Acceptable Gun Laws

[Dingoboyx]

Only tend to work on Law abiding citizens.... strangely criminals dont often obey laws

All gun laws are restrictive to the GOOD folks who shoot..... it is unfortunate that the criminal element will ALWAYS be able to get guns of all types

The tighter the gun laws the more expensive they will be on the black market, so the more stuff criminals will have to steal to afford to buy a gun??

We have very, VERY (overly?) strict gun laws in OZ, but there is gun crime nearly every day. Unfortunately, we the licenced shooters always cop the kicking and so it goes on.....

No body knows the answer, the politicians just have to do what they can to win votes

Muzza

[PoorSoulInJersey]

Since we're talking ideals a little here... I always thought gun laws should pretty much be like your driver's license.

You turn the right age, learn a few laws, and go get your paperwork filled out. Every few years, you get a new picture and pay your $20 to renew it. This repeats UNLESS you do something highly stupid (like get in a drunk driving accident or go on a shooting spree) that gets it taken away.

I think people must know the laws regarding firearms (like what "self defense" and "brandishing a weapon" are), which is the only reason I think it should be licensed at all. Like driving, though, it should not be a hard test to pass or be restrictive at all. So many people have them that it acts as a common form of ID and you're surprised when someone doesn't have one.

If you want to run background checks, do it when someone gets the license and when they renew it, not every time they buy a gun. It's really ridiculous. If I buy a gun a month for 12 months, you don't need to background check me each time. Do I have a license? If so, then I didn't break any laws that would get it taken away.

Like driving, getting caught with a gun without a license means you're really screwed.

Unlike driving/cars, I don't think guns require insurance and registration.

Most states (seem to) assume drivers know what they are doing and will follow the rules until they mess up. I think firearms laws should make the same assumptions.

Most laws that cover firearm usage already exist. It's illegal to kill or injure or strike someone unless they are an immediate threat to you. It's illegal to threaten someone, to damage property, and to overthrow the government. They don't need to add "with a gun" to every law out there.

Ammunition laws? Give me a break. We need that about as much as we need gasoline laws. Maybe, outside chance, maybe, I'd go along with a regulation of quality, but I think the economic market takes care of the really low quality stuff on its own.

Carry laws? As long as you aren't killing, threatening, or damaging anything (i.e., breaking any other laws), there shouldn't be any problem with carrying. Personally, I'd be more likely to allow anyone to concealed carry and license open carry (I live near a major city, though, where open carry pretty much guarantees a cop will be having a little talk with you while you are covered with multiple weapons, perhaps after you are bleeding and laying in the ambulance). Along those lines, I'd require LEOs to have one of those open carry permits. I'm not saying you'd have to be an LEO to get one, just that the same rules apply to everyone. For the most part, I think if you are allowed to own it, you should be allowed to carry it. ANYWHERE. I do think there should be limits on carrying while drunk or stoned (for the same reasons you shouldn't drive in that condition, your judgement and reflexes are impaired).

Machine guns? Just like above, if you can afford one and haven't been any threat to anyone, why not? I'd bet you can do a lot more damage with an SUV if you really tried than you could with a machine gun.

A comparison to speed limits.... OK, no bullets faster than the speed of light. That seems to be covered under the laws of physics already, so no need for the government to repeat it.

For larger hardware, like missiles, bombs, cannons... I think they are in the category as tractor trailers and airplanes that do require a little more control and licensing.... not saying that it's not possible, though.

Should you be required to report one stolen? Yeah, I think so. But I don't think it has to be within the first 20 minutes or else it becomes a felony or something stupid like that.

Should you be required to keep them locked up in an unusable condition with kids in the house? No, I just think there should be a little common sense applied on the part of the owner (see above for "assume people know what they're doing").

Pretty much, I want laws that set the rules in general (no killing, stealing, etc), and leave out the part about how you do those things.

[Shane Tuttle]

Originally Posted by scorpion_tyr

I'm pretty satisfied with the gun laws in Texas... can't think of any that I don't like.

The only thing I don't like regards to the CCW law is the fees. It's been a while since I last looked, but I think it was in the ballpark of $150. I think that's a bit steep. Other than that, I like Texas' gun laws. for the most part...

[Bud Helms]

I'd say this one belongs in L&CR.

Moving now.

[MedicineBow]

An armed society is a polite society.

There's a longer saying:

Anyone who says an armed society is a polite society has never been to Afghanistan.

[Shane Tuttle]

Anyone who says an armed society is a polite society has never been to Afghanistan.

Completely different set of rules of engagement, too...

