Do You Support Any Gun Control Laws?

Do You Support Any Gun Control Laws?


  • Total voters
    219
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Coyote Blue

New member
Do You Support Any Gun Control Laws?

Since the Bill of Rights in 1791, we have evolved into a complex world. 222 years has brought us from a mainly rural,largely homogeneous environment of 5 million people to a largely urban/suburban diversified population of 310 million.

Should there be exceptions to the 2nd Amendment in the society of America today?

All comments and votes are appreciated.
 
I voted no, but I think some clarification is in order. Are we talking restrictions above and beyond what we have? Or restrictions beyond a simple reading of the 2A (which would indicate all types of weapons for anyone)? If it's above what we have, no way, we have enough, we have things in place to keep firearms out of the hands of those who would likely do the most damage.

If it's above a simple reading of the 2A, I'd say some, very limited restrictions are reasonable. Measures to keep guns out of violent criminals and the mentally ill. Restrictions on highly destructive weapons (though I'd stop short of fully automatic weapons...they were never used often in crimes, and they'd certainly be useful to a militia) are reasonable, I think. But I wouldn't go much beyond that.
 
What Gaerek said. I do believe some laws need to be in place, the background checks as they are now, fine. There are some reasonable laws that should be in place (so long as they're enforced) to effectively keep criminals from obtaining weapons through legal channels (if they so chose to go that route)

But anything beyond what is stated in our 2A, no, I do not support any of it.
 
Enforce the ones we have now, including tying mental health records into the background check system. Nothing else needed. the guns how loophole is a red herring for the anti gun crowd
 
Enforce the ones we have now, including tying mental health records into the background check system. Nothing else needed. the guns how loophole is a red herring for the anti gun crowd

I pretty much agree, but think there are some that could be repealed.
 
27 Words

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.

No background checks,walk onto a plane, go into a police station or a courthouse,no permits, ad infinitum. OK? ;)
 
Guns and ammo should be sold on the shelves between hammers and hatchets at Home Depot. If the store manager thinks you are old enough and sane enough to handle a hatchet, there shouldn't be any problem buying a gun.

The bottom line - I trust a schizophrenic with a gun more than I trust over half of our legislators with a pen.

No background checks,walk onto a plane, go into a police station or a courthouse, ad infinitum. OK?

Yes. If the president wanted to carry a gun, do you think he would have to endure background checks, be prohibited from walking onto Air Force One, be banned from a court house, or police station?

I do not want to live in a land ruled by a King who has more rights than ordinary citizens do.
 
Last edited:
Cool post! :cool: Agree with every word. ;) We could do that at Western Auto in 1955. Bought a .22LR at age 13 right off the shelf. No parental permission,no problem. No ID. :eek:

A better world,a better time. At least for me.
 
I voted 'no' because I think we have way more than enough guns laws already. Sure our society is becoming less and less civil, and it seems the quick fix is to pass law after law to keep pace with bad behavior turning into ever worse behavior. But it must not work, because if it did, D.C. would have to be the safest place in the country.
 
27 Words

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

5th Amendment - 108 words...

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Shall not be infringed shall be infringed with due process.
 
I'm the solo 'undecided' vote

My option wasn't represented.

I would like to see a mechanism so that people who are considered threats b/c of mental health issues can be put on/removed from the NCIS by their doctors with out permanent "banned" status. Imagine if, in the Aurora case, the doctor treating the shooter could have loaded his name to a secure database from the office instead of only reporting to the local police (who should also be told).

Additionally, I think that mood-enhancing drugs that have known side effects that cause suicidal/homicidal thoughts should come with a no-stigma warning label that says "you cannot purchase firearms while taking this medication" much like you shouldn't operate heavy machinery while taking crap that makes you drowsy.
Perhaps there should be a notice posted that firearms and other dangerous implements should be secured from these people while they are taking these drugs.
There should be a painless, quick way to remove these limits when the patient stops taking. I know that this opinion may not be popular on this forum, but this enhancement to the existing system seems to be the only adjustment we need to take.

Drug companies would fight this. Doctors would fight this. Doctor/patient confidence would be bruised, but if the doctor is already calling the name to the local police or prescribing sometihng, the issue is already in the public domain... Most people who take these drugs might fight these types of rules, but if the side effects are thus, then limits have to be implemented. Why do we need more rules when the holes in the system are easy (for me) to see? Why do we need new dykes when a few patches would stop the leaks?

