PDA

View Full Version : Only 4 Gun Laws Needed - IMHO


chucksolo69
January 28, 2009, 03:29 PM
Here's my take on gun laws. I believe these four are the only ones needed.

1. A background check is necessary by FFL dealers to make sure you are not a criminal or mental defective or drug/alcohol ABUSER. Excludes nicotine use or people using prescription drugs in the legally prescribed manner.

2. If you sell your legally obtained gun to a person with a criminal record or mental health record in a face to face transfer or straw sale, and the gun is used in a crime, you will be equally liable. This would apply even if the gun changes hands many times. You were the original owner after all. It would be up to you to verify that the person could legally own a gun. Forms for legal transfer among private citizens could be obtained at gun stores. It would be up to you to keep the record of sale and identity verification of the person you sold the gun to. Having been presented false identity documents would be no excuse for sale to anyone not eligible to own a gun.

3. You must be a citizen of the USA and prove it to obtain a gun, any gun. This would also apply to face to face or straw sales of guns. Again, it would be up to the seller to acertain if the buyer is a citizen of the US. Having been presented false identity documents would be no excuse for sale to anyone not eligible to own a gun.


4. If your gun is stolen, you would have to report it within 24 hours to the authorities or it would be the same as law #2. After all, gun security is every gun owner's responsibility.

Do You Agree or Disagree?

dburkhead
January 28, 2009, 03:46 PM
1. A background check should be required on all airline ticket, intercity/state bus tickets, automobile sales, new apartment rentals and home purchases, and anything else that can be involved in relocating in order to determine that you are not a fugitive or someone violating parole/probation by leaving the state without permission.

2. If a car you sell is used in a criminal/negligent manner by the new owner, you should be equally liable. You were the original owner, after all.

3. (A bit more direct than the others.) My wife is not a US citizen but is a permanent legal resident (green card). Care to tell me why she should be denied the tools for self defense, hunting, etc? A number of people I went to school with were over here on student Visas. Care to tell me why they should be denied the tools of self defense, hunting, etc? Where my wife works, there are a number of folk here on temporary work visas. Care to tell me why they should be denied the tools for self defense, hunting, etc?

4. If a knife is stolen (can be used to kill someone), if my car is stolen (can be used as a "getaway car'), if money is stolen (can be used to buy drugs or hire a "hit man"), etc. it must be reported in 24 hours or....

No thank you.

The only "gun law" we need is "use a gun to unjustifiedly harm someone and spend a very, very long time behind bars (although six feet under is an acceptable substitute)."

Wuchak
January 28, 2009, 03:48 PM
Disagree.

If the person has a driver's license from my state then I know they are a resident and can buy the gun. Private individuals should not be required to do a background check. Nor should I have to keep any paperwork for the rest of my life.

"Having been presented false identity documents would be no excuse for sale to anyone not eligible to own a gun.

That is just patently absurd. That becomes another criminal offense of the buyer, not something the seller can be held liable for. Same for what you have listed for false citizenship documents.

Reporting within 24 hours sounds good but a) who is having their guns stolen and not reporting it and b) is that 24 hours from the time I discover the theft or 24 hours from when the theft occurred? If I'm on vacation I wouldn't know about it until returning home.

The number of gun laws we need is exactly, zero. Or this, no American who is not currently physically incarcerated by some branch of the government, shall, for any reason, be prevented from owning and bearing the small arms currently or previously used by any Federal, State, or Local police agency, or any branch of the US Armed Services, or Federal Agency, or United Nations.

If someone cannot be trusted with weapons they probably cannot be trusted to be wandering around free. The threat doesn't come from the weapon, it comes from the person behind it, and obtaining deadly weapons is easy. Just pick up a heavy rock or stick.

Lavid2002
January 28, 2009, 04:00 PM
Didnt hear anything about domestic violence. How about mental health?

chucksolo69
January 28, 2009, 04:06 PM
Law #1 describes mental health. Domestic violence convictions would be discovered in a background check.

People living here on a permanent resident status should take the time to become citizens. Only my opinion though. If you want to enjoy the privilages that Uncle Sam has to offer, become a citizen, pure and simple. Other wise go back to the motherland.

It's interesting to note that no one is willing to compromise on anything. 4 basic laws instead of the thousands we now have and there is still opposition.

dburkhead
January 28, 2009, 04:11 PM
Privileges are one thing. We're talking about rights however.

