Gun Control - Would ANY form benefit us?

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FrosSsT

New member
As an American I strongly believe that under our constitution we have the right to purchase firearms - and without restrictions.

When I tell people that, the reactions vary. People who believe guns should be banned tell me that I am crazy, people who are gun owners often agree with me - and then there are the people who own a firearm and support some forms of gun control.

"Do you want to make it easier for felon's to obtain firearms"
"What if someone is mentally unstable, should they own firearms?"
"What about age, would you like it for school children to carry a firearm to school in their backpack?"

I always first try to explain that a gun is a tool. It will not do anything you do not tell it to do. Man has created many tools, and all are dangerous when used improperly. I then often reply that a felon is a felon because he does not obey the law, which means he will not obey the laws preventing him ownership of a firearm and will obtain one rather easily on the black market or by stealing one. The mentally handicapped are not exempt from rights under our constitution, and those who are violent will only find other tools or ways to create harm. You can not fully 100% prevent violent crime everywhere, including schools, however I believe students that have been properly educated about and learn to respect firearms will be less likely to use one in anger or retaliation whether they be young children, teenagers, or even those in college.

Those are just my views that I believe in.

Simply put, do you believe that we benefit from some forms of gun control, and if so, why?
 
I think you should have to be 18 to purchase one. Really do n't have a big issue with certain types of felonies putting restrictions on gun purchases either

You are right about the black market, but eliminating all regulations just because a black market exist is not a logical approach.
 
I approve of criminal background checks, as well as removal of the right for violent felons and removal for those with (severe) mental disorders that have a tendency to create violent behavior. I also think training, while not mandatory, should be very strongly encouraged for gun purchasers. I'm also okay with the slightly tighter background check and tax stamp for things like grenades, rocket launchers, full auto weapons, etc. Less for crime control than for stopping stupid people from blowing up a building by mistake.

I've never heard of other restrictions I think make any sense. I approve of full magazine capacities, nationwide carry rights, and the private ownership of ARs, AKs and the like.
 
Last edited:
I'm more in the "no regulation" camp. Felons and crazy people can get guns illegally anyway. If a person is that prone to violence that we would not want them to buy a gun, then why are they on the street? Just because some other laws such as probation, plea deals, are screwed up is not justification to put restrictions on a civil right.

Secondly, I don't believe in passing restrictive laws trying to eliminate every chance of danger. Up until 1968 we got along fine with virtually anyone being able to buy guns mail-order.

I think the violence we see today is not because of guns (we have far less access to buy guns today than in 1967), but due to failure of laws in other areas. And it seems things worked well with even less gun laws prior to 1934. I am all for going back to the gun laws or lack thereof of 1933.

What gun law since 1933 has made us safer exactly?
 
Many very minor crimes end with Felony charges, stuff that to my opinion should not be a felony... For myself I think felony charges have become a way to do back door gun control.
 
One of the few regulations that would actually benefit both sides would be better state's reporting of mental problems. States are already supposed to report when people are commited due to mental issues but few of them do with any accuracy. This gives the anti's more reason to cry for tougher gun control.
 
Tool argument is for the choir - it won't work.

Long debate on its rhetorical utility. The 2nd Amend was based on weapons and not the right to have pliers.
 
The 2nd Amend was based on weapons and not the right to have pliers.
Click to expand...
You can have my pliers when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Or you can just borrow them for awhile. I've got a bunch. :)

I do cringe at the arguments that speak to social utility or crime control. Yes, criminals will think twice about attacking someone if they think a potential victim is armed. No, accidental injuries do not seem to spike up when gun laws are loosened. Those things are true, but we don't need to rely on those arguments.

We have an amendment to the Constitution that acknowledges and protects the RKBA as a natural right. That's where our arguments should be.
 
NWPilgrim said:
I'm more in the "no regulation" camp. Felons and crazy people can get guns illegally anyway. If a person is that prone to violence that we would not want them to buy a gun, then why are they on the street? Just because some other laws such as probation, plea deals, are screwed up is not justification to put restrictions on a civil right.
Click to expand...
I agree. "... shall not be infringed" is a very simple statement. It's just too bad that more people can't understand plain English.

I am basically in the "no regulation" camp, because regulation = infringement. I also agree that if we can't trust some people to be on the streets with guns, those people probably should not be allowed out on the streets. Since there are a LOT of convicted felons out on the streets, either on parole or having completed their sentences, who have guns they are not legally allowed to have, the law saying they can't buy or possess guns obviously doesn't work. If something doesn't work, it's illogical to continue pushing it. Try something else.

Further, IF there are going to be laws about guns, why not restrict what can be done with a gun, rather than who can own one? Logically, if a 45-year old former bookkeeper was sent to prison for embezzling $10,000 from her former employer, that was a "white collar" crime involving no physical injury to anyone. But ... she's a felon, and prohibited from ever touching a firearm. If she buys (or is given) a pocket pistol illegally and carries it in her purse for the next 45 years without ever shooting, threatening, or robbing anyone -- who cares? Who has been hurt by her flagrant disregard for the law?

