Reasonable gun control:Your views?

[Wildalaska]

Proof positive that there are a lot of irrational folks on TFL.

Thats what I love about these debates, the ad hominems.

Background checks, regardless how reasonable...
it opens the door a little wider for the un-reasonable "adjustments".

Parades of horribles dont necessarily make a difference in constitutional analysis.

Wild nocjickenlittlingbeforethecourtAlaska

 

[rick_reno]

My FFL has nothing to do with it. My legal background does.

I do have quarrels with the reasonableness and constitutoinality of many Stae/Federal laws. Others, like Instant Checks are OK. Others, like registration, are constitutional but not reasonable. One must analyze them on a case by case basis rather than just emotionally screaming "shall not be infringed".

Well now - you've got the self stated legal expertise. I'm going to ask you to back up your ridiculous statement with case law. Let's have it - you're the expert.
Post all and any case law that supports your statement.

 

[44 AMP]

hot buttons

Any discussion of guncontrol laws, and waiting periods in particular are hot button topics around here. I think partly because many of us fondly remember a time when the country went along just fine without them. Or so we remember.

Certainly some things about the past are not as good as today, and some things of today are not as good as the past. This may apply to any period in history, but I'm living in this one. And I'm not particularly pleased.

When things are a certain way, as you grow up and become aware of them, you don't see tryanny, you don't see oppression, you see things as normal, the way they are. You don't know any different. When someone tells you that it was different once, and now we are being oppressed, you may agree, intellectualy, but it doesn't feel real, because to you, the way things are now is they way they have always been. And what you are used to is reasonable.

There is almost no one left alive with personal adult memories of the time when the US government didn't care about the kind or number of guns its citizens owned.

Children coming of age today will (mostly) see our current laws as reasonable. It saddens me, but that is the way it is.

I don't think any gun control laws are reasonable, but I would gladly accept what we have today is the anti-gun advocates would go away and leave us alone, for good.

But they won't. Every time they said they would, they lied. We believed them, and they lied. We gave them another chance, and they lied. We gave them the benefit of the doubt, and they lied.

I am tired of being lied to. I am tired of being reasonable when all it ever seems to mean is that I can no longer do what I used to do legally, even though it didn't hurt anyone then, and wouldn't hurt anyone now.

 

[Wildalaska]

Dont see any rediculous statements there homey, care to point out which ones are?

Lets startt off with instant checks? Are you contending that they arent constiutional? if so, how? I dont need to be the one arguing...after all the Brady Bill and the NICs check are in force yes?

WildpsiametheexpertAlaska

 

[Glock 31]

I see the point alot of you make about waiting periods being inconvenient.

It's not that they're inconvenient, it's that they are ineffective. The only way the waiting period has any effect, as stated in many previous posts, is when it is someone's first gun. And if that person has even a little patience, regardless of their intentions for the firearm, the waiting period is rendered useless. Background check cleared i.d. cards are an interesting idea, especially where it is erroneous to some people who have to wait long periods of time to get the same, "ok to purchase" every time. But I fear that such i.d. cards and the databases that keep them updated, could be easily exploited for the same reasons that clintonites and fiendsteins want firearm registration.

 

[gdm]

reasonable??

:barf:

registration is not reasonable,it serves no purpose other than cataloging who has what...and incidently, where they can be removed when its considered reasonable to ban them or certain types..unlikely?

to whom does the instant check affect..would it be unreasonable to believe that gun laws do not affect criminals but further restrict law abiding gun owners or perhaps even criminalizing ownership by a few ill informed few that dont know the total wording,legal mumbo jumbo already on the books,ignorance not an excuse my friend.

reasonable..or...a compromise?to me, none of it is reasonable,simply a compromise.

 

[goblues]

Reasonable? The brady bunch say they want "sensible" gun laws on their site. Sensible to them is one gun per month, no hi cap mags, no semi autos, no conceal carry. If they had there way and made it such a pain to own a gun Id just quit shooting all together. Wouldnt be worth the hassel.

 

[Waitone]

Gun control laws inherently restrict the actions of the lawabiding. Those who don't need the restrictions are the very ones who get the restrictions.

Those who want to commit a crime are not going to be constrained by the existence of a law.

 

[rick_reno]

Dont see any rediculous statements there homey, care to point out which ones are?

Lets startt off with instant checks? Are you contending that they arent constiutional? if so, how? I dont need to be the one arguing...after all the Brady Bill and the NICs check are in force yes?

This doesn't address my query. Changing the subject or feeeble your attempt at baiting/name calling won't work with me WildAlaska - I ain't biting.

You pronounced yourself a legal expert in this area - post the case law that supports your position or crawl back under your log and stop typing. Surely, as a self proclaimed expert you've read and the cases that are related and I think you should be able to cite them. I don't know why you haven't - homey.

 

[tyme]

Lets startt off with instant checks? Are you contending that they arent constiutional? if so, how?

How about the fact that they are a federal restriction on intrastate commerce? Or that they indirectly infringe on the right of free (non-incarcerated, non-paroled) individuals to keep arms?

I suppose computer registration would be constitutional too?

Why wouldnt it be?

Okay, this is about the point where I stop taking you seriously.

And why is that? Because you think it reduces gun crime by 5% or 2%, or because you think felons shouldn't have pieces of metal, regardless of any real impact on the crime rate?

You and I have gone back and forth on this on two Boards...whats the point of arguing further,,,

Not to either of our satisfactions, evidently.

