Lets break it down (firearms laws you support)
- Thread starter HOME DEPOT GEORGE
- Start date
- Status
KarenTOC
Member
no restrictions whatsoever.
This is a very interesting poll that contrasts with this simpler one, which shows 56% support for "no restrictions."
Yet when specific gun-control measures are offered, that support drops to 27% (currently).
Also interesting that keeping illegal immigrants forcibly unarmed gets a whopping 70% support. I wonder if the fighters of the Revolution would have supported keeping arms out of the hands of all who did not have permission to enter from the land's previous occupants.
And apparently while 70% also agree that guns should be at least technically illegal for violent felons to possess, only 34% support an instant background check. Without a background check, wouldn't any freed violent felon be able to buy a gun in any gun store? Is search and seizure a desirable alternative enforcement mechanism to a background check? Is there another?
Yet when specific gun-control measures are offered, that support drops to 27% (currently).
Also interesting that keeping illegal immigrants forcibly unarmed gets a whopping 70% support. I wonder if the fighters of the Revolution would have supported keeping arms out of the hands of all who did not have permission to enter from the land's previous occupants.
And apparently while 70% also agree that guns should be at least technically illegal for violent felons to possess, only 34% support an instant background check. Without a background check, wouldn't any freed violent felon be able to buy a gun in any gun store? Is search and seizure a desirable alternative enforcement mechanism to a background check? Is there another?
JImbothefiveth
Member
Okay, a few of these were unclear. One was instand background check on all sales. I didn't vote for that because I support that only for licensed dealers. Second is guns for children. I don't think they should be able to buy them, however, they should be allowed to own them with parent's permission.
They should have immigrated legally. Realisticly, I believe there is way too much risk of the illegal immigrants having criminal ties.
Why do you continue with this? There were 2 choices in that poll it was one or the other, with no inbetween so of corse you will get a wider range of answers. Its a psychological thing for people the more choices you have the harder it is to make a choice.
runrabbitrun
member
Didn't we cover this already?
A violent felon shouldn't be freed.
If they are still considered a threat to society.
Don't release them.
I beat the drum of ENFORCING laws already on the books and reforming sentencing guidelines to ensure VIOLENT
criminals stay in jail for longer periods of time.
That deterrent alone will indeed curb violent crime. IMHO
JImbothefiveth
Member
You can't not release them. The ACLU will sue and the supreme court WILL declare it unconstitutional.
I believe it's around 60% or more of felons that are back in prison, most within 7 years.
Convicted felons commit 90% of all murders. The justice system doesn't always work, and you can't hold someone for extra time even if they have vowed to kill someone the first day they get out.
I do agree we need touger sentences though.
Mike the Wolf says that machineguns "don't have to be aimed..."
That is a common misconception and part of the Hollywood nonsense that a shooter can just "spray the area" with a machinegun and everyone automatically falls down.
Actually, firing that way, unless the targets are packed solid, is mostly a waste of ammunition.
A machinegun is used to increase the chance of hitting the target at which it is aimed, not to "mow 'em down" in the usual misconception.
Jim
That is a common misconception and part of the Hollywood nonsense that a shooter can just "spray the area" with a machinegun and everyone automatically falls down.
Actually, firing that way, unless the targets are packed solid, is mostly a waste of ammunition.
A machinegun is used to increase the chance of hitting the target at which it is aimed, not to "mow 'em down" in the usual misconception.
Jim
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Perfect example of this is the North Hollywood bank robbery, always used as an example of machine gun crime.
2 robbers, armed with machine guns, fired over 1000 rounds in about an hour in a gun battle with police and killed no one.
Yet this crime is always used as the reasoning machine guns should remain so restricted.
MountainBear
Member
Background checks should be required if buying from a dealer only. It should be instant and free. Individual transfers should be between the principles involved.
Violent felons should not have LEGAL access to guns. If they show they can stay out of trouble for a specified period of time, they should be able to apply to get them reinstated. Non-violent felons should be exempt from losing their gun rights.
I consider most sex offenders violent criminals, so see above. As stated by other people, I do not consider consensual relations between two people that the state calls statutory rape to always fall under the sex offender status.
