Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/1/2004 8:25:52 AM EST
Just curious:

I've heard this alot when arguing with anti's about gun control.
They always seem to come around to the "You have to support common sense gun control," but every single time I've asked; "What IS common sense gun control?" I can never get a straight answer. They stammer, they balk, they mumble incoherently, spew skewed (if not totally fictional) statistics, etc. (Much like Feinstein now that I think on it) They rave at how "successful" Canada's registration system has been and how "wonderful" Australia's total bans are, but never once will they tell me what they consider "common sense."

So I'm curious, has anyone ever gotten a straight answer from these folks on exactly what the hell they consider common sense gun control?
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:26:53 AM EST
No.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:30:57 AM EST
First of all, Canada's gun registration programme (spelled in Canadian) is a complete and total failure. People have actually taken unregistered guns to the police station, and told the police, "Here I am with an unregistered gun! Arrest me!", and the police have told them to shut up, go home and take their gun with them!

Second, there is no such thing as "common sense" gun control, because gun controll doesn't make sense!
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:31:00 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:31:41 AM EST
The phrase "common sense gun control" changes from year to year depending what the anti-gunners want to make an issue of. This could be "assault weapons," "high capacity magazines," "Saturday nite specials," "pocket rockets," "gun show loop holes," "waiting period," "licensing", "ammo reg," etc anything.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:34:22 AM EST
Sure! No automatics, no semi-automatics, no pumps, no lever-actions. No revolvers or pistols---none, zip, nada. Only single (possibly double) barrel shotguns and rifles kept at the police station when not in use.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:35:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
No.



+1

Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:36:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 8:36:19 AM EST by SGB]
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:36:25 AM EST
I would consider common sense gun control to be things like

1) mandatory firearms education in schools
2) registration for concealed carry
3) background checks (ones that actually fucking work) to prevent felons from purchasing weapons.
4) enforcing laws on the books, not writing more laws

things like that
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:37:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dino:
I would consider common sense gun control to be things like

1) mandatory firearms education in schools
2) registration for concealed carry
3) background checks (ones that actually fucking work) to prevent felons from purchasing weapons.
4) enforcing laws on the books, not writing more laws

things like that



Gee, I would consider Common Sense gun control realizing that "shall not be infringed" means:

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:42:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By warlord:
The phrase "common sense gun control" changes from year to year depending what the anti-gunners want to make an issue of. This could be "assault weapons," "high capacity magazines," "Saturday nite specials," "pocket rockets," "gun show loop holes," "waiting period," "licensing", "ammo reg," etc anything.



This is kind of why I think the anti's are winning.
Look at the terms used to discuss the issue.
Take "high capacity" magazines for instance. The term itself didn't exist until the anti's coined it. Now even gun enthusiasts are describing standard magazines as "High capacity."

While the assault weapons ban did sunset, they have still won because our regular semi-automatic rifles are now irrevocably synonmous with the evil term "assault weapon."

It's an uphill battle when these dim wits get to define the terms used to discuss the issue.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:45:04 AM EST
At one time I briefly thought something like a FOID card would be OK. Good, I thought, check me out, and then leave me alone, I can buy what I want, and criminals can't buy without a FOID card.

But in reality, this has been used to restrict citizens... through increasing fees, difficulty in obtaining the card, and worst of all... it is a REGISTRATION system.

And as in Chicago... They scrub lists of FOID holders against registrations... and if someone does not renew, zap, they kill your dog and burn your house.

No, there is NO reasonable gun control.

In NAZI Germany, they had common sense gun control, and the purpose was to disarm their victims, just like in New York City's Sullivan laws. They did not want people to fight back against the city thugs that extorted them.

Gun control is always about making the citizen a victim.

It is never really about guns, it is only about control, and who controls who.

There is no reasonable "gun control".
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:46:36 AM EST
No such thing!!
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:47:32 AM EST
I think bans on felon ownership, instant background checks, waiting periods, bans/red tape for NFA guns and so-called assault weapons, storage requirements, and age limits are the most common types of "common sense" gun control measures I see mentioned.