Your 4 basic laws are, in many ways worse than what we have now. Why not just come right out and go with one law: no one but the government and its agents may possess firearms.

And we've been "compromising" since 1934 (at least). When is it going to be the other side's turn to "compromise" in that way?

Dead
January 28, 2009, 04:12 PM
I would rather that you coud mail order/buy retail any firearm you want. ShowID, and a NICS check, pay and walk out. :D

Now as what one would be denied during a NICS check would have to be serious crimes.

chucksolo69
January 28, 2009, 04:18 PM
I apoligize I should have said rights! Rights however, as expressed in the Constitution should, in my opinion, be extended ONLY to US citizens. Why should we extend our rights to non-citizens when most of the rest of the world won't give us rights on their soil. Mexico comes to mind on that one.

And how are mine worse than the absurd gun laws we have now? You guys sound like you advocate anyone and everyone having access to firearms if they are not currently in custody. You guys think ex-felons should have guns? It's been proven time and time again that rehabilitation rarely works. Even the most hard core gun owners should agree that anyone with a felony record should NOT own a gun.......period. You give up that right when you choose to break the law.

dburkhead
January 28, 2009, 04:29 PM
So if somebody comes to the US, they should be subject to search at whim (no PC or warrants needed), they should be forbidden from speaking, they should be forbidden from practicing whatever religion they wish even if it harms no one else, it should be okay to compel them to testify against themselves, they should be fair game for "cruel and unusual punishments," they should not be allowed to peaceably assemble, we should be allowed to quarter military personnel in their homes, if accused of crimes they don't get a trial by jury, and so on.

A) Why should we base the rights that we recognize on what other countries recognize.

B) Why should the Second be any different from any of those other rights?

As to why yours is worse, take a very close look at your #2 and think about the consequences of that.

Wuchak
January 28, 2009, 04:30 PM
You guys think ex-felons should have guns? It's been proven time and time again that rehabilitation rarely works. Even the most hard core gun owners should agree that anyone with a felony record should NOT own a gun.......period. You give up that right when you choose to break the law.

Hardly proven time and time again. The problem with this approach is that all the government needs to do to keep guns out of the hands of more and more people is to expand what crimes are classified as a felony, e.g. Messed up by $100 on your taxes? Oh, that's a felony now. Jaywalked? That's a felony now.

The punishment for the crime is what's prescribed by the court in the case. Once someone has served their time they should have all of their rights restored. If the person is deemed to much of a risk to have weapons then they need to be kept incarcerated. The current number of murders and other violent crimes committed by those who are already prohibited from owning weapons shows that the laws prohibiting them from doing so are completely ineffective and just another feel good measure that doesn't do anything. Just like airport security and assault weapons bans.

dburkhead
January 28, 2009, 04:43 PM
The problem with this approach is that all the government needs to do to keep guns out of the hands of more and more people is to expand what crimes are classified as a felony,

In fact, that's what's been happening. Entirely too many things are "felonies" these days. And most of the "should never be allowed to own guns again" level crimes are really up there at the "should never be allowed to walk the streets again" level. And we've already got at least one misdemeanor that forever prohibits one from owning guns.

My "issue" with it isn't even at the question of whether or not someone who, at some time in the past, has been convicted of a felony should or should not be permitted to own guns. It's the means of enforcing that. For other things that criminals are prohibited from doing (like leaving the state if one is on probation/parole), it is not up to the individual vendors to enforce that, to call in to the State and check that someone wishing to purchase an out of state ticket or someone from out of state renting a house or room is not violating parole by doing so. It's up to agents of the government (police and parole officers) to check up on the felons and arrest those found in violation.

I don't object to suspension of various rights (such as the 2nd and the 4th) being part of a criminal sentence. The 5th states "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" implying that with due process one can be deprived of liberty. What I object is making me legally responsible for enforcing those sentence provisions. What I object to is the government enforcing those provisions on me.

dalegribble
January 28, 2009, 04:45 PM
when i read the title i almost crapped my panties, i took it to mean you could only own 4 guns, ya coulda killed a guy here.

chucksolo69
January 28, 2009, 05:05 PM
Wow, you guys are radicals. I don't even think the NRA advoates sales of guns to ex-felons. Where then gentlemen, is the part where we as gun owners need to take some measure of responsibility so that we get government off our backs. If we don't police ourselves, through verification of gun sales to eligible buyers, etc., we invite government intrusion. Taking a hardline, no compromise stance like you guys do really alienates the moderates like me, that advocate free ownership of handguns by law abiding citizens and fully support the Second Amendment, but see that there is a need to keep firearms out of undesireable elements. I don't even see why we need a CCW; I say that just to illustrate the way I think. I think law abiding citizens should be able to carry weapons openly or concealed with no permits needed. See, we are pretty close in philosophy. Now, it's convincing the other side that we are not all crazy.

