User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:26:53 AM EDT
[#1]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:30:57 AM EDT
[#2]
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! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:31:00 AM EDT
[#3]
You won't get a straight answer. They do not know. Common sense gun control is a buzz phrase that is bandied about with little practical definition. I suppose if I were to cite " common sense " gun control I could point to the Brady law. It has statistical verification that it has caused guns not to be sold to convicted felons. I suppose that makes sense, since felons cannot buy guns, that gun dealers should have some easy way of making sure they are not selling to felons beyond their word. felons are known to lie sometimes. Beyond that, I'd bet you would be hard pressed to see any other gun controls that actually make any sense.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:31:41 AM EDT
[#4]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:34:22 AM EDT
[#5]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:35:15 AM EDT
[#6]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:36:01 AM EDT
[#7]
Sure. It's making Illegal anything that he/she doesn't think that I NEED!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:36:25 AM EDT
[#8]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:37:53 AM EDT
[#9]
Gee, I would consider Common Sense gun control realizing that "shall not be infringed" means: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:42:18 AM EDT
[#10]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:45:04 AM EDT
[#11]
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". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:46:36 AM EDT
[#12]
No such thing!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:47:32 AM EDT
[#13]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:52:13 AM EDT
[#14]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:52:39 AM EDT
[#15]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:55:16 AM EDT
[#16]
Its pretty clear to me they mean gun bans. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 10:03:08 AM EDT
[#17]
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". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 10:32:44 AM EDT
[#18]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 10:43:55 AM EDT
[#19]
I've also noticed that calling concepts which don't make sense has tainted the meaning of "common sense".
People call a lot of things common sense, because somebody suggested it was, but they cannot explain why. This "common sense" concept does NOT make sense to even most of its proponents. They believe that the concept is common sense, but do not understand it. The bar for what is "common sense" and what is not has been lowered. There are a lot of people who believe what they are told by people they believe are smarter than they are, and it doesn't matter whether they understand it or not. Thus, the realm of common sense - what was once easily understood, explained and defended - has been plunged into the realm of murky, mysterious nonunderstandability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 10:49:05 AM EDT
[#20]
same here, but when you think about it, most so-called common sense gun control is an oxymoron. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 10:49:20 AM EDT
[#21]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 10:56:55 AM EDT
[#22]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 11:04:49 AM EDT
[#23]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 11:08:09 AM EDT
[#24]
They swapped out "control" for "safety".
It is now "Common Sense Firearms Safety" Who in their right mind would vote AGAINST "Common Sense" or "Safety"?!??? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 11:13:10 AM EDT
[#25]
Some people are too stupid to own guns, but there is no way to legislate that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 11:23:50 AM EDT
[#26]
I for one am adamantly against "common sense."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 11:24:29 AM EDT
[#27]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 11:26:48 AM EDT
[#28]
Only answer I have ever gotten was "I don't have a gun and don't need one!" and my reply has always been "Yet.".
 Tj |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 11:36:12 AM EDT
[#29]
+1 Except I would add that convicted [violent] felons should never be able to have guns. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 11:46:37 AM EDT
[#30]
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 . |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 11:56:18 AM EDT
[#31]
Sorry guys don't like any of them! Where does the 2nd admendment say "EXCEPT". I could care less if I offended someone when I was 10 years old walking through the forest with my .22 single shot hunting. I could care less that a guy who got busted in 1969 for a joint, then a felony, can't buy a gun in 2004 when having the same joint is not a felony. A real crook won't give a hoot and shit that there is a law saying don't carry. You can hold the paper up and try to convince him while he shoots your ass. How long does it take to figure out that laws only impact the law abiding. Any laws limiting gun freedom ultimately lead to the banning of all guns and then only criminals will have them. Tj |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 12:00:31 PM EDT
[#32]
Yeah, because no one has eeever been falsley accused and convicted. Some of the finest Christian men I know stayed in the "Hotel". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 12:30:38 PM EDT
[#33]
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 i
 t means we are protected from our own military.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 12:33:48 PM EDT
[#34]
Don't forget to let them know how you feel 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 12:45:04 PM EDT
[#35]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 1:11:00 PM EDT
[#36]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 7:49:30 PM EDT
[#37]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 8:03:17 PM EDT
[#38]
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? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 8:09:02 PM EDT
[#39]
Common sense to a liberal is like kryptonite to Superman.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 8:13:37 PM EDT
[#40]
Rules like the ones Dino listed make sense. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 8:15:42 PM EDT
[#41]
I say common sense gun-control should be learning how to shoot the *ucking thing correctly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 8:23:04 PM EDT
[#42]
What Common Sense Gun Control Means to Me
By Donith Common sense gun control means: Using both eyes, both hands, and both barrels! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 8:26:03 PM EDT
[#43]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 8:28:50 PM EDT
[#44]
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... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
