the_oklahombre
New member
"I've got a firm policy on gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be the one controlling it" - Clint Eastwood
Ok fella's, lets see where everyone stands on gun control
- Thread starter Redneck with a 40
- Start date
redneck said:
Why does it seem that you gauge your opposition to gun control laws based on your perception of their likelihood of being reversed?
As to your latter point, if crack-dealing criminals are making hundreds of thousands of dollars a week, they won't have the reservations about standing exposed to a $10,000 fine, so why do you feel that the hurdles to full auto ownership are accomplishing anything worthwhile and should remain? I tell you what, if swift public hanging were the punishment for misusing a full auto weapon, I bet it would be no more common than it is now.
-azurefly
gfen said:
In response to some other comments: I also recall that my rights end where yours begin or, as I like to say, where yours end and mine begin.
And with the civil rights aspect of this thread, off we go to L&P ...
Remember that the compromising here is a compromise of a right that the government did not bestow. I was born with the right to keep and bear arms. If we are negotiating how large a portion of T-bone steak (which neither of us owns) each will have, then we have a basis for negotiation and compromise. But if you are looking for me to compromise on how much of my T-bone steak you will have, then we do not. A willingness to compromise has been characterized as what good, reasonable people do, just as good reasonable people are moderate, not hardline, ever. If you are not willing to compromise, then you are a fundamendalist, and we all know what that means.
In response to some other comments: I also recall that my rights end where yours begin or, as I like to say, where yours end and mine begin.
And with the civil rights aspect of this thread, off we go to L&P ...
kungfucowboy
New member
ideally i belive that us citizens should be able to buy anything we would sell to a friendly nation. you should be able to carry as you like conceled or open without a permit, however because firearms do require training i would have firearms training a required course in middleschool or highschool.I don't belive instant background checks are gun control as they don't limit who can and can't buy legally only check your legal status(my way it would only check your citizenship as anyone who would missuse a firearm would not do so twice) so i don't have a problem with them. I totally support harsher laws for murder, armed robbery, and crimes of that nature.
JuanCarlos
New member
Hkmp5sd said:
Considering how little time some people spend in prison, even for violent crimes, I'd have to disagree. Especially when you consider the number of violent criminals on probation/parole. I'd say the overcrowding of our prison system, more than anything else, has necessitated background checks.
However, I also think there should be a time limit on any loss of rights (voting, gun ownership) due to a felony conviction...restricting them permanantly dismisses the idea of rehabilitation. Additionally I'd like to see felonies broken into two categories. I see no reason that somebody who was in possession of too large a bag of weed should be lumped into the same category as a mass murderer.
Harley Quinn
Moderator
Time has no begining and no end
We worshipped the sun long ago as we began to emerge into a new world. Now we worship whatever we want. The cannibals of old have been replaced.
Government has been put into place by the responsible people yet they want you to believe in a God who has mercy.
Strange these bedfellows.
HQ
We worshipped the sun long ago as we began to emerge into a new world. Now we worship whatever we want. The cannibals of old have been replaced.
Government has been put into place by the responsible people yet they want you to believe in a God who has mercy.
Strange these bedfellows.
HQ
skeeter1 said:
Um, aren't the very people you have been voting for (as a self-described liberal democrat) interested in doing exactly that? Do you think that the gun control laws in MA, IL, CA, D.C., come from any source other than liberal democrats? :barf:
Now, maybe you have other concerns apart from guns, and for those reasons the liberal democrats are more to your liking politically, but please don't pretend they are not interested in, eventually, taking away your firearms and your right to legally possess them.
-azurefly
I must agree with azurefly here. Just where are the left-liberal politicians who are acutally pro 2A rights? I fail to see ANY of them. Don't just hear what they say prior to election, as damage control and to entice fence sitters. Don't just look at the photo-op shots of them on a once-in-a-lifetime goose hunt. LOOK AT THEIR VOTING RECORDS.
