Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/16/2002 9:12:01 AM EDT
Are there any gun control laws that you find reasonable, acceptable or at least tolerable? I can live with the following. Criminal background checks (and to some degree the prohibited persons criteria set forth in the 1968 GCA). A permit system for CCW along with safety training as long as it's a "shall issue" system. Prohibiting minors from possessing and using firearms unless it's under adult supervision. Federal regulation of *some* NFA firearms (I see no problem with "sawed-off" shotguns or SBR's).
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 9:21:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 9:23:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 9:23:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2002 9:24:44 AM EDT by Zaphod]
Treat every weapon as if it were loaded. Edited to add: I agree with Raf. I don't have a problem with an effective instant background check, either.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 9:38:41 AM EDT
I can't remember where exactly, but there are a couple of towns that made laws REQUIRING that all citizens under their jurisdiction own guns. I'll go for that gun law !!! [:D]
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 9:40:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Lickity-Split: Criminal background checks (and to some degree the prohibited persons criteria set forth in the 1968 GCA).
View Quote
Agree: Gun control laws prohibiting ownership to some convicted criminals are not unreasonable.
A permit system for CCW along with safety training as long as it's a "shall issue" system.
View Quote
Agree: This system has been very successful in so many States (as demonstrated by the increasing number of reciprocity agreements) that I find it "reasonable".
Prohibiting minors from possessing and using firearms unless it's under adult supervision.
View Quote
Disagree: Once someone teaches their son or daughter how to hunt and shoot safely, it's up to them to determine what age they should be allowed to posses a firearm unsupervised.
Federal regulation of *some* NFA firearms (I see no problem with "sawed-off" shotguns or SBR's).
View Quote
Disagree: Not being able to mail order a Thompson Sub-Machine gun since 1934 hasn't really affected me that much. But the Federal guvment really over steps their authority with stuff like the NFA, and the GCA '68. These kind of decisions are best left to the individual States. The only purpose they serve is to lube the wheels for things such as Brady and the so-called AW ban
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 9:43:18 AM EDT
no, no and hell no unless you're dead, or in prison, you should be able to own anything you can afford, even if you're retarded
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 9:44:31 AM EDT
Switzerland requires adult males to keep Assault rifle and ammo on hand. I can get behind that.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 9:47:38 AM EDT
read my sig
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 9:47:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SPECTRE: I can't remember where exactly, but there are a couple of towns that made laws REQUIRING that all citizens under their jurisdiction own guns. I'll go for that gun law !!! [:D]
View Quote
That's a Georgia state law, that says counties and towns can require gun ownership. I think you're thinking of Kennesaw (sp), GA? The full text can be found over on packing.org, fine folks that they are. Thumbs up to GA for that law. I like the instant background check, and a required carry permit as long as it's "Shall Issue".
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 9:48:32 AM EDT
The only reasonable gun law would be the one that states that when you turn 18, you get to go the National Guard armory and pick 1 item of your choice(shoulder fired small arms), from the rack, FREE.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 10:24:14 AM EDT
Now there's a swell idea..."A permit system for CCW along with safety training as long as it's a "shall issue" system." While we're at it, why not a "Free Speech Permit." You would have to go to government approved classes to learn what speech is good or bad. Then you could pay for a permit to exercise free speech. And then maybe a "Freedom To Worship Permit." You know, go to some government approved classes to learn which worship is allowed or not. Pay for a permit. Have to renew it every few years and go back to Government Approved Worship Classes. We could go on and on... Or like the man said, "What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?"
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 10:34:04 AM EDT
O_P did I ever tell you I'd like to buy you a beer sometime? [:D]
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 10:37:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By avengeusa: no gun laws are reasonable
View Quote
I dont mind ones that say people who are judged mentally insane are forbbiden, as long its it finshes with "until such time as a the person passes a thourough phycologicall examiniation and is pronunced recovered" (or somthing to that effect)
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 10:39:43 AM EDT
We both live in Texas, Arock. Must be close by. I'm thirsty. What are we waiting for?
