What gun control measures do you support?

[TCB in TN]

NONE!

If a felon is rehabbed enough to be on the street he/she is rehabbed enough to have access to all their rights. Not like the prohibition on ownership stops them now! Either keep them in jail or allow them to exercise their rights!

 

[razorback2003]

People convicted of violent felonies have no business possessing firearms. Many cannot get their voting rights restored, so they can't legally own or carry guns either.

I would like to see the post 1986 machine gun ban removed to increase the supply of legal machine guns.

 

[Lewis130]

Maybe make gun ownership for over 21s a legal requirement, and encourage people (preferably with cash) to carry a concealed weapon.
How many criminals do you think would have the balls to mug/rape/assault/et cetera if there was, lets say, a 90% of the victim carrying a gun?
Might go catastrophically wrong, but then again, it might work. Not that it'll ever get a chance to, with so many gun-grabbers about.

 

[benzy2]

Exactly. The point of the penal system is to rehabilitate the person back to be a functioning citizen. I would rather tax the person, have record of their purchase, and be able to more easily identify any future infractions they may make with a registered firearm than to make them purchase it illegally. I do agree that a person should be 18 or with parental supervision and I don't mind having to take education to conceal carry. A person with no firearm experience concealing is a bit scary to me and as such I can understand having to take a safety/basic skills test first. You can't drive a car without knowing how to use it and when it comes to firearms in public I feel the same way. Education is important.

 

[Walkalong]

Felons.

Under 21, unless you in in the military, then your age is waved..

 

[Millwright]

I know first hand felons can get firearms in the most hoplophobic state on the continent - NJ. But I'll accept that restriction with the proviso it be used to target "violent felons in possession" to keep them out of society. Alas, as it stands now, gun restrictions target "those that didn't do it" nor present a threat to society.

BTW, just what sort of "threat" does a "silencer" pose ? Except to those in the business of selling hearing appliances, that is.... >MW

 

[The Viking]

None. Gun control fails to work it's magic over here, that's for sure...

 

[scythefwd]

I voted for a couple of options actually. Convicted violent felons - on the fence about this one.

Under 21 purchase / ccw - I have had too many friends shot by people with no criminal background but with known gang affilations. One to be specific. The restrictions I support are a background check. Then again, I think all sales should need a background check that is accessable, anonymous, and inexpensive for every person.. not just gunstores. Yes, I beleive that a background check should be mandatory for Face to Face transfers outside of the family.

 

[jakemccoy]

I can't support any gun restrictions. Any restriction only restricts law abiding citizens and nobody else. It's not an easy concept to grasp initially, but I believe the concept to be true.

I can tolerate restrictions on firearms to convicted, violent felons. The reason I don't support such restrictions is that my support would be my given "inch" and the resulting screwed up legislation would be the "mile" taken by the government.

As a pro-gun person, the proper starting point for negotiations is zero restrictions. Realize that if you start with what you can tolerate, you'll end with more restrictions than you can stomach. I'm from California. I know how it works.

 

[Werewolf]

All y'all who support legal purchase of firearms by felons being illegal are living in a pink sky, blue bunny world. Criminals by definition don't obey the law. Felons who want firearms will get them. They'll get them without much fuss or bother - in fact less fuss and bother than you because they don't have to get BIG BROTHER'S permission. Cash and carry, that easy.

So why bother not permitting them to just go in a gun store and buying one (which most wouldn't even if it were legal - paper trail and all)? All that accomplishes is putting the sale price into the hands of another criminal, depriving a law abiding citizen of a sale and the government of a bit of tax revenue for no net gain. The felon gets his gun anyway.

But then I suppose making it illegal for felons to purchase guns in a gun store fools all the sheep, dummies, antis, and others into feeling really, really good about their masters and how much they love and care for them. After all they are trying to keep all those evil guns out of the hands of criminals, aren't they?

 

[Officers'Wife]

I support none.

To me the restriction of a violent felon is a sign that the government has breached the social contract to keep those dangerous to society out of society.

Such laws at worse give the gov too much power and at best are a sign of the gov's inability to govern.

Selena

 

[sqlbullet]

"The right of the people" is a phrase used by the framers to denote rights which the people possess independent from the government. It is not comparable to voting rights, for instance, because voting rights are bestowed by the government. Our right to arms is bestowed by our existence, and the ability of man to fashion and use tools.

