Gun Control - Would ANY form benefit us?

Status
Not open for further replies.
But they failed. It's still easy for criminals and "prohibited persons" to buy guns -- it's just not legal. "Hot" guns are readily available in every state, and the ex-felons and gang bangers all know where to find them.

Agree. This is exactly the bunch the law is supposed to keep guns away from owning. I would imagine after a few months in prison a guy knows who to see if he wants a gun when he gets out.

For those who support some "reasonable" restrictions, exactly which guns laws passed after 1934 is keeping us safer and is worth burdening or prohibiting law abiding citizens?

I have a problem with any law that prohibits possession of an item rather than the irresponsible or violent behavior if the individual. And if the feared behavior is already illegal then why restrict the item?
 
I have a problem with any law that prohibits possession of an item rather than the irresponsible or violent behavior if the individual. And if the feared behavior is already illegal then why restrict the item?


Honestly I think the idea (at least partial) behind prohibiting felons from owning/possessing guns is for the ability of LEO to arrest someone just for possessing it and hopefully prevent a crime in the future.

That is not too clear but hopefully this example will clear it up.

Lets say a "gang banger" who just got out of prison for beating up a rival gang member is back on the streets hanging out with the same old crowd he was before; obviously up to no good. But for what ever reason they get searched (flipped of the police, made threats, suspicious activity, etc) and long and behold they find a gun on him. Hey look they have a charge against him! Even though the guy did not commit a murder or armed robbery with the gun, it would be perceived that hanging out with the gang, it was only a matter of time before he did commit such a crime.

Personally I don't think giving felons their rights back is the right thing. Even if it is a non-violent charge. Sorry you make a mistake of sleeping with a 13 year old girl (who you thought was 18) and you should be able to own a gun and vote? Who is to say that you wont go back to the parents house and kill them for sending you to prison? Sorry no. I don't believe that. Some of you are saying that they should make the penalties harder. Well wouldn't taking away our basic rights because we committed a felony constitute as harsher punishment? By harsher punishment you mean that you want them in jail longer... on tax payer dollars, in over crowded facilities, where inmate rights groups pusher for easier time in prison (tvs, radios, trailers for them and their wives/girlfriend for "fun" time). You know the consequences of your actions and should think about them before you commit a crime.

For example. My father is in prison on charges that I think are excessive for what he is guilty of (he admitted what he was really guilty of to me). The jury decided he was guilty of the actual act but in reality he was only guilty for not reporting the crime to the police. Either way I still see him as a felon and I've told him to his face that he's getting what he deserves and that he should still be restricted with his rights when he gets out.

And a side note, my father teaches law classes to other inmates and helps with appeals. He is a very intelligent man who I think would still be helpful to society, but he should not be able to retain some of his rights when he gets out (he'll be in his 70s by then).
 
The legislators wrote a penalty for a crime when they wrote the law in the first place, they did not write, oh, BTW: the penalty is 2 years in prison and a lifetime of restrictions. They simple wrote the penalty for this hypothetical crime is 2 years. (or 20 years doesn't matter the principle is the same).

Kind of reminds me of the old show "branded", where the criminal was branded with the crime he had committed. Now, branding someone physically would be instantly challenged as "cruel and unusual", but is not the effect the same?

Back when I was a kid (Pre 1968) I purchased a rifle and a pistol when I was 16, from one of the true gun store in existence at the time, with my own money, and on my own. When I was 19 (still pre 1968) I was in the US Army, had a Top Secret clearance, with a BI so thorough that my relatives that lived in Canada and Europe were calling my parents and asking why the FBI (or rather their countries equivalent) was asking about me.

May I ask? I got my first gun at age 12, birthday present from my parents. So now, by the time I join the military had owed several rifles and pistols (still own all but one of them)...now, if all kids are so irresponsible, do you think I could have passed that BI?
 
Last edited:
quote
The SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is not without restrictions, and I agree.

Here are some restrictions with which I agree.
Age, felons, full auto weapons, mental incompetents. Other weapons such as rocket launchers should be banned as they are.

i have to go with Jerry on that point, because thats what i consider common sence gun control.
 
Personally I don't think giving felons their rights back is the right thing. Even if it is a non-violent charge. Sorry you make a mistake of sleeping with a 13 year old girl (who you thought was 18) and you should be able to own a gun and vote? Who is to say that you wont go back to the parents house and kill them for sending you to prison? Sorry no. I don't believe that.