If you're proposing that I not debate the issue because I've previously recognized its subjectivity, I think you're missing the point. It's precisely because it is subjective that it is civilly debatable. Debates on objective reality are either between two people who are arguing sematics while holding the same beliefs, or between two people, one of which is ignorant and/or stupid, requiring the debate to tap-dance around the issue while avoiding the (appropriate) ad-hominems.

 

[Handy]

No right or freedom in our society has ever been exercised without limits. That's what a socieity is - a collection of limitations on behavior that allows function.

The question isn't whether their should be gun control, just what is a appropriate way to support the right to arms without allowing that right to consume the others. There are things you can't do with your freedom of speech, and there are things that shouldn't be done despite a freedom to be armed.

Gun control has gone too far. Abolishing all control is going too far in the opposite direction, and is just anarchy, not freedom.

 

[IndianaDean]

I favor basic checks to see if I'm a law abiding citizen. If I am however, I should be able to buy whatever firearm I want, and carry it whereever I want, either concealed or on my hip, back, whereever, with no license required. And as the background checks I've had have gone right through immediately, I see no reason for any kind of waiting period.

I favor courthouses and government centers being no carry zones, but I see no reason I should not be able to carry in a church, school or anywhere else I want to carry. A law abiding citizen is not going to use his firearm at any of those places.

 

[tyme]

Government centers? How many government buildings do you know of that effectively screen visitors for weapons? How do you intend to keep bad people with weapons out? Magic? Psychic powers? Wishful thinking?

Courts are really not that secure either, despite the apparent security measures. Even so, court building assaults are just about the last thing anyone, even a mob hitman payed lots of money to kill a witness, wants to do. There's almost always a less risky approach to the victim, and that risk has little to do with getting a gun past a metal detector. Metal detectors are much less of a deterrent than the logistics of assaulting someone in a building full of people. Anyone insane enough to try is going to have no qualms about shooting a security guard too.

 

[MidnightRambler]

The fact of the matter is, we're lucky to have the gun rights we do have. We are never going to get back all of the rights with guns we originally had. It's never going to happen. For one thing, no one will place enough votes for third parties that would restore the 2nd Amendment to its original form. If nothing else, we have to fight to keep our freedoms for guns eroding more. It's a big victory that so many states have given the right to carry back. And that right is not as it is guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. Requiring a license to carry is not the 2nd Amendment.

The folks on here are a distinct minority. Heck, most of the 60 million + gun owners do not share these views. I've heard so many pro gun people over the years say they don't have a problem with 'assault weapons' being banned, or high powered rifles, machine guns, whatever, as long as our basic 2nd Amendment right to carry a handgun or revolver is guaranteed. So we can debate on here all we want, but what we say and think here matters jack squat to the Republicans, Democrats, or the majority of the country doing the voting. I've pushed the 2nd Amendment issue so many times with ordinary voters and all I've gotten in reply has basically been "Oh there are for more important issues than that."
The folks in the government that many think keep an eye on these forums probably hardly ever waste their time looking at one we say on here.

 

[invention_45]

For example, if you have the resources to buy an ICBM, you can do that. However, you can't keep it parked on a trailer outside your garage.

I checked, and my neighborhood association doesn't seem to have a rule about it, other than what color I would have to paint it.

 

[steelheart]

i personally believe that it should be no harder to buy a weapon, any weapon, than it is to vote. you should be able to walk into any gun store, show your voter registration card and walk out with a handgun, concealed at that.

the requirements to be able to vote are 1) US citizenship, 2) over the age of 18, 3)never have been convicted of a felony. (this can be petitioned to have the right to vote resored in most places)

for some reason the same things that are considered "minor inconviences" when buying a gun would have people up in arms if applied to voting.

waiting periods for voting??? the aclu starts threatening lawsuits if people have to wait more than 5 min. in line to vote.

background checks??? i can't even fathom the (explitive) storm that would occur.

Hawken has some good ideas here. To those, I would add:

1: A person should be able to buy any gun at the same age they are eligible to be issued one of "Uncle Sugar's" guns and go to war - 18 years old. Any person who is man or woman enough to go to war, fight, kill and possibly die is man or woman enough to buy, own and carry any gun of their choice.

2: No waiting period to buy.

3: No permit/license required to carry, buy or own any gun.

4: NO REGISTRATION OF ANY KIND - EVER.

5: No restrictions on "assault weapons" or .50 caliber weapons.

6: No restrictions on select fire, full auto or short barreled rifles/shotguns.

7: No restrictions on the import of foreign made guns, with the exception of those made in Communist China.

8: No restrictions on the off base carry of personally owned firearms within the United States by military personnel (Go screw yourself, MG Jacoby, U.S. Army Alaska!)

9: No limits on the number of guns or the amount of ammunition you can own.

10: No limit on the number of rounds your magazines can hold.

11: No restrictions on the ownership of silencers/suppressors. This is an important issue, with housing developments moving closer to shooting ranges.

Bottom line: What we need is POLITICIAN AND BUREAUCRAT CONTROL, not more gun control.

 

[johnsonrlp]

Proper gun control. If a gun is used in a genuine crime you go to jail for the crime you comitted, not the tool you used to do it. If you're in prison or the looney bin, you can't get a gun. Otherwise have at it.

 

[Redworm]

7: No restrictions on the import of foreign made guns, with the exception of those made in Communist China.

Oh now that's just silly. You want no restrictions until someone does something you don't like.

 

[carbiner]

How about punishment for criminals? I know it's not polliticaly correct. But gee, the bikini strangler for instance, or alleged, has a very long and violent record and acquired a firearm all by himself.

 

[Edward429451]

I do not subscribe to the 'reasonable' illusion.