What form of gun control WOULD you support (if any)?

The OP question implies there exists a set of reasonable rational laws, rules, and regulations which can be used to govern the operation and ownership of firearms. Another implication is we currently have in existence a set of laws, etc. which are not reasonable, not rational, or not effective in their intended effect. By asking for more we are implying what exists is ineffective. How 'bout this. Let's us spend our time picking out laws, rules, and regulations to repeal, cancel and void. Then we can entertain different laws.

Rollback first. Then we can talk.
Click to expand...

Maybe you read it that way, but I meant no such thing. Note the "(if any)" in the thread title.

I think a better way to ask the question is this: If YOU were in charge of EVERY gun law in the country, starting with a clean slate (no laws at all), what laws would you enact, if any?

To answer my own question, as far as possession goes, I would only require people to undergo an instant, free background check, to weed out convicted criminals. In terms of use, I'd say, at minimum, there would have to be laws prohibiting brandishing (the definition would have to be specific enough, though, to keep people from being wrongly charged with it) and, of course, firing in public when you're not threatened (to prevent dangerous activities like celebratory gunfire).

I wouldn't want much else. I can understand the whole "gun license" thing as long as it's the ONLY law regarding possession and carrying.
 
"My free speech isn't regulated either."

I hope you weren't serious when you said that. There are many perfectly constitutional restrictions on our first amendment right to speech. E.g. You can't scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater. States can pass so that you can't get in someone's face and start berating them (using so-called "fighting words"). To paraphrase Justice Jackson, the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. The Bill of Rights is, in my opinion, the best means to the end of living in a free society. That doesn't mean that the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are absolute. If they were, for example, cops wouldn't have the ability to search a suspect's backpack when he or she was arrested without a warrant. Certain limitations are attached to our rights in order to live in an organized society.

Strictly read, the second amendment would allow convicted murderers the right to openly carry an RPG. Thus, the need for at least some interpretation unless we all want to have shootouts everyday (some of you may want to but I kinda like going outside without the fear of a grenade being thrown at me).

As for the argument that you shouldn't have to pay taxes, we also have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The Supreme Court has taken this to mean that we have a right to travel among the several states. Does that mean, if I am traveling through Kentucky, that I shouldn't have to pay sales tax if I get a burger or buy gas? After all, that tax is an infringement on my right to travel.

Certain regulation of the 2nd amendment right is inevitable. However, we can help guide that regulation by running for elected office or actively supporting those will represent our interests. Not complicated, just very hard work.

P.S. I love my country. I try to say that as much as possible.
 
Leave it to the states and local citizens
The fed should only be involved in protecting citizens of one state from being screwed by citizens of another state or citizens of other countries.
 
Gun control that I would support would be inforcing the laws and increasing the punishment that allready exists for committing crimes with guns instead of plea bargaining many cases into the toilet.
 
I keep seeing "mentally ill" and "criminals." Problem with categories is people find a way to fit anything in. You could be mentally ill and a violent criminal and not even know it.

I know this parade of horribles hasn't manifested under the current drafting and enforcement of existing gun control, but please indulge me to play devil's advocate regarding the risks of conceding the above.

Violent criminals, okay. It still presents problems, but there's obviously good reasoning beneath this blanket statement. Go with this though: Armed thug tries to rob you, you shoot. Good job. Except an overzealous prosecutor decides you failed to abide your duty to retreat and it was not defensive. You're convicted and lose appeals. (I know, I know, but stranger things do happen.) Not only do you have a criminal record now, but you lose your possessions and have no barrier against reprisal from the dead punk's gang buddies once you've done your time. All for some **** [wow, I can't believe that's considered a curse!] that deserved what he got.

Smaller example. Who here's been in a fistfight? Get picked up? If you had, that's potentially battery. Might even tag on aggravated. Is it likely that you'd get stuck with a felony and be precluded from gun ownership? No. But is it possible? Yes. And even if it's not possible now, you put Obama at the wheel with the right concoction of legislators and they could very well include it.

"We" understand the spirit of what we're getting at - don't let people who will do bad things with guns get guns - but you have to think about how others will pervert it over the years. You need to ask: How will some people try to twist this to make sure my grandchildren (or their grandchildren) do not own firearms?

Getting to the more debatable point in my opinion, I do not like this summary "mentally ill" ban either. We're all crazy in our own right. Pelosi thinks everyone on this board is mentally ill - in her mind we're all violent, paranoid separatists. From her communist vision, maybe there's an argument supporting that. But that's the problem - it's all how you frame it. And the words of a legislation don't change, but the lens Washington views it through does.