I have no problem with the regulation of full-auto's. Like Mike and Jim have said above, there are too many misconceptions floating around with them. They should be legal to own and for new manufacture, but proof of training and a tax stamp don't bother me.
Suppressors and AOW, SBR regulation makes very little sense to be lumped in with full auto in my opinion. Many other countries that allow their citizens to own guns do not regulate suppressors near as much as we do.
I believe the constitution and the bill of rights guarantees rights to the citizens of the United States of America (not Mexico, Madam secretary and Mr. AG). Therefore I see no reason to allow illegal immigrants the rights guaranteed in those documents, including gun ownership.
These are my opinions. I apologize to those of you who think that I am not fervent enough in my unwavering support of the second amendment. The truth is, I am. I just choose to apply common sense (as it seems to me) to this. Granted its a slippery slope to allow some regulation, but if we stayed away from every slippery slope, no one would have conquered Mt. Everest.
Violent felons should not have LEGAL access to guns. If they show they can stay out of trouble for a specified period of time, they should be able to apply to get them reinstated. Non-violent felons should be exempt from losing their gun rights.
I consider most sex offenders violent criminals, so see above. As stated by other people, I do not consider consensual relations between two people that the state calls statutory rape to always fall under the sex offender status.
I have no problem with the regulation of full-auto's. Like Mike and Jim have said above, there are too many misconceptions floating around with them. They should be legal to own and for new manufacture, but proof of training and a tax stamp don't bother me.
Suppressors and AOW, SBR regulation makes very little sense to be lumped in with full auto in my opinion. Many other countries that allow their citizens to own guns do not regulate suppressors near as much as we do.
I believe the constitution and the bill of rights guarantees rights to the citizens of the United States of America (not Mexico, Madam secretary and Mr. AG). Therefore I see no reason to allow illegal immigrants the rights guaranteed in those documents, including gun ownership.
These are my opinions. I apologize to those of you who think that I am not fervent enough in my unwavering support of the second amendment. The truth is, I am. I just choose to apply common sense (as it seems to me) to this. Granted its a slippery slope to allow some regulation, but if we stayed away from every slippery slope, no one would have conquered Mt. Everest.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
TravisB said:
Sure, that's why so many people called you a troll initially, whether it's true or not.
Whether you meant to be or not, when you phrase poll questions in such an "all or nothing" way you force people to choose an extreme no matter which way they choose.
This is why we always see the anti position taken as "arm everyone" or "pro gun people think everyone should have guns". Because it allows room for the absurd, like we saw; "no nukes for felons" and "no machine guns for toddlers at wal mart".
That's simply unrealistic and the wrong way to do a poll. Your poll was skewed to the anti gun side from the moment you posted it, whether you meant it to be or not.
Even in the other thread, those that were in favor of almost no restrictions could not choose "none" because even favoring ONE law is not "none".
And in fact you can very much make the argument that NO ONE is in favor of "no gun laws" since the Second Amendment itself is a gun law and everyone is in favor of that one.
So, when you ask "should there be NO gun laws" you skew the possible answers from the moment you start, and that's why those kind of questions are considered "trolling".
It is EXTREMELY difficult to write polls that do not attempt to skew the answer. That's why anti gun group polls show most people "favor gun control" and why most pro gun groups show people are against it. Each group, in writing the questions, can push people one way or another simply based on the wording, as your poll did.
no guns for violent criminals (exactly where that line is will need to be defined)
no guns for nutcases (exactly where that line is will need to be defined)
no guns for children (exactly where that line is will need to be defined. One age for everything)
no guns for 'serious' sex offenders (exactly where that line is will need to be defined)
instant checks are only allowable if they
#1 are truely instant (5-10 minutes)
#2 in case of inability to get the answer in time, person is considered to have passsed.
#3 in case of false rejection which is later overturned, all legal costs are picked up by the state, and the person whose rights were wrongly infringed gets addtional monetary compensation
#4 intergrated into the system is investigation of anyone denied and hopefully conviction of those prohibited persons who attempt to buy. The purpose of the check is first and formost to catch criminals.
no guns for nutcases (exactly where that line is will need to be defined)
no guns for children (exactly where that line is will need to be defined. One age for everything)
no guns for 'serious' sex offenders (exactly where that line is will need to be defined)
instant checks are only allowable if they
#1 are truely instant (5-10 minutes)
#2 in case of inability to get the answer in time, person is considered to have passsed.
