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.
I think we should have some gun control.

Commit a felony loss of right.
Mentally ill shouldn't be able to buy a gun.
Illegal alien shoundn't be able to buy a gun.

Do I think it would keep guns out of their hands? Not most, but it might have keep them out of the hands of the VA Tech Killer.

We need to make the laws tougher on the criminals that use a gun in the commission of a crime. Give them 20 years mandatory for use of a gun plus the offense, with no plea bargain.

Have a CC permit, no background check for buying a firearm. You have already had a extensive background check done.

If you have a CC permit you should be able to carry anywhere except court.

Hire retired or ex military and police for the schools. I think our country was come to this.
 
Not really a man on the rampage with a AK 47 is going to do more damage than one with a knife. You can outrun someone with a knife you will have trouble outrunning a bullet. If knifes were that effective the police and army would have them issued instead of firearms.
Click to expand...
You are wrong, a man with a knife in a school yard or crowded shopping mall can stab slash and move to the next victim without anybody being aware until they have been cut or actually see the attack. An aluminum baseball bat up alongside the head will kill you as dead as a .357 magnum with 180 gr XTP bullets. A fire bomb in a crowded theater can kill more people than the man with the AK 47 because he is making noise, is obvious and people can run and hide from him. You cannot run and hide from a panicked mob fleeing a fire in a crowded room full of smoke, fire, screams of pain and or panic.

Think about it, the weapon is not the culprit, the intent of the user is the problem and those people need to be taken out and locked up forever instead of getting plea bargained down or released on early parole or released to a crowded mental facility where a shewed insane person can game the doctors and win release.
 
While I love 2A and benefit from it every minute of every day it couldn't be more poorly written or ambiguous... or perhaps it was written perfectly for America, the weapons available, the existing crime laws, and how felons were dealt with in that era.
I highly doubt it would be written the same way if they had a crystal ball.

Felons should not have guns. Period.
We've heard it time and time again... felon gets out of prison, gets a gun, and kills someone the same day or within a few weeks.
A reasonably smart parolee could get on one of the many forums, seek out a pistol for sale in their area and buy it from one of us the very same day.

As responsible gun owners we should want a sensible system in place to help us keep our own guns out of the hands of those who have already proven themselves untrustworthy, the violent ones in particular.
In doing so I believe we are actually protecting 2A. Fewer gun crimes = Fewer attacks on 2A.

FWIW...I don't endorse any restrictions whatsoever on the kind, capacity, length or operational details of any of our firearms.
(I would thoroughly enjoy a fully auto 50cal BMG. :D )
For me, what the owner intends to do with the weapon is far more important than the weapon itself.
 
My idea for running checks for person to person sales would be to open the NICS system to all citizens via a toll free number.
Click to expand...
While this is a seemingly tempting idea, there are several serious problems with it, primarily:
  • There are serious privacy concerns- namely, people may abuse the system to do a "background check on the cheap" on potential employees, ex-boyfriends, obnoxious neighbors, etc.
  • The NICS system is set up to work in a very specific way, with the prospective transferee's personal data entered in a particular format and order. It is NOT set up to be user-friendly to callers who have never used it before and don't have the first clue what they're doing. :rolleyes: It takes long enough to get a NICS check right now; if the system is opened up to Joe Public, the call volume will go WAY up, it will become much more inefficient, and it will require far more operators (and funding) to run it... and who do you think will pay for it?
 
Think about it, the weapon is not the culprit, the intent of the user is the problem and those people need to be taken out and locked up forever instead of getting plea bargained down or released on early parole or released to a crowded mental facility where a shewed insane person can game the doctors and win release.
Click to expand...

I agree with the above, but i am not going to buy that a knife is more capable of causing multiple casualties than Ak47 in the hands of someone intent on killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

If i had to make a choice i know what i would rather come up against.
 
I don't think many felonys are buying guns legally, they are buying stolen guns or they are stealing them. But i think there should be a law against them buying a gun or having one.
 
Dashunde, if I sell to people I do not know, I already conduct transfers via FFL. However, that is my choice, just as it is my choice not to use an FFL for same state transfers to people I know.

