About the Domestic abuse issue.

1. Its to easy for a woman to get that charge hung on you without evidence
2. If you did do it once and havent done it again in a set time frame (say 3-5 years or something)you should be able to get you 2A rights back but the feds wont have it

Just the ones that are in force now,a felon can own any gun that doesn't have to be signed for with a yellow form!!!   That would be black powder right?


bob

Yes I do.

I think that certain, not all, but certain artillary rounds should be at least sold only to those over 21


uhh... ya... thats about it.

Criminals shouldn't have them
Nor the mentally instable

That's about it....

It would be interesting to be able to cross reference the replies in this thread with the ones from an old thread regarding flag burning. If I'm not mistaken, some of the folks replying that there should be no restrictions on the second amendment have also claimed they would physically assault someone for exercising their first amendment rights.

Quoted: Quoted: I agree that there should be restrictions on chemical and biological weapons.  Nukes should be restricted but all else goes.  If a person can afford an M1 then they should be allowd to buy one, I would love my own Abrams.   once again, why stop there? why shouldnt people be allowed to own chem and bio weapons? the same argument is made in regards to the minimum wage. some people say $8 an hour is what it should be, but not $20 an hour, because that would be 'too much'

Well say you live in suburbia. if your full auto mg-42 jams or what not, no big deal. if your nuke goes off by accident....  I don't think "negligent discharge" will cut it.

Quoted: Well say you live in suburbia. if your full auto mg-42 jams or what not, no big deal. if your nuke goes off by accident....  I don't think "negligent discharge" will cut it.

I didn't mean to launch my Minuteman III! Really, I didn't!

No.

Quoted: None.  No restrictions what-so-ever.  Absolutely zero.  The term "gun laws" should be non-existant.

Even violent felons, spousal abusers, and the mentally unstable/defective???  Those to should have restrictions, I support that.  Repeal everything else, asap!!!  It will piss off the EU and Dems/Libs and our commrades at the DU.  I actually saw an intelligent thread on the DU a couple of days ago someone was preaching that the Dems should drop gun control efforts as it is their biggest hindrance.  SMARTEST, MOST RATIONAL, THOUGHT OUT FUCKING THING, I'VE HEARD A DEM SAY!  SERIOUSLY!!!  

poink,

Stop it.  Just stop it.  If you want to live in a nanny state then you can move to Canada.  I left because I was tired of people like you who were only too happy to tell me how to run every aspect of my life, including what firearms I could own.  'Shall Not Be Infringed' means just that.  'Well if we only restricted . . .'.  NO!  It doesn't work like that.  Once you start restrictions (as this country has already) there is no end to it.  

If someone is physically in a mental institution or in prison, then I could see a reason to limit their access to weapons so they cannot hurt the staff.  But once they are released they should have their rights returned.  If I were an ex-felon, I could legally buy some gasoline and a match and burn down daycare centers.  If someone wants to kill people they will find a way.

Stop being a liberal trying to save the world.

Now I'm going to go run around with a pair of scissors.

Quoted: Even violent felons, spousal abusers, and the mentally unstable/defective???  Those to should have restrictions, I support that.  Repeal everything else, asap!!!

Please define mentally unstable/defective.

Have you ever been depressed?  
Have you ever wished someone were dead?  
Have you ever lost your temper?  

These questions will be on the new Form 4473.  If you answer yes, please explain on a separate sheet of paper.  

p

firearms no...... well really I dont really have a problem with the instant checks, since I dont feel like it infringes on my rights. But I am against ALL restrictions on what types of firearms you can own.

Explosives (and not explosives used to propel a bullet), yes to some extent.

Quoted: Please define mentally unstable/defective. Have you ever been depressed?   Have you ever wished someone were dead?   Have you ever lost your temper?   These questions will be on the new Form 4473.  If you answer yes, please explain on a separate sheet of paper.

Yes
Yes
Yes

#1.  Don't know why... just was
#2.  Jerks physically attacked me...
#3.  Look above.