I agree with Shotar -- background checks for retail sales are about the only gun control measure I have ever seen that actually seemed to have a measurable effect on reducing availability to criminals without screwing over legit owners too much. I think a case could be made for age limits as well. Waiting periods are very inconvenient and sometimes outright dangerous in cases of threatened people who feel the need for immediate protection. I am generally against waiting periods, and with instant background checks, I feel they are totally unnecessary.

As to felon ownership, I'm divided. I think it's probably reasonable to ban ownership for people convicted of violent felonies, but beyond that, no, I just can't justify it. And even then, there's a case for the "well, if we don't trust them to own guns, why aren't they still in prison?" argument.

Blanket bans on ownership of any kind of firearm are totally unacceptable, and red tape above a certain point quickly becomes too much of a hassle for legit purchasers, but I don't really mind a little extra paperwork for NFA stuff, but 6-month background checks are too much.

I am also against any kind of storage requirement. I think it's a good idea to keep loaded firearms stored where they aren't in easy reach of a small child, but it's none of the federal government's business, and most storage requirements go way too far.

Just my 2 cents.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:52:13 AM EST
Common sense gun control;

Fully abide by the intentions of the 2nd amendment with easy access to competent education and training.

Does it get any easier or more common sense than that?
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:52:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:
As to felon ownership, I'm divided. I think it's probably reasonable to ban ownership for people convicted of violent felonies, but beyond that, no, I just can't justify it. And even then, there's a case for the "well, if we don't trust them to own guns, why aren't they still in prison?" argument.


Here in Kali-fornia, we have the 3 strikes law, the liberals/Dems want the 3rd strike to be a violent one, whatever that mean. In the purchasing a firearm, any felony disqualifies you from buy a gun, even the one involving taxes, where you plead guilty. I would like to see only violent felonies qualifiy for restricting your gun rights. In the past few years, even misdemeanors qualify for restricting you owning a gun. Why don't the anti-gunners make the violent misdemeanors a felony? The reason is that 60% of the laws are felonies.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:55:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By drache:


So I'm curious, has anyone ever gotten a straight answer from these folks on exactly what the hell they consider common sense gun control?



Its pretty clear to me they mean gun bans.

Link Posted: 10/1/2004 9:03:08 AM EST
I have three definite things that I consider Common Sense gun control measures.

1) People convicted of violent FELONIES barred from owning guns (Not to be confused with these onerous "Domestic Violence" restrictions).
2) Non Citizen Residents restricted from gun ownership without a special visa stamp.
3) Illegal immigrants found in possession of firearms IMMEDIATELY deported and their identies recorded to deter reentry.

Really, these restrictions have more to do with Citizenship and Immigration than "Gun Control".
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 9:32:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 11:07:54 AM EST by Maddogkiller]
There are 4 legitimate circumstances under which a state may temporarily suspend a persons freedom to bear arms on public property.

1. When a person is a minor on public property.
2. When a person is lawfully detained or incarcerated
3. When a person is a member of the National Guard
4. When a person is mentally impaired to the point of being a threat to others. This would include persons that are intoxicated on public property.

Once a person is no longer incumbered with one of the listed infirmaties, their freedom is instantly restored with no further need of judicial or legislative involvement.


eta: on public property.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 9:43:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 9:49:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dino:
I would consider common sense gun control to be things like

1) mandatory firearms education in schools
2) registration for concealed carry
3) background checks (ones that actually fucking work) to prevent felons from purchasing weapons.
4) enforcing laws on the books, not writing more laws

things like that



same here, but when you think about it, most so-called common sense gun control is an oxymoron.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 9:49:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 9:50:27 AM EST by SWO_daddy]

Originally Posted By Maddogkiller:
There are 4 legitimate circumstances under which a state may temporarily suspend a persons freedom to bear arms.