Who's to say that a law saying I can't vote or own a gun is going to stop me from doing whatever I want? If I'm going to commit the double homicide of your scenario then why would I have any problem buying a gun off Louie over here and doing it? Please, to even suggest that a law would make a difference is naive.
 
shall not be infringed" is a very simple statement. It's just too bad that more people can't understand plain English

There are many many direct quotes made by our founding Fathers that reference the 2nd amendment as it refers to the "law abiding man". It is not unreasonable to believe that our founding Fathers accepted that certain restrictions can, should or would be imposed against the "non- law abiding". They made that pretty clear when mentioning things like "shall not be construed to prohibit the law abiding man. etc...etc..etc.
 
Lengthy, I know... Bear with me...

There's a lot of things I would like to change if given the opportunity.

**Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I aspire to be. I might not get the specific terminology correct, I may not have the best grasp on the aspects of the particular laws and definitions. I'm working with my best (albeit limited) understanding of the issues at hand. So don't flame me if I am mistaken on a particular point.**

First, I'll start with felonies. The current standard often lies with how many years you were (or could be, in some cases) sentenced to for the crime you've been convicted of. While that may be a good system to use as a starting point, the fact is that you can very easily become a felon for very minor crimes, depending on the sentence (or allowable/max sentence in some cases). Should it be 1 year? 2 years? More? I don't know... I do know that we could do a lot better with our prison and sentencing system. Why do I, as a taxpayer, need to spend $30k (number Wikipedia gave me) per year on a prisoner that broke a law, but could be sentenced to something productive, like community service? I know community service has its issues as a process, but it could be improved to efficient and effective levels with a little time and creativity. So now that we can establish that most, if not all, minor crime criminals can be punished via other than prison means, now the prisons have a little extra space to keep the violent folks behind bars.... But what to do with them? Again, we're paying $30k per prisoner per year... Make them earn it. I see a lot of DOT workers cutting grass on interstates and highways, why? Why can't we get some back-pay from prisoners who owe a debt to society? Why can't they go cut the darn grass and pick up trash? Why can't prisons buy up some surrounding land, buy some cows, shovels, rakes, and garden hoes? Make them milk the cows for the milk, tend the land for their vegetables, raise, butcher, and process livestock for meat... Overall, it would lower costs dramatically and recoup the initial expenditures.

... Off in the weeds ... Back to topic ...

So you can reduce the overall number of "felons" by re-aligning punishment for certain, non-violent crimes into community service. You embezzeled $10,000 from your employer? You must be good with numbers, guess what? Now you get to volunteer 10,000 hours at a free tax clinic and debt counseling company. Things like that... Find creative solutions for community service and keep non-violent offenders out of the prison system as much as possible. There's a lot of felons out there that probably shouldn't be in most of our eyes... Basically, the goal of all this would be to implement a plan to reduce the number of "felons" out there to the people that really and truly deserve the label and the lifetime prohibitions that accompany it.

Background checks.
I agree with them. I think they shoudl be expanded to include mental health checks. I do NOT agree that the mental health portion should be managed by the government, specifically NOT NICS. A database could be compiled by the private sector, paid for with a combination of BATFE funds and medical insurance, with mental health professionals entering a "No Go" next to that name. Your FFL calls in to NICS, receives the "Go" or "No Go" word. Then they call the crazy check database and receive a "Go" or "No Go". There would be zero of your personal medical information stored in the crazy check database. Only your name, DOB, address, SSN and a simple "No Go" entry, no medical information, I REPEAT: None of your personal medical information would be stored in the crazy check database. The determination of wether you are mentally fit to operate a firearm would be decided by your mental health professional (not your general practice physician) in conjunction with your family members. If there is no entry in the database, it would be assumed that your mental health is sound.

NFA
Get rid of the federal full-auto registry. Allow the manufacture of modern select-fire weapons. Keep the $200 tax stamp, but reduce the amount of time it takes to get the stamp back. If you can pass the NICS (and the crazy check) then why should there be any further restrictions? If the NICS check is ineffective at determining if a person has a clean record, then fix the NICS system because apparently a lot of peope with bad backgrounds can get "regular" guns if that's the case... The amount of time to purchase your select-fire weapon should be no longer than it takes the post office to deliver the $200 check, let the check clear the bank, put the tax stamp in an envelope and mail it back to you.

Suppressors, SBR's, SBS'... No gun is instantly made more deadly or more effective at killing something just because it has a shorter barrel or has a suppressor screwed onto the end of it... No restriction is what I say.

AOW's... Why do we regulate these again???

Destructive devices... Use the same rules as the full-auto above, but increase the tax stamp cost to $1000 for the launchers, and reduce it to $50 each for the projectiles they fire.

Handguns, rifles, shotguns: NICS and crazy check. Other than that, no restrictions on size, caliber, or capacity.

