What gun control measures do you support?

[Gunnerpalace]

:banghead: No wonder we are losing right's I'm done with this thread.

 

[Gordon Fink]

I support none of them, though I agree that we should do our best to disarm violent felons while they serve their sentences.

~G. Fink

 

[JCMAG]

Yes, it is a right, but you can lose this right just like the others through due process of law. If the DC sniper ever gets out of prison, should he be able to buy a rifle legally ever again? Sorry, I don't play that.

If the DC sniper is determined by due process of law that he no longer poses a threat to society, then yes, he should be able to buy a rifle.

If there is doubt that he is no longer a threat, then he shouldn't be given the opportunity to purchase a rifle as they are not generally sold in prisons.

I believe any minor, accompanied by a parent or guardian within good standing of the law (ie., not a fugitive from justice, etc.), should be able to purchase a long arm and ammunition.

I believe at 18 any adult should then be entitled to the full rights of an American Citizen and be able to purchase arms and ammunition of whatever flavor and configuration that their will and their finances permit.

Let us all be cognizant of an essential truth of a free society whose citizens are possessors of liberty: The government cannot prevent you from acting, it cannot deprive you of choice, in so far as any recourse for affecting that action is refused from you; it cannot anticipate your action nor actions taken against you; to possess a right is to possess the ability and resources to act, whatever that action may be, within the bounds of your liberty. I am not against reformed felons owning firearms anymore than do I favor government psychics telling the ATF who future felons will be so that they can be immediately disarmed.

If a convicted violent felon possesses a firearm, even illegally, and he uses that firearm to defend himself, is he in transgression of the law?

If that is the case, then it is presumed that the law was against his life, for that was the action he took: defense.

It is a right reserved by all who walk, crawl, or roll upon this land. I would sooner abolish the death penalty than to deny any free citizen the right of defense of life, liberty, and property.

 

[Eric F]

If the DC sniper is determined by due process of law that he no longer poses a threat to society, then yes,

Problem is plenty of folks get out of jail that are "less of a threat" and basically are let go because the system has a full jail. Just the way it is. So the big fantasy of if they cant be trusted with a gun then they shouldnt be let out of jail doesnt work.

I'm done with this thread.

+1


As a some people here are so pro gun any time any one does not 100% agree then the person who does not agree is 100% anti gun. And its just not true.

I dont have any use for a shotgun does this make me anti gun.................no! But because I say I dont have any use for a shotgun some one will make that out to mean I am anti shot gun and there fore anti gun. Some folks are just too narrow minded.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Convicted, violent felons.

 

[jerkface11]

If they can't be trusted they shouldn't be out on the street. A law won't stop them from getting a gun.

 

[JCMAG]

I don't think you anti-gun or anti-civil rights based on your views. Using your own analogy, that would make me anti-autoloader because I prefer revolvers.

But for the sake of clarifying my statements so that they are not misunderstood, I must persist. Let it be known that you and I are not more or less than the other pro or anti anything, but perhaps are perceiving the concept of criminal justice differently.

Problem is plenty of folks get out of jail that are "less of a threat" and basically are let go because the system has a full jail. Just the way it is. So the big fantasy of if they cant be trusted with a gun then they shouldnt be let out of jail doesnt work.

That the local, state, and federal governments have neglected their duties in facilitating an increased demand in the prison system does not negate an individual's liberty -- that is, their debt to society repaid in whole or part, their liberty has been restored to them.

When I referred to society deeming them appropriate to be free, I was referring to the system of parole -- that is, folks who have been interred for a long period of time but are released early for one reason or another.

And I totally agree with you, but perhaps in not the way that you intend. I don't see prisons as a means of reforming criminal behavior -- mostly for want of empirical evidence. It is a system of crime and punishment, of which citizens who have offended society and violated the liberties of other citizens through their own conscious and willful action are punished with the intent that they should not err again.

When that punishment is fulfilled and their liberty restored, they should have every liberty restored as they are no longer any different from any other citizen.