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 10:43:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2002 10:44:25 AM EDT by garandman]
"Be it resolved that every citizen of at least military age must own a firearm of standard military useage, a full compliment of munitions suited for it, and be skilled in its use." THAT is a "reasonable gun law" I'll vote for.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 10:48:16 AM EDT
If a "gun law" does any thing to keep any gun from anybody that has not forfeited his rights as an American the answer is........ [size=6][red]NO![/red][/size=6]
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 10:58:28 AM EDT
The most tolerable gunlaw to me is for criminal background checks. But, I would prefer that it be simplified. I don't like that there is any reference to the type of weapon that I am trying to purchase. I got delayed when buying a handgun, but not when buying a 10/22. This is all assuming that they'll never revert to the one acceptable gun law: "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."
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 11:09:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2002 11:09:42 AM EDT by ColonelKlink]
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 11:12:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2002 11:14:42 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By garandman: "Be it resolved that every citizen of at least military age must own a firearm of standard military useage, a full compliment of munitions suited for it, and be skilled in its use." THAT is a "reasonable gun law" I'll vote for.
View Quote
Add to that restrictions on the following "citizens": * those serving time in prison. * those persons who are presently under arrest. * those people who are indicted for [u]violent[/u] crimes, (AWDW, etc.) and who are awaiting trial. * those politicians who personally own guns but vote to ban guns for everyone else. * those who've ever been convicted of [u]violent[/u] felonies. * those who've ever been convicted of more than one DUI. * those committed to mental hospitals. I think that about covers it.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 11:14:32 AM EDT
background checks. age restrictions. < yes not every one is a good responsable parent> the ban on post '86 class III's has got to go.. how many crimes have been commited with pre '86 ones..? then why the restriction?
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 11:32:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: We both live in Texas, Arock. Must be close by. I'm thirsty. What are we waiting for?
View Quote
Couldn't be more'n a couple days drive! There's a little AR15.com get-together over at ETH's place between Quanah and Crowell the second weekend in October. I think we're invited. It's gonna be a good time. Howz about that?
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 11:37:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: "Be it resolved that every citizen of at least military age must own a firearm of standard military useage, a full compliment of munitions suited for it, and be skilled in its use." THAT is a "reasonable gun law" I'll vote for.
View Quote
I like the concept, but the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Change "must" to "can, at his discretion", and I'm ok with that. Freedom of choice is paramount. Nobody on these boards would choose not to, but there are plenty in all reality that would opt not to have...
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 11:43:45 AM EDT
I'll go out on a limb here... Thepurpose of the Second Amendment was to provide for the arming of the militia (little 'm' intentional) to defend the counrty and as a check against the central government. Within that understanding, restrictions that pertain to militia service would seem reasonable. Convicted felons, mental defectives, drug addicts and illegal aliens are not suitable for militia (or military) service, "The Dirty Dozen" not withstanding. A background check would be permissable under this standard. Weapons not suitable for militia service are not necessarily protected (which was one of the Supreme Court rulings in Miller, if I recall correctly; defense failed to show how a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use). While your hunting shotgun wouldn't necessarily be suitable (and therefore protected), your AR is. Carrying and use of weapons would be a determination for individual states, although outright bans would not be constitutional, as they would violate the Founder's intent. Crew-served weapons are a unit function and responsibility, and could, under this interpretation, be the responsibility of the sponsoring community (municipality, village, county, state and so forth). WMD would remain a national responsibility.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 11:43:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CantHitShit: Switzerland requires adult males to keep Assault rifle and ammo on hand.
View Quote
Actually, that's somewhat inaccurate. Switzerland requires that every adult who has served in the military keep their military rifle (and ammo) at home until a certain age. (55 or 60 or something). It is not that private citizens own this stuff, it is that you are still in the military reserves, and as such, keep your weapon at home. Notice however, that it is not EVERY adult citizen. The peacenik who refused service, or the person who couldn't serve because he's got bad vision - they don't get to have any guns. In Denmark, all members of the National Guard (called Home Guard) keep their weapons and ammo at home. This includes belt-fed MG-42/59 (MG-3) machine-guns. I've got no problem with restricting the mentally insane and retarded from owning guns. If you cannot perceive reality or if you cannot understand the consequences of your actions - then you are not responsible to own a weapon. This is the same reason that 4 year-olds should not be allowed to own firearms or explosives.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 11:51:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: Now there's a swell idea..."A permit system for CCW along with safety training as long as it's a "shall issue" system." While we're at it, why not a "Free Speech Permit." You would have to go to government approved classes to learn what speech is good or bad. Then you could pay for a permit to exercise free speech. And then maybe a "Freedom To Worship Permit." You know, go to some government approved classes to learn which worship is allowed or not. Pay for a permit. Have to renew it every few years and go back to Government Approved Worship Classes. We could go on and on... Or like the man said, "What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?"