Trapp
January 28, 2009, 05:15 PM
Your #2 is just plain LUDICRULOUS ludicrous/ridiculous.

That thinking in itself discredits any of the three others........

Why shouldn't ex-felons be able to own guns? You've never done something stupid in your life? Never committed a felony? You are lying if you say you haven't...

johnwilliamson062
January 28, 2009, 05:21 PM
No way. Like others said #2 is absurd. What if I sell a car and someone goes on a murederous hit and run rampage with it? Am I liable?

The only "gun law" we need is "use a gun to unjustifiedly harm someone and spend a very, very long time behind bars (although six feet under is an acceptable substitute)."
Amen to that. Lets just change it to
"unjustifiedly harm someone and you will spend a very, very long time behind bars (although six feet under is an acceptable substitute)."
I see no reason to look at what weapon was used.

chucksolo69
January 28, 2009, 05:25 PM
Wow, No, I have made mistakes, but I assure you, I have never, ever committed a felony. I passed an extensive San Diego Police Department background check (my current job requires it), to prove that. You guys really need to get real here. I am amazed just thinking that you would put a gun in the hands of an ex-felon. There are many here on these boards that have never committed a felony and would not think to do so. I don't care if the felon raped a little girl or embezzeled $500.00. If you are a convicted felon, you lose your right of gun ownership. It all comes down to taking responsibility for one's actions. Hmmmmm......makes me wonder why you think anyone who says that they have never committed a felony is lying? I hope not everyone in your neck of the woods thinks the same. Do you realize that when you guys preach your type of pro gun philosophy, it only gives the anti-gunners more ammunition to fight us with? The key thought here is "RESPONSIBILITY" guys. #2 is all about responsibility. If we don't do it, government will be compelled to. Oh and to keep bringing up the comparison to cars and guns is in itself absurd. A car was NOT designed to kill, weapons were, so let's put that one to rest. Remember, I am very, very pro gun too. You are not discussing this topic with someone who has any love for Sarah Brady.

Trapp
January 28, 2009, 05:37 PM
Ok maybe they aren't lying, but they may be ignorant of the fact they did. Have you seen what constitutes a felony these days?

Seeing that you have done a Background check for a cop shop I assume you do.

This is mere speculation, but I have a theory that when you are around a certain "blank" (attitude, idea, theology) for long enough, your ideas begin to coincide with said "Blank"

I see that you are in Cali....

Enough of my snide remarks, I really do disagree with #2. I shouldn't be responsible for other peoples action in that way.

chucksolo69
January 28, 2009, 05:45 PM
Trapp, yeah I live in California and nothing galls me more than to know that there are 38 shall issue CCW Permit states and we are in one of the 12 that is a may issue state. Here it is up to the local Chief of Police or County Sheriff to decide if you are "worthy" of a CCW Permit. I am a California native and I love the SoCal area......sigh....the things we put up with here in the Golden State. And you know what, philosophically I also disagree with #2, but I also know that without policing ourselves government is always happy to do it for us. For example: I ride a motorcycle and for the State of California to tell me I have to wear a helmet or suffer a ticket and fine for riding without one is to me, totally ridiculous. Now, I think getting on a motorcycle without a helmet is dumb, but...... I resent state government telling me I have to. It's all about getting government off our backs; sometimes we have to compromise, (such as in #2) to get them out of our lives.

dburkhead
January 28, 2009, 05:46 PM
Unfortunately, it's the "moderates" who have been selling us down the river for the past 74 years (only counting since NFA although it could be argued that it started before that). I've seen this to the point that whenever I hear someone describing themselves as a "moderate" I figure he's "moderate" in the same way that Sarah Brady wants "common sense" gun legislation. And when you call yourself a "moderate" and turn around and make all the anti-gun arguments . . . well, what's a person really supposed to think?

You might want to consider the anti-gun folks idea of "compromise" in terms of the parable of the camel's nose: ask for a bunch. Accept a little (without giving anything up) and repeat. True compromise is giving someone some of what they want in return for some of what you want. It's the "giving some of what we want" that's been almost completely missing from the "compromises" in the last 74 years. "We won't take everything we want . . . this time" is not a compromise.

