|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 21, 2012, 10:37 AM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 26, 2006
Posts: 737
|
What we feel is sensible is not necessarily sensible to the knee-jerk community.
Obama today on YouTube: "This week I called on Congress to take up and pass common-sense legislation that has the support of the majority of American people, including banning the sale of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips and making sure criminals can't take advantage of legal loopholes to get their hands on a gun," he continues. |
December 21, 2012, 11:46 AM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 1,210
|
Quote:
|
|
December 21, 2012, 12:06 PM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Quote:
It is very much the opposite of uncaring and irresponsible. Not only do we care for public safety but also constitutional rights which should not be diminished in the hopes that it will appease the masses until the next inevitable incident, when they will cry for a further diminishing of those rights. However, it is irresponsible to place restrictions on a right based on an understandable but irrational emotional reaction to an incident. If that were the response anytime a right were misused, the bill of rights would be stripped of much of its meaning to and protection of our society. Speech and religion, not only in our country but all over the world and throughout history, have been misused to incite extreme and extended violence. Yet it would be an affront to even suggest placing ever increasing restrictions on either based on incidents of their misuse. Proponents of gun control, such as Feinstein, have explicitly stated that they would like to see all guns regulated away. The unfortunate "logic" of their way of thinking is that, guns are used in crime, crime is bad, therefor guns are bad. If there are no guns there will be less crime. It takes a huge leap to assume that less guns or restricted access to guns, would diminish crime. If we look within our own country and abroad there is simply not evidence that this is true. It might shift the means used, but not the amount of crime itself. It does not, however, take a huge leap to see that once a constitutional right is shackled at the federal level that breaking free of that shackle is a long and arduous process. If the goal is truly public safety and saving lives, then the solutions should actually address those issues and have the potential to do more good than harm to our society. |
|
December 21, 2012, 12:36 PM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
|
Quote:
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT |
|
December 21, 2012, 01:00 PM | #55 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A lot of the power of the defense of this right rests on a coherent statement and application of principle. Once those principles are jettisoned, one enters a land of serial half a loaf compromises with people on interested in leaving you any of that loaf.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||||
December 21, 2012, 01:08 PM | #56 |
Member in memoriam
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
|
I will back any law that rescinds every gun law ever written in the last 237 years and forbids any new gun restriction laws, rules, or regulations.
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster-- |
December 21, 2012, 01:22 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 136
|
Has anyone ever compared the ages of the shooters in these types of crime? Maybe it's time to recognize that maturity may not be linked to 21 years of age. Especially now a days. Maybe assault weapons should be withheld until 30 or something so you may have outgrown immaturity and someone's mental illness will have become evident. Unless you have an honorable discharge of course. Just a thought.
|
December 21, 2012, 01:43 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 1,149
|
I think mandatory background checks on all sales is probably inevitable and while inconvenient I don't think it would be the worst thing.
Does it stop illicit gun sales? Would it have helped in the Lanza case? No, but it would at least be a bigger hurdle to keep felons and crazies away from stuff they shouldn't legally have. I wouldn't oppose the NRA if they took the lead on that one. Mandatory reporting requirements of stolen guns might also be something to look at because "I didn't know my guns were stolen" seems to be a get out of jail free card for straw purchasers but it would have to be written very carefully to not penalize legitimate theft victims. This one could easily head down a slippery slope. If the NRA blows it this time I'll never send them another penny. |
December 21, 2012, 01:46 PM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
December 21, 2012, 01:59 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Quote:
Furthermore who's to decide what age and metal illness is appropriate to restrictions? The attack in Norway which had a much higher number of casualties than any American incident was methodically planned and executed by a 32 year old, who legally obtained the firearms and materials(albeit under false pretenses), used in the attack, in a country that has more restrictions than the US on firearms. An exemption for honorable discharge does not mean "safe" person. Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines, Lee Harvey Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines, which is not a punitive discharge. Like many of the ideas presented as of late these ideas may seem nice on the surface, but they do not pass scrutiny. |
|
December 21, 2012, 02:24 PM | #61 |
Member
Join Date: August 24, 2011
Location: Enjoying snacks by the fo
Posts: 15
|
Regulations I would support:
1)The Sandy Hook, Aurora, Clackamas shooters and the like needed a way to transport themselves and their firearms to their targeted location. There would of been no way they would have been able to walk around in public carrying longarms without attracting attention. So perhaps mental screenings during the process for the Driver's license or State ID might be a viable solution. The 2nd Amendment isn't affected and the anti-gun people share the same pain. 2) Secure storage, where the government adds new jobs by manufacturing US made firearms lockers made to gov/mil standards, at affordable prices for the average joe.
