What gun control measures do you support?

[CliffH]

None.

Age restriction on handguns for those under 18, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. On their 18th birthday they get to vote, register for selective service and buy a handgun. Or, better yet, they're given one or more by family & friends.

I personally know a "violent" felon. His "violent" felony? Making fireworks in his home. He also has the tools and knowledge to make his own full automatic rifle. I know him well. He's NOT a threat to society and has fully discharged his sentence, yet can't own a firearm.

If felons are such a problem and are being released too early because the prisons are over-crowded, enlarge the existing prisons or build new ones! Then keep them incarcerated until they're no longer a threat. While you're at it, have the prisoners do something profitable, maybe some type of light manufacturing, to help support themselves and the new/bigger prisons.

I don't agree with requiring permits for CCW either. I'd much rather prefer open or concealed carry to be a person's own choice - with no permits or licenses required. The only training I would like to see for either method of carrying is a few hour course (4 hours or less) on when & where carry is allowed - such as local businesses that have posted their property as gun free zones. Carrying, either open or concealed, should be allowed in all public places, including government buildings.

Why shouldn't I have access to full-auto weapons? Are you afraid that, because I own one, I'll nut-out and take out the neighborhood? A full-auto isn't required for that. It might make it a bit easier, but it's not impossible without one. And if you are afraid that I might nut-out, there are so many non-gun related laws on the books now that I'm sure a charge could be found that would remove the "preceived" danger. But that sets you down the path of "I thought he might do something bad, so I had him locked up". Unless you're a mind reader........

Regarding shooting full auto in your back yard: Common sense and consideration for others should take care of that situation. Since some might not be good neighbors, a local sound ordinance should suffice to keep it to a minimum. Got to admit, if one of my neighbors was shooting FA in his back yard I'd be knocking on his door - with a hand full of $ bills to pay for any ammo he'd let me shoot up.

The way I see it, life isn't safe & none of us are getting out of it alive. The possibility of dying in/on a motor vehicle is greater than dying from being shot. I just can't see even trying to legislate all of the possible "accidents" out of existance, it can't be done. Take life as it comes and quit trying to wrap yourself (and everyone else) up in safe.

An armed society is a polite society.

Off topic, but too good to not post somewhere:

A nephew is an ER nurse. They had a gang member come in last night with a through & through on her buttocks, recieved in a walk-by shooting. While being patched up she was complaining about how violent it's become and how no-one respects anyone else anymore!

 

[71Commander]

Absolutely none.

 

[cornman]

36% Absolutely none? Sorry, but how does one justify this type of argument? So, children should be able to buy anything they want? Criminals should be able to carry? Rocket launchers should be sold at walmart?

 

[71Commander]

36% Absolutely none? Sorry, but how does one justify this type of argument? So, children should be able to buy anything they want? Criminals should be able to carry? Rocket launchers should be sold at walmart?

All liberal DU talking points.

In case you don't realize it, criminals do carry.

As to the rocket launcher statement. LMAO.

 

[General Geoff]

Children should be under supervision from their parents anyway. Kids could mail-order machine guns back before '68, never seemed to be a problem then.

If a convicted criminal is trusted to be outside of prison, then there should be no problem trusting him with a gun. In other words, if he can't be trusted with a gun, then he should not be out of prison.

And yes, rocket launchers should be sold at walmart.

 

[JohnL2]

Lose faith in the populace, strengthen the system.
I think we have the database and bandwidth technology to make tracking work. Or at least denial of purchase for nefarious intent.
I think the whole legality issue of open carry and carry conceal is rather silly. Also the fact that when I purchased my revolver a little while ago I was escorted out of the store and then my pistol was handed over to me. A gent walking to the front doors observed the whole thing and burst out laughing and shook his head. He knew it was ridiculous too. All for liability sake.
Sometimes the law just sucks the common sense out of the room.

 

[mike101]

Krochus said:

"WOW 66% of THR members have bought the liberal line and believe at least some form of gun control works"

I don't think it's "buying the liberal line" to try to prevent those convicted of a violent crime, or those who have been judged a mentally defective 'danger' from buying a gun. Sure, if a criminal wants a gun, he's probably going to get one, but there's no sense making it too easy for him.

Now I'm talking about a real conviction for a real violent crime here, like assault with a deadly weapon, or armed robbery. The "liberals" would take your guns away for having a loud fight with your girlfriend.

Some people will say that if a person can't be trusted with the same rights as the rest of us, they shouldn't be walking around free. I agree. But in the real world, they let criminals out of jail early all the time due to prison overcrowding. I don't agree with it, but it happens.

