Restrictions Gun Owners Want?

These are the people who vowed to crush the 2nd Amendment and alienate all of us from any part of the conversation 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

Yes, as I’ve said before I do not believe we will see a full frontal attack, but various forms of stealth gun control. One of the strategies is what they term “reasonable restrictions”. They hope to use folks like this to deceive gun owners into accepting what they tell us is reasonable, but what are just more incremental steps to their ultimate goal. This article appeared on CNN’s WEB Site with absolutely no rebuttal or even a hint that everything said was not 100% true.

We must be rational and seek ways to educate ourselves and other gun owners. Also, even non-gun owners tend to support the 2A, so let’s take time to discuss the actual facts.
 
pax said:
Can't remember where I first came across this illustration. I know it was someone's blog, but can't seem to find the link anywhere. But it was brilliant, and it's stuck with me.

The story goes like this ...

I am sitting at a table in the park, smiling because I have a wonderful, delicious chocolate cake in front of me. I love cake! . . .
Click to expand...
That's one of my favorites. It's entitled "Ok. I'll play," and it's from the LawDog Files.
 
I watched the video link and read the text, even though about half-way through I had to take an anti nausea medication to keep down dinner. The really disturbing part of the nonsense both of these men are spewing is that there are gun owners who will agree that these are common sense solutions that will have no impact on them. I am afraid Brian Pfleuger is right. Being able to give a thoughtful and compelling argument to those who would chip away at our freedoms, and being engaged enough to actually do so is far too rare.

The idea of broadening the definition of crimes and misdemeanors that would disqualify one from owning a gun scares the hell out me. Using demographics to predict potential criminal use of firearms is another frightening notion: Poor folk are far more likely to be involved in a violent situation, so having firearms is then more dangerous to them and the rest of us; minorities, way too dangerous; uneducated folk, risky at best; pickup driving, Walmart shopping, country folk, or any other group who are not enlightened enough to know that gun ownership should only be allowed by those who are approved by governmental agencies for our own good need not apply. If it weren't for that pesky Constitution, we could be as free, safe, and prosperous as the UK and the rest of Europe! If only we had more wise and learned Brits like Piers Morgan and elitist professors to point us in the proper direction...
 
I was an adult firearms owner before the GCA68 ever happened...there were no "prohibited persons" back then...and there were less problems..

You want crime to do down, repeal the controlled substances act...just like Alcohol Prohibition...it has made many two bit punks very wealthy, caused a lot of crime and wasted a lot of public funds, for what?

Just like the criminals will obtain their firearms illegally if they cannot legally, the people the misuse controlled substances will get their illegally if they cannot legally.

The difference? Does the state get tax revenue on a legitimate sale, or are criminal gangs going to get rich and the state expend serious fund trying to suppress a market that is not going to go away? You better believe the controlled substances peddlers voted against legalizing MJ on CO, OR and WA, and CA last election. If it was legal there would be no money in their activity....the gangs have no funds, they have no lure to help them recruit new members.
 
I believe our country already has more than enough gun laws , many of which are blatantly unconstitutional. The anti-gun crowd is well known to create facts and figures that are absolute lies. For example, they have always tried to link crime with gun ownership. There are vast amounts of data that prove the reverse to be true. Look at the UK. Crime has risen so much since their draconian laws have gone into effect that their law enforcement has attempted to reclassify violent crimes in order to hide the true scope of the problem. If you truly want to eliminate crime, give everyone a weapon, train them properly, and allow them to carry it wherever they want. I will take a bold stance and say that you would see much violent crime nearly disappear. The real question here is why they feel it necessary to limit our right at all. It begs to ask what is the the true, ulterior motive behind the attempt to take away our right to keep and bear arms.
 
I don’t post much, and I know this is a long read, but it makes a point I have been trying to make clear for a long time. I have since learned that it doesn’t matter what you tell someone…if they are against it, they will have an unwarranted, un-backed rebuttal. Either way, this is how I see it:

There are two types of laws…pre-emptive laws, and punitive laws (these are opinions…not facts). Pre-emptive laws are to prevent, punitive laws to punish after the fact.

Pre-emptive laws only work on those that follow the law….I will repeat (never enough times it seems), pre-emptive laws are for those that follow the law. They do not work on criminals, in most cases. You might have a borderline criminal, that might decide to go the ‘law abiding’ direction based on what the punitive stance is on a pre-emptive law, but in MOST cases…a criminal will not follow the law.