__________________
Victim: A hapless individual who waits for third party intervention and/or gambles their life on what little good remains in the heart of their attacker. |
December 21, 2012, 02:36 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
|
So criminals are going to get background checks when they buy and sell guns?
|
December 21, 2012, 02:42 PM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
Of course you could just let them take your rights, see how well it worked out for the Soviet Union and the Eastern Europe of the 1940's-1980... Nothing like government agents helping you never be heard from again or maybe you get off easy working to death in a Gulag in Siberia. And while were at it why don't we clamp down on our other rights too so we can be extra secure.... I think state run media so we can have filtered news would be great? How about the government telling us what religion to believe or not believe? My point isn't to argue or even answer these questions, but rather point out if you can take one right or severely limit it then why not do the same with the rest of them??? You want a law that works, its called the 2A and its among the highest laws in the land...
__________________
Molon Labe Last edited by BGutzman; December 21, 2012 at 02:55 PM. |
|
December 21, 2012, 02:47 PM | #65 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Sorry, but that's not compromise by any stretch of the word. The topic is always framed so that if any of us disagrees with the gun-grabbers, then we are not only not being reasonable, but we have lost any common sense we may assume we once had. We have long gone past the point of "sensible" gun laws. Something is going to happen and we need to fight tooth and nail against it. Even knowing we will lose on some subjects. That's the sensible thing to do. If we are going to be forced to give anything up, then "compromise" demands that they give up something also. Else it is not compromise. It's just us giving up more of what we have striven so hard to get returned to us. The fact that so many folks on gun boards do not see this, does not give me much hope. |
||
December 21, 2012, 02:55 PM | #66 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Quote:
A single comprehensive mental health screening at the time of obtaining and/or renewing a license would not only be extremely expensive(who's going to pay for it?) but extremely intrusive and time consuming. Not to mention, what about all the people who don't have licenses? If someone is plotting mass murder, suddenly the line is drawn at them stealing an illegally operating a vehicle to get to their target? This idea is about as valid as suggesting periodic mandatory mental health screenings for all people... |
|
December 21, 2012, 02:59 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
I've taken my AR on a county bus. I've worn my pistol on the bus numerous times. Washington as state preemption. As a county department, our local metro cannot and in fact specifically allows on their rules firearms and ammunition.
|
December 21, 2012, 03:52 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 12, 2007
Location: So. Illinois
Posts: 547
|
I'd like to have a regulation that all regulations be regulated in accordance to the Constitution of the U.S.A.
|
December 21, 2012, 06:58 PM | #69 | ||
Member
Join Date: August 24, 2011
Location: Enjoying snacks by the fo
Posts: 15
|
Quote:
Quote:
And yes, I've been to a DMV in CA which was an extremely horrid experience. But if the gun owners have to suffer, I believe the gun control advocates should also feel what it is like to lose their freedoms. (There is no right to drive.)
__________________
Victim: A hapless individual who waits for third party intervention and/or gambles their life on what little good remains in the heart of their attacker. |
||
December 21, 2012, 07:09 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2012
Posts: 506
|
Criminal penalties for legal owners who fail to secure.
|
December 21, 2012, 07:25 PM | #71 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Welcome to The Firing Line, colbad!
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
December 21, 2012, 07:26 PM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
|
There are no sensible gun regulations that I know of that aren't already in place.
Every time one of these tragedies occurs laws are broken. More laws are not the answer. In answer to your question, NO. |
December 21, 2012, 07:32 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2010
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,360
|
NO, I do not support any form of "lenient" or sensible firearm regulations.
If anything, they should retract some of the stupid laws that are already in place like no CCW in certain states, high-cap magazine bans in CA, simplify NFA requirements for suppressors and SBR's, etc. No type of Gun Control is good, at least in my book. Sure there are considerations like being of proper age to own firearms, backgrounds checks, and such. All those are already in place. |
December 21, 2012, 08:50 PM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
Most the quick access safes seem to have a lot of slop in the door and don't seem like they would stop almost anyone with a screwdriver and a little strength. If a BG breaks in my locked house were my weapons not secure until the law was violated? I'm not picking on you, please don't get me wrong there's just a whole lot of things that may or may not work here...
__________________
Molon Labe |
|
December 21, 2012, 09:33 PM | #75 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
|
To sound like an echo. I would support repeal of gun laws now in place, restrictions on ccw or open carry, along with a host of other ridiculous laws passed by congress that have nothing to do with a firearm at all.
I guess i could go along with the restriction of personal tactical nukes though |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|