So why not just focus on making it illegal to do bad things with guns, like rob banks and commit murders, and stuff like that?
 
Aguila Blanca said:
I agree. "... shall not be infringed" is a very simple statement. It's just too bad that more people can't understand plain English.

I am basically in the "no regulation" camp, because regulation = infringement. I also agree that if we can't trust some people to be on the streets with guns, those people probably should not be allowed out on the streets. Since there are a LOT of convicted felons out on the streets, either on parole or having completed their sentences, who have guns they are not legally allowed to have, the law saying they can't buy or possess guns obviously doesn't work. If something doesn't work, it's illogical to continue pushing it. Try something else.

Further, IF there are going to be laws about guns, why not restrict what can be done with a gun, rather than who can own one? Logically, if a 45-year old former bookkeeper was sent to prison for embezzling $10,000 from her former employer, that was a "white collar" crime involving no physical injury to anyone. But ... she's a felon, and prohibited from ever touching a firearm. If she buys (or is given) a pocket pistol illegally and carries it in her purse for the next 45 years without ever shooting, threatening, or robbing anyone -- who cares? Who has been hurt by her flagrant disregard for the law?

So why not just focus on making it illegal to do bad things with guns, like rob banks and commit murders, and stuff like that?
Click to expand...

That sounds great in theory, but consider that aggravated rape is usually not a life sentence. It flies in the face of logic that a convicted aggravated rapist should be able to buy a gun like any good citizen, even if he CAN get one illegally.

"shall not be abridged" is rhetorically powerful, but will almost certainly never be the law again. The current controlling case law (Heller & McDonald) explicitly states some regulation is permissible. That will probably be the reality for a long time.
 
I come from a time when anyone could purchase anything (except NFA weapons) at the local hardware store. Yes, even in California. There were no FFL's, there were very few pure "gun stores". You could purchase ammo at any grocery store when you were 12 (or younger) if you had the money. No questions asked.

Guess what...there were less problems then, then there are now.

I think the GCA68 and the NFA34 should be repealed and then just stop worrying about it, It worked for years, why not now?
 
I support background checks that keep people who have felony convictions from buying guns. The system could probably use some tweaking for non-violent felons, victimless crimes, etc. But so long as he receives his day in court, it seems fair to me.

I won't ever support a written psych exam at the gun shop counter. But if someone has been deemed mentally unstable, then he should temporarily not be allowed access to a firearm. Again, as long as he receives some sort of due process.

If you're old enough to vote, you should be allowed to own and carry a firearm.

Also...

I don't support closing the "gun show loophole". That has more to do with my personal property rights than guns.

I don't want to be forced to buy bulk ammo 999 rounds at a time.

And I'd like to see the machine gun registry reopened. Then maybe even eliminated. But there are a lot of bureaucrats at ATF who need the work.
 
When a person has served their sentence...they should be done. Think about this: One of the guys I was in Vietnam with, that came back about the same time as I did, celebrated his return to the US by going to a bar...and in that bar, he picked up a sweet young thing...went to her home and was caught in bed with her by her parents...She was 13. He went to prison for statutory rape. This was in 1969.

Well, that young man was raped himself, by the system, of his civil rights...I'm sorry the CGA68 and everything tied to it needs to be repealed.

If there is a violent criminal that wants a firearm, and that cannot obtain a firearm legally, he will illegally..the only people that you are infringing on are the people that wish to abide by the law.
 
Last edited:
"shall not be abridged" is rhetorically powerful, but will almost certainly never be the law again.
Click to expand...
It never was the law to the best of my knowledge. Restrictions go back to the late 18th century.

No right is entirely unfettered. We have time, place, and manner restrictions on speech, and it's likely that those limits will also apply to the exercise of the 2nd Amendment in even the best scenario.

We've got a lot of restrictions on the RKBA, and rollling them back is an uphill battle that'll be won by degrees.
 
LockedBreech said:
That sounds great in theory, but consider that aggravated rape is usually not a life sentence. It flies in the face of logic that a convicted aggravated rapist should be able to buy a gun like any good citizen, even if he CAN get one illegally.
Click to expand...
Why?

Did you miss the part about "if we can't trust someone to be on the streets with a gun, perhaps they should not be allowed on the streets"? And what difference does a law making it illegal for him to possess a gun make? We don't really care if he has a gun -- what we don't want is for him to use a gun to commit a crime. That's already illegal, so either stiffen the penalty and/or sentence to the max for committing crimes with firearms.
 
Last edited:
How about we get the federal prosecutors to actually charge and bring to court all the illegal weapons charges to begin with?
How many convicted felons that use a firearm to commit another crime actually get charged for the federal offense? IMHO, not many.
 
I agree. "... shall not be infringed" is a very simple statement. It's just too bad that more people can't understand plain English.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can't imagine why we don't let criminals have guns in jails and prisons, but for some reason, we don't. The penal institutions of our founding fathers didn't allow weaponry either. Everyone seemed fine with infringing the right.
 
I believe in the "Gun a Month" rule.

Except I don't know if I have the space for the gun safe's required to support membership in the "Gun a Month Club"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top