#3 in case of false rejection which is later overturned, all legal costs are picked up by the state, and the person whose rights were wrongly infringed gets addtional monetary compensation
#4 intergrated into the system is investigation of anyone denied and hopefully conviction of those prohibited persons who attempt to buy. The purpose of the check is first and formost to catch criminals.
we cannot stop the release of those already convicted and sentenced.
However, there is nothing unconstitutional about having 'life with no possibility of parol' for any murder, any violent crime that involves a deadly weapon, or anything else.
However, I am in favor of a 'once convicted of a violent felony, you are on parol/probation for life' type of system.
CountGlockula
Member
I checked them all.
jerkface11
Member
Your 1st, 3rd, 4th ,5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment rights aren't restricted under those circumstances (except for prisoners but that's just silly) no one has 9th or 10th amendment rights anymore.
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi Bensdad,
We have been trained to believe societies problems are complex and require complex answers. Occam's razor goes against that training.
We have been trained to believe societies problems are complex and require complex answers. Occam's razor goes against that training.
JImbothefiveth
Member
Felons can't vote.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Felons are not SUPPOSED to vote
Sometimes they still manage to get it done, same as they sometimes manage to get guns.
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi Mike the Wolf,
Using that logic semi-auto shotguns should also have 'reasonable restrictions' as they also 'don't have to be aimed.'
Consider this, if a 12ga shotshell has 8 00 pellets in a semi-auto could easily discharge 2 rounds a sec. That gives a cyclic rate of 960 rnds/min. more than quite a few of the sub-machineguns.
Quote from my Grandmother:
Using that logic semi-auto shotguns should also have 'reasonable restrictions' as they also 'don't have to be aimed.'
Consider this, if a 12ga shotshell has 8 00 pellets in a semi-auto could easily discharge 2 rounds a sec. That gives a cyclic rate of 960 rnds/min. more than quite a few of the sub-machineguns.
Quote from my Grandmother:
Working Man
Member
Shhhhh, thats eight rounds per triger pull.... more than double that of tri-burst.
Don't give the antis any ideas.
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi akodo,
According to Rousseau society's ability to incarcerate stems from removing those that prevent the function of a peaceful society. Releasing such individuals under modified 'civil death' does not fulfill that function.
Practically, parole only works for those that have made a mistake and have learned to regret it. A violent criminal will continue to be violent even under parole. Once again, should s/he violate parole with another offense the parole violation would like as not just be used as bait for a plea bargain, not a bona-fide protection of a peaceful society.
According to Rousseau society's ability to incarcerate stems from removing those that prevent the function of a peaceful society. Releasing such individuals under modified 'civil death' does not fulfill that function.
Practically, parole only works for those that have made a mistake and have learned to regret it. A violent criminal will continue to be violent even under parole. Once again, should s/he violate parole with another offense the parole violation would like as not just be used as bait for a plea bargain, not a bona-fide protection of a peaceful society.
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi Working Man,
Not my intention, just trying to get Mike to think past his emotion.
Not my intention, just trying to get Mike to think past his emotion.
sm
member
1. Pay attention to Officers'Wife,she knows of what she speaks, and can back it up,
[Thank you ma'am].
2. Re: NFA.
Bold by me for easy reference, for Anti Gun, Fence Sitters, and those that have guns, still are not responsible firearm owners, as they feel giving up some liberties, for freedom is okay.
As long as Gov't does not come after their trap, duck, deer and squirrel gun that is...
Oh, and for those that have been brainwashed, only Cops and Military should have guns, from reading a Constitution with rose colored glasses.
Steve
[Thank you ma'am].
2. Re: NFA.
Bold by me for easy reference, for Anti Gun, Fence Sitters, and those that have guns, still are not responsible firearm owners, as they feel giving up some liberties, for freedom is okay.
As long as Gov't does not come after their trap, duck, deer and squirrel gun that is...
Oh, and for those that have been brainwashed, only Cops and Military should have guns, from reading a Constitution with rose colored glasses.
Steve
Fetus
Member
no for felons and illegal aliens
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
