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.
There are some really good thoughts in this thread and I'm coming to the conclusion that there is no right answer.

On the surface agreeing to background checks on all transfers seems like a rational approach, unfortunately it does in fact lead to another foothold on the erosion of 2A.

On the other hand, not being willing to run checks on all transfers makes us appear unreasonable, often misconstrued into the notion that America's gun culture just doesnt care about the mayhem on the fringe of our hobby.

Its very difficult to convince the rest of the population that guns don't create crime.
 
I went to the book store today to pick up a copy of The Constitution. I thought I had one, but can't find it. The first book I picked up had interpretations from some author in it. Paraphrased, he said "the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own guns for their own personal protection and for militia purposes, but the Federal and State Governments have the right to limit what types of weapons you can possess. Funny, when I read the 2nd Amendment it said no such thing.
 
I quote...
"On every question of the constitution let us carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was past." Thomas Jefferson.

Despite this clear evidence, gun control proponents attempt to "squeeze" the text of the second amendment. Any law that restricts the right of an American citizen to keep and bare arms in anyway what so ever is un constitutional. Period. The second amendment is not negotiable!

The constitution, the bill of rights and the government do not endow us with our rights. Our rights come from whatever god you believe in and the founders said so. The bill of rights is simply the recognition of our god given rights and the promise not to screw with those rights. The second amendment is in fact absolute! Only another amendment can change that legally.

Of it isn't clear I voted no gun restrictions.
 
I believe mentally ill people, felons and illegal aliens should not be allowed to own a firearm so I voted yes for some restrictions.
 
Who gets to decide what mentality ill means?

Felons that are now free men have paid their debt. If you believe their debt isn't paid why are they now free and not in jail or dead? Anyone that has done something horrific enough not to deserve their basic rights dose not deserve to live. IMO of course.

Illegal aliens are not citizens and don't have the right to keep and bare arms.

Not one single law that restricts "American citizens" from having the means to protect themselves, their families and their country from all threats, both foreign or domestic is constitutional. This is a fact, not an opinion. Look up infringed in the dictionary. These rights are not negotiable, nor debatable. They simply are that, rights.

Boomer
 
[Felons that are now free men have paid their debt. If you believe their debt isn't paid why are they now free and not in jail or dead? Anyone that has done something horrific enough not to deserve their basic rights dose not deserve to live. IMO of course]

The law does not agree with you, and neither do I. Some actions that we take in life cannot be undone and the consequences last forever. So it is with felons. They should have thought of consequences before they committed felonies. Some debts cannot be fully paid even though prison time may be finished. Prison time is only a part of the penalty.

Whoever the law says is the one who gets to dedide what/who is mental illness.

When people commit crimes and horrific crimes such as school shootings attempts to prevent it again are bound to happen, even though only window dressings.

Jerry
 
Those who wrote our constitution agree with me. I have read their words. That is much of where my beliefs come from. Our founders were quite clear about their reasoning for those beliefs as well. Just because politicians have eroded our rights slowly over time does not mean the law( the constitution) does not agree with me. Any law that restricts those rights is unconstitutional and the founders said it is not only our right, but our duty to fight back with whatever means are necessary.

In the past when a felon was released from jail his weapons were returned to him because his debt was paid, because any debt that could not be paid in full was paid for with their life. And people wonder why crime rates are so high now days.
 
The Second Amendment is about as clear as mud.
Click to expand...
They were quite clear but if you have a problem understanding such an esoteric concept as rights and not infringed I can recommend a few good dictionaries. I suggest a copy of the Samuel Johnson English Dictionary. written in 1755 so you can see exactly what the words meant that the founding fathers used. I would also recommend studying the Federalist Papers where the arguments used to support the amendment and the reasoning behind the wording. Federalist Papers #46, pages 243-244 to be exact.

I also suggest reading Sir William Blackstone commentaries and John Adams the literal father of the second amendment.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. - A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 3:475 (1787-1788).
John Adams
Click to expand...
 
They were quite clear
Click to expand...

Unfortunately its meaning has been repeatedly argued in both Federal and State Supreme courts going back to the early 1800's.

I Support 2A in mind and wallet, but I for one could do without the "well regulated militia" part.
 
In the past when a felon was released from jail his weapons were returned to him because his debt was paid, because any debt that could not be paid in full was paid for with their life. And people wonder why crime rates are so high now days.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and that's what we need to return too.

It's also time for all this gun control BS to stop, and gun ownership to quit being the polictical football it's become.

The 2A is very clear, in my opinion only those that want to destroy it and the rest of the constitution think it's "as clear as mud".

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
 
Felons and lunatics are the reasons we risk losing our rights in the first place. When you break the law you willingly give up your rights. Letting these idiots own guns is just asking for trouble.
 
Dashunde
On the other hand, not being willing to run checks on all transfers makes us appear unreasonable, often misconstrued into the notion that America's gun culture just doesnt care about the mayhem on the fringe of our hobby.
Click to expand...
I'm not so much concerned about appearing unreasonable. In my world, when the gov't makes rules, these rules inhibit my freedoms (if only just a little bit) and the gov't needs to justify nibbling away at my freedoms. The onus of defending my freedoms shouldn't be on me.

