Do you support ANY gun-control laws?

Do you support ANY gun-control laws?


  • Total voters
    404
Status
Not open for further replies.
Under current law, when you are convicted of a felony, you will almost certainly lose your 2nd Amendment right. You may be punished with jail time, maybe not. But once the sentence has been served, the right to own and carry a gun is not automatically restored. In most all cases that right is never restored.

Anyone want to tell me why this is a good thing?
 
Unless they change the constitution, no. Every law barring private ownership and carry of any type of weapon is unconstitutional. Period.

Gun banners want "common sense" laws. Fine, follow the constitution and get a constitutional amendement.

Want to ban "the people" fom having nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, chemical/biological weapons of mass destruction?

You will have no problem getting a constitutional amendment.

They avoid this path because they know they will never have enough "blue" states.

They could EASILY get a constitutional amendment to ban the things I mentioned (all of which are "arms" and all are protected under the second amendment).

The reason they WON'T DO IT is because then they are admitting that the NFA and GCA are unconstitutional.
 
Even when put to use in crimes, full auto firearms have not proven to be more deadly than other firearms.
The North Hollywood bank robbery had two heavily armored criminals armed with fully automatic weapons and the only deaths were the criminals.
No scores of civilians nor stacks of LE bodies.

I defy anyone to provide any instance in which FA firearms were used in a crime where there was the horrible civilian body count that folks keep imagining.

They just aren't there. With a history of nearly a hundred years of criminal possession of FA firearms the overwhelming evidence, not opinion, is that FA firearms are not used in the manner some of you think.
 
Last edited:
I will apply the logic to different areas as requested. Even as mentioned a car that can go 150 mpg has governors on them. The computer stops the increased injection of fuel at a certain MPH. Some cars are governed to 100, others to 110/115.
My dads was governed at 115. Even manual transmission cars have them. What does that tell you? Why are they there? Why wouldn't companies put the limit at 80 or 90? Cause people wouldn't buy the cars.
Why are there warning labels on pills? Limits on what you can take without serious harm to yourself?

I don't have a problem owning fully automatics for home defense. Go nuts, whatever. I just don't agree with carrying them around. Hell my neighbors have uzi's and full auto shotguns, ak's, and other crazy stuff. Licensed and legal. they don't walk around with them though.
My thought process is, this country is not Israel where kids are strapped when they go to school with full autos. This country is not a war zone like others. I can see the need later, when bombings and shootings are a daily thing across the country.
Yes, I know about the past few months and how crazy people go to gun free zones and start killing. I don't think we should have gun free zones anymore. And if they have to be, armed guards and metal detectors with bullet proof glass barrier between the entrance and the door of the buildings. That is only a wish though =(
 
I support the law that bans felons from owning firearms. If someone went out raped, pillaged, or murdered, I am very hard pressed to justify why they still have a right to anything, much less a firearm. Now, I do think that some laws on the books should be changed (eg: some drug laws), but that doesn't change my view of felons as being essentially a zit on society's collective *** and they certainly don't deserve access to guns. Period. Full stop.
 
I oppose laws against possessing things. They lead to very bad things (like the war on some drugs that's morphing into a war on us as gun owners).

Obviously, we need laws governing behavior. However, a law against shooting at people is NOT what we'd call a "gun control law."

WRT laws governing carrying a firearm, even a fully automatic shotgun or something, they are useless at best. No criminal worries about carry laws, and I doubt that many people who are charged with murder are also charged with illegal carry.

For a law abiding citizen, laws restricting carry can impede lawful self-defense. Perhaps even worse, they are used to entrap people who are not doing anything wrong and who never would, but may not have their gun's case locked properly when they drive home from the range. This happens in California, for example.
 
(1). I support the current ban on cleared sales of arms to those involuntarily committed to a mental health institution. I also, however, have no doubt whatsoever that many, most or even all of those individuals might obtain arms via private sales -- nor do I even oppose that. Make of that what you will.

(2). I'd also ban sales of arms to those adherents of the mohammedean heresy, though in my bizarre little world that issue would be covered under (1) supra.
 
Favoring the criminalization of the rights, for persons with felony records, is an intolerant, bigoted, prejudice, and discriminatory point of view.
 
CoRoMo: "Favoring the criminalization of the rights, for persons with felony records, is an intolerant, bigoted, prejudice, and discriminatory point of view."

Particularly as concerning various and assorted felony tax evaders, insider traders, habitual motor vehicle offenders and racketeers.

Not me; just saying.
 
Whereas various government bodies do, or have:

distribute(d) condoms to horny teens,
distribute(d) clean needles to addicts,
distribute(d) welfare to able-bodied, but lazy, adults
distribute(d) fund to religious organization for the purpose of social welfare

Now, therefore, I do hereby propose the SVAZ True Gun Control Act of 2009 whereby,

All members of the NRA, GOA, SFA, or other nationally recogized pro-2nd Amendment organizations* shall be:

a. issued 250 rounds of 9mm NATO, per annum, for proficiency training,
b. issued 100 rounds of 5.56 NATO, per annum, for proficiency training,
c. issued a yearly voucher for marksmanship and safety training,
d. issued a one-time voucher for 50% towards a 9mm NATO pistol of his/her choosing,
e. issued a one-time voucher for 50% towards a 5.56 NATO rifle of his/her choosing,

No part of this bill shall be construed to imply that a citizen must qualify with a weapon, a citizen must attend safety or proficiency courses, or that a citizen may possess only a government-sactioned caliber weapon.




Education and the tools to practice safely - isn't that what society is all about? So, do I forward this on to The Hill, or what? :D

*Not only does membership have its priviledges, there is strength in numbers.
 