I believe there should be SOME restrictions but not as many as there are now.
All that come to mind are
1-if your considered dangerous and possiably homosidal, you shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm until you prove that you are no longer dangerous and homosidal.

2-Full auto and burst should be given to those that can aford it.  There should be a lisence that comes with it and with a lisence comes classes to take to be properly trained with them.

3-The only backround checks should be for if you fall under #1

4-report reducing items, IE Mufflers, suppressors should be recorded and given to those that can afford them



Someone once said Common sense is not so common... funny how it applies to laws reguarding firearms

Quoted: Quoted: Please define mentally unstable/defective. Have you ever been depressed?   Have you ever wished someone were dead?   Have you ever lost your temper?   These questions will be on the new Form 4473.  If you answer yes, please explain on a separate sheet of paper.   Yes Yes Yes #1.  Don't know why... just was #2.  Jerks physically attacked me... #3.  Look above. I believe there should be SOME restrictions but not as many as there are now. All that come to mind are 1-if your considered dangerous and possiably homosidal, you shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm until you prove that you are no longer dangerous and homosidal.    And just how does a person go about "Proving" they are not dangerous and homicidal? 2-Full auto and burst should be given to those that can aford it.  There should be a lisence that comes with it and with a lisence comes classes to take to be properly trained with them. I think that only people who can spell license should be allowed to have one.    See how easy it is to make up rules? 3-The only backround checks should be for if you fall under #1 Once again, who is the judge of that and how do you go about "Proving" that you are now ok? 4-report reducing items, IE Mufflers, suppressors should be recorded and given to those that can afford them  Why? Someone once said Common sense is not so common... funny how it applies to laws reguarding firearms Not funny that some people who claim to be gun advocates like to exclude people from the same rights that they enjoy.  Maybe certain people would sing a different tune if they were brought up on some trumped up domestic violence charge or got hit with a retroactive bullshit law, or deemed "dangerous" by someone that didn't know shit?

I support no restrictions what so ever on both arms and free persons.  If it can be created, it should be available.  No free person (i.e. not incarcerated) should be restricted, this includes the mentally ill and felons who have been released.  The mentally ill are " innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"; as such they are entitled to their 2nd amendment right.  Ex-cons have served they time, if they are still a threat to society then we shouldn't be releasing them.  Our focus should be on punishing those who have committed a crime, not creating criminals.

For personal weapons? None whatsoever. We all know that criminals will get guns whether they legally can or not, so IMO it's pointless and silly to make it illegal for criminals/felons to possess guns.

Crew-served weapons are a different matter. I think that if you can get a CCW in a shall-issue state, you should be able to get crew-serveds.

Some things were never meant to be personally owned (nukes, chemical weapons, bio weapons). These things are not part of the "ordinary military equipment" described by the Founders and referred to in the 2nd.

nascar3n8fan:

I'm the worst speller on the planet... cut me some slack... not to mention it's 2:32AM where I am.

I rarely think about anything concerning internet forums further than what I'm typing, I didn't think it through.

What I should have said is this... Gun owners should vote on what gun laws being passed.  
That way we don't get Anti-gun liberals, socker moms, and people with half facts flooding the votes.




What I ment about the silencer thing is this.
Yes silencers and mufflers in the right hands are good but in the wrong hands well... they can be easily used for bumping people off.  



I tend to think about the worst possiable senerio.  

A part of me wants people who own firearms to be known to high ranking officials but to no one lower than a certain athority level for reasons even I don't know.  

I'm also quite paranoid... I live in chicago, that's my only excuse for that.

I should know that responciable firearm owner don't need all this red tape crap and I apologise for some of the things I said.  

I still believe that there should be some form of knowing who owns what and that information should be kept by people who won't infrenge on the people's rights.



Still classes are invaluable and I believe that they should be easy to find and attend and like a car people who want to own serous firearms (full auto/burst) should take classes but that's just the opinion of a paranoid individual.