I am not ok with the government mandating how I conduct a private transaction.

I see greater harm (loss of freedom, growth of governmental power and intrusion) from allowing the feds to require UBCs than currently exists in potential, inadvertent sales to felons by others.
 
Redrick,Alaska,Arizona,Vermont and Wyoming( for WY residents ) are doing just fine without ANY permits. Vermont since about 1777. Rethink! :D

Come from Berlin,Tokyo,Moscow,Sao Paulo,got a clean record and of age? You're good in Fairbanks,Tucson and Montpelier.

The way it should be. 47 States to go. One day at a time,one State at a time.
 
Last edited:
I think the way in which we frame the wording needs to change. For example, I prefer calling it 'expanded background checks' rather than referring current gun proposals as restrictions. I don't understand why a lot of you are seemingly ok with an NCIS check when buying a gun from a LGS but somehow buying a gun at a gunshow without a background check is somehow infringing on your 2A rights. Sounds to me like you're turning a blind eye to the potential for criminals to buy guns via gunshows, and I'm sure criminals are buying guns this way.

I do like Tucker 1371's idea though
 
The older I get, the more I realize that gun laws do nothing to prevent crime. They do nothing but hinder law abiding gun owners and try to make them feel as if they are a pariah. I've had enough. Be tough on crime and leave me alone. I voted for the first choice.
 
gaseousclay, laws don't change at gun shows. FFLs conducting sales must use NICS. Private sellers have to follow state laws for private sales.

Many of us are not thrilled with the requirement for NICS, period, because a) prior to 1995 or so, there were no such checks and there is no data to show that subsequent crime rates were significantly affected, and b) the feds have failed to prosecute the vast majority of prohibited persons the system has flagged. So, it has consumed resources and inconvenienced citizens for what, exactly?

But the new legislation would be a case of the feds overriding the states, yet again, as well as a bunch of other offenses against individual liberties. For instance, I would most likely have to use an FFL to transfer a gun to my father in law, who lives one town away in the same state.

The proposed legislation is not acceptable.
 
In doing so I believe we are actually protecting 2A. Fewer gun crimes = Fewer attacks on 2A.
Click to expand...

I agree, part of it that I feel doesn't get touched on quite enough is the fact that NICS is not getting the background information it needs to be effective. Granted I can see some idiot politicians taking that idea and running wild with it, making things like adderall prescriptions as a child or PTSD an automatic bar to owning firearms.
 
NICS doesn't get the data they want because....

What they want is your medical records to see if you were EVER on any anti depressants or other drugs which MIGHT point to a mental health problem.

HIPA .... prohibits health care professionals from discussing your medical records with anyone UNLESS you give your express written permission. This whole "information expansion " of NICS violates federal law, yet I have heard no mention of amending HIPA to make the new law legal.

It is another case of the government wanting to pick and choose what law they have to abide by.
 
I agree with the above, but i am not going to buy that a knife is more capable of causing multiple casualties than Ak47 in the hands of someone intent on killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

If i had to make a choice i know what i would rather come up against.
Click to expand...

Sp a gun will make you deader than getting stabbed in the back? You do know more deaths are cussed by bad drivers, medical mistakes and accidents but most of us only go "Tsk, tsk tsk, aint that just awful." and continue on with our gun campaign anti- or pro-.

A terrorist killed 13 people. injured 50 more and temporarily blinded another thousand or more without a gun on the Tokyo subway. Some Saudi fanatics killed 2,753 people in New York and no guns were used. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 800 more, no guns were used. Like I said, it is not the weapon but the intent of the weapon user. Want to talk about machete's and Africa?
 
I will accept nothing more than the current system with ONE enhancement.