[MedicineBow]

Completely different set of rules of engagement, too...

Well, that's true, now. Though our saying came from before there was any of that sort of "engaging" going on.

[gbran]

I could think of lots of common sense gun laws;

No shooting jack rabbits from the 3 o'clock steetcar.
No discharge of firearms in city limits.
No firing up in the air.

I could go on and on, but, ya'all get the drift.

[Shane Tuttle]

I could think of lots of common sense gun laws;
No shooting jack rabbits from the 3 o'clock steetcar.
No discharge of firearms in city limits.
No firing up in the air.
I could go on and on, but, ya'all get the drift.

I can understand your intent of keeping it simple. But attorneys would have a field day if it were so.

No discharge in city limits? What happens to you when you fire your gun to defend yourself inside of city limits?

[maze.rodent]

hmm... i thing that you should have to go through hell to get any given gun, but once you have it, no further questions asked. longarms permit. handguns permit. sbr-sbs permit. MG permit. all available at age 16 (exept the last one). for instance: you get SBS permit, you can build a sawed-off and do whatever the [redacted] you want to do with it- no freakin' $200 tax. no assault weapons ban. concealed weapons permits avalible. no allotments for paranoid states like CA to make stricter laws.



not to spark a political debate, but i don't agree with either political party's gun views. in this case, as i see it, the difference between the DEM and GOP is the difference between [redacted] with mustard, and [redacted] with ketchup. you don't want to take either, so ya might as well pick your favorite flavor.

[Al Norris]

Welcome to the Firing Line, maze.rodent.

In case you missed it, we are a family oreiented board. The language filters are in place for a reason. Skirting them, however inventive the means, is against the rules you agreed to abide by, when you signed up. This one in particular:

2) Language that would be inappropriate in the polite company of strangers is quite unwelcome here.

[Venom1956]

Im not trying to pick a fight but wanted to reply to my comment of "An armed society is a polite society."

(noun) society - an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization

I would argue that Afghanistan has neither a distinctive cultural or economic organization. Right now they have so many different factions all struggling for power over that country it definitely lacks any form of society. No offense to anyone please here or about Afghanistan, I didn't say the couldn't just from my point of view that right now they don't have it. I'll be honest due to a back injury I cannot serve and I have not been to Afghanistan.

[OuTcAsT]

I prefer the simple approach.

Rule#1, (see amendment 2 of the COTUS)

Rule #2, (not applicable due to Rule#1)


Any questions?

[maze.rodent]

sorry, sorry. will remember in the future, thank you for the reminder. no ofence was intended, but, as i now see, it did come off that way.

once again, i apologize (profusely)

[ltdave]

What, if any, gun laws do you support?

only one:


Code of Ordinances & Gun Law

Sec. 34-1 Heads of households to maintain firearms.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the City, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the City limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability, which would prohibit them from using such a firearm.

Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Kennesaw, Georgia

[SOneThreeCoupe]

I support utilizing existing laws against brandishing, assault with a deadly weapon, and murder to prosecute for gun crimes.

Other than that, I have no problem with Wal-Mart carrying M249s for the general consumption and people open carrying suppressed pistols on the street in front of a K-12.

[44 AMP]

Because guns empower individuals, for both good and evil. And different ruling groups (including elected officials) prefer their subjects to be dependent on them and do not wish them to be empowered as individuals or as groups.

We have had laws holding that murder and assault were crimes long before there were any guns.

Gun control laws are all about control. Control of you, as an individual, in what property you may own, and who's permission you need to own it.

Gun contol laws are about prior restraint of your exercise of your civil rights. And I'm not talking just about our right to keep and bear arms, I'm talking about that wonderful right to own property, expressed with the term "pursuit of happiness".

Nobody is arguing against the kinds of laws that say you can't shoot people for fun and profit. But laws that say you need govt permission to own a gun, and it can't be too small, or too big, and it can't look a certain way, or be able to be shot fast, or hold too many bullets, etc., because you might decide to shoot people for fun and profit are, to me, morally wrong.

Every other political system on earth (save those directly modeled on ours, and even some of them) places a higher value on the state than on the individual. Individuals are only of worth as they serve the state. There are many varying degrees of this concept, and often the "state" is is described using the words "the people" or "the greater good", or "society", etc. But the basic underlying principles are the same.

Only in the USA was there created a system of government where the people (the great unwashed masses) were deemed intelligent enough, responsible enough, "good" enough to be allowed to rule themselves.

Our revolutionary forefathers took that power away from the established order, at gunpoint. And the system they created has endured, and even improved itself, correcting most of the injustices built into the system, over time, because of the enlightened self interest of the American people.