SO, pre-emptively controlling, banning, regulating guns does NOT work!!!! A criminal does not care what the law says about the type, amount, or capability of legally owned weapons…they are not law abiding….they don’t plan to own it legally! If a criminal is going to break the law, they obviously don’t care about it! Find me one story about a criminal who is planning a home invasion, or bank robbery, who stops and says “Wait, I can’t do this…I don’t have a legally owned weapon to use in the crime.” Pre-emptive laws will not stop the criminals….just the law abiding.

Punitive laws (which is where I think the effort needs to be concentrated) is how to stop criminals. We will NOT stop them from having a gun, no matter how strict the pre-emptive laws are, BUT we can discourage the illegal use of them by enforcing strict punitive laws. Using the above example, something that you do hear about is where the same criminal says “Wait, I can’t do this…I don’t want to end up tied to an electric chair and put out of my misery!”

I won’t drag this out, but I think I made the point. Regulating law abiding citizens will not stop the criminals. Less tolerance on crime can!

Ok…rant over!
 
Five minutes later, dude comes back
Click to expand...

You mean to tell me that you can't eat a 1/2 piece of cake in 5 minutes? :eek:



If I learned anything from this past election its 1. Just how libertarian I am and 2. Everything revolves around money and power.

Antis know that gun control doesn't affect crime. They tried it and tried it but it doesn't work. Exactly how is the crime rate in South Central L.A.? Chicago? Oakland? Camden, NJ? It is about power and money.

Also realize that a lot of anti gunners propose tons of new laws. I suspect one reason to be because of the view that guns should not be in the hands of criminals. The more laws you pass, the increased amount of guilty people their will be (saying this in the sense that if there were absolutely ZERO laws, there would be ZERO outlaws/criminals. If there are 10,000 laws, there will be a lot more than zero outlaws/criminals.) The more criminals you have, the less number of people can own guns legally. Thus is another way for gun control. Eventually everyone or enough people will become criminals that there will not be enough support to maintain a firearms industry.

Then who knows, maybe they'll say, "well if you were a criminal, you can't drive because you were exposed to too much stress from your arrest and court trial." Look at that! Cutting down on emissions now! Way to go environmentalists!!

This whole thing is a crock. By trying to limit what law abiding citizens can purchase and expecting a different group of people (law breaking citizens) to follow is silly, even to an elementary school kid.

And look at this murder in Belize with that McAfee on the run. The victim was shot in the head with a flare gun. Should their be an outlaw on flare guns even though the majority of thugs and criminals do not own boats, or go adventuring into the woods?

These anti people are trying to dummy/child proof the everyday life of people to make it that perfect world where there is no danger, but at the same time they want to do so that they can flex their muscle and say "We did this" when something goes right and say "We need more regulation" when something does not go their way. It is about them gaining power over people to instill their views over everyone.... NOT very Democratic.

Gun control activists are like people throwing gasoline on a fire. The more they through the gasoline on the fire, the more it gets worse and the more they feel the need that more gasoline would put the fire out. Doesn't quite make sense does it?
 
There are two types of laws…pre-emptive laws, and punitive laws (these are opinions…not facts). Pre-emptive laws are to prevent, punitive laws to punish after the fact.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. Gun owners support laws that punish the misuse of firearms such as murder or armed robbery.




Malum in se offenses such as murder are vastly different than malum prohibitum offenses such as possessing a firearm in Illinois without a FOID card.
 
Gun control is indeed about control and power, as stated; governmental control. Let us cut to the chase. If one looks at the original intent of the Founders, an armed populace was to insure freedom; externally from opposing powers, and internally from any government which seeks to limit the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. There are indeed those in our government who fear us; freedom loving gun owners. They do indeed seek to, ultimately, seperate us from our weapons, and have incrementally succeeded. Historically, once a population is disarmed, tyranny follows close upon its heels. I hope and pray that we do not have to relearn this lesson,for it will be very painful. We live in a country deeply divided, and we could be thrown into chaos by any one of a number of things. I am certain of one thing; if we lose the right to our weapons, this country is gone, if not forever, for a very long time. The light of true freedom will be extinguished and we will be responsible for its death.
 
While I'm mostly against arbitrary gun restriction (type of gun, mag capacity) there was one thing I found out recently about a local gun advocacy group that bothered me.

They successfully helped kill a bill in NC that would have required a mental health check for those buying guns (not sure if it was only handguns or any gun) if they don't have a concealed carry permit.

I'm actually FOR a mental health check....rarely are people suffering from mental illness aware of it, and I don't think someone who is clinically depressed/bi-polar/etc should be handling a firearm.

Is there a reason why that viewpoint is out of line or anti-gun? I think any right-minded adult should have a gun...but we are having a serious problem with massacres in this country with firearms by mentally ill people that I think could be prevented if those people are identified.
 