Carry. 2nd Amendment is good enough for all but sensitive areas. In order to carry in sensitive areas (government buildings, courthouses (except courtrooms), school zones, etc) you must apply for a permit with the state police in your state of residence. In order to apply for said permit, you would have to complete a qualification course with 8 hours of classroom instruction and live fire range instruction including basic, practical, and (dry fire) judgemental pistol courses. The provider of said training would have to be approved by the state police. Permit would be valid in all 50 states. Privately-owned businesses will not have their property rights infringed. They may post a nation-wide standardized 36" x 36" sign that carries the force of law that states firearms of any type are not allowed inside their buildings without consent. Penalty for violating a property owners written notice would be a $250 fine and 250 hours community service for first offense, double that for second offense, and double that for the third offense. Penalty for offenses beyond the third attempt would be given by a jury of peers in a fair trial.

Ammo
No restrictions except the existing laws regarding approved storage containers in place for smokeless and blackpowder.


I'm open to suggestions and constructive criticisms and a respectful discussion of any of these issues.
 
Last edited:
Yes.
Limitations on crazy people from getting them. If you start getting reported as a nut then an investigation takes place and if you're found committed or just coockoo (technical term there) you lose your firearms. Thats what it seems we really need.

Limitations on illegal immigrants or criminals from getting them. I have nothing against legal immigrants with such, but with an absurdly open border illegal immigrants can too easily slip across the border.
 
Hmmmm, let's see, beneficial gun controls...

I wouldn't mind a ban on new drum mags...


...so I could sell mine at 5000% value like SBRs and MGs :evil:. Blasted thing don't work half a damn anyway ;)

TCB
 
I wouldn't mind a ban on new drum mags...so I could sell mine at 5000% value
That's the sort of mentality that some machine gun collectors use when they tell me they have no wish to see the Hughes Amendment repealed, or the NFA reformed.

It's also the same mentality that led to some truly unethical price gouging in early 2009.
 
I believe that any form of gun control is in violation of the second amendment. I think the current constraints that apply for convicted felons and the mentality ill are fine. Aside from that, citizens should have the rights to own all sorts of firearms. Now I know someone is going to mention tanks and howitzers and cannons, when you can afford one and carry it around with your hands fine. And any air to middle weapons, ya I get it, but rocket launchers are not a firearm.
 
As a member of a gun related forums obviously im not at all in favor of "gun controll". With this understanding i also believe 2A is not only about "sport shooting" but also defense against tyranical gov. With this in mind "tanks, rocket launchers and howitzers" are weapons our gov. has. I find it would be awfuly hard to defend against such a gov. armed only with rifles and handguns, and only the ones they say you can have at that, so the point seems moot. Not saying everyone needs to have such, just pointing out weve put ourselves at a great disadvantage on that point.
 
Others, a long time ago, articulated it better than I can.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. I am not a friend to a very energetic government." -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

The list goes on and on. I am continually amazed how relevant a lot of what Jefferson wrote still is.
 
Guns that should be illegal to own:
-Nuclear weapons


Edit: Serious post, should it be mandatory for functionally everyone to own a weapon in their residence? Like the good old swiss?
 
Dr Big Bird PhD said:
Edit: Serious post, should it be mandatory for functionally everyone to own a weapon in their residence? Like the good old swiss?

No.

As good of a thought as that seems to be, there would be no constitutional way for the federal government (if it were even inclined to do so, which it is not) to implement it.

As much as gun owners want the gov't to honor and abide by the Constitution, we shouldn't be proposing things that are contradictory to it. A mandatory ownership law would leave a bad taste in my mouth, just like the Affordable Care Act... (let's not get sidetracked on that either)

The real purpose of the RKBA movement isn't to get to mandatory ownership... Mandating something or outlawing it because we like/don't like it is the same MO as the anti's... They don't like guns, so they don't want anyone to have them... We just want them to leave us alone and let people make their own decisions.
 
Simply put, do you believe that we benefit from some forms of gun control, and if so, why?
#1 - I beg everyone's forgivness for this.
For the first time since I became a memeber here in 1998, I've never posted anything w/out first reading all the repsonses.
Until now...

In my lifetime (I'm 60), I've seen the results of more gun control, more drug control, more tobbacco control, more alcohol control, more new driver control and a whole slew more.

Not a single one has worked. Either they make things worse or they make criminals out of people that otherwise would be law abiding and tax paying citizens.

Enough is enough & enough is too much.

Personally, I'm at the point where I'm all for tossing out any laws or controls on anything - that were put in place after the Constitution was written and starting all over again with a clean slate.
 
Serious post, should it be mandatory for functionally everyone to own a weapon in their residence? Like the good old swiss?
Actually, a town in Georgia called Kennesaw has such a law. It's not enforced, which is why a (likely successful) court challenge hasn't been brought against it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top