No Restrictions. I'd bet the crime rate would drop overnight too




BTW can we get a group buy on MK19's

Yep Criminals and Idiots

+11   what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?



"Real courage is found, not in the willingness to risk death, but in the willingness to stand, alone if necessary, against the ignorant and disapproving herd."

May God Bless Each & Every One of Us

M4-CQBR

Quoted: I'm just curious here. Do any of you support any restrictions on firearms? While I am all for letting everyone CCW, tossing the 89 import ban, allowing law abiding citizens buy what they choose, I must admit there are some restrictions on firearm purchases I support. So far so good . I see nothing wrong with background checks. In fact, I support them, because having a bunch of people who shouldnt be owning firearms for whatever reasons owning them, only puts the rest of us law-abiding gun owners rights in jeopardy. To a point . run a SS# if it comes back as a felon no sale . Other wise they should piss off. I also support not allowing people with domestic abuse convictions and/or restraining orders against them from purchasing a firearm. They have already demonstrated they have violent and hostile tendencies and are more than willing to take offensive/aggressive action against another human being. Nope . I have seen to many faked DV cases . Not to mention it is SOP to acuse a man of DV in a divorce . Furthermore when you actually sit down and read the simple bullshit that can catch you a DV you will see why this is a bullshit law . I.E. Your wife is a cheating whore and you catch her in bed with another man and raise your voice and tell her she is a cheating whore, can be used as a DV conviction verbal assault . Same thing goes for other violent felony offenders. They have already proved their complete disregard and lack of respect for the law, so why trust them any further. I don't want them voting for our next president either. Violent felons should not have guns as far as I am concerned .Than again they shouldn't be out on the streets in the first place . And the last, which I know I will catch heat for....While I am all in favor of getting rid of some of the stupid provisions in the 86 machine gun bill, such as not being able to purchase MG's made after xx date, or making it a felony to own MG parts, etc, I must say it should be a tad bit harder to get a fully automatic machine gun than just any other weapon. Not saying I agree with this waiting months and months for forms 3 and 4 to go through, nonsense, but something. It is harder. flame away...

sgtars dolls should be unarmed!

Quoted: nascar3n8fan: I'm the worst speller on the planet... cut me some slack... not to mention it's 2:32AM where I am. I rarely think about anything concerning internet forums further than what I'm typing, I didn't think it through. What I should have said is this... Gun owners should vote on what gun laws being passed.   That way we don't get Anti-gun liberals, socker moms, and people with half facts flooding the votes. What I ment about the silencer thing is this. Yes silencers and mufflers in the right hands are good but in the wrong hands well... they can be easily used for bumping people off.   I tend to think about the worst possiable senerio.   A part of me wants people who own firearms to be known to high ranking officials but to no one lower than a certain athority level for reasons even I don't know.   I'm also quite paranoid... I live in chicago, that's my only excuse for that. I should know that responciable firearm owner don't need all this red tape crap and I apologise for some of the things I said.   I still believe that there should be some form of knowing who owns what and that information should be kept by people who won't infrenge on the people's rights. Still classes are invaluable and I believe that they should be easy to find and attend and like a car people who want to own serous firearms (full auto/burst) should take classes but that's just the opinion of a paranoid individual.

First off, you don't have to apologize for how you feel, that's one of those things that nobody can tell you how to do (yet).  That's one of the nice things about this kind of forum, everyone can express their views and after the smoke clears, we can all shake hands and go shooting together.(For now at least)

It's just that once one right is taken away it's only a matter of time before they are all taken away.

I was simply trying to make a point.  I'm sure that many laws are passed with good intentions, especially certain ones voted on directly by the people.  But the problem is that people are easily swayed to one opinion or another.  The other problem is that the people doing the "swaying" don't always have the people's best interests in mind.

However,  IMHO, some of your logic still seems flawed to me.  I don't want "high ranking officials" knowing all of my business.  Not because I want to get away with something, but because it's supposed to be the law, and because it's none of their damn business.  I'm taking a wild guess that your desire to have someone in the know about all firearm owners comes from the constant propaganda that we can't take care of ourselves, that we need to be monitored.  I'm just a little more independantly minded than that.  

