Yet, if you attempt to debate the topic you get the "No nukes for sex offenders" kinds of extremes because they simply cannot come to the understanding that criminals will do what ever they want anyway.

It's not about ALLOWING felons to buy guns, they do that anyway so what good does the law do.

It's not about selling machine guns in Wal Mart, machineguns are already used in crimes even though they are illegal to manufacture and use in a crime.

I cannot understand why people do not get this. They would rather side track into the most absurd types of scenarios and say "HAH you support child molesting 4 time felons with Stinger missiles from Wal Mart, see how crazy you are?"

As long as these gun restrictions stay in place, law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of criminals and potentially oppressive government.

That's no different today than it was 200 years ago when this thing was written, yet I see in this thread all these people clamoring for "common sense" gun laws.

What is "common sense" gun law when criminals don't obey ANY laws.

Why should we fear each other, law abiding citizens, from having basically unrestricted access to military grade firearms, yet we do NOT fear criminals and government having the same things? If we REALLY feared criminals and government we'd DEMAND the same access to firearms. But we don't.

Look across the border to our neighbor in the south. Unrestricted access to military hardware by the drug cartels and extremely limited firearm rights for everyone else.

Watch how that one ends for a preview of what could happen here if we keep using "common sense" in our gun laws.

"Common sense" gun law is what we had 200 years ago. Criminals were punished, and there were little restrictions on firearm ownership.

Fast forward to now and "common sense" means law abiding citizens are restricted from access to enough firearms to protect themselves should crime break out in ways like south of the border, or should the government overstep it's bounds. Limited in what we can have, limited in where we can have them. Yet, government can have anything it wants and it's agents carry them anywhere they want. Criminals can have whatever they can buy on the black market and carry them wherever they want.

That is not "common sense", that is willingly giving away the freedoms that this country was founded on.

So here we are in 2009, with a "common sense" proposal to end private gun show sales, which some in this thread think is fine.

We will soon see an "assault weapon" ban proposed, "common sense" people will say well there are always ways around it, it doesn't ban ALL guns so it's OK.

The next one is something like HR45. Dead today but 8 years from now? Who knows if we continue to allow "common sense" gun laws. HR45 requires registration of all handguns. OK, well that's just "common sense" since it's just registration. Not like they will TAKE them.....

Sure, that's all just "common sense".

 

[ArmedBear]

WRT weapons at Lowe's...

At Lowe's, they have concrete nail guns, quite suitable for all sorts of nasty violent crime. They're not Stinger missiles, but there are plenty of weapons available at Lowe's. The fact that people use them to build things rather than to kill someone has everything to do with the people, not the devices.

 

[TJ AK-74]

I honestly don't know this so I will ask. What are "small" arms? What is the limit to that? when do we get to "large" arms?

Small Arms:AK, M2, M1 tank, RPG, Howitzers, M203 40mm, 20mm cannon etc.
Large Arms:ICBM, F-117, B-2, F-16, Daisy Cutter bombs, B-52,etc.

I would restrict modern bombers and bombs because I think it would be too easy for the chinese/russians/norks/iranians etc.to get them and steal our technology.

 

[CoRoMo]

It took me a good while to catch up on what has now doubled in size since I signed off yesterday. Whew!

I'm still waiting for someone to prove that any form of restriction on the ownership of firearms has caused any measurable decrease in the use of firearms in the commission of crimes.

Some folk FEEL that to be a common-sense conclusion, but I'm looking for proof. Since the majority of what we now call 'gun control laws' were enacted within the last forty years or so, we should have lost of solid empirical data on all that.

BRING IT.

Anyone out there wanna make an effort?

 

[TJ AK-74]

Anyone out there wanna make an effort?

Sure, I saw some guy on TV say that, isn't that proof?

 

[Rockwell1]

think the judge should be able to make that a condition of release, parole or probation on a case-by-case basis.

You sure you want to put that kinda power in the hands of an an activist judge.

 

[ArmedBear]

You sure you want to put that kinda power in the hands of an an activist judge.

I'm not sure how else to do it.

Judges already have similar power with many things. Some people are required not to touch a computer, for example, as a condition of parole.

What I'm saying is that not being allowed to have firearms might be an appropriate condition, similar to many others. There shouldn't be anything special about guns.

There may be a reason that someone who pled guilty to hacking a college web server to put a humorous slogan on the front page should be required to stay away from computers for X years -- but why firearms, necessarily? However, an armed robber would be a different story.

I absolutely oppose making it illegal for someone who was convicted of anything that's called a "felony" in 2009 to have a gun. I don't oppose legitimate sentencing for real criminal offenses.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Cannot vote. It depends on YOUR definition of the word "restrict". I don't know if a background check is a "restriction" or not in your book.