Can you point to anything in your proposal that actually gives gun owners anything they don't already have?

Oh, and on the Felony issue. Forbidding someone from having effective tools for self defense for life should, IMO, run afoul of the 8th for many of the crimes that are "felonies" today.

Wuchak
January 28, 2009, 05:47 PM
"I don't care if the felon raped a little girl or embezzeled $500.00. "

The fact that these two crimes both could fall into the same broad bucket of "felony" is the problem. Restriction on a right to own a firearm is not something that should be applied to a broad group, it should be part of the sentence given in the individual case. If the crime is bad enough the judge can permanently revoke the legal right of the person to purchase firearms. And lets not have any of that mandatory sentencing BS. That's just the legislative branch attempting to co-opt the power of the judicial branch.

Let's replace "felon" with Black, Chinese, Mexican, Southern Italian, German, etc. and get back to where gun laws first began. Every one of them started by the claim that firearms needed to be kept out of the hands of one group or another and every one of them was a lie meant to keep firearms only in the hands of the elite.

I think people convicted of violent felonies should be kept in prison. If the prisons weren't overcrowded due to people in there on minor drug offenses as part of the misguided and failed* war on drugs there would be room to keep the really dangerous people behind bars where they belong.

*I should say the war on drugs has been a failure on the part of the ordinary citizen as there are just as many druggies now as there were before and the cities have become cesspools of violence due to the government created black market for drugs. From the government point of view it's been a great success. They have used it to trample our civil liberties into the ground. The war on drugs has given government an increasingly militarized police force, no knock warrants (It's 3:00am and your front door has just been kicked in by a bunch of men dressed in black, is it a gang or is it SWAT acting on a fake anonymous tip? Both can and will shoot you without hesitation, but only one can do it legally.), the ability to seize and auction property from those merely accused of a crime, more restrictive gun laws, etc.

johnwilliamson062
January 28, 2009, 05:53 PM
The fact that these two crimes both could fall into the same broad bucket of "felony" is the problem.
Like saying stealing gum and raping an 8 year old both being a crime is ridiculous. They are both felonies and both deserve to be. THe difference is the guy who rapes the 8 year old girl should be in jail for quite a bit longer and he is going to meet more, uhhh friends, while he is in.

raimius
January 28, 2009, 05:58 PM
No.

1. Not too much of a problem, but I'd be VERY wary of exactly what makes someone a prohibited person...

2. How am I to be held responsible if someone buys a firearm from me, sells it 5 years later to person B, B sells it 2 years later to person C, who sells it 4 years later to D (who has a professionally forged fake ID from a terrorist org/foreign gov), then "D" assassinates the President. You want to hold me accountable for that?! Would you charge John Moses Browning in that case too, perhaps the ammunition manufacturer, the firerarm manufacturer, the original FFL, my spouse, child, and dog...after all, they should've known/stopped this terrible crime!

3. Rights should apply to everyone in the jurisdiction.

4.This helps how? Are the police going to go house to house searching for it? (Violating numerous civil rights) Or is this so they can prosecute me in 35 years, after the gun has changed hands 24 times, and was used in a crime...?

chucksolo69
January 28, 2009, 06:13 PM
2. You would have a record of having sold it to an eligible person. The next people down the line would have to have the same as you. The person who had the first non legal sale would be liable. I made that one kind of unclear. I meant to say that each person down the line would be responsible for the legal sale. My mistake. You would have to be responsible only for the first sale of the gun.

3. I disagree on this. Why should non-citizens enjoy the same rights when it comes to firearms as citizens do? Just because you immigrated here legally should not be free license to own a gun. What the heck is so difficult about becoming a US citizen. If you want to remain a citizen of Timbuktu you should live there.

4. No, you just need to report/prove it was stolen so that you are not liable. Keeping a gun in a safe, to me, is not practical. But......if one of my guns is stolen and I never report it, there should be consequences for not taking responsibility for the weapon.

dburkhead
January 28, 2009, 06:29 PM
2. Is there anybody that you trust to never, ever misuse or allow to be misused a gun sufficient that you are willing to spend time alongside them in jail? If so, then, well, I don't know what to say except that's a pretty naive position. If not, then it would be more honest to simply put #2 as a complete ban on private sales.

3. As mentioned uptopic, which other rights do you want to deny to someone who is here legally (we're not even talking about illegal aliens here)? Hey, the 13th forbids slavery. Should they be denied that protection as well? Why is the life of a person visiting our country--short or long term--less worthy of being protected than that of a citizen.