As far as the silencers, people who want to use a device to commit a crime will obtain the necessary means regardless of the law.  They are criminals, they don't consider themselves bound by the law.

As for the training and classes, I agree with you that knowing your weapons is essential to safe and responsible ownership of a gun whether it be a BB Gun or a 1919 full auto, whether that training be formal or informal.

Hope you understand my position as well.

3n8fan

As soon as someone can point to an example of any gun law preventing a criminal from getting a gun if wanted, then I might believe that we need a law to prevent it.  

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Militia = everyone who can serve in the military

people = you and I

state = where we live

arms = small arms. any weapon capable of being wielded by a single person.

Ok so to speak the definition of all this is a state is defined as secure and free as long as the people are on equal terms with the government. meaning they are as heavily armed. How does this make it secure? easily in 1945 aboard the USS missouri the japanese prime minister specifically stated the reason japan did not invade the mainland is because of the militia. the idea of "secure" in this amendment is from a foreign invasion and from domestic tyranny. basically it's secure from tyranny because the people can easily fight back.


Once gun control is instated and the people are stripped of their arms the "free" state is gone and you have a police state. which is what we live in now. we DO live in tyranny. tyranny is not coming. it is already here. don't kid yourself into thinking any differently. Just because the government is polite on most parts doesn't mean it isn't tyrannical.


The "secure"-ity is removed because the people are unable to defend themselves leaving the state compromised.


the shall not be infringed means exactly what it says. NO GUN CONTROL! NO ARMS CONTROL! PERIOD! you can cry, whine and bitch about technology advancing and the 2nd amendment referring to muskets(it doesnt btw) all you want. only shows how more ignorant you are. Gun control solves NOTHING. it's an extremely dangerous false sense of security which undermines peoples' abilities to defend themselves and their country. Especially right now since we are in a state of war(not an official declaration but we're close enough).

Do I personally believe that preventing people from carrying guns stops some crimes? yes I do. I'm not going to play ignorant on this issue. Do  think it is lawful and constitutional? absolutely NOT! to keep and "bear"(to have on one's person) arms...... And the ONLY reason it does stop some crimes is because people are stupid enough to believe they're  better defenseless and when that one armed person does come around the corner and happens to have sloppy impulse control and gets angry at one person..... well you can imagine. In other words the defenseless people are ignoring their duty as americans to be armed. so one can also say that it is probably their fault as well as the criminal's. there is no excuse.


The fleas come with the dog. society is not perfect and it is better that EVERYONE have the right to defend themselves and take their chances in an armed society than for everyone to be left at the mercy of violent crime.

Legally insane and convicted felons, that’s it.

the 50 states should NOT be able to be stricter than than the federal laws....

as far as NFA.... should be allowed to all and should NOT be taxed....

violent felons and metnally unstable people should not have access...

As long as we have a government (city, state, federal) that HAS the power to enslave us, make us into a police state, restrict us, tax us without representation, and otherwise rule us in a fashion NOT in our favor...... we should be allowed to have the exact amount of force against such organization to keep the balance of the PEOPLE in check with the powers to be...THAT IS THE MAIN POINT OF THE 2A. Bottom Line.

I believe a 10yo should be able to walk into Walmart and pay cash from his penny jar for an M2 .50cal with all the trimmings.  And make the stockboy carry it home for him.

Kharn

Quoted: I believe a 10yo should be able to walk into Walmart and pay cash from his penny jar for an M2 .50cal with all the trimmings.  And make the stockboy carry it home for him. Kharn

I would pay to see that

I've got a few reasons that I'm against gun control.

"Political power comes from the barrel of a gun."
-Chairman Mao

One reason I'm against gun control.

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

Another one. It's those Jews in Warsaw. They stopped the Germans for a while with a few guns.