Naturally, we are talking about convicted, violent felons who are no longer incarcerated. These are rapists, murderers, batterers, the whole gamut of society's worst examples. Many of them serve very long sentences. These are not the individuals (God keep this statement true) that have their punishments reduced due to overcrowding. These are the individuals who go through lengthy appeals and parole meetings in order to lessen or negate their punishments.

After their debt to society is repaid, they are returned to liberty, just like the shop lifter or marijuana connoisseur or prostitute who only served a minor sentence.

If the former-prisoner is not safe to own a firearm, then he is not safe to own a knife, or a hammer, or a piano, or money in order to illegally obtain a firearm, or a knife, or a hammer, and so forth.

As unfortunate as it may be, his punishment has been administered, he is a free man. If he is a dangerous killer and his debt to society unpayable as marked by a calender within a penitentiary, then his remaining there is irrational and should therefore pay with an asset that would satisfy his debt.

But we must be pragmatic with these things, and therefore do I not intend any intense argument to erupt from this disagreement. Truly, it is a philosophical difference between you and I and nigh everyone on this forum and elsewhere as to what exactly are our "rights" and what exactly is the purpose of the prison system.

It has nothing to do with someone being "anti" gun, but instead a deeply and equally valid view of liberty and the criminal justice system.

A pragmatic solution may be, perhaps, that instead of irrevocably denying a former violent felon the right to keep and bear arms for the remainder of his life (however long that life may last defenseless against the retributions of his former society and his current, likely rough, society that he is demoted to due to his nasty criminal record and social stigma) perhaps it would be more constructive to place former prisoners on probation (prohibiting them of many vices that may be conducive to further transgressions against their fellow citizens) for a certain period of time until he has proven that his liberties are no longer conflicting with those of his fellow citizens.

I am certainly open to new ideas as to how to protect our citizenry from the depravity of others. I am not, however, very keen of systems that limit rights without exemplary cause and evidence. But as I said before, we must operate conservatively and with much pragmatism or we will only know consecutive failures at any extreme.

 

[moooose102]

the gun controll i support is using both hands when shooting a pistol! and a steady rest if possible when shooting a rifle!

 

[geekWithA.45]

History, the law, and I all support making the gunrights of convicted, violent jerks to be highly conditional and provisional. Even the Founders understood that gunrights were for the peacable.

I do not support the way in which it's done now, where the transportation of a refilled helium cylinder, the max penalty for which is a half megabuck fine and five years in the slam results in permanent gunrights revocation.

Even if you swapped in a bona fide, violent crime, I still believe that there should be some room for reconsideration after some significant period of crime free life.

 

[cliffy]

Sorry, If . . .

Rapists, Pedaphies, and convicted Murderers do not need legal, easy access to firearms, since they'll aquire them through blackmarket resources anyway. Honest citizens are the current target of anti-gun radical groups. Obama would like an enslaved nation of non-firearm owners, because we'd all be so EASY to control and dictate to. 1939 Poland is something I simple cannot forget, when Polish people where disarmed. German conquered Poland with "LITTLE RESISTANCE" shortly thereafter. We live in a real world of violence and terror, so please don't attempt to disarm our people. My militant friends and I would become angry. America is my country, so "Don't Tread on ME." cliffy

 

[Drgong]

To those who say that preventing violent felons from getting firearms is pointless, I never saying that felons won't have guns, just throw them in jail if they do so.

By the same argument most other laws are rather pointless, rape will happen, so I guess we shouldn't punish rapists...

Convicted Violent felons lost there rights of citizenship, which includes a social contract that you will follow laws that are justified. (and if you break a law as civil disobedience, you take the punishment) A convicted rapist WILL get a gun if he wants one - but that does not mean that we should not lock him up if he has a gun.

However if someone shows that they are a peaceable citizen over X number of years after a violent crime, they should have rights restored.

 

[freakshow10mm]

Absolutely none.

Well, just a few. I think all public places should be legal to carry in. If private property owner doesn't want firearms on their property that's their right and I fully support it. The only government controlled area I can see is the area of a prison where the cells are.

 

[3pairs12]

I was somewhat torn between none and convicted violent felons, but if they have served there time and are trusted in society again they should be able to regain their rights. So I ended up voting none.