Why would you rather my wife be dead in an ally with her pantyhose wrapped around her neck than alive with a gun in her hand?

4. How about making the people who actually commit the crimes responsible? A person whose gun is stolen is the victim. Stop blaming victims for the crimes of others.

Al Norris
January 28, 2009, 09:08 PM
1. A background check is necessary by FFL dealers to make sure you are not a criminal or mental defective or drug/alcohol ABUSER. Excludes nicotine use or people using prescription drugs in the legally prescribed manner.

No... The NICS check is to ensure the FFL is not selling to a prohibited person. It is not about You. To make the law about YOU, would require penalties to be imposed upon the prohibited person for attempting to purchase a firearm from an FFL.

But you didn't say a NICS check, you said a background check which, which entails a more thorough (and costly) check. Who's to pay for this? The buyer?

A case can be made that such a scheme would cross over the prior restraint bar. Add to this, that in todays jurisprudence, another case can be made that paying for such a check would amount to taxing a fundamental right.

The current NICS check is constitutional. Extending it may or may not be. Changing it to an full background check would place an undue burden upon the right.

2. If you sell your legally obtained gun to a person with a criminal record or mental health record in a face to face transfer or straw sale, and the gun is used in a crime, you will be equally liable. This would apply even if the gun changes hands many times. You were the original owner after all. It would be up to you to verify that the person could legally own a gun. Forms for legal transfer among private citizens could be obtained at gun stores. It would be up to you to keep the record of sale and identity verification of the person you sold the gun to. Having been presented false identity documents would be no excuse for sale to anyone not eligible to own a gun.

You would extend "straw purchases" to ordinary citizens? It's bad enough that some FFL's are not well versed on what constitutes a "straw purchase," but you would complicate that by extending it to everyone? Under what justification? I'm not aware that there is a problem with ordinary folks knowingly sell to others, who are purchasing for a third party. Another "solution" in search of a problem, if you ask me.

You wish to also extend legal liability to the original owner, or the original purchaser? I'll assume you mean the original retail purchaser. So I'll need some kind of form 4473 to complete this purchase, and I'll keep it for 20 years or until I die, at which point it gets sent to the BATF (similar to what an FFL does)? Is that you scheme? Or do I just submit the paperwork as soon as the transaction is complete?

Hmmm, now you burden me with more required paperwork and/or reporting requirements. You are extending personal liability, regardless of how many times a firearm I sell is sold to others. You are forcing me to scrutinize my fellow man, more than I would my daughters first date!

3. You must be a citizen of the USA and prove it to obtain a gun, any gun. This would also apply to face to face or straw sales of guns. Again, it would be up to the seller to acertain [sic] if the buyer is a citizen of the US. Having been presented false identity documents would be no excuse for sale to anyone not eligible to own a gun.

Since we are talking of a right here, you can not lawfully require this, unless you repeal portions of the 14th amendment. (Hint: This is where anyone under the jurisdiction of the US Government has the same rights as you or I. Reading and understanding the Constitution of the United States is a requirement to fully participate in these debates.)

... And ... You now want to make every ordinary citizen liable for being duped by forged and/or false documents.

4. If your gun is stolen, you would have to report it within 24 hours to the authorities or it would be the same as law #2. After all, gun security is every gun owner's responsibility.

As others have noted, is this time period when the gun is actually stolen or when you discover it? Who gets to define how secure your Firearms must be? The benevolent government or me?

I'm thinking you would have a better chance at just banning the damn guns than getting people to agree to these onerous requirements. Overall, the effects would be similar, as they would have a chilling effect on the exercise of your right to keep and bear arms... But then, that's the whole point of all the various gun control schemes anyways, isn't it?

treo
January 28, 2009, 09:51 PM
Only one gun law is needed and it should read as follows:

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

JohnSmiles
January 28, 2009, 10:30 PM
It is no one elses responsibility to second guess the nature of intentions anyone else.
Unless you have a valid reason NOT to sell ANY gun to a person, that should cover it right there.
You are not your brothers keeper . . . its an old concept.
Crime happens, and crazy people will always exist.
It is not up to me OR YOU to be held responsible for what someone else does.
There should BE no gun laws, other than age requirements.
Just my thoughts.

