are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

Quote:
I would like to make two points about this "argument of needs," both of which I will explain just a little. First, it's not about "need." The 2nd Amendment is contained in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. One of the things to remember with Rights is that they're not necessarily predicated on need, nor are they typically subject to a popular vote. A person with an incredibly unpopular political opinion still has a 1st Amendment right to express it, regardless of how the vast majority of Americans might view that political opinion.
Click to expand...
Granted. But note that there is 'harmful speech' that is regulated. That is/was a cost/benefit discrimination.
Click to expand...

This is very misleading and mostly untrue. Harmful speech is not "regulated".

I can yell "fire" in my living room all day long and the police can not come and arrest me. I can even yell it at the beach and the shooting range.

Words are not banned. It is the inappropriate and dangerous use of them that can be illegal. Inappropriate and dangerous use of a firearm is already illegal, or is made illegal when possible. Simply owning a gun won't hurt a soul. This goes back to one of the "big lies" that gun control groups spread.
 
Yes, there possibly are some regulations I could live with though I'm hard pressed to tell you what they are right now.

I'm guessing that some sort of reasonable expanded background check, which we already do anyway, would be alright if it helps to keep a firearm out of the wrong hands.

It's an inconvenience to be sure but it's only an inconvenience and it's something I can live with for the greater good. It seems to work in some situations.
 
Would that be cavity check and blood type? If you don't think what the FBI may have on file isn't comprehensive you'd likely be wrong. In recent weeks a Agent quit the National Security Agency over data collection on US citizens and the Justice Department was lightly scolded over authorizing dossiers on any citizen with a 5 year life span to the documentation even if no criminal wrong doing was involved.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Trailblazer_Project

http://www.ask.com/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2965947/posts

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/gov-dossiers-on-us-citizens/

Some of this is legislated, under the Patriot Act and some is well maybe questionable... But without a tin hat my point is there is plenty of information gathered, have no doubt they know who you are and what your about with the click of a few keys..
 
I'm fairly certain I've pointed this out before, but possibly not on this site and almost certainly not in this thread: Let us remember -- and be sure to point out to other people -- that Connecticut still has in effect an "assault weapon" ban that very closely mirrors the now-expired Federal AWB. All reports to date indicate that all Nancy Lanza's firearms were purchased legally. Ergo -- whatever the rifle used was, it was NOT (by definition) an "assault weapon."

It couldn't have been, because Nancy Lanza could not have legally purchased an assault weapon in Connecticut.
 
JimBob86 said:
So ...if it was not by definition, an "Assault Weapon" why all the fuss about them?
Click to expand...

My Guess? Because they can no longer target handguns. But EBR's make a good target, even amongst gun owners (and you can see that right here).
 
I see gun owner posting about their hunting firearms and that we don't need evil assault rifles. I take a minute to remind them that The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about your right to defend yourself. That citizens do not own assault rifles as those are only in the military. I do own a semi-auto version of it.
 
jimbob86 said:
So ...if it was not by definition, an "Assault Weapon" why all the fuss about them?
Click to expand...
Because the politicians and the media know that by calling anything that looks vaguely military-like an "assault weapon" they can generate fear of it, and thereby support for outlawing it. That's why we must be ever vigilant in correcting such incorrect terminology when we hear people using it.

Another one is the ubiquitous "high powered" rifle. I can't recall ever reading a story that in any way involved rifle fire without its having been described as "high powered."

Really?

If the .223 Remington/5.56x45 round is so powerful, why do so many states prohibit using it for hunting deer on the grounds that it ISN'T powerful enough? Toss that at them and watch their heads explode.
 
jimbob86 said:
So ...if it was not by definition, an "Assault Weapon" why all the fuss about them?
Click to expand...

Because the media never let's facts get in the way of their reporting. They loved to report about the Assault Weapon in the Aurora CO shooting even though the 100 round mag jammed rendering it useless.
 
Another one is the ubiquitous "high powered" rifle. I can't recall ever reading a story that in any way involved rifle fire without its having been described as "high powered."
Click to expand...

Every once in while an article will say ".22 rifle". I assume that means .22lr rf. If it is not a .22 lr rf than it is high powered.
 
gaseousclay


are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

for example, is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to take a mandatory safety course and test to prove their capability with a firearm? the way I see it, it's not that different from the laws surrounding car ownership. you have to take a test and demonstrate you know the rules of driving and most importantly, safety.
Is it unreasonable to regulate private sales, so that gun buyers would have to go through a business with a legally held FFL?
Is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to have some sort of safe or means of safely storing their firearms out of reach of others?
Click to expand...
musher

The way you framed the question is loaded.

