Do You Support Any Gun Control Laws?
- Thread starter Coyote Blue
- Start date
- Status
Actually, 1960 wasn't very low, either.
I agree with you that an expansion of gun rights probably does reduce crime, but neither of us can prove it. We must remember that correlation does not equal causation.
However, this jacuzzi you speak of intrigues me. I do have panic attacks requiring the use of wear water wings in more than two feet of water, and I'll need to bring my pet ocelot, but otherwise, it sounds like a blast.
Coyote Blue
New member
Ocelots are not allowed in Ocean Drive jacuzzi's! 
We'll have to find a substitute. Perhaps a small Peke! We can work it out!
We'll have to find a substitute. Perhaps a small Peke! We can work it out! Bingo, +1 for me!gav1230 said:
I can't help but feel like this push for gun control is part of a giant overall diversion tactic. The federal government & the state of the union is a total disaster!
The house is on fire & they want to fix the drip in the kitchen sink! Just proves divide & conqueror still works on the masses.
...bug
Hunter Customs
New member
I don't agree with the above statement either, however some felons should not have guns, they also should never be turned out in society.
As for the poll I vote no, I guess some will call me a fist pounding 2A supporter.
I believe my reasons for being a staunch 2A supporter stems from the fact that I've seen first hand where compromising the 2A has taken us, along with the fact that in 1968 I took an oath to protect the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign or domestic.
I took that oath seriously and plan to honor it until the day I die.
I don't recall anywhere in that oath any words relating to any compromise of the 2A or the compromise of any part of the constitution.
Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
I disagree with this as well. What's the point in keeping non-violent criminals who have paid their debt fully to society, from having guns? For example, what purpose does it serve to keep a Bernie Madoff type from having a gun? It has nothing to do with protecting society - it's simply government saying "you didn't play by our rules, and now we can keep you forever from protecting yourself".
I'm all about making criminals pay the price for the crimes they commit, even capital punishment for violent crimes less than 1st degree murder. But, once a criminal pays the given price, whatever that price is, then full rights should be automatically restored and the records sealed from non-law enforcement.
You either want someone to be a citizen of your society, locked up or dead. Making someone a "half" or a fractional citizen just doesn't work; it never has.
I'm going to third disagreeing with this statement. A guy I know is considered a felon because he had barely enough marijuana on his person to be considered intent to sell. Thing of it was, the amount (I forget how much) was really just another arbitrary number. If he had a few grams less, it would have been a misdemeanor. The thing of it was, he had been stopped by a police officer for speeding about 10 minutes after he bought it. His theory was to buy in bulk so you don't have to be buying all the time. He bought himself enough to last for several months. He never once sold even a gram of pot, it was all for personal consumption, and that's what was argued in court. But because the amount he had was over the legal definition of intent to sell, that's what he was charged with, regardless of his actual intent.
He's paid his debt to society, but since he has the label "felon" because of something he did almost 20 years ago as a stupid 19 year old, he's "half a citizen."
But even beyond that, part of your punishment for a felony is having your rights restricted/suspended. But once your debt to society has been paid, you should have all your rights restored fully. If you don't want a "dangerous felon" from getting guns, then make sure he stays in prison for life, that way he can't harm anyone anymore.
I support laws that prohibit mentally incompetent people, convicted felons, and those with criminal records from buying or owning firearms. The fact that some laws are unenforceable 100% does not mean they have no impact. For example, traffic laws are not 100% enforceable, but they do cause most of us to drive slower, etc.
Our society has morally degraded to such an extent that some laws are necessary that were not 50 or more years ago.
Mankind is not capable of enforcing justice or without considering personal gain. That does not mean we go to anachy.
So, Yes, I do support some gun laws.
Jerry
Our society has morally degraded to such an extent that some laws are necessary that were not 50 or more years ago.
Mankind is not capable of enforcing justice or without considering personal gain. That does not mean we go to anachy.
So, Yes, I do support some gun laws.
Jerry
All of what you said above is true. I don't think there should be any further gun controls in America. And lots of thinks can be used to kill someone its the individual that has the intent to kill that's the problem not the weapon he uses. My point is don't try to convince me that a knife or similar is more efficient at killing than a firearm if that was the case there would not have hundreds of years of firearms devilment. That's why police armies and civilians carry firearms that's why people on this forum carry firearms for self defence and not a knife. PS If that was the case this would be a knife and other form of weapons forum and not a firearms forum.
Last edited:
manta49, some thoughts:
1. It is easier for most people to do violence with firearms; less training is necessary, and less luck is typically necessary - this is much the same reason why the crossbow supplanted the long bow.
2. In the hands of a skilled person, a knife could be the more effective tool, depending upon intent. (If the intent is to take down a target with minimal noise, for instance.)
3. While this is a gun forum, many of us probably carry knives, too. Some of us are also into martial arts training. It would not surprise me if quite a few TFLers participate in knife and martial arts forums.
1. It is easier for most people to do violence with firearms; less training is necessary, and less luck is typically necessary - this is much the same reason why the crossbow supplanted the long bow.