Any restriction we allow the government to place on the inherent right is contrary to the nature of man as a tool user. Such restrictions upset the correct balance and result in undesired consequences, usually negative.

My 2¢.

 

[Realbigo]

I'm fine w/ NFA restrictions. We've all heard (or told) the story about seeing the guy on the range w/ every piece of junk he can find hanging off of his M4gery, or AK w/ a foot of scope shooting all over the paper from the 7yard line. Now imagine if he could just walk in and buy the shortest barrel length, in full auto.

 

[TAB]

So all those of you that said you don't want any restrictions... are you ok with your neighbor shooting M2 in thier back yard, when ever they want?

I don't know about you, but I personally like my hearing.

 

[jakemccoy]

Be anal.

There's a difference between the meanings of "support", "tolerate" and "fine with". The original question uses the word "support". Yes, words matter. Consider, for example, the Second Amendment.

Regards,
-Jake

 

[Werewolf]

Now imagine if he could just walk in and buy the shortest barrel length, in full auto.

OKAY...

I'm imagining it? Sounds like he'd have a lot of fun with his new full auto, M4gery!

What's YOUR POINT?

Are mall ninja's more prone to commiting crimes with their firearms than YOU perhaps? If so - how do you know?

 

[Werewolf]

So all those of you that said you don't want any restrictions... are you ok with your neighbor shooting M2 in thier back yard, when ever they want?

I don't know about you, but I personally like my hearing.

That's a red herring if I ever read one. Shootin' an M2 off in one's backyard is NOT about gun control. It IS about noise control, about interferring with a person's right not to be annoyed unecessarily, their right not to have their hearing damaged unecessarily. It's about a communities right not to have 700gr 50 caliber bullets landing at random in the streets. It is about basic civility.

 

[Werewolf]

Any restriction we allow the government to place on the inherent right is contrary to the nature of man as a tool user. Such restrictions upset the correct balance and result in undesired consequences, usually negative.

Ding - ding - DING!


Folks - WE have a WINNER!​

 

[TAB]

Ding - ding - DING!


Folks - WE have a WINNER!

So any one should be able to go down to the paint store, pick up something with a MEK base, and spray it all day long into the air, becuase restricting sales of said product, resticts the "nature of man as a tool user".

 

[theotherwaldo]

I'm pretty much against federal regulations on firearms.

I do think that violent criminals should have to prove themselves in some way to regain their civil rights, and that further violent acts should have heavy additional punishment whether guns are involved or not. The problem is, most violent crimes are not federal crimes and, as such, should not be under federal regulations.

So it shouldn't be up to the Fed if ex-cons have guns, it should be a state or local concern.

I'm not as concerned about state and local laws. First, these lawmakers must face their public, which leads to moderation in positions. Second, you can take your guns and move- probably to Texas, like me.

 

[MEH]

"Absolutely none"

That would be me!

 

[ctdonath]

Perhaps violent felons SHOULD be allowed access to guns - that would dissolve the illusion that somehow words on paper actually prevent such access. As it is, most people are comfortable with the notion "oh, felons can't have guns" when in fact felons have no trouble getting guns; this fantasy should be shattered.

 

[Threeband]

I find a sling helpful.

 

[ctdonath]

The only restrictions should be those actions where the actor would be justified in getting shot for doing them.

 

[Werewolf]

So any one should be able to go down to the paint store, pick up something with a MEK base, and spray it all day long into the air, becuase restricting sales of said product, resticts the "nature of man as a tool user".

The act of buying and possesing MEK, or any other thing for that matter, should not be illegal.

If a thing is used in an irresponsible matter with undesirable consequences then that use should be punished.

Making the mere possession of a thing illegal assumes that the one possessing it is necessarily irresponsible and/or evil and will misuse it.

That's a hell of a thing to assume about people.

I know - lets prohibit the purchase of meat! After all it is full of fat and will cause us all to become obese, be lazy as a result, lose our jobs and go on welfare thereby costing all the vegetarians out there to have to pay higher taxes to take care of us lazy meat eaters.

OR we could just make it so people are held accountable for their actions.

You choose - oh wait - you already have. Lucky for the rest of us you don't get to choose for everyone.