gun control poll

[wayneinFL]

This is my first poll on TFL:

I'm sure there are those who favor owner licensing, those who favor gun registration, and those who favor prohibitions of certain classes of firearms and those who favor "sensible gun control laws", which is a little vague. Others tend to favor as little gun control as possible. Of course some would choose a combination of the above. In this case, please choose whatever you feel is the most effective. As the teacher used to say, "the best answer".

Note to moderators: I think this is political, but if it fits better elsewhere, feel free to move it.

 

[BerettaCougar]

The question is....
Confusing.
The best form of gun control, as in the government controlling firearms is total seizure, home invasions..

The best form of gun freedom would be NO firearm laws, laws punishing criminals , not gun owners.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Too true BC.

Perhaps a better question would be "How much gun control do you support," to which most on this forum would probably require an answer such as:

"No infringement whatsoever."

 

[progunner1957]

2nd Amendment: It means EXACTLY what it says

If we are going to be serious about gun freedom - really serious, then we must take the Second Amendment seriously. It says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What does the word "infringed" mean? It means "limited, hindered, restricted, attacked, or harmed in any way or manner." In other words, note to "The Government" and all related bureaucrats/functionaries/unelected faceless drones: HANDS OFF!!!

This means that all of the 20,000+ "gun laws" on the books in the United States are unconstitutional and therefore unlawful and need to be put in their rightful place - that is, the nearest dumpster.

Let We The People exercise our Constitutional RIGHTS as spelled out in the Second Amendment - unhindered and unfettered by "The Government."

 

[459]

....

 

[blackmind]

I'm sure there are those who favor owner licensing, those who favor gun registration, and those who favor prohibitions of certain classes of firearms and those who favor "sensible gun control laws", which is a little vague.

Yes -- and they're all not welcome here!


-blackmind

 

[459]

....

 

[pax]

No restrictions on either ownership or on carry.

Just like the 2nd Amendment says.

pax

 

[BerettaCougar]

Correct

 

[blackmind]

459, I can't use the edit function (doesn't work on my computer here at work) so everything that is in my post was there from the start: go note the


Now, a question:

What if it weren't for the 2nd Amendment?

Would you still think that it was wrong to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms? Or is it only because we have the 2nd Amendment that you think infringements are wrong?

I personally feel that as a matter of human rights, we should have the right to effective tools for defense, even absent a 2nd Amendment.


-blackmind

 

[Twycross]

No restrictions whatsoever, for anybody.

 

[459]

....

 

[blackmind]

P.S. 459:

Please point out the utility of the "gun licenses (not registration)" that you support.

What are they good for? Why should they trump our right to arm ourselves? Under what circumstances should they be denied? How easy should they be to qualify for? How can we guard against them being used to round up gun owners at some later date?

ad nauseum

I see no good from them; only potential for bad, potential for government abuse. "The power to license is the power to deny."

Have you never heard of gun license departments that claim it's perfectly legal and possible for people to get a gun license... um... it's just that, well, we are out of the application forms and won't be getting more. I have heard of just such an abuse. It's an end-run around having the permit system legislated out of existence. It accomplishes a gun ban just the same.


-blackmind

 

[459]

ok can we at least agree that


some child molesting arch criminal scumbag rapist....

shouldnt be allowed to own a gun?

or some person whos a certified paranoid schizo shouldnt be allowed to own a gun?

arent just some laws necessary to be able to maintain a civilized society?

 

[blackmind]

sure I agree with you. I just favour minimizing the amount of guns that end up in the hands of idiots is all. I am not againts carry of firearms and have my 14 inch 12 guage in my truck right now. I am not in favour of registration either. But is slightly hindering the mentally unfit or criminals from ownership really that bad? I know they get them through other means..but why make it easy?

How much easier than "easy" can it get? You really think that illegality stops anyone who "really wants" a gun despite being legally prohibited from having one??

In the balance of this question, you have the "slight hinderance" that you may give criminals weighed against the definite infringement on our rights, via waiting periods, being put on government lists, being told when and where we can and can't carry... And gee whiz, do we need a chart to show you that crime with guns still happens, even in places with the STRICTEST GUN BANS?

Do you realize yet why gun owners lose patience with you, when you are arguing in the face of a reality that says different from what you suggest?


Oh, and where are you, that a 14 inch shotgun is not 4 inches shorter than legal?

-blackmind

 

[Twycross]

some child molesting arch criminal scumbag rapist....

Should be publicly beheaded, not put back on the street.

or some person whos a certified paranoid schizo shouldnt be allowed to own a gun?

If they are competent enough to be on the street, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to own a gun.

 

[459]

....

 

[pax]

....

 

[BerettaCougar]

459, youre making me sad, stop typing.

 

[459]

I will shut up now...and send everybody a case of ammo...for having to read my posts...lol seriously if it offends..which i dont want to do as you are all mostly friendly..ill delete it. Sound fair enough?