Again, I get the spirit of the "mentally ill" ban. We want to keep guys like Russell Weston from misusing firearms. Makes sense.

But you give them "mentally ill" and where do they go with it. Who here's got any kind of citation involving a substance? DUI, public intox, caught in high school with something or another. You may have mental problems. How many here have kids on ADHD meds or antidepressants? They'll NPQ you for a number of military programs based on taking those once. Road rage, getting angry at the other coach at T-ball, flipping out at work once in twenty years? Better keep that down low.

But perhaps more importantly, there's a lot of public misunderstanding about the disabled, and a lot of those we'd label "mentally ill" who pose no threat, and further might need some defensive leverage a lot more than your average person who can run or punch back.

So I don't think that kind of overbroad categorization is the right answer. Individual evaluation would be inefficient and unrealistic, I admit, but these categories have to be tailored with extreme detail to be as narrow as can be, and there should be an appeal process for those who believe they are unfairly excluded.

Just something to chew on, I suppose.
 
What's wrong with automatic weapons?

Rapid semi-automatic fire is much more accurate and effective than full-auto fire. If you support restricting machine guns because of the potential harm one can do, you need to support restricting semi-automatic weapons as well.
Click to expand...

This is true to some degree, and I do think much of the fear of automatic versus semi-auto fire is little more than hype. After all, that kind of fire is usually discouraged nowadays in most armies.

However, if some idiot were to get his hands on a full-auto weapon and fire it into a large crowd of people, he can hit many of them fairly quickly, and likely kill several. Then there's the matter of huge belt-fed machine guns that can feed from long belts of ammo and potentially kill dozens, if not hundreds of people unable to flee its range in time. Imagine some bangers mounting an FN MAG on their Escalade (which, we're assuming hypothetically, should be easily and freely available), and doing a drive-by with it. That's a lot of stray rounds that would get dispersed all over the 'hood. Then again, I guess the difference is less obvious when you're talking a semi AK versus a full-auto AK, so maybe one should take TYPES of auto-fire weapons into account.
 
No restrictions on any weapon of any kind. Have all persons convicted of a violent crime, or manufacturing/distribution of illegal drugs, executed by public hanging, the day the sentence is passed. Crime would become almost nonexistent.

No, it isn't a violation of the 8th Amendment. It isn't cruel because when you're hanged, your neck is broken and death is almost instantaneous. It isn't unusual if it's being done to all violent felons and drug dealers.
Click to expand...

I hope you're not serious. That sounds an awful lot like a typical Islamist, communist, or fascist country. It's funny you'd advocate such inhumane idiocy for the sake of your 2nd Amendment rights.
 
If it is a large bore I like to use 2 hands but the small bores I have no problem with single handed gun control method.
 
By the way, the joke about how gun control is "having a steady grip" or whatever is WAY played out these days. It was played out like 10 years ago.
 
MatBananas717 said:
By the way, the joke about how gun control is "having a steady grip" or whatever is WAY played out these days. It was played out like 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update. The phrase "played out" was played out the day after Compuserve's initial public offering. By the way. But if it makes you and anyone else happy to say, there's certainly no harm, right? Oh, welcome and keep it cordial. :)
 
What form of gun control WOULD you support (if any)?
Click to expand...
I'd think that the statement in Article IV of the Articles of Confederation was about right..."the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.":D

But I do believe there should be some restriction on guns allowed in dueling. Duelists should be limited to lawyers, politicians and persons in civil lawsuits. The pistols should be limited to single shot muzzleloaders. :cool:
 
nics check, or similar,

Felon with a gun, life in a prison colony.

armed robbery or gun use in a gang activity, 15 years up grade from what ever the regular penalty is.


full auto, 15 dollar fee for a detailed background check, a ten day delay from buying to delivery, to allow for check, once you pass the test, just a filing fee and no delay on subsequent guns,

felony use of a full auto in assault, murder or gang or drug activity, Death penalty.

suppressors, over the counter. 5 year felony for poaching game animals with a suppressor.
 
WMDs, aside from that.. nothing.

I fully support a felon who has served his time to own a firearm and not stripped of his rights for the rest of his life. If he/she is a "risk" then why were they let out in the first place?

No registration
No permits
No NFA registry or tax
NOTHING, ZILCH, ZERO
 
crime control, not gun control.

A gun is nothing more than an object. Regulate the people that use them in crimes. "LIFE SENTENCE" Felon in possession..."LIFE SENTENCE"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top