are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

Regulations I would support:

1)The Sandy Hook, Aurora, Clackamas shooters and the like needed a way to transport themselves and their firearms to their targeted location. There would of been no way they would have been able to walk around in public carrying longarms without attracting attention. So perhaps mental screenings during the process for the Driver's license or State ID might be a viable solution. The 2nd Amendment isn't affected and the anti-gun people share the same pain.

2) Secure storage, where the government adds new jobs by manufacturing US made firearms lockers made to gov/mil standards, at affordable prices for the average joe.
 
So perhaps mental screenings during the process for the Driver's license
Click to expand...

Have you been to a DMV? You really want these people conducting mental screening? What do they know about mental health as a workforce? Next to nothing would be my guess. We keep asking what would stop these losses and honestly there aren't any good or easy answers... I guess you can try to outlaw evil, but it seems in thousands of years no ones come up with a 100% way to make it work.

Of course you could just let them take your rights, see how well it worked out for the Soviet Union and the Eastern Europe of the 1940's-1980... Nothing like government agents helping you never be heard from again or maybe you get off easy working to death in a Gulag in Siberia. And while were at it why don't we clamp down on our other rights too so we can be extra secure.... I think state run media so we can have filtered news would be great? How about the government telling us what religion to believe or not believe?

My point isn't to argue or even answer these questions, but rather point out if you can take one right or severely limit it then why not do the same with the rest of them???

You want a law that works, its called the 2A and its among the highest laws in the land...
 
Last edited:
gaseousclay said:
ferrarif1fan said:
I am disappointed by most of what I've read on the few gun forums I frequent regarding solutions to some of the tragedies we've experienced lately. I am in total agreement that gun control won't keep criminals from obtaining and using guns. But I do not agree that just because that statement is true, we should absolve ourselves from trying to provide positive suggestions to help alleviate the problem. To do so seems uncaring, irresponsible, and certainly paints a bad picture of gun right advocates in the public's eyes. And right now, that's exactly what they're wanting to see.

I have guns and I want to keep my guns to be able to protect myself, my family, and those I may be around if the next criminal or lunatic opens fire. But I am also willing to jump through a few more hoops if it might make our society a little safer.
Click to expand...
well said and I agree with you 100%. I guess I find it a little disappointing that when we gun owners talk about 'sensible' gun laws we either tout apathy or we espouse the idea that jumping through those extra hoops is somehow eroding our gun rights. If you can still get a gun but close those loop holes I think this is a good thing imo
Click to expand...

What I think gets forgotten ever since the 1968 GCA, is that the anti-gun crowd has never compromised a thing. All so-called "compromise" has been a ride down a one-way street. We (the gun owners) have given up parts of our rights, while "they" have given up nothing.

Sorry, but that's not compromise by any stretch of the word.

The topic is always framed so that if any of us disagrees with the gun-grabbers, then we are not only not being reasonable, but we have lost any common sense we may assume we once had.

We have long gone past the point of "sensible" gun laws. Something is going to happen and we need to fight tooth and nail against it. Even knowing we will lose on some subjects. That's the sensible thing to do.

If we are going to be forced to give anything up, then "compromise" demands that they give up something also. Else it is not compromise. It's just us giving up more of what we have striven so hard to get returned to us.

The fact that so many folks on gun boards do not see this, does not give me much hope.
 
1)The Sandy Hook, Aurora, Clackamas shooters and the like needed a way to transport themselves and their firearms to their targeted location. There would of been no way they would have been able to walk around in public carrying longarms without attracting attention. So perhaps mental screenings during the process for the Driver's license or State ID might be a viable solution. The 2nd Amendment isn't affected and the anti-gun people share the same pain.
Click to expand...

No way? How about any number of purpose built longarm cases/bags or any cases/bags that a long arm would fit in?

A single comprehensive mental health screening at the time of obtaining and/or renewing a license would not only be extremely expensive(who's going to pay for it?) but extremely intrusive and time consuming.

Not to mention, what about all the people who don't have licenses? If someone is plotting mass murder, suddenly the line is drawn at them stealing an illegally operating a vehicle to get to their target?

This idea is about as valid as suggesting periodic mandatory mental health screenings for all people...
 