Anti-, Anti-, Anti-, Anti- -- right down the line. Since I happen to believe that there are 2 rights that are enumerated in the BOR that stand above the rest, that enable all others -- The 1st and the 2nd -- and since I happen to think that any politician or bureaucrat who infringes on those (or any other part of the Constitution for that matter) is singularly unfit for dogcatcher much less high political office, I will not now nor ever consider anyone from the far left. Ever. I'll stay home first before I vote for a leftist.
BTW -- that goes for those on both sides of the aisle. For instance: McCain gets the bum's rush from me because of his promotion of McCain-Feingold and the resulting assault on the 1A.
Wildalaska
Moderator
I've made my postion clear on numerous occasions that I have no problem, on a constituional or political basis with "gun control"...
To me, reasonable and constituional are:
1. Instant checks
2. Prohibition on certain classes of persons (ie felons)
3. CCW laws
4. Dealer licensing
Unconstitutional
1. Bans (in part)
2. Retrictions on interstate sales
3. The NFA (in part)
WildthereiamAlaska
To me, reasonable and constituional are:
1. Instant checks
2. Prohibition on certain classes of persons (ie felons)
3. CCW laws
4. Dealer licensing
Unconstitutional
1. Bans (in part)
2. Retrictions on interstate sales
3. The NFA (in part)
WildthereiamAlaska
To begin with there is not a single law on the books, in regard to Guns, that is not in direct violation of the Second Amendment, I would venture to say that 100% of them, were passed in fear of the criminal element, which was a political knee jurk reaction of the Polititions to satisfy the Screaming Public that said something had to be done about this or that, this said, there should be no restrictions on firearms of any kind Militarty or otherwise, a weapon is a weapon, I do hold that as Citizens we have no need for a Bazooka, Flame thrower, Grenades, Motors ETC. unless we are called to arms as a Militia agianst an attacking foe. No human being has a need for any kind of Chemical, Bioligacal,or Nukelar weapon, it is totally uncalled for, and the truth be told the next major conflict will be fought with conventional weapons, NO ONE WINS WITH A NUKE WAR, this is not to say that these weapons wont be used, but I simply state, that if an all out Nuke war were to take place the Human Race will be the Looser.
I do not hold with the restrictions on any small arms, in number or the registration of same, there should not be any restriction on the amount of ammunition for same, and I do feel that the safe handeling of said small arms, should be a mandantory requirement for use, not to place a restriction but rather to make sure that the people are versed in the safe use and care of them, I do not think it should be a requiremrent of age nor Gender, If We remember correctly as Youngsters we were all pretty fair shots by our 10th to 16th year. And some were even better at an earlier age, but common sence must prevail here.
And one point, the Second Amendment was never ment to protect agianst a STANDING ARMY OF OURS, WE DIDN'T HAVE ONE The Founding Fathers were dead set agianst a Standing Army, that was the reason for the Militia in the first place and the reason the Second Amendment was Wrote to Protect all the Other ones.
I do not hold with the restrictions on any small arms, in number or the registration of same, there should not be any restriction on the amount of ammunition for same, and I do feel that the safe handeling of said small arms, should be a mandantory requirement for use, not to place a restriction but rather to make sure that the people are versed in the safe use and care of them, I do not think it should be a requiremrent of age nor Gender, If We remember correctly as Youngsters we were all pretty fair shots by our 10th to 16th year. And some were even better at an earlier age, but common sence must prevail here.
And one point, the Second Amendment was never ment to protect agianst a STANDING ARMY OF OURS, WE DIDN'T HAVE ONE The Founding Fathers were dead set agianst a Standing Army, that was the reason for the Militia in the first place and the reason the Second Amendment was Wrote to Protect all the Other ones.
oystermick
New member
I swear this is the best thread I've ever had the pleasure to read. It's very gratifying to share this forum with you folks. Reading the very impressively thoughtful posts here is nothing less than a powerful learning experience.