If you're asking whether folks support reasonable gun regulations, then anyone who says 'no' is by definition unreasonable.

If you're asking what is reasonable, then you should evaluate the proposed restriction by asking

1. Does it serve a compelling government interest (a necessary or crucial interest)
2. Is the restriction narrowly tailored to meet that interest.
3. Is it the least restrictive means for meeting that interest.

Notice that "reducing access to guns" or any other rephrasing of an intent to weaken a fundamental right is NOT a compelling interest.

As far as I can tell, none of the "reasonable" restrictions that "reasonable" people seem to be floating would pass the test--not even close.
Click to expand...

musher,
I agree with your statement of what is reasonable. I don't think that the OP gaseousclay framed his questions as you characterize. gaseousclay asked three questions beginning with "Is it unreasonable to . . ." Some have address those questions in detail.

Rather than just doing "something" perhaps we should seek to do only things which are constructive to achieve the goal of actually making the students safer.
If we focus on the motive for change: to institute policies/actions which will make school children safer in their school; what can be done?

1) Design changes to schools to make access by unauthorized person much more difficult if not impossible. Have "safe rooms" for students to retreat to in the event of a shooter (could also be used in the event of a tornado).
2) Increase remote surveillance to provide time to react to someone seeking unauthorized access and to determine the level of threat.
3) Place trained armed guards in schools, like the president's children's school has. (Qualified volunteers could reduce the expense)
4) Have school drills on actions that teachers and students should take in the event of an active shooter. Something like tornado and fire drills.
 
Mello2u, while youre heart is in the right place, that would cost WAY too much money for an already bankrupt state.

How about we just have ccw's for teachers?

this just seems so easy and simple to me its mind boggling.
 
You don't need new volunteers. The states already have quite a few. One weekend a month, and two weeks a year. Instead of a weekend, they'd just have to report Monday, Tuesday, or Wed-Thu, Fri-Mon etc etc.
 
I finally found one!!! We need a law passed saying that prior to any Senator or Congressman being qualified to vote on any law that pertains to firearms or firearm accessories they have to undergo a mandatory 80 hours of gun familiarization and training. Training should include a wide selection of arms...

At least for once they could have at least some small idea of what they are even legislating about.
 
Last edited:
yes, there is. you can call or name it anything you want. you can disagree with it also, but it does exist. someone who would never even attempt to buy a gun at a gunstore would seek a gunshow if he had malicious intentions. Private sales many times are with people who know you or with someone who knows someone who knows you. What I am getting at, is private sales are different then the gunshow loophole in my opinion. gunshow loophole law would heavily cutdown on guns getting in the wrong people's hands.
Click to expand...

If they ban private sales at gun shows, private sales will just go underground. Hell, they already are- imagine how many guns were traded to prohibited parties for crack in this day alone.

The only thing you'll see is a surge in straw sales, which are almost impossible to prevent, unless the buyer/seller is just really stupid about it.
 
BTW, to answer the question, "Are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?"

Yes. I support a prohibition on sales to minors under 18. They should have parental permission. Prisons and jails ought to be able to keep their occupants from owning firearms. I might support a requirement for the general militia or organized to own firearms and train with them. Other than that, I really don't see a need for regulations.
 
If the criminals are said to be using stolen guns they must be the guns lying on the floor in the closet and not in a gun safe.
Click to expand...

Not always the case. There were some robberies of gun shops here in IL last year where the bad guys drove a stolen pickup truck into the side of the gun shop and knocked down the brick wall that housed the guns. They reportedly got away with 70 guns. They had it planed out well as the police were investigating this robbery they were across town doing the same thing at another gun shop.

They were not caught.
 
If the criminals are said to be using stolen guns they must be the guns lying on the floor in the closet and not in a gun safe.
Click to expand...

I have insurance on mine and the company only offered a 10% discount, and only if the safe was 800# and bolted down. This means that 90% of the time the safe didn't help. And when the safe was less than 800#, it didn't matter at all. I'm pretty sure my kids could get into the average RSC in a couple of minutes with the tools they have.

In any case, even if you have a real safe, I'm sure you travel with your guns from time to time. I'd be willing to bet most firearms are stolen in transit from people who CCW or hunt than from a home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top