I've taken my AR on a county bus. I've worn my pistol on the bus numerous times. Washington as state preemption. As a county department, our local metro cannot and in fact specifically allows on their rules firearms and ammunition.
 
Have you been to a DMV? You really want these people conducting mental screening? What do they know about mental health as a workforce? Next to nothing would be my guess. We keep asking what would stop these losses and honestly there aren't any good or easy answers... I guess you can try to outlaw evil, but it seems in thousands of years no ones come up with a 100% way to make it work.

Of course you could just let them take your rights, see how well it worked out for the Soviet Union and the Eastern Europe of the 1940's-1980... Nothing like government agents helping you never be heard from again or maybe you get off easy working to death in a Gulag in Siberia. And while were at it why don't we clamp down on our other rights too so we can be extra secure.... I think state run media so we can have filtered news would be great? How about the government telling us what religion to believe or not believe?

My point isn't to argue or even answer these questions, but rather point out if you can take one right or severely limit it then why not do the same with the rest of them???

You want a law that works, its called the 2A and its among the highest laws in the land...
Click to expand...

No way? How about any number of purpose built longarm cases/bags or any cases/bags that a long arm would fit in?

A single comprehensive mental health screening at the time of obtaining and/or renewing a license would not only be extremely expensive(who's going to pay for it?) but extremely intrusive and time consuming.

Not to mention, what about all the people who don't have licenses? If someone is plotting mass murder, suddenly the line is drawn at them stealing an illegally operating a vehicle to get to their target?

This idea is about as valid as suggesting periodic mandatory mental health screenings for all people...
Click to expand...

All good points. While the idea was bad, it was the only one I could think of there the anti-gun people end up having a taste of their own medicine.

And yes, I've been to a DMV in CA which was an extremely horrid experience. But if the gun owners have to suffer, I believe the gun control advocates should also feel what it is like to lose their freedoms. (There is no right to drive.)
 
Welcome to The Firing Line, colbad!

colbad said:
Criminal penalties for legal owners who fail to secure.
Click to expand...
Do you happen to have any suggestions for defining "fail to secure?" Or methods of enforcement?
 
There are no sensible gun regulations that I know of that aren't already in place.
Every time one of these tragedies occurs laws are broken. More laws are not the answer.
In answer to your question, NO.
 
NO, I do not support any form of "lenient" or sensible firearm regulations.

If anything, they should retract some of the stupid laws that are already in place like no CCW in certain states, high-cap magazine bans in CA, simplify NFA requirements for suppressors and SBR's, etc.

No type of Gun Control is good, at least in my book. Sure there are considerations like being of proper age to own firearms, backgrounds checks, and such. All those are already in place.
 
Criminal penalties for legal owners who fail to secure.
Click to expand...

Welcome.... But here's some considerations... Many guns, if not most guns used in crimes are stolen. I'm sure some esteemed member of this forum can give you more specifics. Also keep in mind what good is a firearm if it has to be kept in some vault or safe, it defeats the purpose of having a firearm if you can't get to it before the BG does you in. Further what level of security is enough? Do we mandate a certain type of steel and Gauge.

Most the quick access safes seem to have a lot of slop in the door and don't seem like they would stop almost anyone with a screwdriver and a little strength.

If a BG breaks in my locked house were my weapons not secure until the law was violated? I'm not picking on you, please don't get me wrong there's just a whole lot of things that may or may not work here...
 
To sound like an echo. I would support repeal of gun laws now in place, restrictions on ccw or open carry, along with a host of other ridiculous laws passed by congress that have nothing to do with a firearm at all.

I guess i could go along with the restriction of personal tactical nukes though:D
 
Here is my proposal:

1. Decriminalize marijuana. Tax and regulate it. Go from spending $40B per year on enforcement to making $30B per year from taxes and licensing fees. In the same stroke, rob gangs of black market profits and incentives, reducing violence.

2. Let the thousands of non-violent offenders in jail and prison for marijuana offenses out, freeing up thousands and thousands of cells.

3. Use some of the net $70B per year toward prosecution of violent offenders; use the newly emptied cells to hold them. Ban early releases of repeat, violent offenders, since we should have adequate prison space.