1. When a person is a minor.
2. When a person is lawfully detained or incarcerated
3. When a person is a member of the National Guard
4. When a person is mentally impaired to the point of being a threat to others. This would include persons that are intoxicated.

Once a person is no longer incumbered with one of the listed infirmaties, their freedom is instantly restored with no further need of judicial or legislative involvement.



Why the fuck would you consider military service (because that is what NG duty is) a reason to relive someone of their PERSONAL right to keep and bear arms?

Not just no way, but no fucking way.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 9:56:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Dino:
I would consider common sense gun control to be things like

1) mandatory firearms education in schools
2) registration for concealed carry
3) background checks (ones that actually fucking work) to prevent felons from purchasing weapons.
4) enforcing laws on the books, not writing more laws

things like that



Gee, I would consider Common Sense gun control realizing that "shall not be infringed" means:

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"




The problem is that there ARE some people who really should not be allowed to own firearms.

I'm not sure on my position on felons - and if past criminal activity were a criteria, I don't think it shoudl just be any felony that disqualified people, but some kind of violent felony.


However - what I AM sure about are clinically insane people, particularly the schizophrenics. People who know that aliens are controlling their thoughts with invisible rays, or whose voices in their heads are telling them to kill people, or who know that they are Jesus Christ, or Napoleon, or Satan, or who think that microwave owens are controlling everyone else's minds and are planning ti kill us all - should probably not have easy access to guns.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 10:04:49 AM EST

3. When a person is a member of the National Guard



How in the bloody blue fuck does that exclude a person from owning a firearm. I hardly think that is a legitimate reason. I think you need to go back and reread the Constitution. You know, the part about a "Well regulated Militia". No person should have an exclusion from firearms ownership based alone on an affiliation or membership to an organization, especially a Gov't organization. Just out of curiosity, what Fucktard told you that shit.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 10:08:09 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 10:13:10 AM EST
Some people are too stupid to own guns, but there is no way to legislate that.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 10:23:50 AM EST
I for one am adamantly against "common sense."
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 10:24:29 AM EST


Let me propose a wacky idea.

We deem a segment of society too dangerous too own a gun (felons, DV offenders, etc...) But its OK to have them in our midst without guns? Stupid. How much less dangerous are they without a gun. Remember: the weapon is the mind.

If you can't be trusted with a gun, you should be either dead or in jail.

Reality is that if someone wants a gun they will get one. Laws be damned.


-Z

Link Posted: 10/1/2004 10:26:48 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 10:36:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By Maddogkiller:
There are 4 legitimate circumstances under which a state may temporarily suspend a persons freedom to bear arms.

1. When a person is a minor.
2. When a person is lawfully detained or incarcerated
3. When a person is a member of the National Guard
4. When a person is mentally impaired to the point of being a threat to others. This would include persons that are intoxicated.

Once a person is no longer incumbered with one of the listed infirmaties, their freedom is instantly restored with no further need of judicial or legislative involvement.





+1 Except I would add that convicted [violent] felons should never be able to have guns.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 10:46:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By colesteele:

3. When a person is a member of the National Guard



How in the bloody blue fuck does that exclude a person from owning a firearm. I hardly think that is a legitimate reason. I think you need to go back and reread the Constitution. You know, the part about a "Well regulated Militia". No person should have an exclusion from firearms ownership based alone on an affiliation or membership to an organization, especially a Gov't organization. Just out of curiosity, what Fucktard told you that shit.




It appears that you did not read my entire post. In it, you will find that I specifically stated that there are 4 circumstances under which a state MAY TEMPORARILY suspend a pesrons FREEDOM to BEAR arms. Nothing was mentioned about OWNING firearms.

When a person is a member of the National Guard, Reserves, Regular military, their commanding officers must have the authority to declare when and or where a member under their command may or may not bear arms.


You have suggested that I reread the Constitution. OK, I make you a deal. I shall reread the Constitution while you go reread what I posted. But this time READ it carefully and THINK about what I actually wrote.
You could also consider being a bit more civilized .
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 10:56:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 10:58:24 AM EST by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 11:00:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:
I think bans on felon ownership,.