If the gov't can't make their case for additional regulation using logic and empirical data to prove that there is a reason for this or that, then they can go pound sand. Example: Interstate highways were designed by civil engineers to carry traffic at a certain speed. The curves turn at X degree; they are banked at y degree, etc. If the gov't makes a law that says I cannot exceed speed limit Z b/c that would exceed the designed speed limit for safe travel, then I"m willing to accept that. If they say that I cannot drive a truck that exceeds weight limit AA tons b/c the road isn't designed for that, I'm willing to accept that as well.

I'm not seeing the beauty of the options recently laid out in Congress.

Dashunde, i'm not picking a fight with you personally. Your comment, however, resonates very strongly with me; my wife and I have had this discussion in many flavors over the past several years. She says "what could it hurt, if ..?" I always reply "How is it helping?" So...
 
In answer to "what could it hurt?"

Let's see....

1) Would expand power of an already bloated federal government;
2) Would chip away further at individual freedoms, in a country that was theoretically founded on the principle of maximizing individual liberties;
3) Would require additional manpower to run the expanded system, plus cost of hardware and software upgrades, office space, etc (IE it ain't free);
4) Would lend credibility to the antis' claims that guns are bad, and therefore require regulation of a type which is not seen against other potentially hazardous items, and which is definitely not seen against other Constitutionally protected rights;
5) Would lend credibility to the idea that Second Amendment protections should only fall under "Rational Basis," since we aren't even requiring antis to prove that what they suggest would be effective, let alone necessary or least intrusive.

You get the idea. This isn't harmless.

And I really don't care about the perceptions of those who can't figure out how to look things up for themselves.
 
mleake
In answer to "what could it hurt?"

Let's see....
Click to expand...
Not that I disagree with your reasons at all, but I think that even to answer is to play defense. If you want to propose a new rule, you should be required to justify it (as more than "common sense.") If you don't have any empirical data that shows it will be helpful/effective/efficient, solving a particular problem specifically, etc (however many hurdles THEY should have to clear), then the proposer of a new law should withdraw their proposed legislation and try again.

But i live in bizarro world.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Could you guys explain to me how gun shows work? Enlighten me so I have a better understanding of how gun transactions are done. MLeake pointed out that FFL's still have to go through NICS while personal sales do not. I guess I feel that once you're in a public domain such as a gun show then 'private' sales are no longer private and should be subject to NICS. This is one of the reasons why I avoid personal sales through sites like armslist.com -- I have no clue whether or not John Doe is a complete nut job or not. I think it's incumbent upon us as gun owners to be pro-active and weed out the bad guys.
 
gaseousclay, if you are at a gun show, with a booth, selling firearms then you had better be an FFL, because you will certainly appear to be in the business of buying and selling firearms. If you are an FFL, you have to use NICS.

On the other hand, if you are John Q Public going to the show with your privately owned gun that you would like to sell or trade toward something else, then you are a private seller and must comply with state laws governing private sales.

You'll see this at shows. Guys will have a gun or two along in hopes of selling or trading, but they aren't doing high volume sales, and they don't constitute a significant percentage of the business at most shows.

Also, if they end up trading with or selling to an FFL, then they will also end up using NICS (because the FFL is required to do so).

Going to a gun show in hopes of finding another private citizen there who has something you actually want to buy is a mixed strategy: If it works, you may find a really good deal, but the odds are you will not find what you are looking for.
 
gaseousclay said:
Could you guys explain to me how gun shows work? Enlighten me so I have a better understanding of how gun transactions are done. MLeake pointed out that FFL's still have to go through NICS while personal sales do not. I guess I feel that once you're in a public domain such as a gun show then 'private' sales are no longer private and should be subject to NICS. This is one of the reasons why I avoid personal sales through sites like armslist.com -- I have no clue whether or not John Doe is a complete nut job or not. I think it's incumbent upon us as gun owners to be pro-active and weed out the bad guys.
Click to expand...
gaseousclay, at gun shows, sales work exactly like they do everywhere else. If I buy a gun from an FFL's stock, a NICS check must be done. It doesn't matter if I'm at a gun show, in the brick-and-mortar store, or hanging out with the store owner on my buddy Fred's back 40 acres. If I buy from a private party, "private party rules" apply. That means that a background check is only required if state law requires it, because federal law does not. Again, location is irrelevant. If the private party and I happen to be standing in the middle of a gun show, it's still a private-party transaction.
 
Unfortunately its meaning has been repeatedly argued in both Federal and State Supreme courts going back to the early 1800's.

I Support 2A in mind and wallet, but I for one could do without the "well regulated militia" part.
Click to expand...
That is the part that gives the second its teeth and the rationale for why our rights shall not be infringed, There are no good gun laws, none.
there has never been any law passed regulating guns that has inconvenienced a felon from using one to commit a crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top