Come to think of it, the people who are so concerned that the criminals might be cramped, are the same people who are always clammoring for our guns. This is another debate we continually have with the antis on the anti-gun blogs. They think keeping criminals in jail is draconian.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I don't think it's "buying the liberal line" to try to prevent those convicted of a violent crime, or those who have been judged a mentally defective 'danger' from buying a gun.

Ever been kinda down by being dumped by your wife or girlfriend?

If so then you my friend fall under whatever definition of mentally defective the medical profession sees fit to bestow.

 

[Drgong]

Question to the group who thinks there should be no regulations whatsoever, would you accept that all violent felons get a long probation with a rule that they cannot own a firearm as part of the probation?

 

[71Commander]

Question to the group who thinks there should be no regulations whatsoever, would you accept that all violent felons get a long probation with a rule that they cannot own a firearm as part of the probation?

If they can't be trusted with a gun, keep them in prison.

If they are convicted of a crime that sends them to prison, make them serve the full term and then release them, restoring their rights. Probation and rehabilitation are liberal programs.

 

[General Geoff]

No. If they're in society, they should have ALL their rights restored. Probation or not.

 

[Scoutsout2645]

I agree with the age restriction going down to 18--if you're old enough to enlist and become required to use full auto heavy machine guns and *gasp* pistols, then you're old enough to purchase a pistol in the civilian world.

The only "restrictions" on carrying that I would like to see is a requirement for someone to take an NRA (or similar) firearms safety course and have some form of annual shooting qualification. This way we don't get some guy who has never seen a gun outside of TV/the movies who will pick up a Glock ('cause it's cool) and wind up shooting himself (or worse--me) in the leg when he draws it with his finger inside the trigger guard. If we require police, who carry everyday and--as many here have stated in other threads--are no more special than any other citizen, to qualify with their weapons 2 to 4 times a year then why shouldn't the rest of us have to do it at least once?

Regarding the issue of violent felons...apparently many of you don't understand the purpose of the penal system. Felons are not imprisoned until they are "safe to return to society" any more than your speeding ticket fine will render you unable to speed again. The current concept is punishing you for what you did, not preventing you from doing it again. There is minimal rehabilitation in modern prisons as these programs usually cost more than simple warehousing and, with mandatory minimum sentences, there is often NO post-release supervision. The result is that sentences are issued based on a formula of X degree of crime merits Y amount of time with a minimum time Z actually inside the jail. Essentially the BG is "benched" for a short time only to be returned to the game rested, stronger, (often) more violent and with fewer options for legitimate employment. THIS is the reality of the world we actually live in, and is why I endorse restricting firearms from people who have proved they are unwilling to abide by the rules you and I follow everyday. Yes, criminals will still get guns, but we don't need to make it easier for them...just like pedophiles will still attack children, but you wouldn't want a law requiring them to be hired as kindergarten teachers.

And for the "mentally defective" issue...umm, krochus, a clinical depression (one that is actually treated and medicated--not just alleged) will NOT prevent your access to firearms EVEN IN NEW JERSEY--I personally know several people for whom this is the case. However, being so upset from being dumped that you beat the crap out of her or you start stalking your ex- and begin having fantasies of homicide/suicide, etc. SHOULD preclude you from having access to kitchen knives, let alone guns. If THIS is what you mean by "a little down", perhaps the "mentally defective" label might not be too far off. Irrationality exists at both extremes and people who support the propaganda of the "black helicopter" extremists are just as damaging to the cause as those who believe the left's propaganda that none of us should be allowed access to matches without a state issued license--"for the children" of course.

 

[ronwill]

I chose convicted violent felons, however, I would support restricting verified mental instability where the individual is shown to be a danger to themselves or others.

 

[TAB]

so who desides if they are safe to own a firearm?

 

[General Geoff]

Regardless of whether a violent felon is rehabilitated from his tenure in prison, if he's released back into society, he is once again a free man - he should be afforded the right to keep and bear arms just like the rest of us. If he so chooses to abuse that right and go shoot and kill someone, well that is a capital offense and he ought to be locked away for the rest of his life, if not sentenced to death.

Nobody said liberty is safe, for you or anyone else. But that doesn't make it any less vital.

 

[TAB]

since you forgot what you said in a post, on this page i'll qoute it for you...

If a convicted criminal is trusted to be outside of prison, then there should be no problem trusting him with a gun. In other words, if he can't be trusted with a gun, then he should not be out of prison.

so who desides if they can be trusted?

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

I would be for "some restrictions" but not the ones you have listed (as is).

Prohibition on violent felons.
I think current system of lifetime ban on felons is not only useless it is unconstitutional. With a minor change it could not only be useful but constitutional.

Say right now a violent felon gets 5yrs and when he gets out he can't have firearm.