Yeah, because no one has eeever been falsley accused and convicted. Some of the finest Christian men I know stayed in the "Hotel".
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 11:30:38 AM EST
Gun registration is the first step to seizure. However I have buddies who are cops they run serial numbers every night on guns in the possession of someone it is not registered to it is impossible to say it is stolen or if it has been sold so many times it is just untrackable or a waist of man hours to try. It is hopeless to ever track every weapon. No cop I have ever met supports total gun seizure THEIR ARE NOT ENOUGH COPS the military would nave to do it. Also I beleive it is illgal for our military to occupie our territory with ground troos. Maybe my wording is wrong but the gist of it means we are protected from our own military.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 11:33:48 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 11:45:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 11:46:27 AM EST by colesteele]

When a person is a member of the National Guard, Reserves, Regular military, their commanding officers must have the authority to declare when and or where a member under their command may or may not bear arms.



I read your entire post. I didn't miss anything. you said " a state may temporarily suspend a persons freedom to bear arms.". You made it sound as if someone could have their right suspended for just being in the National Guard, you made no mention of commanders of military units. To suspend someone's Right to Bear Arms is suspending Ownership.
Example
If I have a "temporary" restraining order against me I cannot be in possesion of any firearms or ammunition. If I don't have possesion then I don't have ownership except on a piece of paper.

Reserves, Regular military, , is the only part of that statement that is correct. A person in the National Guard is under U.S. Code Title 32. That means they are not subject to the UCMJ. They are governed by the Militia Code of ther respective State and that usally falls under the Annotated code of the State which is covered by their State Constitution which cannot usurp the federal constitution. A commander in the Reserve components only has control over his or her subordinates 2 days a month and 2 weeks out of the year. The have no control the other 28 days in the month or 50 weeks out of the year. They have no authority to teporarily suspend any soldiers constitutional rights. As far as the Active Components are concerned, the post commander can disapprove of a purchase or ownership of firearms while on that post, but that varies from installation to installation and that would end once that service member was transferred or Honorably discharged or was discharged without a felony conviction. Even soldiers with Bad conduct discharges can own Firearms. As far as suspension of bearing arms, that would mean the soldier could not do their job. If his or her rights are suspended that would usally indicate that they have made a serious infraction and it's all moot point anyway.

You painted a broad stroke.



Link Posted: 10/1/2004 12:11:00 PM EST
A liberal's common sense gun control is the same as the rest of their policies: They do something really expensive, with all the "best intentions", take my rights, property, and tax dollars, and achieve nothing but harm - but they feel really good about it.

Where gun control is concerned, it is also amazing who has a concealed pistol license, for example in the PRK where it is hard to get CCW, who should have one but DIANE FREAKING FEINSTEIN.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 6:49:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By colesteele:

When a person is a member of the National Guard, Reserves, Regular military, their commanding officers must have the authority to declare when and or where a member under their command may or may not bear arms.



I read your entire post. I didn't miss anything. you said " a state may temporarily suspend a persons freedom to bear arms.". You made it sound as if someone could have their right suspended for just being in the National Guard, you made no mention of commanders of military units. To suspend someone's Right to Bear Arms is suspending Ownership.
Example
If I have a "temporary" restraining order against me I cannot be in possesion of any firearms or ammunition. If I don't have possesion then I don't have ownership except on a piece of paper.

Reserves, Regular military, , is the only part of that statement that is correct. A person in the National Guard is under U.S. Code Title 32. That means they are not subject to the UCMJ. They are governed by the Militia Code of ther respective State and that usally falls under the Annotated code of the State which is covered by their State Constitution which cannot usurp the federal constitution. A commander in the Reserve components only has control over his or her subordinates 2 days a month and 2 weeks out of the year. The have no control the other 28 days in the month or 50 weeks out of the year. They have no authority to teporarily suspend any soldiers constitutional rights. As far as the Active Components are concerned, the post commander can disapprove of a purchase or ownership of firearms while on that post, but that varies from installation to installation and that would end once that service member was transferred or Honorably discharged or was discharged without a felony conviction. Even soldiers with Bad conduct discharges can own Firearms. As far as suspension of bearing arms, that would mean the soldier could not do their job. If his or her rights are suspended that would usally indicate that they have made a serious infraction and it's all moot point anyway.