View Quote
[size=6]EXACTLY![/size=6]
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 11:57:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2002 11:59:19 AM EDT by agtm]
those of you who are saying that laws forbidding weapons to the insane/retarded, to convicted felons, etc. are OK seem to actually believe that laws will prevent someone "on the outside" who is intent on getting a gun, from actually getting one. Interesting. I don't think the laws will stop them. Anyone who shouldn't have a gun should either be locked up or dead, since that's the only way to really prevent them from getting one.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 12:03:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By natez: I'll go out on a limb here... Thepurpose of the Second Amendment was to provide for the arming of the militia (little 'm' intentional) to defend the counrty and as a check against the central government.
View Quote
Well,,,, you didn't quite get there. The second amendment did not provide for anything! We already possess the right to defend ourselves, and the second amendment was written, to defend the rights of the individual from a government that would try and supress that right, if not restrained.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 12:09:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By natez: I'll go out on a limb here... Thepurpose of the Second Amendment was to provide for the arming of the militia (little 'm' intentional) to defend the counrty and as a check against the central government.
View Quote
Then how come the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "the right of the [i][b]militia[/b][/i] to keep and bear arms will not be infringed"? It says the "right of the people" because the FFs meant THE PEOPLE, not the militia.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 12:10:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BigGuns:
Originally Posted By natez: I'll go out on a limb here... Thepurpose of the Second Amendment was to provide for the arming of the militia (little 'm' intentional) to defend the counrty and as a check against the central government.
View Quote
Well,,,, you didn't quite get there. The second amendment did not provide for anything! We already possess the right to defend ourselves, and the second amendment was written, to defend the rights of the individual from a government that would try and supress that right, if not restrained.
View Quote
And, it's doing a swell job, isn't it...[:(!]
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 5:33:35 PM EDT
If you were looking for people to agree with you you probably came to the wrong place. Personally I agree with laws keeping guns out of the hands of retards (these people WOULD NOT have been gun owners when the Bill of Rights was writen anyway, rather in an attic or on the bottom of a lake) and other weapon restrictions. I asked this question a while back and a good chunk of the people here believe that the 2nd amendment even allows for anti-aircraft missiles and NBC weapons. Just remember that there are plenty of reasonable people here too. We are not all nuts. [:)] Ready to be torn apart [:)]
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 5:38:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: Laws prohibiting the adjudicated mentally incompetant from possessing firearms are OK with me.
View Quote
What he said!
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 5:57:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By agtm: those of you who are saying that laws forbidding weapons to the insane/retarded, to convicted felons, etc. are OK seem to actually believe that laws will prevent someone "on the outside" who is intent on getting a gun, from actually getting one. Interesting. I don't think the laws will stop them. Anyone who shouldn't have a gun should either be locked up or dead, since that's the only way to really prevent them from getting one.
View Quote
I don't follow your point. By your logic, murder and rape shouldn't be illegal either, because a law against murder will not stop someone from committing it if they really want to.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 6:04:00 PM EDT
Nope. None. If Creator wants your rights back, he'll take them himself.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 6:20:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cluster: background checks. age restrictions. < yes not every one is a good responsable parent> the ban on post '86 class III's has got to go.. how many crimes have been commited with pre '86 ones..? then why the restriction?
View Quote
Only because it's just one more page removed from the gun owner's book of gun rights. They'll keep ripping out pages until there's nothing left...if we let them. You know how you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. That's what they're trying to do to us. Don't let it happen. Become inedible and quite aggressive about it. Eat THEM instead. As for the original question, the answer is not no but HELL NO!! Only criminal actions should be punished. Merely owning a weapon...ANY weapon...should never be a crime. CJ
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 6:34:59 PM EDT
Yeah,I guess.I'd think you should'nt be able to bring your machinegun into a "bar",some people just cant handle their booze.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 10:03:00 PM EDT
Yes. Whenever a heroic republican, like Bill Bennet or John McCain, says a gun law is reasonable, it most definitely is. If you don't think so, you are just going to get a democrat elected.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 10:25:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bolt: Yeah,I guess.I'd think you should'nt be able to bring your machinegun into a "bar",some people just cant handle their booze.
