Are there any restrictions we can agree with??

K

KAM_Indianapolis

New member
OK, the saying goes, if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. After watching some of the debate last night on C-Span I came to the conclusion that the politicians on both sides are equally as clueless about what the real issue is. Both sides of the issue distort the truth, and the language of the bills are usually so convoluted that common people can't understand them.

So my question to everyone, what gun controls would you support. There are probably issues we will severely divide on, but my question is what can we all agree on and live with.

I would think most of you already agree that felons, youths and the mentally disturbed should not be allowed to purchase any firearm. I would agree that felons, and the mentally disturbed should not even be allowed to posses a gun and that youths should only be allowed to posses a gun under parental supervision. Requiring an instant check to make sure a person is not in the restricted class seems reasonable, as long as no record of those that pass the check is kept. I don't believe private sellers should be required to be liscenced to sell guns, as long as the guns are part of a personal collection and are under a certain number a year.

Are there other restrictions that are reasonable?

Let's try to keep this a civil debate.

Obviously there are some of you out there who will say "No restrictions at all." I think in today's society that is a cop out. If we allow the politicians to craft the bills, we will never get what we require to ensure our Consitutional rights. So let's craft our own, and then see if we can become a part of the solution.

Peace...
Keith
 
OK heres a try

1 No Felons ( of violent crimes)

2 No one who is disbard by youth to join
or be drafted into the US Army

Well I guess that is it for me.
 
I support NO restrictions at all. Prosecute crimes committed regardless of tools used.

The reason I support no restrictions, is that the folks enforcing these laws seem to be criminally insane vicious bastards who scare me far more than most non-government felons.

------------------
Cornered Rat, now at bay
ddb.com/RKBA Updated March 20
"Disarm, then past the barbed wire, into the oven and out of the smoke-stack..."
 
The only thing I support is:


Instant check...no associated waiting period or retained records; no restricted weapon types, no registration. Period

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
First we have to repeal ALL current gun control measures, get legislation passed that says Congress affirms and understands the 2nd amendment, and prohibits any state or local law that infringes on the RKBA, and says any new gun control measure has to meet the standard of not infringing, and has to pass by 2/3 majority. Then we can talk about background checks.
 
I would support any reasonable gun control law that would actually serve the purpose for which they are intented, which is to reduce crime. But todate, I have not seen one, NOT ONE law either proposed or in effect that does anything to reduce crime. Take a look at the instant check. So a criminal can't buy a gun, big deal, he either has his girl friend by it for him or steals it. They can not prosocute these people under the instant check due to the 5th amendment. When they fill out the little paper they ask them if they are a convicted criminal. Why do you suppose that with over 400k turned down they have not convicted one. The only law that I have seen that has done any good whatsoever is the three stikes law in CA.

Laws that I would support... Mandatory firearms training for everyone. Let them use their powers granted under article 1, section 8 to provide for the training of the militia. As to kids buying guns... no restrictions, after that kid is over 12 and proves they have passed a hunters safety course or over the age of 16 without. Although I would support training in highschool for all.

Anything else is just a sham. A way to make the ownership of arms very troublesome.

Richard
 
Well, let me say that I want fewer controls than are in place right now. In general I object to all "prior restraints" on the RKBA, which puts me in the voter demographic known as the "looney vote".

That said, I would like it if there was a compromise position that could become law. I could live with restrictions to the RKBA if there was some reason to believe that the compromise position was stable, rather than simply an intermediate step to total civilian disarmament. Unfortunately, the hoplophobes always insist on just one more step, one more compromise, and it is irrational to expect that they will ever change. We compromised in '34, '68, and '86, but our opponents are never satisfied. The latest "broken treaty" is from the Brady Bill... the compromise was that we would accept a waiting period, in return for the eventual phase-in of an instant check system. Within a few short weeks of the instant check coming on-line, there were calls to reinstate the waiting period, on top of the background checks!

To sum up this long diatribe, if we intend to secure the blessings of liberty for our grandchildre, I don't think that we can demand anything other than strict adherence to the Bill of Rights, and that certainly precludes compromising on "reasonable restrictions".
 
Here's a revolutionary idea(for our governmental wizards). Stop wasting taxpayer money on passing more gun control laws, shut up, and enforce the existing laws.

but that would actually reduce crime, not help their approval rating. So I guess that'll never happen...
 
No restrictions at all!

I say this is because who are we to decide who can and can't have a firearm. I have my personal feelings on who should and shouldn't, but my neighbor probably feels differently. If we accept any restrictions, then, as history has already proven, more will be added as time goes on.

As has already been said in this thread, prosecute using the laws already on the books. This will weed out the people that have proved they are not to be trusted with a firearm. At the same time, allow "Vermont Carry" in all states. This will also help weed them out.

Of course, all this may not matter in another 196 days. Maybe sooner
smile.gif


Jon...
 
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now lets discuss how much infringement we want?????


------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Keith, here's the problem. We can't trust our government(s) at all anymore regarding firearms. (if we ever could)

They tell us they want to do an instant check under Brady, and they agree to destroy the records. Then ... they don't destroy the records, and to my knowledge, the Justice Department is still locked in a lawsuit with the NRA over this issue. The excuse? The Justice Department says they need the records for audit purposes. Should they ever agree to destroy the records, will you believe them?

They tell us not to be worried about registering firearms. They don't want to take anyone's gun away. Then, we get a handy CA Attorney General web site like http://www.sksbuyback.org/ . Californians who registered their SKS rifles back in '92 now get to sell them to CA. Or ... go to jail, go directly to jail ...

They tell us they agree with the second amendment, and they just want to make some 'reasonable' changes to firearms laws, or 'close some loopholes'. But, the changes never end, and one 'loophole' leads to another. They want to outlaw certain types and calibers of ammo, register people who purchase ammo, limit how much ammunition you can buy, outlaw certain features on guns, reduce the pool of qualified buyers, further limit where you may possess a firearm and so on.