I want a MANDATE that states be required to provide data on all ADJUDICATIONS OF MENTAL DEFECT and INVOLUNTARY COMMITTMENTS (equivalent to that which they are now required to do for Felony Convictions and Domestic Abuse/Restraining Orders). It's already on the #4473 as a "prohibited persons" disqualifier and that information is the result of DUE PROCESS. (Oh, and the Feds can pay ALL the costs on this)

ANY other kinds of "mental health records/information" that is NOT the result of Due Process, any other kinds of "Soft Science" mumbo-jumbo as the mental health status of a person (you know, the kind where 6 experts can give you at least 8 different conclusions, unless some change their minds, in which case it can be at least 12 different conclusions), any information with respect to which drugs someone is taking (need I go on, or do you get my drift?) ... NOT EVEN IF HELL FREEZES OVER!

The only new "sensible gun control measures" other this that I will accept is that BATFE be required to investigate and prosecute all instances of INTENTIONAL FALSE INFORMATION provided on a #4473. Judges need to go for the maximum sentences (10 years per lie) with sentences served consecutively.

Unless and until the DOJ and BATFE are willing to show me that they are serious about doing their jobs ... NO MORE STUPID, NEW LAWS THAT CAN'T BE/ WON'T BE ENFORCED.

I harbor no illusions that this will end "rampant gun violence", but I am not willing to go down the "Enemy of the State" route that the Left seems to be pushing. That IS a Bridge Too Far.

I can and do accept that we are stuck with this stupid Brady Bill Background Check. What I can't and won't accept is the "set up to fail" that the present system exists in. Until the missing "mental health" data loop-hole is plugged, the present system's penchant for failure is nothing more than a self-fulfulling prophecy. The NICS Background Check System fails because it was apparently designed to fail. Why? Because it affords the perfect excuse "we have to do more" ... more reasonable gun control (which will also not solve the root problem, thus opening the way for yet another round of gun-grab frenzy).

I'd prefer to just compromise with: Let's just go back to the way it was, pre-Brady. If you can't agree to that, Mr. Lefty, then my next compromise will find us back in 1934. Still want to play?
 
We had our lowest crime rates in American history before the GCA of 1968
Click to expand...
That conflicts with every source I've ever read on the subject. Crime rose steadily from the early 1950's until peaking in the late 1980's. We need to be careful what data we use to make arguments.

For example, I prefer calling it 'expanded background checks' rather than referring current gun proposals as restrictions.
Click to expand...
Well, they are restrictions. Why call them anything else?

I don't understand why a lot of you are seemingly ok with an NCIS check when buying a gun from a LGS but somehow buying a gun at a gunshow without a background check is somehow infringing on your 2A rights.
Click to expand...
I'm not OK with it. As MLeake pointed out, we have no data whatsoever proving that the Brady Law has done anything to reduce crime or violence. All the NICS system does is generate more paperwork, fund more payroll at the FBI, and often to wrongly delay or deny guns to purchasers.

The whole background-check system is a solution in search of a problem. It's a meddlesome failure of social engineering. Why would anyone want to expand upon it?

Fewer gun crimes = Fewer attacks on 2A.
Click to expand...
This is also a problematic argument. If more folks start burning crosses or distributing seditious literature, does that mean my 1st Amendment rights will be in danger? No. They are rights, not privileges. They should not be subject to the whim of social policy.

The anti's won't give an inch if violent crime falls. In fact, they'll take credit (whether it's due or not) and say "hey, our way worked! More bans!"

Some folks are missing the forest for the trees. Any gun-control law that gets passed is another step for them; it is not the end.
 
We had.our.lowest crime.rates.before 1968. Why be careful with the truth!
Click to expand...
Because truth is very subjective. Look at the situation in the United States in the 1960's. We were fighting a very unpopular war, racial tensions were simmering over, and we had different ideas on policing and sentencing than we do today.

It is impossible to prove that low crime rates are solely due to gun laws (or the lack thereof).
 
Even in the Colonial Period, felons could be disarmed.

The trouble is that the definition of "felon" has changed. In the past, it was things like burglars, arsonists, murderers, rapists, those who commit mayhem, and armed robbers. The definition has been expanded by statute and while some are good, not all restrictions would have been recognized by our founding fathers.
 
Tom,look at.post #30.. I mentioned 1960 as the.low level not 1968. This.was before JFK,Nam and the riots. Anyway we are on the same page .Back to.the Jacuzzi! :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top