 

[freakshow10mm]

Convicted Violent felons lost there rights of citizenship, which includes a social contract that you will follow laws that are justified. (and if you break a law as civil disobedience, you take the punishment) A convicted rapist WILL get a gun if he wants one - but that does not mean that we should not lock him up if he has a gun.

If he shouldn't "morally" have a gun, then he shouldn't be let out of jail/prison. Felons are people to and the Constitution applies to them as well. All of it.

 

[41magsnub]

I voted no on convicted violent felons and the under 21 ccw thing though it should have been 18.

A felon should have the ability to get gun ownership back after a set time or a specific appeals process, but right away? Forget it, I live in reality and the current reality is felons are not released because they are rehabilitated, they are released because the jails are full and their time is up. Fix that problem first. As far as them getting guns anyway, that is true but why make it easier?

For the under 18 CCW I would wager more are unable to handle the responsibility than are able to. I do believe they should be able to own whatever their parents permit them to own and do whatever on private property they want to.

 

[Drgong]

Felons are people to and the Constitution applies to them as well. All of it

Constitution applies to citizens - and historically felons lost most rights, ranging from sitting on Juries, Voting, and other rights, including gun ownership. I doubt any of the founding fathers would agree that non-peaceable citizens should have the right to arms, even though they would be upset that one could not get a machine gun easily.

if you commit Murder, rape, treason, or other Felonies, you lost your rights to be a full citizen till you have proven that your reformed, and that requires that eventually you are released from state holding cells and given a chance to show that your reformed, but that does not mean you should have your rights restored at the moment of release.

Quite simple way of handling that.

To buy a gun you just need to show the seller a voter registration card and photo ID card showing your a citizen- and just don't give felons the right to vote until they have proven themselves peaceable citizens. (and that includes machine guns) If a felon lives for X number of years (Say 10) without being convicted of a crime, they get fully rehabilitated and can sign up to vote, and thus, buy a firearm.

 

[JDoe]

I voted none but was tempted to vote for restricting convicted violent felons only. There isn't any point in sending a reformed violent felon back to prison for peacefully possessing a gun while other criminals ignore the law and arm themselves as they please.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Eric,

Problem is plenty of folks get out of jail that are "less of a threat" and basically are let go because the system has a full jail. Just the way it is. So the big fantasy of if they cant be trusted with a gun then they shouldnt be let out of jail doesnt work.

Then you agree that the restrictions on felons is a result of the government's breach of the Social Contract. Thank you for proving my point.

Selena

 

[pkoch62]

Restrictions on violent felons only. Stay out of trouble for five years post-release, you're good to go.

Atomic, biological, and chemical weapons prohibited, anything else is fine.

 

[freakshow10mm]

if you commit Murder, rape, treason, or other Felonies, you lost your rights to be a full citizen till you have proven that your reformed, and that requires that eventually you are released from state holding cells and given a chance to show that your reformed, but that does not mean you should have your rights restored at the moment of release.

If they are not under department of corrections custody they are free men and should have the same rights as any of us.

Someone gets a 5 year sentence. They are a prisoner for 5 years. When they are released, they are free, aka a citizen. All rights restored. If you don't want them to have guns, don't release them. Either sentence them to life or execute them.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I still have not seen an answer to why a convicted, violent felon shoud ever have a right to drive...but not have the right to own a gun. Statistically, driving is a lot more dangerous than shooting. Legally, driving is a privilege...RKBA is a RIGHT.

Keep 'em in prison if they are too dangerous to legally carry a gun.

 

[Eric F]

still have not seen an answer to why a convicted, violent felon shoud ever have a right to drive...but not have the right to own a gun.

Keep 'em in prison if they are too dangerous to legally carry a gun.

The simple answer is this, If you restrict ther privilage of movement all they could really do is live in the inner city where they could walk a few blocks to do all of their daily life, work buy clothes groceries ect. America as a whole has a big mass transit issue compaired to europe. IF you restrict their ability of driving they could never become a "reformed" member of society by the very nature of how america is today.

The jail system is just not made to acomadate this line of thinking.