Those that would give up a little essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither.
-Ben Franklin

No kidding. I wonder what the Brady Campaign would say to that one. I'd love to hear their response. Then again, they'd probably be like "Who was Ben Franklin?".

Quoted: Quoted: Sorry dude, but you are wrong.  in 1787, there were no WMD's.  There were no tanks, aircraft carriers, machine guns or anything like that.  It was all muzzle loaders.  The same thing that people already had in their homes for obtaining sustenance.  They realized that there would be advancements as there had already been from the stick to the spear to the bow and arrow to the firearm.  That is why it says "arms", not rifles, not muskets, not knives, but "arms".  So, the citizenry would be able to stand against the military if the government becomes oppressive. You don't know your history as well as you think you do.  Back in those times, it was common for states to enlist the aid of PRIVATELY OWNED ships (including crew and cannons) and field artillery.  Moderately wealthy people owned this stuff, and at the time, it was extremely powerful, extremely deadly gear that could take out many people at once.  Yet, the suggestion that these people should not be able to own these weapons would have been laughed at (or the person strung up, depending). Criminals and "criminally insane" people will ALWAYS be able to get weapons if they are not incarcerated.  It is currently illegal for those people to possess weapons, and yet we all know that they do.  What exactly do we believe this law is accomplishing? If there were no restrictions (as the Constitution clearly states), then criminals would run a much greater risk when committing crimes, and many of them would be killed by their "victims", instead of the current system which allows the same criminals to re-offend over and over again, largely safe from a violent response from their victims. Those people who cannot be rehabilitated should either remain in prisoned for life or be executed (we used to do a LOT more of the latter!).  And many things that are felonies today should not be felonies anyway, and even misdomeaners are being used to deny people their rights. NO RESTRICTIONS, PERIOD. -Troy

Ooooooooooooohhhhhh SNAP!

You just got knocked the fuck out!



ouch! there go your teeth---->

Firearms ownership limited to:

1) Citizens.  Resident Aliens or Illegals caught in possession of a firearm would be deported with no possibility of reentry.
2) Nonfelons.

All Nonfelon Citizens would have unrestricted access to firearms.  I would eliminate restrictions on FA and Silencers.  I would create a new catagory for Destructive Devices which would allow for civilian ownership of grenades, grenade launchers and RPGs.  These would require some form of registration mainly to insure safe storage.  Basically, allow for Citizens to own any sort of light infantry type of weapon which could have a dual use in a Civil Unrest/Urban Riot sort of situation.

Quoted: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Militia = everyone who can serve in the military people = you and I state = where we live arms = small arms. any weapon capable of being wielded by a single person. Ok so to speak the definition of all this is a state is defined as secure and free as long as the people are on equal terms with the government. meaning they are as heavily armed. How does this make it secure? easily in 1945 aboard the USS missouri the japanese prime minister specifically stated the reason japan did not invade the mainland is because of the militia. the idea of "secure" in this amendment is from a foreign invasion and from domestic tyranny. basically it's secure from tyranny because the people can easily fight back. Once gun control is instated and the people are stripped of their arms the "free" state is gone and you have a police state. which is what we live in now. we DO live in tyranny. tyranny is not coming. it is already here. don't kid yourself into thinking any differently. Just because the government is polite on most parts doesn't mean it isn't tyrannical. The "secure"-ity is removed because the people are unable to defend themselves leaving the state compromised. the shall not be infringed means exactly what it says. NO GUN CONTROL! NO ARMS CONTROL! PERIOD! you can cry, whine and bitch about technology advancing and the 2nd amendment referring to muskets(it doesnt btw) all you want. only shows how more ignorant you are. Gun control solves NOTHING. it's an extremely dangerous false sense of security which undermines peoples' abilities to defend themselves and their country. Especially right now since we are in a state of war(not an official declaration but we're close enough). Do I personally believe that preventing people from carrying guns stops some crimes? yes I do. I'm not going to play ignorant on this issue. Do  think it is lawful and constitutional? absolutely NOT! to keep and "bear"(to have on one's person) arms...... And the ONLY reason it does stop some crimes is because people are stupid enough to believe they're  better defenseless and when that one armed person does come around the corner and happens to have sloppy impulse control and gets angry at one person..... well you can imagine. In other words the defenseless people are ignoring their duty as americans to be armed. so one can also say that it is probably their fault as well as the criminal's. there is no excuse. The fleas come with the dog. society is not perfect and it is better that EVERYONE have the right to defend themselves and take their chances in an armed society than for everyone to be left at the mercy of violent crime.