RedneckFur
January 29, 2009, 01:04 AM
Would I be correct in assuming that you want to take a "moderate, common sense" approach to freedom of speech, religion, press, and the freedom from unlawful search and seisure?

I mean, honestly, wouldn't it make life a little easier for all of us if we regluated these things too? No more insults, controversal books, strange religions. And police could be more effecient if they didnt need warrants.

When you compromise a given right, you start to loose that right. The 2nd amendment right has been eroded by decades of anti gun legislation. "4 laws" like yours would only drive the final few nails in the coffin.

We dont need to "police ourselves to keep the goverment off our back". We just need to keep the goverment off our back. It takes as much effort to write up compromising gun laws as it does to write your congresscritters in washington and tell them you want your rights back.

MD_Willington
January 29, 2009, 01:31 AM
#3

Have you read anything other than the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution:confused:

Read Section #1 of the 14th...

Also there are already laws on the book pertaining to NON-immigrant Aliens...

:barf:

chucksolo69
January 29, 2009, 10:48 AM
As the originator of this thread I am glad it got such a great response. I noticed that the responders to the thread were spread out pretty much all over the country; excellent. Now let me tell you why I posted this thread. As you have almost certainly acertained, I live in the great state of California. But.....much as I love my native state, we who live here are currently in a quasi state of siege, not only from our own home grown bands of gansters, but also from drug cartel violence right across the border from us (San Diego) in Mexico. About a year ago in my home town, a police officer, and friend, was gunned down during a traffic stop while assisting a fellow officer. The perpetrators, gang members, killed this public servant for no reason other than "Kicks." These people used a .22 caliber rifle mounted with a scope and killed the officer from about 100 yards away. The bullet missed his ballistic vest and found its way into his armpit. Dan died before the ambulance could get to him. He left behind a wife and infant son. Now, no one knows how these people got the guns, but, that is really irrelevant because dead is dead. So, let me pose this question to all of you who advocate no form of regulation on weapons. How, if there is no way to regulate, do we keep weapons out of the hands of lawless people? I am a card carrying member of the NRA and always, always defend peoples right to own and carry weapons. Here in California, law abiding citizens are penalized constantly when trying to buy guns. We can only purchase one handgun a month, must have a card certifying that we have passed a test and wait 10 days to pick up the gun. Still after all that, weapons still find their way into the hands of lawless idiots like the ones that killed the fine officer I wrote about. Don't you think that with absolutely no regulation whatsoever, law abiding people would be left to staying behind closed doors in order to be safe? What would you do?

mikejonestkd
January 29, 2009, 11:00 AM
Sorry to hear of the loss of your friend.

Restricting the rights of the law abiding citizens will not have any effect on the activities of the lawless, in fact, it could make the law abiding easier targets for more bold acts by the lawless.

bclark1
January 29, 2009, 11:11 AM
To answer your last question - how to keep guns from lawless people - you can't. They are by definition, lawless. Laws won't regulate their behavior. How do we stop the flow of drugs? We can't. Illegal visitors? We can't. Gray market goods, other contraband? We can't. Many of these are as hard or harder to conceal and transport than guns and ammo. The market will deliver whatever people want, whether it's on the up or under the table. The best you can do is hope that society is prepared to deal with the byproducts of those uncontrollable incidences. Goes back to a quote often attributed to Jefferson: "The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent." You cannot regulate those that do not submit to regulation.

All gun laws are inherently preposterous. It's illegal to kill, batter and assault without strong justification. It is always illegal to steal or vandalize. Why do we need to clutter, complicate and inconvenience most people's lives because we lack the spine to enforce the existing laws?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Gun laws are the ultimate in beauracratic redundancy. Paraphrasing, they say "Hey, let's make it illegal to do something that's already illegal." That'll teach those crooks, they are now exponentially criminal! Certainly, life plus six months is a greater disincentive to violate than just life!

Europe's gun-free zones still have huge violence problems. A desire for gun-control, while scoring "feel-good" points that seem to run the country today, shows a complete lack of understanding on the issues. Very rudimentary logic would suggest that it is unlikely that any benefit will be realized. Prevention in violence is better served by the deterrent of an equal or better equipped nonviolent civilian populus, or perhaps going the other direction and forfeiting a great deal of the liberties that allow people the freedom of motion to contemplate lawbreaking in the first place. The latter is no possibility in the US, but there are plenty of places elsewhere that would respect that desire.

hillbillyshooter
January 29, 2009, 12:44 PM
Stupid post. Actually asking for gun laws. You ask for 4, be prepared to get a little more than 4. In what world does that make any sense for the victim of a robbery to be held accountable for his/her stolen property? What if you fo some reason didn't know your property was stolen (out of town for a few weeks and house broken into)? Guess under your flawed logic and reasoning, that person has to go to jail for not being home. No thanks, I'll pass on your 4 laws if I can.