The idea of gun control laws is that we, the people who rule ourselves, through our elected government, are not fit to rule ourselves!

Gun control laws are about the fact that we are not willing to pay the price for ruling ourselves. It is about the belief that we are all uncontrolable children, until we prove our trustworthiness to the govt. And govt standards of what constitutes such proof are arbitrary, and subject to change.

Gun control laws are about the concept that there are bad things, ignoring the reality that there are not. There are only bad people who use things.

Gun control laws are about the idea that you, as a free citizen should only be allowed to own those things the govt deems that you need.

Gun control laws are about the belief that we are more subject than citizen. They are a slap in the face to honest people.
And they are, at absolute best, a minor inconvienience to criminals. At worst, they create a "safe work environment" for those who's intent is to harm others.

I can go on...and after some feedback, likely will.

[pax]

44AMP ~

That post rocked.

pax

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Ok, this one is too tempting so here I go BTW, quite an endorsement from pax, I'm jealous

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Gun control laws are all about control.

Right. What's always so bad about control? I am glad that we have speed limits and traffic laws. I am also glad that those nasty food processing plants (and I have been in them working ugh!) are inspected and subject to closure if they don't keep the place clean (same with restaurants). I am glad that raving lunatics can't buy a gun in a gun store and I am glad prior felons are not allowed to even possess them.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I'm talking about that wonderful right to own property, expressed with the term "pursuit of happiness".

You know that is the DOI not the COTUS. Very different documents and the pursuit of happiness is not a right the COTUS protects.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

There are many varying degrees of this concept, and often the "state" is is described using the words "the people" or "the greater good", or "society", etc. But the basic underlying principles are the same.

There once was this dude named Hobbes who said that without government and laws man led a "short brutish life". So, we cede some of our personal "liberty" to pragmatically bring about order and ultimately our own self-protection.

In real life that means if your neighbor steals from you; rather than shoot it out with him and possibly kill many others in the process, you have a legal and legitimate means of pursuing redress. Police, Courts and law.

That is control but I kind of like it. We do rule ourselves but not based on what we want individually but rather through a government we elect. However, I am not an anarchist and some of your posts kind of sound like some of them.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Gun control laws are about the belief that we are more subject than citizen.

To paraphrase another fellow whose name I can't remember; "we are a nation of laws not men". We are subject to the government WE elect. If we don't like that government then we should vote them out. We get the government we deserve and the laws we allow.

Don't like gun control? Talk with your vote and that other amendment that really keeps us free; the first.

[Webleymkv]

I look at it this way: Everyone should have the right to do whatever they wish so long as what they do does not harm or infringe upon the rights of someone else. That being said, laws prohibiting certain uses of guns such as prohibiting shooting in a particular area are generally OK because they directly protect the well being of someone else. Likewise, laws prohibiting ownership of guns by people convicted of certain crimes and those diagnosed with certain mental disorders are permissable as well as the government is able to show a legitimate public safety need to enact such laws. However, the number and type of guns that I choose to own as well as how, when and where I choose to carry them has, for the most part, no impact on the safety or rights of anyone else and as such I don't believe that the government has the right to regulate any of these aspects.

[44 AMP]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Gun control laws are all about control.

Right. What's always so bad about control?

Nothing, in principle, the devil is in the details. It is a personal matter, where you draw the line, between "reasonable control" and tyranny. We have laws about shooting people for fun and profit. We have laws about persons we consider unfit (a danger to themselves and/or society) to own and use guns. We have game laws, to enhance and preserve the sport.

All these are reasonable to me, in general. One can make a valid argument about who should be a prohibited person, and for how long, as it wasn't until 1968 that it became Federal law spelling it out. These laws, while generally good, have been taken to extremes in the years since, and not always to every one's benefit.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
I'm talking about that wonderful right to own property, expressed with the term "pursuit of happiness".

You know that is the DOI not the COTUS. Very different documents and the pursuit of happiness is not a right the COTUS protects.

Yes, I do know where the phrase is found. One of those pesky unalienable things, like life and liberty. And while not specifically spelled out in COTUS or the BOR, they are covered. Look at the 10th Amendment.

Hobbes said our lives are "nasty, brutish and short". And this is the philosophy I was referring to, in part. The elitist view that we must have control imposed upon us, for our own good, along with the (usually) unspoken thought that we are not capable of doing it for ourselves.

This is the great experiment that is the United States. That we, the people choose our laws and our administrators.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Gun control laws are about the belief that we are more subject than citizen.

