are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

My position may sound nuts to some, but I chose some of those items for specific reasons:

1) Moving vans, fertilizer, diesel fuel -- Timothy McVeigh -- 168 killed, including 19 kids who were in day care that day. (Though I think TM used racing fuel, now that I think about it.)

2) Box cutters -- 9/11 -- Thousands dead.

Between those two, number of firearms used to kill in the incidents: 0.

Frankly, it only sounds nuts if you are unable to articulate the reasoning behind them.
 
When I first read your post, it kinda sounded, perhaps because I read it too quickly, that you don't think anyone should be allowed to sell a gun to a stranger without a background check or an FFL. My apologies if I was mistaken.
Click to expand...

That IS what I believe.
 
Frankly, it only sounds nuts if you are unable to articulate the reasoning behind them.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about articulating the reasons to gun-right supporters, I'm worried about how we articulate our beliefs to gun-right OPPONENTS, who may have the voting power to take those rights away, especially if we seem like we are nuts.

If you are a car salesman and you are trying to sell a car to a Chinese person that doesn't speak English and doesn't want what you are selling, and you don't even speak Chinese, then you call the Chinese person a jerk for not buying the car... well...
 
Quick Karl said:
That IS what I believe.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but I disagree. There's no reason for the government to meddle in how I dispose of my personal property any more than it already does. It already prohibits me from transferring a firearm to anyone who: (a) lives outside my state, regardless of how well I know their history; or (b) anyone who lives in my state where I have a reasonable belief that the person is somehow prohibited by law from possessing firearms.

Personally, I think it sounds crazy to think that legislative creation of Gun-Free Zones will protect anyone. I don't think it's reasonable to believe that a person who is willing to shoot into a crowd, of any sort, will somehow be deterred on the basis that guns aren't allowed there. All GFZs do is ensure that such a person is shooting fish in a barrel.
 
Quick Karl said:
I'm not worried about articulating the reasons to gun-right supporters, I'm worried about how we articulate our beliefs to gun-right OPPONENTS, who may have the voting power to take those rights away, especially if we seem like we are nuts.
Click to expand...
Then we must work to articulate the reasons that gun control is undesirable, not capitulate simply because the other side refuses to see reason.

Quick Karl said:
If you are a car salesman and you are trying to sell a car to a Chinese person that doesn't speak English and doesn't want what you are selling, and you don't even speak Chinese, then you call the Chinese person a jerk for not buying the car... well...
Click to expand...
I'm not following you on this one. Care to elaborate?
 
You can buy a replica black powder revolver. Anyone think the mentally disturbed man in CT couldn't have accomplished the exact same thing with a black powder pistol replica? No 4473 or NICS check for those. And they're worried about a gun show loophole. I guess this is what happens when people too scared of guns to know anything about them legislate gun control.
 
Quick Karl said:
That argument is falling on completely deaf ears on the left. It might mean something to you, and to me, but it means absolutely nothing to them.
Click to expand...
So I should quit saying it, even if it's true? :confused:
 
Quick Karl confuses and conflates "effective communication" with "appeasement."

As far as thinking background checks should be required, because that buyer could be the next David Berkowitz... Should we require background checks for car and van sales? Most kidnappings, and many sexual assaults, involve vehicles. Should we require a license to buy rope or duct tape?

Effective communication does not require stupid concessions, nor does it require kissing of butts.
 
Effective communication requires not being stupid, especially when you are confronting a majority that is probably going to vote your rights away...
 
A lot of what's been mentioned/argued here is part of my point. We need to have this conversation... But nobody wants to hear it. I've been shocked to learn over the last week or so that some people actually fear guns, as in, the inanamite object itself... Like its going to jump off someone's hip and start killing people on its own. People don't want to talk about it, they are scared of the guns and scared of be responsible for their own fate.
 
Speak for yourself 8mm. It won't be 20 bucks for me. It'll be 20-30 bucks, and 10% of the value of the firearm. That used Dan Wesson for 3K? Just became close to 3500.
Click to expand...

Wow! My car doesn't cost that much! I say this is jest friend, but that's a problem I hope to have some day. Anything Dan Weson is about as far out of my reach as going to the moon or marrying Megan Fox (difference in culture, income and relative physical "characteristics" compounded by the fact that I'm already married!) so color me green. :)
 
The only thing that comes to mind for me that I *might* support would be a requirement to keep all weapons located in my home locked in a safe, except for those in my immediate possession (i.e. carrying it, cleaning it, etc).

I do that now. :cool:
 
The only thing that comes to mind for me that I *might* support would be a requirement to keep all weapons located in my home locked in a safe, except for those in my immediate possession
Click to expand...

Your home is a safe - lock the doors. What the .gov requires one to do in their own home is a slippery slope. (not saying that locking your guns up is not a good idea on several levels)

I would support laws that greatly increase punishment / mandatory sentencing for theft of a firearm. Put the burden on the BG, not the GG. I feel this is something the NRA should be pushing.

Also, along the lines of our "super drunk" law here in MI, we could have a "super B&E" law that doubles / greatly increases the punishment for B&E on a house containing a firearm.
 