Private ship owners had cannon on their vessels and these contituted the bulk of the Navy in the beginnig. Your definition of ARMS is too restrictive. I can own a MiG 21 legally now. What prevents me from arming it? Only my honesty. Planerench out.

Quoted: poink, Now I'm going to go run around with a pair of scissors.

go tun into the bedroom with them and cut the little tag off the matteress!


2-5!    dun-de-dun dun!

Quoted: Firearms ownership limited to: 1) Citizens.  Resident Aliens or Illegals caught in possession of a firearm would be deported with no possibility of reentry. 2) Nonfelons. All Nonfelon Citizens would have unrestricted access to firearms.  I would eliminate restrictions on FA and Silencers.  I would create a new catagory for Destructive Devices which would allow for civilian ownership of grenades, grenade launchers and RPGs.  These would require some form of registration mainly to insure safe storage.  Basically, allow for Citizens to own any sort of light infantry type of weapon which could have a dual use in a Civil Unrest/Urban Riot sort of situation.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=303314

Even though I could legally purchase firearms as a non-immigrant alien in possession of a hunting license, I celebrated my Green Card by buying a used 'post-ban' SA-85M AK-47.  It probably had less than a box of ammo through it.  I've already 922'd it.  I could let go of a Choate thumbhole stock real cheap if you're interested.

Like it or not , there are rules to life .

Gun laws should fall along the same lines as
operating a vehicle . Some people shouldn't have
weapons , just as some people shouldn't be allowed to drive .

Now before you argue that driving isn't a right granted by the constitution .
I will argue that if vehicles existed as they do today when it was written ,
they would have been covered under an amendment .

Quoted: Quoted: Sorry dude, but you are wrong.  in 1787, there were no WMD's.  There were no tanks, aircraft carriers, machine guns or anything like that.  It was all muzzle loaders.  The same thing that people already had in their homes for obtaining sustenance.  They realized that there would be advancements as there had already been from the stick to the spear to the bow and arrow to the firearm.  That is why it says "arms", not rifles, not muskets, not knives, but "arms".  So, the citizenry would be able to stand against the military if the government becomes oppressive. You don't know your history as well as you think you do.  Back in those times, it was common for states to enlist the aid of PRIVATELY OWNED ships (including crew and cannons) and field artillery.  Moderately wealthy people owned this stuff, and at the time, it was extremely powerful, extremely deadly gear that could take out many people at once.  Yet, the suggestion that these people should not be able to own these weapons would have been laughed at (or the person strung up, depending). Criminals and "criminally insane" people will ALWAYS be able to get weapons if they are not incarcerated.  It is currently illegal for those people to possess weapons, and yet we all know that they do.  What exactly do we believe this law is accomplishing? If there were no restrictions (as the Constitution clearly states), then criminals would run a much greater risk when committing crimes, and many of them would be killed by their "victims", instead of the current system which allows the same criminals to re-offend over and over again, largely safe from a violent response from their victims. Those people who cannot be rehabilitated should either remain in prisoned for life or be executed (we used to do a LOT more of the latter!).  And many things that are felonies today should not be felonies anyway, and even misdomeaners are being used to deny people their rights. NO RESTRICTIONS, PERIOD. -Troy

So you're cool with an Al Quaeda operative being able to buy his own operative aircraft carrier, Trident submarine, nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, etc?

Quoted: I'm just curious here. Do any of you support any restrictions on firearms?

No.