Because as a veteran who was "pinged" for being at risk of suffering from PTSD, in all likelihood, I would be precluded from buying a gun.


The problem isn't allowing the mentally ill to shoot or purchase guns, the problem, as I see it, is "who" gets to decide what constitutes mental illness.

The BATFE? The DOJ? Local or state government?
 
I object to requiring some sort of mental health test before someone can purchase a firearm. I don't mind folks who have been adjudicated as mentally unfit being barred from firearm purchases.
 
Is there a reason why that viewpoint is out of line
Click to expand...

Well, to me it just seems like that much more unnecessary bureaucracy that at the end of the day probably won’t do any good. I always think about the specifics of these things. For instance how many folks are we talking about? Who does the check? What’s involved? Can a brief mental health evaluation even uncover potential problems? Would it require multiple visits?

At the end of the day this just adds to the cost and makes buying a firearm much more difficult which I suspect is part of the motivation. I also doubt that any of these routine mental health reviews would even do any good.

The trick is to determine how to handle people that have been identified as actually exhibiting behavior that is of concern. Many of the people involved in recent high profile incidents had previous run-ins with the mental health system, but nothing was done to prevent them from buying a gun. Now, how to balance the rights of these individuals against the concern for what they “might” do is an entirely different subject all together…
 
I object to requiring some sort of mental health test before someone can purchase a firearm. I don't mind folks who have been adjudicated as mentally unfit being barred from firearm purchases
Click to expand...

I must say I am very much against a mental-health check prior to firearms purchases. First, who decides whether one is "healthy" or not? Probably the majority of people have an episode of "mental illness" at some point in their lives. Some folks probably think I'm a bit nuts on any given day. Now, if the courts have adjudicated a decision, that's a different matter.

Also, once someone acquires a "label", it tends to follow them forever, whether the mental illness is gone or not. I'm a recovering alcoholic, for instance. I imagine I would have been labeled as totally insane back in my drinking days, and rightfully so. Now that I'm 20+ years sober, would I be allowed to purchase guns because of that label I acquired back there? Who knows...
 
mhuxtable you ask a reasonable question, and your conclusion that mentally ill folks should not have weapons is one that is used all the time by those who would restrict the ownership of guns by imposing some sort of means testing. I think we can all agree that criminals (insane or not) are a threat to society. Rather than deal with that reality it is far easier to blame guns.
 
I'd go along with the mental health check if it also applied to voting. (disqualified from voting on advice from mental health community)

What are the chances THAT would fly?
 
mhuxtable said:
. . . .I'm actually FOR a mental health check....rarely are people suffering from mental illness aware of it, and I don't think someone who is clinically depressed/bi-polar/etc should be handling a firearm.

Is there a reason why that viewpoint is out of line or anti-gun? I think any right-minded adult should have a gun...but we are having a serious problem with massacres in this country with firearms by mentally ill people that I think could be prevented if those people are identified.
Click to expand...
Two problems:
1) Using mental illness "clinically depressed/bi-polar/etc.: as the standard by which to deny someone a fundamental, individual constitutional right is a slippery slope. Who, exactly, will make that determination? What, exactly are to be the standards? As a general matter, it becomes fairly easy to designate a politically unpopular group as "mentally ill," and begin stripping them of their rights. E.g., "Communists? Why, only the mentally ill could believe such a system could work." Next step, disarm the communists.

2) Mass murders using guns make big news in the mainstream media. However, never forget that there are something like 65 MILLION gun owners in this country who didn't kill anyone today. Run the numbers on how many total gun owners there are in this country, and compare that to the number of them who actually go on shooting sprees, and then consider whether it constitutes a "serious problem."
 
There are some restrictions I would support:
Ban on stupid people
Ban on laws aimed at law abiding citizens
Ban on judges which don't enforce the laws already on the books
 
Is there a reason why that viewpoint is out of line or anti-gun?
Click to expand...
No, it's a valid question, but you're not going to like the answer.

Many of the very people you're hoping to filter out are the most adept at acing those sorts of tests. I've met a sociopath. They do a great job of appearing normal, happy, and friendly. He'd get a gun.

Meanwhile, a guy who listens to Nick Drake, reads Rod McKuen, and gets in a bit of a funk sometimes gets denied for borderline depression or whatever. Despite being an empathetic, moral person, he doesn't get a gun.

Then there's the question of who defines the criteria and limits. What exactly defines "too depressed" to pass? Is there an appeal for denials?

It simply won't do what's intended, and it will deny guns to folks from whom we've got nothing to fear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top