To quote sombody I cant remember now "If you give a mouse a cookie he will want a glass of milk"
Im new to this forum. And nothing personal meant toward anyone but Im astounded at the number of posts that lean toward " finding a middle ground" with the anti gun crowd.
Right is right and wrong is wrong. 2a exists, has already been trampled to death trying to find middle ground as we backed up and accepted this little restriction and that little restriction. NO restriction is what 2a meant, A God given right to keep and bear arms and to self defense exits.
One cannot reason with or educate people that have one agenda that they have spoken many times. No guns in private hands any place any time.
Keep trying to appease, reason with, accept this to hold onto that and eventually if you keep a gun you will be a criminal because they will if allowed ban every gun from private citizens. I suppose then I will be changed from a law abiding citizen to a felon because I will NOT turn over my firearms to a government that by its own act to take my firearms over stepped its authority.
Background checks were and are in place only to track guns and who owns them, under the cover of some safety net to keep idiots from getting guns.
Criminals or planned criminals will get a gun back ground check or not. End of story.
As I said Im new here not to guns, or the antis agenda to take them. What I just said may not make me popular here. If so Im sorry but truth is truth.
Give an inch and we lose a mile. Worry about trying to sway the opinion of folks that cannot be swayed because they know they are wrong to begin with is a waste of time and only makes us look weak and willing to accept whatever stupidity the antis wish to inflict.
 
Wow! My car doesn't cost that much! I say this is jest friend, but that's a problem I hope to have some day.
Click to expand...

Me too. I don't have the problem. Just making sure that if I ever do get to have that problem, I don't actually... you know... have that problem. Keeping an eye on the principle of the thing.
 
Here is what I believe, and I think reasonable people may disagree, but then in a democracy, we have the opportunity to argue and advocate our positions and see what wins out.

Guns are designed to punch holes in things. In some cases, animals in a legal and regulated hunt, sometimes in people in lawful self defense, and sometimes in unlawful punching of holes in either animals or people.

This is an enormous responsibility. In fact, I think this is a larger responsibility than operating a motor vehicle. However, I also think that laws are not there to protect people from their own bad decisions. If you drive (car/truck/atv) on your own property, and endanger yourself, then you bear the brunt of the cost, and the government can't say boo about it.

On the other hand, if you carry a weapon in public, concealed or open, same as if you drive a vehicle on a public road, you are assuming responsibility not only for your own safety, but for the safety of others around you. I want to know that you understand, for example, that the FMJ round you are carrying may not only go through the person you are in an altercation with, but also into the person standing behind him/her. Moreover, I want you to understand that you are not a sworn law enforcement officer, and that your ability to use your weapon is limited to specific legal guidelines, and not there if you feel your honor, but not your safety is threatened.

I live in a shall issue state, and I needed to demonstrate absolutely no minimal competency with my firearm to be allowed to carry. I think this is a dereliction of the responsibility of the government and given that this was passed with the support of pro-gun advocates, I also think this is a dereliction of our collective responsibility for responsible gun ownership.

To carry is to assume enormous responsibility and I think we, collectively, should step up to the plate and say, yep, there are some minimums, beyond not having been convicted of a felony or domestic violence, that we want our representatives to meet.
 
Here is what I believe, and I think reasonable people may disagree, but then in a democracy, we have the opportunity to argue and advocate our positions and see what wins out.

Guns are designed to punch holes in things. In some cases, animals in a legal and regulated hunt, sometimes in people in lawful self defense, and sometimes in unlawful punching of holes in either animals or people.

This is an enormous responsibility. In fact, I think this is a larger responsibility than operating a motor vehicle. However, I also think that laws are not there to protect people from their own bad decisions. If you drive (car/truck/atv) on your own property, and endanger yourself, then you bear the brunt of the cost, and the government can't say boo about it.

On the other hand, if you carry a weapon in public, concealed or open, same as if you drive a vehicle on a public road, you are assuming responsibility not only for your own safety, but for the safety of others around you. I want to know that you understand, for example, that the FMJ round you are carrying may not only go through the person you are in an altercation with, but also into the person standing behind him/her. Moreover, I want you to understand that you are not a sworn law enforcement officer, and that your ability to use your weapon is limited to specific legal guidelines, and not there if you feel your honor, but not your safety is threatened.

I live in a shall issue state, and I needed to demonstrate absolutely no minimal competency with my firearm to be allowed to carry. I think this is a dereliction of the responsibility of the government and given that this was passed with the support of pro-gun advocates, I also think this is a dereliction of our collective responsibility for responsible gun ownership.

To carry is to assume enormous responsibility and I think we, collectively, should step up to the plate and say, yep, there are some minimums, beyond not having been convicted of a felony or domestic violence, that we want our representatives to meet.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself!
 
To answer the original question;
NO, I would not support any "reasonable" gun control. When I was younger I fell for that story from the left. However, they will not stop till they are all gone, they have said so.

To give them an inch and not recognize what they have said is crazy. They will not be happy with "reasonable". They will keep coming and pushing till we are regulated to death or totally disarmed.
 
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We've put up with way too much infringement already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top