2. In the hands of a skilled person, a knife could be the more effective tool, depending upon intent. (If the intent is to take down a target with minimal noise, for instance.)
3. While this is a gun forum, many of us probably carry knives, too. Some of us are also into martial arts training. It would not surprise me if quite a few TFLers participate in knife and martial arts forums.
OK but if any on this forum had to go into a life threatening situation and could only take one weapon i think most would take a firearm. The knife and martial arts would be backups. If someone was shooting at you twenty yards away a knife or martial arts would have little effect on the outcome. Armies train on using knives and martial arts but the firearm is their primary and most deadly weapon.
manta49, you're right, if I knew there were life-threatening (and unavoidable) danger, I would go with the firearm.
That said, I have not yet had cause to use a firearm. I have had cause to employ some martial arts skills, on a couple occasions, and I would speculate that in general there are a lot more scenarios that justify the use of such than there are scenarios that justify the use of the firearm.
(Note: one occasion involved immobilizing an aggressor without actually harming him; another involved slipping a punch thrown by an idiot, and making him think really hard about whether he wanted to try again - he decided he did not. Such skills are useful, and lack of such skills might make it difficult for one to successfully draw a weapon if one is attacked.)
I don't want to veer the thread too far, though, so...
The point is, firearms are lethal, of course, and they are easier to learn to use effectively, if not skillfully, than are most other weapon types. BUT I still see the issue as being one of intent, rather than tools, and still believe that the way to deal with the problem is to deal with the bad actors, rather than to villify those who own tools.
That said, I have not yet had cause to use a firearm. I have had cause to employ some martial arts skills, on a couple occasions, and I would speculate that in general there are a lot more scenarios that justify the use of such than there are scenarios that justify the use of the firearm.
(Note: one occasion involved immobilizing an aggressor without actually harming him; another involved slipping a punch thrown by an idiot, and making him think really hard about whether he wanted to try again - he decided he did not. Such skills are useful, and lack of such skills might make it difficult for one to successfully draw a weapon if one is attacked.)
I don't want to veer the thread too far, though, so...
The point is, firearms are lethal, of course, and they are easier to learn to use effectively, if not skillfully, than are most other weapon types. BUT I still see the issue as being one of intent, rather than tools, and still believe that the way to deal with the problem is to deal with the bad actors, rather than to villify those who own tools.
Read my post again and don't be putting words in where there aren't any. I never said guns were not more efficient I said they are not any more deadly than any other weapon and that is a true statement. Dead is dead. You want efficient go IED, fire bomb, gas bomb...
I only make the point that any crime of violence is a crime and using a gun does not make the crime any more heinous. All crimes committed with a weapon are equally heinous and all should be treated equally. Severely and quickly and with long sentences.
By the way some of us are just as deadly with a stick as others are with a knife and at close up and personal distance do not count the man with a knife or a stick as being unarmed just because the other man has a gun.
Ah, but have you seen the things that are punished as felonies these days? In some areas, I can become a felon for screwing up badly enough on my taxes, for a minor youthful indiscretion with drugs, or for writing a check I didn't have the funds to clear.
In the old days, felonies were seen as serious, harmful crimes. Nowadays, we've got a lot of malum prohibitum laws that make felonies out of less serious offenses. By the original definition, I might agree. By our modern definition, I simply cannot.
If i wanted to harm someone using a firearm i woldent be getting close and personal. Certainly not close enough for someone to use a knife or stick getting that close sort of defeats the purpose of having a firearm.
My original point was that some pro gun are trying to say that firearms are no more dangerous than a stick or a knife in the wrong hands. I disagree firearms are designed to kill they have being developed over hundreds of years to do one thing more efficiently and that's kill. Some are more efficient than others a AK47 is more efficient at killing multiple tragets in as short and efficient way as possible than a air rifle that's what it was designed for. Except this and then make the arguments that its the person with the intent that's the problem people should stop trying to deny that firearms are designed to kill.
Last edited:
If you're talking about new laws, not a chance. But there are existing laws, such as no automatic weapons, background checks for FFL purchases, etc., that I do support, because they have some actual value. The laws being proposed now are useless for the purported purposes for which they are being put forth, that is, the reduction of mass slayings. We all know, I'm confident, that gun control laws really are yet another way that the uber-Liberals want to control US. The things happening now in this country, thanks to Obama and his stooges, are apalling, but those we've chosen to represent our interests are, with a few exceptions, failing miserably ... no more gun control! Period!
I'm going to keep you guys on the ropes on this, but what value do they really have? The NFA is a scheme that pretty much just collects a tax to support the agency collecting the tax. The NICS system hasn't been shown to be a significant factor in reducing crime, and even when it's violated, said violations are rarely prosecuted.
jeepstrapped
New member
In my "perfect world" the next time there is a majority of Second Amendment advocates in the House, the Senate, and the White House, all firearms regulations would be repealed.
I don't think this is likely to happen, but I think it is something we need to continually remind our elected officials that this should be the goal.
I don't think this is likely to happen, but I think it is something we need to continually remind our elected officials that this should be the goal.
- Status