Let's change that to felon gets 15yrs w/ 10yr suspended as probation. So he serves exact same amount of time. Now when he gets out he is on probation (i.e he is still serving his time but not in prison). Probation is a privilege; the cons has been sentenced to 15yrs. he has been given the opportunity to only serve 5 of those years in prison. During that time he can not own a firearm and must meet other criteria for probation. He should get health does of reality counseling. Say he decided to commit another robbery.

He will get 5yrs for robbers + 10 years of suspended sentence + 5 yrs for use of firearm in felony + 5 yrs for felony possession of firearm. 1 Robbery = 25 years. Repeat offenders quickly go to jail for long time. If someone will commit a robbery w/ 25yr sword handing over his/her head they will do it no matter what and should spend rest of their life in jail.

Instant Background check system could be replaced w/ a smaller database of violent criminals on parole. Violent Criminal + On parole = no firearm. Everyone Else = firearm.

There should be no prohibition on non-violent felons ever. If not paying child support is a felony is some states. Not that I advocate dead beat dad (personally I think they are scum of the earth) but they are no more/less likely to be violent.

NFA
I would support the NFA; mainly because I feel it will never be overturned so I think our resources are better spent reforming it.

Current NFA is a joke because of the 86 ban.
1) Remove 86 ban. It is unconstitutional. MG from 86 are no more dangerous than MG from 85.

2) Remove all fees. A right can't be taxed. All costs to implement the program should be borne by govt, just like voting.

3) Remove local signature requirement. If local LEO wants to be updated on changes to weapons locations they can query the NFA database.

Age limit
I believe age limit is fine but it should be 18. If you are old enough to use firearm in combat and die for your country you should have right to self defense. I also believe there should be no restrictions on anything past 18. 18 is the age of majority. 18-20.9999 should not be a 2nd class citizen. Drinking, firearms, conceal carry, open carry, etc should all be allowed at 18.

Under 18 limit is fine by me as long as parent/guardian can buy a weapon as gift for minor.

 

[General Geoff]

so who desides if they can be trusted?

Generally speaking (in our current system), the warden, the parole review board, and somewhat preemptively, the judge who did the original sentencing.

 

[TAB]

So a judge can tell what some one is going to be like years from now after going thru what most would call a very traumatic exp while in jail?

please explain to me how they would know that, hell explain to me how any one could know that.

 

[308win]

Felons should be allowed the possibility of owning firearms, voting, and any other rights forfeited only after:

1. They have served the sentence and any parole/probation;
2. A waiting period of X years depending on the nature of their crime;
3. Made full restitution to the victims;
4. Petitioned for restoration of rights with the victims having the right to present a case for denial.

 

[General Geoff]

What is there to explain? How does anyone tell who can be trusted, and when? Would you prefer that every violent felon simply be locked up for the rest of their lives, to play it safe?

 

[Scoutsout2645]

OK--since it looks like the primary bone of contention among us is the "violent felons should have guns/violent felons should not have guns" issue, I have a realistic question for the "no restrictions ever" crowd:

GIVEN THAT recidivism rates for violent crimes run between 50-75% depending on what data you look at, and
GIVEN THAT restricting felons from guns is to prevent convicted criminals from gaining easier access to deadlier weapons when committing crimes;
What punishments do you advocate for that first offense to prevent repeat offending on release?
What punishments do you propose for a second offense?
What punishments do you propose for crimes committed with a firearm? Should there be different punishments if no one actually gets hurt?

Remember that:
A) the Bill of Rights has several Amendments after the 2nd and there's this tricky prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" in there, and that
B) the average prisoner costs between 20-40K per year to incarcerate, and to expand the already overwhelmed probation system nationally would (conservatively) cost millions--the costs of which would have to be supported by tax increases that you and I would have to pay.

I'm truly curious to see what your alternative solutions would be.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi 308,

Excellent plan, a bit Orwellian but excellent. But does the Constitution grant the government that kind of authority?

Selena

 

[TAB]

What is there to explain? How does anyone tell who can be trusted, and when? Would you prefer that every violent felon simply be locked up for the rest of their lives, to play it safe?

you said

If a convicted criminal is trusted to be outside of prison, then there should be no problem trusting him with a gun. In other words, if he can't be trusted with a gun, then he should not be out of prison.

I want you to explain how that system would work. In other words, since there is a trust issue, who desides if we can trust them?

 

[General Geoff]

It's really very simple, TAB. When a prisoner is released into society, ALL of his rights are restored. To trust a man to drive a car, to rent an apartment, to be able to invite people into that apartment, to own kitchen knives, to do any of the things a free person can do, but not trust him with a gun - It's just plain stupid. And ineffective, to boot, as is noted by the huge number of convicted felons who have guns and aren't legally allowed to anyway.