Edit: Bolded comment insults the OP and normally would be deleted and a warning given. - Antipitas

dburkhead
January 29, 2009, 12:49 PM
Purchasing, owning, possessing a firearm is a birthright for citizens here.

Says who? The Constitution doesn't say that. It says "the right of the people," not "the right of Citizens."

And, as I have mentioned uptopic, which other rights are you willing to restrict to non-citizens who are legally visiting the United States (short or long term)? Does the fifth go away? How about the 4th? The 1st? The eighth? The 3rd? Which?

Dustin0
January 29, 2009, 12:51 PM
What about opening NICS to the public so you dont need to have a dealer do the tranfer?

chucksolo69
January 29, 2009, 01:27 PM
Hillbilly Shooter, "Stupid Post" is a matter of opinion. Let's keep from being insulting and give pertinent opinions. Also you might want to read the entire thread before posting.

Edit: This entire post is a response to a perceived insult, and it therefore itself subject to being deleted. - Antipitas

chucksolo69
January 29, 2009, 01:35 PM
Burkhead, anyone living close to any International Border is going to disagree with you. While I praise people who come here and live and work legally, pay taxes and embrace our society, I still think that ONLY citizens should have the right to own a firearm. When you have a flood of people coming across the borders, I think it would be prudent to prove citizenship before you can buy a gun. What is so heinous about that? Think about it, we are one of the very, very few countries in the world that don't patrol their borders with troops. We can't let all those illegals have guns. Green cards are too easy to fake to make that a reliable check for legal status.

Al Norris
January 29, 2009, 01:41 PM
Let's keep from being insulting and give pertinent opinions.
Something to which, if reported (this button -->http://thefiringline.com/forums/images/buttons/report.gif) us mods would deal with, instead of having to also deal with your post (or anyone else's), because you responded to it.

Yet it's also hard to post further "pertinent opinions" on a subject that myself and several others have made, that you refuse to rebut.

All in all, I'm leaving the posts, but marked up to illustrate what was wrong.

Note to members: Let's keep the insults out of discussions and if you find something like that, report it, don't respond to it. It may take a little time to get to it, but we do get to it.

chucksolo69
January 29, 2009, 02:16 PM
No, I am not refusing to rebut. What I am basically doing is watching the thread to see what the responses are. So far, based upon geographical location, the responses have been universally hostile. It's interesting to note that responses that say the only law needed is the second amendment come from relatively low urban crime areas; or so it seems. You know, basically I also agree that gun control laws do nothing especially since trying to control an inanimate object is ridiculous. I posted this thread basically because here in California, there is absolutely no way that we are going to reform our highly restrictive gun control laws without some kind of major compromise. The issues we have with gang violence and the violence in the inner cities in general will keep the Liberals who control our state government from accepting any type of logical reform. I and most pro gun Californians would love to get suggestions we could use.

dburkhead
January 29, 2009, 02:22 PM
Burkhead, anyone living close to any International Border is going to disagree with you. While I praise people who come here and live and work legally, pay taxes and embrace our society, I still think that ONLY citizens should have the right to own a firearm. When you have a flood of people coming across the borders, I think it would be prudent to prove citizenship before you can buy a gun. What is so heinous about that? Think about it, we are one of the very, very few countries in the world that don't patrol their borders with troops. We can't let all those illegals have guns. Green cards are too easy to fake to make that a reliable check for legal status

You mean that people who live near an international border are incapable of differentiating between people in the US legally and others?

"We can't let all those illegals have guns." This may come as a shock to you but it's already illegal for non-immigrant aliens (which would, by definition) exclude illegals to purchase guns in the US. All that your citing illegals having guns proves is that that kind of prohibition doesn't work.

And if a green card is too easy to fake, so is "proof" of citizenship. You don't even have to create a new ID, just steal one. And wouldn't it be wonderful to be the person whose ID was stolen to buy a gun then have that gun used in a crime and guess who they come after from your #2?

dburkhead
January 29, 2009, 02:28 PM
I posted this thread basically because here in California, there is absolutely no way that we are going to reform our highly restrictive gun control laws without some kind of major compromise.