You painted a broad stroke.






You are confusing rights with freedom. They are not synonimous. Niether are May and Must. I limited my comments to states, that was the reason for not mentioning the other components of our armed forces. I also stated that commanding officers must have the authority to state when/where a member UNDER THEIR COMMAND may or may not bear arms. If an NG soldier is not on duty, then they are not UNDER THEIR COMMAND. Such is not the case with regular military forces.

There are no such things as Constitutional rights. Our rights existed well before the Constitution, and will exist long after the Constitution is a distant memory. Therefore, the Constitution cannot be the source of our rights.
Rights cannot be suspended, revoked, traded, sold, given, nor taken. They are unalieable. That is what unalienable means. Incapable of being transfered. Freedom on the other hand, can be taken. That is why we must "guard with jealousy the public liberty."

I also stated that once the person is no longer incumbered with one of the listed infirmities, their freedom to bear arms would immediately return with no need for further judicial or legislative involvement.

Since a "temporary" restraing order is not listed in my original post, it is not a reasonable restriction upon an individuals freedom to bear arms.

I do thank you for being civil with you latest response.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 7:03:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Dino:
I would consider common sense gun control to be things like

1) mandatory firearms education in schools
2) registration for concealed carry
3) background checks (ones that actually fucking work) to prevent felons from purchasing weapons.
4) enforcing laws on the books, not writing more laws

things like that



Gee, I would consider Common Sense gun control realizing that "shall not be infringed" means:

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"



so let me make sure I understand you.

Your against firearms education in schools

Your against requiring a permit to concealed carry

Your against enforcing laws on the books (harsher penalties for crimes involving a gun, not letting felons have guns, etc..)

Is that what your saying?

Link Posted: 10/1/2004 7:09:02 PM EST
Common sense to a liberal is like kryptonite to Superman.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 7:13:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Dino:
I would consider common sense gun control to be things like

1) mandatory firearms education in schools
2) registration for concealed carry
3) background checks (ones that actually fucking work) to prevent felons from purchasing weapons.
4) enforcing laws on the books, not writing more laws

things like that



Gee, I would consider Common Sense gun control realizing that "shall not be infringed" means:

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"



Rules like the ones Dino listed make sense.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 7:15:42 PM EST
I say common sense gun-control should be learning how to shoot the *ucking thing correctly.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 7:23:04 PM EST
What Common Sense Gun Control Means to Me
By Donith

Common sense gun control means:
Using both eyes, both hands, and both barrels!

Link Posted: 10/1/2004 7:26:03 PM EST
4) enforcing laws on the books, not writing more laws

I disagree. There are a LOT of laws on the books that should not be enforced, and should be repealed.

I think all new laws should have a sunset period. Most laws passed nowadays, by the time that would come about, are moot, anyway.

Some stupid councilman does not like kids wearing clothes backwards like a rap band. Well, that fad came and went real fast. Or a proposed law against droopy pants. So what? I know of at least one cop caught a BG cause his pants fell down around his knees and tripped him. Can't run with droopy pants. But why pass a law?

I am tired of draconian solutions to temporary "problems" that are not really problems.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 7:28:50 PM EST
The ONLY gun laws that make sense to me are ones that make it harder for criminals to buy guns. Such as the instant background check system.

There is no common sense behind preventing law abiding citizens from buying any gun they want. Doing so has been proven to encourage criminals and render civilians helpless.

You may get the question, "Well I don't think anyone believes that citizens should own machine guns!" Ask them how many privately owned machine guns are registered and how many of those have been used in crimes and by whom. The answer will surprise some of you...
Top Top