I also support not allowing people with domestic abuse convictions and/or restraining orders against them from purchasing a firearm. They have already demonstrated they have violent and hostile tendencies and are more than willing to take offensive/aggressive action against another human being. Same thing goes for other violent felony offenders. They have already proved their complete disregard and lack of respect for the law, so why trust them any further. I don't want them voting for our next president either.

M'kay.  So they're dangerous, right?  Do you really think that some administrative restriction will keep them from harming somebody else?  This is the same argument against any gun control law.  Listen closely:  "criminials.......don't........obey.......the.......law!"  If they're that fucking dangerous, they should be in jail or dead.  

Do you know how easy it is to get a restraining order against a man?  My boss wouldn't hurt a fly, and some psycho chick got a restraining order against him with a snap of her fingers.  Do you want to surrender your rights that easily?

And the last, which I know I will catch heat for....While I am all in favor of getting rid of some of the stupid provisions in the 86 machine gun bill, such as not being able to purchase MG's made after xx date, or making it a felony to own MG parts, etc, I must say it should be a tad bit harder to get a fully automatic machine gun than just any other weapon. Not saying I agree with this waiting months and months for forms 3 and 4 to go through, nonsense, but something.

Why?  What is "reasonable"?

That question to me is like asking, "Do you support any legislation on shovel ownership?". They are both tools. Some people are even forced to use them for their jobs. One is used to dig a hole the other is used to make a hole in someone. Absolutley no gun laws are worthwhile except perhaps an age requirement for purchase and ownership.

Quoted: NO RESTRICTIONS, PERIOD. -Troy

Big, honking +1.

Quoted: Like it or not , there are rules to life . Gun laws should fall along the same lines as operating a vehicle . Some people shouldn't have weapons , just as some people shouldn't be allowed to drive . Now before you argue that driving isn't a right granted by the constitution . I will argue that if vehicles existed as they do today when it was written , they would have been covered under an amendment .

Are you willing to let Chucky Schumer decide?  Because law-abiding citizen or not, he wouldn't let you own AR's, AK's, FAL's, etc.  Ed Avila may as well shut down this website.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No person who has been convicted of any violent crime or crime of robbery (any level) or grand theft,   or has been charged with the crime of trafficking in illegal drugs, shall be permitted firearms.   CJ How about sale of untaxed beer, wine, or distilled spirits? I did say DRUGS and I do mean  DRUGS.   I don't care in the slightest if someone's running beer, wine,  or distilled spirits.    Though I disapprove of alcohol use as strongly as I disapprove of the use of cocaine, heroin, or PCP,   the fact is that alcohol use is generally acceptable in our society. CJ

Hrmph.  Does the social acceptance of alcohol make it less dangerous?  Does the social acceptance of hunting shotguns make them less deadly?

Quoted: Quoted: NO RESTRICTIONS, PERIOD. -Troy Big, honking +1.

+2.  People who 'get it'.

No restrictions....they are bullshit and do nothing to stop crime.
The 2nd ammendmant says arms......not pistols...not shotguns....not singleshot bolt action 22's.......it says arms...which means ANY DAMN THING I CARE TO ARM MYSELF WITH

As far as restricting felons.....why? If they already have proven their disregard for the law, how will creating a law effect them? hmmmm?

If we let "some" people have "certain" weapons...and then deny others....eventually....the "haves" rule the "have nots".

Quoted: Alcohol use is acceptable in society...though personally I wish it weren't. Drug use is not.   Trafficking in alcohol is nto a big deal. Trafficking in drugs is. If I have to work harder than this to explain it to you, you won't understand it anyway. You either GET IT, or you DON'T GET IT. CJ

Thankfully, I fall in the "DON'T GET IT" category.  Maybe it's because I see no direct correlation between social norms and morality.  I don't really give a shit about social norms when Michael Moore is a hero and some guy who caps a hadji in Fallujah is a murderer.

I used to support background checks..  Criminals will get guns either way.  I am now in support of no gun-control laws whatsoever.