Now that's a bit of a different question. There's a difference between what I think should be and what I think is politically achievable.

However, I do think that "compromise" which amounts to cut off your right arm because they're asking for right and left. And then when they come back and ask for left arm and right leg, cut off the left arm. And when they come back and ask for both legs, cut off the right, is a bad idea no matter how politically achievable. It's that kind of "compromise" the anti-rights folk have been offering.

Instead of compromise, think of the same way the anti-rights folks stole the rights in the first place--small, achievable steps. Don't try to get everything all at once. Instead, find some small bit that's amenable to change and get it changed in the pro-rights direction. Then reentrench at the new position and look for the next small bit. And so on and so on. That's how we've lost our rights over the last 74 years (counting from NFA--although it could be argued that it started long before that). It's the same kind of approach that can be taken to win them back.

chucksolo69
January 29, 2009, 03:18 PM
Advocating strong penalties for use of a firearm in the comission of a crime is an excellent idea, however, isn't this kind of ex post facto. It is kind of like calling the police after the crime is commited, right. The police can't protect you.....so on and so forth. What I want to know is how the people posting here and advocating absolutely no restricton on gun sales or ownership to anyone, would keep the criminal element from obtaining weapons; I am understanding right, there should be absolutely no restrictions on anyone posessing or purchasing firearms regardless of criminal past; correct? So far only one person who posted addressed that question with a "You can't" comment. Is there no thought as to "prevention" of violent gun crime by criminals to begin with? See, this comes full circle. Many of you are going to come back and say, "Criminals don't obey laws so, gun control only affects law abiding citizens." How then, as law abiding citizens do we take responsibility for our gun ownership so that guns don't fall into the hands of criminals. I doubt that most of you keep ALL your guns in a safe. You must keep one or two out for defensive purposes, right? So if one of those guns falls into the hands of a criminal through theft, isn't it your responsibility since you failed to keep that gun secure? See where I am going with this. None of you have addressed what our responsibilities are as gun owners. Should there be penalties for being an irresponsible gun owner? Do we just shrug our shoulders and say, "Crap happens."

bclark1
January 29, 2009, 03:31 PM
The flaw of the above reasoning is you are assuming a closed system. That's not the case. You can ban gun sales 100%, today, and crime using guns would persist. They would come from Mexico and the Carribean, they would be stolen from legal owners, police and military, they would come from somewhere. And if you dried them up around the world, people would use more shanks and clubs. Where there's a will, there's a way - and that rings especially true with those bent on thwarting the law.

We can't prevent violence. We've known that since Cain wasted Abel. "Gun violence" is in no way markedly different from any other violence, but for the irrational emotionalism attached to it by people who don't think the issue through. The real question is: How do we minimize the consequences of the lawless' violent intentions? Guns only come into the calculus as a peripheral technological equalizer - they are not a focal point of the discourse on violence itself.

dburkhead
January 29, 2009, 03:34 PM
What I want to know is how the people posting here and advocating absolutely no restricton on gun sales or ownership to anyone, would keep the criminal element from obtaining weapons;

That's like asking how to keep the sun from rising in the morning, or the ground from getting wet after a rain. You can't. The one thing that 74 plus years of gun control has taught is that gun control, for the claimed purpose of keeping guns away from criminals does not work. I mean, people make guns from scratch using hand tools and primitive power tools. All the efforts of the DEA, the Coast Guard, and various local authorities aren't able to stem the tide of illegal drugs. How can they possibly stem the tide of "illegal guns"?

You can't keep criminals from obtaining guns if they want them. I mean, look at Mumbai. India has all the gun control Sarah Brady could want and still a handful of individuals were able to obtain fully automatic weapons and spread fear and chaos in their wake.

Gun control doesn't work, at least not for its stated purpose. And, furthermore, the folk in office proposing and passing these gun control bills know this. And when the stated purpose doesn't work, one has to wonder what unstated purpose drives the continued efforts to pass more and more gun control.

chucksolo69
January 29, 2009, 03:56 PM
OK agreed. So anyone and everyone should be able to procure handguns, etc., correct?

Al Norris
January 29, 2009, 04:10 PM
Chuck, by your own admission, you started the thread under false pretenses. Added to that, you don't appear to want to engage in meaningful discourse with those that have actually pointed out the flaws in your "4 laws." You've had ample time to do so, yet you still insist upon "watching the thread to see what the responses are."

That sir is nothing more than stirring the pot.

Thread closed.