Last edited:
"Common sense" gun law is what we had 200 years ago. Criminals were punished, and there were little restrictions on firearm ownership.

There were gangbangers 200 years ago?:eek: We had the same guns back then as we do now?:eek:

yes, criminals were punished 200 years ago. A "black" man caught, at the very least, socializing with a "white" woman would had been punished. Shoot, slaves weren't considered "all free men" by the founding fathers.:eek:

you are still stuck on the good ole days :rolleyes: and trying to apply what was it like then to todays society:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
you are still stuck on the good ole days and trying to apply what was it like then to todays society

You still have this bizarre belief that somehow human beings are more violent today than they have been in the past.

That is simply not true, no matter how many times you post it, and no matter how much you want it to be true.

It's still an absolute lie.
 
I am in favor of prohibiting people from owning firearms who have proven they are prone to criminal violence or are not able to control their own behaviour. Not that they will obey the law anyway, but its a general principle kind of thing.

There is room to argue about whether a non-violent felon should be included in this kind of thing, or how long the prohibition should last.

The same thing applies to children having unsupervised access to firearms as well as people whose mental processes are at issue.

You need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.
 
You need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

This all sounds reasonable certainly but I keep asking the same question and never getting an answer.

If it takes LAWS to make these things happen, why did we not see incidences of these things before 1968? Before 1968 there were really no restrictions of any kind on most firearms. No serial numbers required on guns, no "sporting purpose" stuff. Nothing.

Before the 1968 Gun Control Act there were no licensed dealers, no age verifications, no background checks, handguns could be ordered from the Sears catalog, and blood didn't flow in the streets.

The only answer I get is "well that was different". Well, HOW was it different?

Humanity somehow made some fundamental shift magically in 1968? The human tendency to violence somehow rose tremendously overnight? What was it?

Give some reasoning for this notion that "well we need to restrict this stuff" since it wasn't restricted in ANY real way just about 40 years ago.
 
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

This just shows an ignorance of history. Registered full-auto weapons were the "best behaved" class of firearms, with no crimes committed by civilians when the '86 law passed.
 
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.

Are you willing to state in advance what kind of evidence would persuade you?

Would a lower percentage of criminal gun use in a country with strong gun control suffice?
 
i don't think other countries and their gun law/crime rates can be compared to ours. while countries may be similar, they are not the same.

try comparing crime rates before a major gun control law was passed, and crime rates a few years after it was passed. just a suggestion.
 
If it takes LAWS to make these things happen, why did we not see incidences of these things before 1968? Before 1968 there were really no restrictions of any kind on most firearms. No serial numbers required on guns, no "sporting purpose" stuff. Nothing.

Don't argue against things I did not suggest. I suggested the limits I would go along with are on people who have PROVEN they are prone to criminal violence or cannot control their own actions. Just where those limits would be applied are a completely different discussion.

I never mentioned anything at all about sporting purpose or serial numbers, or restrictions on firearms (I gather you are referring to barrel lengths and such). I just don't see that kind of thing as useful.
 
sernv99: "There were gangbangers 200 years ago? We had the same guns back then as we do now?"

We called them the Sons of Liberty.

Blackpowder firearms take many deer around here.

"... yes, criminals were punished 200 years ago. A "black" man caught, at the very least, socializing with a "white" woman would had been punished. Shoot, slaves weren't considered "all free men" by the founding fathers."

Maybe in your neighborhood. Not in mine or Maine. Not that it matters much. Little of that has anything to do with guns.

"... you are still stuck on the good ole days and trying to apply what was it like then to todays society..."

As others have said and as you have refused to answer (other than to cite how Maine is "less diverse" than most states, so as in racist manner to attempt to explain its comparative lack of gun control and comparative (and proportionate) lack of crime), WHY NOT? What is so foreign and alien about 1985 or 1967 or 1933?
 
Don't argue against things I did not suggest. I suggested the limits I would go along with are on people who have PROVEN they are prone to criminal violence or cannot control their own actions. Just where those limits would be applied are a completely different discussion.

I never mentioned anything at all about sporting purpose or serial numbers, or restrictions on firearms (I gather you are referring to barrel lengths and such). I just don't see that kind of thing as useful.

I am not arguing against things you didn't suggest, I am listing many of the things the 1968 GCA included.

I am asking why you suggest that there need to be limits.

If you want to stick to specifics, fine.

You feel there need to be limits on restricting firearm sales to felons and minors specifically.

OK. Before 1968 there were no such restrictions in place.

Why was the crime rate for these 2 groups not higher then?

Why did these laws not change the crime rate for these groups?

In fact, gun crime committed by these 2 groups is higher now than BEFORE they were classed as prohibited persons.

Some will take this to mean that I am arguing FOR guns for felons, but that is simply because they cannot answer the real question.

If laws help, and restricting some people's access to firearms is needed, why are things worse now than BEFORE those groups were prohibited classes?
 
I disagree with "reasonable restrictions" across the board. I disagree with sobriety checkpoints, the prohibition on yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, and the fact that a felon who has done his time can't buy a machine gun at Wal*Mart.

Hey, let's put this on billboards across the nation! This statement is sure to persuade a majority of voters to the libertarian point of view.

Recent polls show that, like you, a majority of people in the United States also want it to be legal to falsely provoke a panic in a theater. Most of society likes to see old people and children trampled for no good reason. Or at least they're willing to accept this carnage as a necessary price to pay for maintaining an at-all-costs commitment to the First Amendment.

If people only understood how utterly sensible the libertarian position was, they would surely be swayed.
 
I once shouted "Theater!" in a crowded firehouse.

After a moment of befuddlement, general hilarity ensued.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top