I don't think that the police should kick in your door and take your property. I don't think that you should have to turn in anything you owned before the prescription started, although I could see how people would think that the gov't might want to do this to be "completely safe."

my 2 c.
 
restrictions = YES...........No firearms to crack heads, gangbangers, humans with a history of violence, repeat felons...........
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We already have laws against murder, robbery, rape, assault, tortious imprision, whatever. Enforce them. No gun laws, period, full stop, end of sentence.

The bottom line - I trust a schizophrenic with a gun more than I trust over half of our legislators with a pen.

Truer words have never been typed.
 
If someone is unwilling to meet at a FFL for a quick inexpensive check and clean transfer then I'm not in a hurry to sell to them.

BUT... I have no love for a registration process and there should be a side-step for legit immediate family/heirloom transfers...to be backed as a felony if its violated.

Off the cuff in the late evening I'll say that I'm completely pro-gun, but I'm also completely weary of being associated with the fist pounding "thou shall not infringe" folks who refuse to accept any reasonable realities of the modern world...ie; dont make it easy for felons to buy guns through private sales.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No worries. They exchange with each other in the ' Hood or they steal them from you or me.

What you want is gun control as late as it may be! :D In the "modern".world,.whatever that animal is! ;)
 
No. The private citizens should have anything they want. No nuclear weapons (obviously), no poison gas, and maybe no explosions over a certain limit. You don't want anybody launching a JDAM at another country. But automatics, suppressors, "street sweepers", Howitzers, anti-tank guns, RPGs? Sure. For some of these items I even support a registry. For instance, I have no problem with the NFA laws for destructive devices. I do, however, a problem with the NFA laws regarding automatics and the manufacture dates.
 
I'm also completely weary of being associated with the fist pounding "thou shall not infringe" folks who refuse to accept any reasonable realities of the modern world...ie; dont make it easy for felons to buy guns through private sales.
It's already a crime to sell a gun to a person who's disqualified from owning one, and it's a crime for a felon to possess a firearm. More laws aren't going to discourage people who flaunt the law.

All restrictions on private sales do is create a meddlesome malum prohibitum situation in which decent people are turned into criminals by statute.
 
I don't know about more "laws", because I'm opposed to laws that cannot be enforced.

But as a staunch gun supporter (and parent), I have to say that perhaps we should do a better job at putting out the word to ourselves...

A guy I know recently had a break in. Among the items stolen were 14 firearms, including 2 AR-15s and at least 4-5 handguns. None of them were locked up or in a safe, some were under the bed, some in a closet, some in the living room, etc. This guy didn't even know the serial numbers to these guns.

I have to tell you, if one of my kids were murdered by one of this guy's guns, stolen in a quick break in by a couple of meth heads, I would forever consider this guy partly responsible.

A guy who can afford 14 guns can afford a $100 Homak steel cabinet to store them in safely.

One reason why there are laws against drunk driving is that a small percentage of drivers drove drunk, putting other drivers at risk. To the extent that a small percentage of gun owners put many others at risk, we should not be surprised to discover that many people object to this.

I am at least one gun owner who feels that if you are going to keep and bear 14 or 44 or 144 firearms, be responsible enough to secure them against casual theft. (Or don't be surprised if laws are passed that none of us want to deal with...)
 
Tom your right on principle, but theres problems with it in execution.

I dont want to be the one to enforce existing laws or to figure out if the buyer is lying, and I sure dont want to be responsible for any of the possible outcomes.

As the seller of an ordinary object it should not be incumbent upon me to determine if the buyer is a felon... I want them (or me) to pony up 10 bucks to our selected FFL to run the FBI check for peace of mind for all. Exactly the same thing they'd have to do if they bought it new over the counter.

If a firearm is not "ordinary object" then of course its in another category... a gun in fact, the sale of which to be taken more seriously than a WeedEater on Craigslist.
As responsible gun owners and sellers we should welcome a system that indemnifies us of making the call as to whether or not the buyer qualifies.

We should welcome a proper, swift and full functioning background system WITHOUT registration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top