View Quote
So I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself in a bar, where some drunk brings in a machine gun? It's funny to me that the very places where one might more readily need to defend oneself, are the very places we say we shouldn't be allowed to have the means to defend ourselves. Also, while it sounds reasonable to not allow "retards"(I think taht was a quote) or convicted felons carry guns, where does it stop? You think that they make a law where no black man can carry a weapon? (Ohhh, that's right. That's where gun laws started!) Maybe middle-eastern looking men shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons, and you know women and that PMS thing, gotta eliminate them. I guess we need a government agency deciding who is crazy, a retard, or if certain shades of skin should pre-empt your right to be armed. Oh well, it's after 2:00AM, and I need bed time! Or I might wake up crazy, and have my guns taken away, while I show my papers!
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 10:51:17 PM EDT
How about a new gun law that should pretty much cover everything. The law? You must speak and write fluent English. Broken English and the use of Ghetto slang would be immediate disqualifiers.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 10:57:17 PM EDT
I would not want my rich neighbors who are drug dealers buying rocket launchers or Howitzers. As for NFA items, if they want to put Full-auto stuff on their fine. Justas long as they don't say they can no longer be produced.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 11:04:41 PM EDT
Only acceptable gun laws: Penalties for theft of firearms and knowingly trafficking stolen firearms.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 11:11:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lickity-Split: Criminal background checks (and to some degree the prohibited persons criteria set forth in the 1968 GCA).
View Quote
This is one of the worse ones now right now.... The NICS checks are kept by uncle sam (though they aren't suppose to be)I can't be convinced they aren't. One day they will know where you live.....and how many guns you may have.... I think the local law enforcement should do this an only once every 3 years....and somehow with anonymity (spellin?)
Federal regulation of *some* NFA firearms (I see no problem with "sawed-off" shotguns or SBR's).
View Quote
I HATE to admit we shouldn't have machineguns.... It is my understanding that Clintons band of gun-grabbin sons a bitches allowed lots of our lend lease shit to be kept by the borrowing countries. He blocked a shitload of M1-carbines from korea in his second term..... I think this was amended to the NFA?????
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 12:05:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 12:29:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 82ndAbn: [size=4]Whatever the people who police the citizenry are allowed to have - the citizenry should have. Anyone should be allowed to own ANY firearm. If you unlawfully kill someone with your lawful weapon you are then lawfully executed. Damn, this is so easy. GUN LAWS should be imposed against the GOVERNMENT not the PEOPLE!!![/size=4]
View Quote
The above would be Ideal! - But utopia only exists on a page in the dictionary. Any existing firearms laws - [b]remove [u]any exemption[/u] for law enforcement or other government agency/entity or individual[/b] then they can decide if its a "good" law.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 3:04:27 AM EDT
I HATE to admit we shouldn't have machineguns....
View Quote
Why? What's wrong with machineguns? Do you feel like killing somebody when you have one in your hands? Does it bring out your dark side? Does it give you criminal intent? That's what's wrong with so many alleged "pro-gun" people. They aren't pro-gun ALL THE WAY, so they're willing to accept the FIRST restriction on a type of gun they personally have no desire for. And that's how it starts, with the anti's getting that first gun banned and their foot is now in the door. Rather than say you're MOSTLY pro-gun, I have to instead say that you're PARTLY ANTI-GUN. [frag] Conformance and acceptance are the beginnings of a slow and steady erosion of our rights. We've lost a lot of our rights to erosion already as a result of such unworthy thinking, and if we don't put a stop to it NOW, before long we'll lose EVERYTHING. Draw the line. [red]ACCEPT NO FURTHER INFRINGEMENTS UPON OUR CONSTITUTIONAL (AND UNLIMITED) RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS! [/red] I don't shoot black powder. I have NO interest whatsoever in shooting black powder, but if some jackass tries to ban black powder shooting, I'll be on their ass, working to convince them of their stupidity and getting them to back off, just as if they were trying to reach into MY safe and grab what I DO shoot. All of us firearms enthusiasts, of ALL types and interests, have to stick together or eventually the only thing we'll be able to do is meet in the parking lot where the gun shows USED to be held and swap photos of all the guns we USED to have, collect, enjoy, and appreciate, back before the jackbooted government thugs stole them all from us because we dropped the damned ball. [pissed] CJ
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 3:37:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2002 3:40:24 AM EDT by Teltech]
If the law was that only violent felons should not own guns then they will pass more laws making a crime a violent felony. I can't remember the exact laws but I know they are being passed now, and to crimes that have nothing to do with violence. I'll post em when I find em. We are slowly being disarmed. If not physically then by brainwashing in the schools: Guns are bad, The 2nd Amendemnt doesn't mean what it says. Tell that to a kid for 12 years and they will believe it. Even if they don't want to. Edited to say: I don't think violent felons should own guns. Just illustrating that laws will be passed to tighten restrictions once the foot is in the door.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 4:15:30 AM EDT
Many have touched close to the root of this issue. My observation is this, if the militias were to be a check (purhaps the final check) on the power of the central government then the central government can possess no check against the militia without violating the built-in fail-safe. It goes back to the question of government action even without constitutional mandate. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 7:25:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
I HATE to admit we shouldn't have machineguns....