IMO!!!!!! life in prison is just not a do-able thing. Unless it is in a labor camp of some sort and if you are that bad off where you could not work as a team member(life in confinement) then your life is useless. This opens a whole nother discussion really, so we start killing criminal members of our society, how long would it be befors we convict and sentence people to death for stuff like running progun websites like this? How would it be any diffrent than countries we fought in the past like Germany in WW2? no we are not targetting a specific race for death but we are targetting a people with a diffrent line of thinking(criminals) see where this leads to?

There is no single really great answer to any of this. But some where in the middle there is a compromise on both sides that most of can live with......I think........now what that is, is for you the individual to decide.

 

[GarandOwner]

I think that SOME minimal gun control is a good thing. Before I get flamed, This is what I mean:

- Age restriction is a good idea. Think of how immature you were before you turned 18, think of how immature you were before you were 21. Yes all people are different but the vast majority of people should not be able to get a firearm to use without adult supervision (Anyone younger than 21/18 can still get a gun with their parents to be used under proper supervision)

- Registration for concealed carry. It is not so much that I think you should have to register to conceal carry, as much as I think it is a good idea to require some sort of safety class. Not everyone has had the benefit as the rest of us to learn shooting safety from a veteran. What we consider common knowledge (4 rules) might not pop into a novices mind if he was never taught it before.

And thats it, restriction on type of guns, magazine capacity, rate of fire and all that other crap does nothing to desuade criminals for the simple reason stated many many times: Criminals dont abide by the law, so what makes gun laws any different

 

[ColinthePilot]

I voted felons only. By being a convicted violent felon, you've given up your rights under the Constitution. You will be put in prison, losing the most basic right of freedom, and all other rights that go with it. Most of the time, a felon has taken or deprived another person of their basic rights. They deserve no less in return. You may no longer roam the country as you please, no longer vote and you've proven that you are a violent person, so should not be in possession of anything that will aid your violent ways. Don't like it? Don't commit a felony.
I do agree that criminals who serve their debt to society should be free men with all the rights that go along with that. But does that include those on probation? Have they paid their debt?
I also agree that if they're a danger to society, they should remain in jail. That would mean that felons still couldn't have guns. No one is pushing for guns for prisoners, right?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

People Registration

You know, I don't mind having a system of FELON control. If you have a violent felon, then you control him.

Problem with the current system: in order to "prevent" felons from buying guns, we have to keep a list of them, and then we have to make everyone who's not a felon PROVE he's not a felon.

Which applies to . . . cars? Chain saws? Axes and knives? Rat poison? Booze? Crowbars? . . . No?

Just . . . guns.

So, right, I can buy a hunting bow if I'm a felon, but not a gun.

You know, there's a pattern here. Pretty much everything listed above can be used to murder someone, but only one of them makes good sense as a self defense weapon.

And that's the one felons "can't buy" at a store.

Which makes it necessary to keep track of everybody, so that everybody can prove he's not a felon.

I think it's pretty well settled that a violent felon who wants a gun is going to have one.

So we pass a law that pretends to control felon access to firearms, while achieving only the addition of barriers to ownership for regular folk.

You wanna have a law restricting access to A-bombs? Well, I wouldn't be able to defend my house with one anyway.

Look, there was a time when, on leaving prison, you gave a guy back all his stuff. Including his hog leg and carbine.

Somewhere along the line, somebody got this clever idea that you could keep repeat offenders from doing it again if you just kept them from having guns.

Ha. Sure. That's certainly been working well all these years.

Guns are hardware. They belong in a hardware store. They're sporting goods. They belong in a sporting goods store. You might need one of something happens to yours out in the boonies. They belong in general stores and gas stations.

And you know something?

At one time, that's exactly where you found them.

We didn't lose access to guns because we all became bad people. We lost access to guns because politicians felt they needed more protection from us.

They didn't trust the citizens who elected them.

So, far as I'm concerned, just roll back all the asinine legislation and start over from somewhere around 1955.

Heck, even 1933.

Did we, as a society, become less violent as the number of restrictions increased? Uh, no.

So, that's not working then, is it?

So it's time to quit doing more of that and doing it harder and doing it with more money.

I would much prefer to presume that everyone I see on the street is armed, just as I, myself, am armed.

Much simpler.