To paraphrase another fellow whose name I can't remember; "we are a nation of laws not men". We are subject to the government WE elect. If we don't like that government then we should vote them out. We get the government we deserve and the laws we allow.

"we are a nation of laws..." We hold that no individuals are above the law, that the laws apply equally to all, with no special priveledged class. I agree completely with the principle. I disagree with how well this has been working out in practice, especially lately, but such is the nature of mankind. The best we can do is hold a high ideal, and strive to achieve it, fail though we may in individual cases.

Too true that we get the government we deserve, and the laws we allow. The problem is that we have gotten used to allowing more and more, and as a people, being involved less and less in the decision making process.

If I sound somewhat like an anarchist, it might be because anarchists base their beliefs on personal freedom and liberty. The difference is in the degree, and the fervor one has for expressing it. Make no mistake, I believe in a society living within a framework of laws, with all individuals responsible for compliance within those laws. What I do not believe in is laws that do nothing but turn the pillars of society into the bars of a cage.

We already have way too many of those, and we don't need any more.

I realize that one can come up with extreme arguments, on both sides. All the way from owning nukes to dial 911 and die! and back. No need to repeat those here, is there?

Gun control laws punish the innocent more than the guilty, as far as I can see. Why do that?

[freakintoguns]

gun control laws made it such that incidents that have occured in the past 20 years or so in the US should not have occured, but still did. so gun control laws are 100% useless. criminals are going to commit crimes. THEY DO NOT GIVE A DANG ABOUT LAWS! thats why we call them criminals. gun alws only affect honest citizens, much like alchol and tabacco laws. kids still drink and smoke, people still drive drunk, and people still drink themselves to death. like 44, i could go on and on about useless laws in this great country, but i wont.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Webleymkv

Everyone should have the right to do whatever they wish so long as what they do does not harm or infringe upon the rights of someone else.

Spoken like a true Libertarian. However, as 44 AMP mentioned earlier the devil IS in the details. Lots of arguments can be made about what infringes on the rights of others.

Not related to guns but I remember a debate once about those who rode motorcycles and refused to wear helmets. They crashed, sustained head injuries and became wards of the state (you and me paying taxes) since they had no insurance. So, I guess their decision had an effect on me and I sure don't like it either.

Today, unlike a hundred years ago there is a lot more interconnectivity between us at least as far as our obligations to Caesar. Again, those devilish details, made each law they pass subject to that debate.

You may not care if your neighbor has a rocket launcher and stores C-4 in his basement but I care and don't want him near my house and I don't think his perceived right to have them overrides my right to be safe.

[RDak]

No guns for violent felons or those who are insane.

[USAFNoDak]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
I'm talking about that wonderful right to own property, expressed with the term "pursuit of happiness".

Tennesse Gentleman responded:

The DOI states that man is born with certain inalienable rights, which are endowed by his creator. Among those rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Men form governments to secure those rights. (That's not the exact wording but close enough for this discussion).

The Bill of Rights, in the COTUS, was written to protect those very rights, which were mentioned in the DOI, from government encroachment, and from encroachment by the majority who may try to vote for laws which would violate those rights. It is the government's job to secure those rights, and not just the rights which are enumerated in the BOR. That is what the 10th Amendment in the BOR is all about. So, the pursuit of happiness, while not specifically spelled out in the BOR, is still a right which the COTUS protects. How can you not be aware of that?

Also, Tennessee Gentleman writes:

To paraphrase another fellow whose name I can't remember; "we are a nation of laws not men". We are subject to the government WE elect. If we don't like that government then we should vote them out. We get the government we deserve and the laws we allow.

I agree with you in this regard, TG, to a certain point. We are a nation of laws, not of men. We are subject to the government WE elect. However, no matter what type of government we elect, or whom we elect to it, that government and the elected officials have been given clear instructions that they are not to violate our civil rights. Those instructions come from the DOI and the BOR in the COTUS. The majority vote is never supposed to violate the rights of the minority. The USSC is supposed to be the body of government which rules against certain laws which the government we elect may very well pass, even though such laws would violate our natural rights.

We, as a people, and a nation, have neglected to teach the true meaning of the DOI, the Constitution, and why we have 3 branches of government. This is why we are failing to secure our own rights. The plan was laid out, but we have lost our fervor for sticking to that plan in the name of self indulgence. In other words: "The heck with other peoples rights. I want my handouts from the government. I want the government to provide for me so I don't have to struggle as much. I want my life to be easy and I want someone else to see to it that it is." That is the attitude we've taken and it is causing "infringement" on our natural, god-given rights.