In sum, the anti-self defense crowd cannot be trusted for one moment. Ergo, I have zero interest in 'compromising' with them in any way. They are liars, cheats, and idiots at best. I don't care to do any kind of deal with someone like that sitting across the table from me.
 
Background check? How about, "innocent until proven guilty? My medical records are my business, thanks so much.

Otherwise I agree with DC. Remember, your rights end at my nose. The only way to prevent crime, like war, is to be prepared to defend yourself and your property. Government control of any product has never worked, unless you call creating black markets progress.

Never forget, "...shall not be infringed." Strong phrasing from men who understood the language. They were not kidding, or trying to be reasonable, they were stating the case clearly. Any gun control is unconstitutional, and frankly, immoral.

------------------
"All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow."
 
I will not compromise on the issue of gun control. Period. Or, for that matter, any of the rights described in the Bill of Rights. Appeasement to the opposition concerning any one of those rights opens the door to the further erosion of those rights; "Well, you agreed to that, this isn't asking for much more."

More importantly, I will not compromise any of the amendments in the Bill of Rights because my father was shot at and wounded three times to protect them.

Gotta go for now.
 
Age Requirments, 18 for long guns, 21 for handguns.

Instead of Background checks, I'd prefer to see an instant check against a list of people who may not purchase firearms. If you're on the list, no guns. Not on the list, here's your AK, have a nice day.

Full-Autos should require a license, but it should be closer to what's currently required for a Concealed Carry Permit, not all the crap currently required.

Not sure if this is really a "Gun Control" law , but I'd really like to see the law state that anyone who commits a crime with a gun is an Adult.(period!)
 
Jeez, that sucks. And I may be going out on a limb here, but it doesn't sound to hard for anyone in california to sue the state. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find 10 or 20 reasons to in that website alone.

Anyway. About gun control. Don't believe in it. And if there is anyone in here who does than they should explain to me why I can't legally own a gun just because I'm 16. OTOH, I do believe in trigger control. I'm not too keen on the thought of people breaking out their .270's in the middle of downtown. So I guess I'd be with the No firing within city limits rule. Also, guns and airplanes aren't the best match also. Just one bullet through the airplanes skin while up where the air presure is really low won't be pretty.

Well, those are the 2 that come to my mind at the moment.

Sincerely,
Adam

------------------
Self improvement is a hobby of mine :)
 
NONE

If you think thats a cop-out, I think you're mistaken. This is the type of question that anti-gunners use to help divide pro-gunners(ie Hunters are asked why they would support the NRA when the NRA works to keep the right to own an AK 47 a right, ect., ect., ect., adnauseam). Its a simple as this--any restriction leads to further restrictions.
Our rights are being whittled away piece by piece with "reasonable restrictions", and I think it's time we all say we're "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore".
 
Adam..
Technically, you can't own anything until you are 18....its been that way for 50 yrs.

Not meant as a slam...just fact. It used to work out pretty well until the gov't got involved.




------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
I am in favor of background checks against a database of violent felons(any age) and those that have psycosis or mental illness with violent tendencies.

I also have no problem with a 20 hour(or so) training course before your first purchase. Perhaps even 8hr continuing education every 2 or 3 years.

Long guns when your 18, handguns when 21 are fine with me. Sorry Adam, the problem with youth is that your elders(not betters) have already been there and know what it is like
smile.gif
.

No problem with full auto being registered.

Of course in order for this to be enacted there should be another list that asserts:

All small arms and ammunition types will be able to be purchased by a citizen who meets the above requirements. Period. CCW will also be shall issue.

enjoy,
Olazul
 
Ivan8883 6-18-99 909PM EDT I support commomsense restrictions such as no shooting in town or city limits,no firearms for PROVEN mental cases, no firearms for convicted felons
who used firearms in commision of a crime, no handguns for people under 18 unless living on a farm,no longarms for people under 18 unless living on a farm or ranch,and no loaded firearms on aircraft. But I oppose all these restrictive state and Federal Gun Laws since 1934 since these laws are enforced by police authorities who have only one thing in mind; Control!"Your papers,please!" Ivan
 
If you believe in the second ammendment, then NO RESTRICTIONS! Otherwise, what part of "shall not be infringed" confuses you? It is NOT a cop-out to take that position.

Why background checks? Why should one prove that one is "qualified" to own or possess something when the Constitution affirms the right to own or possess it? A right does not require "qualification". We were "qualified" by being born. Backgound checks are the embodiment of "guilty until proven innocent"! That implies the "I know that I'm ok but I don't think the rest of you are" mentality. That is the way the liberals think and it is exactly opposite the concept of justice in this society.

If you support any restrictions or conditions associated with the exercizing of a right, then you relegate it to the level of a privelidge. Privelidges are granted by those in authority and can be taken away by the same people. A right is not a privelidge and vise-versa.

Owning a car is a privelidge. Owning a gun is a right. Other than a business license, there is no special license required to sell cars, federal or otherwise. Why then is there a Federal Firearm License required to sell guns?

If you don't operate a car on public roads, you don't need a license or registration. You certainly don't need either to buy one. Technically, a ten year old could go in to a dealership and purchase a Corvette or a Ferrari or any other car if he had the money. No law prevents this. Why then a special procedure to purchase a firearm? Are not more people killed annually by automobiles than with guns? Of course! It should be a no-brainer.

Those of us that accept some restrictions on the ownership and/or possession of firearms should not be surprised when others want total restriction. They are one and the same. Think about it.

------------------
Dennis

"That no free man should ever be disarmed". (Thomas Jefferson)

wrightknife@ixpres.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top