4. Use some of the net $70B per year toward mental health care.

I find this approach to be common sense and reasonable. Sadly, I do not think it would fly. Antis would be unhappy that it did nothing about guns. Many on our side would have conniptions about legalizing pot.

Too bad, though, because I really think it's a good idea.
 
Some suggestions

Make a person responsible for the guns they own. If they are found negligent to keep them out of the wrong hands they can be charged as accessories to any crime or accident committed with that weapon. A person should know the serial numbers and type of weapons they own so if there is a theft it can be reported to the law. This will mean gun owners will need to inventory and lock their weapons up keep them out of kids reach etc.

Background checks are the norm now so make them necessary even for private transactions. Those are two common sense approaches to keep everyone safer.

I'm against limiting the number of firearms one can own and the type they can own. The constitution is the law of the land. People who want to ban guns are violating our civil rights. Home inspections, licenses and training requirements should be out of the question.

The way some are debating the topic is quite stupid as to ban all handguns would require a repeal of the second amendment. Our fore fathers had the wisdom to make the process very difficult.
 
Well, considering that I don't support most laws or regulations in general (and more specifically the way in which most laws/regulations are enforced), regardless of the gun issue; I'd have to say no to supporting new firearms restrictions.

While the supposed goal of those restrictions might sound good to some, they wouldn't actually accomplish said goal; which in this case is the prevention or at least reduction of these mass killings. The all too easy case-in-point, look at how well anti-drug laws have worked. :rolleyes: And since drinking and driving is illegal, we all know that there are no alcohol related traffic deaths..........:confused:

Gun restrictions don't prevent gun related violence, any more than drug restrictions prevent drug related violence. If you want results, work on making people smarter (and no I do not mean educated). Better yet, try to instill a sense of morality in them......good luck with that. It would be awesome if we had no "need" for guns from a self defense perspective, but while we're at it we might as well be looking out for unicorns and searching for pots of gold at the end of rainbows.

Meanwhile in the real world, there will still be robberies, murders, rapes, carjackings, bombings............and yes there will still be the kinds of mass shootings we've been seeing too often in the news recently. Make it 100% illegal to purchase a firearm and all of those things are still going to happen. It's not pretty, but the truth rarely is.
 
The flaw to the private transaction background is its not enforceable. Unless your talking firearms made at the time of the making of the law.
Retroactive would be impossible. Ive bought and sold guns individual to individual for decades. Traded, given, been given firearms. I couldnt possibly remember who they all were i traded sold etc with.
All one has to to do circumvent the private background even for a slightly older gun in question would be to say I have that gun for years I dont remember who I got it from. End of story.
 
To the question of how I define "fail to secure".

I would define this as being "any firearm that was not under the immediate control of the owner that would permit unauthorized use".

Certainly the ideal situation is to put the firearm in some type of lockable container that denies unauthorized access as well as theft. Yes, I know that given enough time and resources any container can eventually be defeated, but that is not the point. The point is reasonable care to keep it from being stolen or used without authorization. Keeping it from being stolen is admittedly harder to prevent than unauthorized use w/o having a safe, but most any lockable box.....even a suitcase is better than the dresser drawer. However, I would rather have it stolen with a trigger lock than in a ready to use mode.

I recognize that not all can afford a giant safe. However, if you can afford a gun you can afford a trigger lock. Almost all new guns come with a free trigger lock, but use is legally not mandatory. Some will argue that the trigger lock makes the gun not readily accessible. This argument misses the point of "not under the immediate control of the owner". If you think you need your gun under your pillow at night, go for it. However, when you leave in the morning take it with you, put it in a safe/lock box or put a trigger lock on it.

Just as there are penalties such as "reckless endangerment" for improper discharge of a firearm and other activities that endanger the public, the same can be extended to incidents where firearms are left unsecured. Not real hard to craft some legislative language here.

I think unless the shooting public voluntarily recognizes that owning a gun also requires a means of preventing theft, law makers will make the decisions for us. I personally feel that a safe is mandatory and have bought a few less guns in order to buy the safe. I really can't think of a situation why one would not use a trigger lock it the firearm was not in their immediate possession and did not have a lockable container.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top