View Quote
Why? What's wrong with machineguns? Do you feel like killing somebody when you have one in your hands? Does it bring out your dark side? Does it give you criminal intent? That's what's wrong with so many alleged "pro-gun" people. They aren't pro-gun ALL THE WAY, so they're willing to accept the FIRST restriction on a type of gun they personally have no desire for. And that's how it starts, with the anti's getting that first gun banned and their foot is now in the door. Rather than say you're MOSTLY pro-gun, I have to instead say that you're PARTLY ANTI-GUN. [frag] Conformance and acceptance are the beginnings of a slow and steady erosion of our rights. We've lost a lot of our rights to erosion already as a result of such unworthy thinking, and if we don't put a stop to it NOW, before long we'll lose EVERYTHING. Draw the line. [red]ACCEPT NO FURTHER INFRINGEMENTS UPON OUR CONSTITUTIONAL (AND UNLIMITED) RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS! [/red] I don't shoot black powder. I have NO interest whatsoever in shooting black powder, but if some jackass tries to ban black powder shooting, I'll be on their ass, working to convince them of their stupidity and getting them to back off, just as if they were trying to reach into MY safe and grab what I DO shoot. All of us firearms enthusiasts, of ALL types and interests, have to stick together or eventually the only thing we'll be able to do is meet in the parking lot where the gun shows USED to be held and swap photos of all the guns we USED to have, collect, enjoy, and appreciate, back before the jackbooted government thugs stole them all from us because we dropped the damned ball. [pissed] CJ
View Quote
Don't assume that I have no interest in ownng a machine gun. I'd fucking love to have one. I'll agree on your point, BUT all of these gunlaws can be avoided by unfuckin the legal system in our country. All violent criminals should get a minimum of 30 yrs (obviously more if you are a particularly evil bastard). (All rapists and kid molesters should get 50 min) Fuck the grey area. How is it that you hear of third time armed robbery or even worse third time rapists or child molesters??? WARNING CHANGE OF MIND HERE I was going to say we have allowed our justice system to get so fucked up that we don't need too may folks running around with MGs. BUT I am leaving that opinion behind.... Fuckit you're completely right and my argument is flawed with even a little hint of "do it for the children" What the hell is wrong with me???? AAAARRGGGHHHHH !!!!!! the librawl programming must have gotten to me. Let me go and ponder where else they've influenced me......... I still say if we would start punishing criminals the grabbers would have no ammo to use in their argument. Crime would decrease if we'd keep their asses locked up the first time, hell even the second.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 7:29:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ProfGAB101: Only acceptable gun laws: Penalties for theft of firearms and knowingly trafficking stolen firearms.
View Quote
I propose the death penalty for anyone who steals MY guns. [:D]
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 8:14:37 AM EDT
I second that. Anyone who tries to steal my guns WILL get the death penalty...immediately! BIGN, I'm glad I could help you to see what's really going on. It would be quite sufficient to merely EFFECTIVELY prosecute criminal activity. Just doing that ALONE would render several thousand laws superfluous and unnecessary. CJ
Top Top