Do You Support Any Gun Control Laws?

[MLeake]

gaseousclay, laws don't change at gun shows. FFLs conducting sales must use NICS. Private sellers have to follow state laws for private sales.

Many of us are not thrilled with the requirement for NICS, period, because a) prior to 1995 or so, there were no such checks and there is no data to show that subsequent crime rates were significantly affected, and b) the feds have failed to prosecute the vast majority of prohibited persons the system has flagged. So, it has consumed resources and inconvenienced citizens for what, exactly?

But the new legislation would be a case of the feds overriding the states, yet again, as well as a bunch of other offenses against individual liberties. For instance, I would most likely have to use an FFL to transfer a gun to my father in law, who lives one town away in the same state.

The proposed legislation is not acceptable.

[Tucker 1371]

In doing so I believe we are actually protecting 2A. Fewer gun crimes = Fewer attacks on 2A.

I agree, part of it that I feel doesn't get touched on quite enough is the fact that NICS is not getting the background information it needs to be effective. Granted I can see some idiot politicians taking that idea and running wild with it, making things like adderall prescriptions as a child or PTSD an automatic bar to owning firearms.

[Cowboy_mo]

What they want is your medical records to see if you were EVER on any anti depressants or other drugs which MIGHT point to a mental health problem.

HIPA .... prohibits health care professionals from discussing your medical records with anyone UNLESS you give your express written permission. This whole "information expansion " of NICS violates federal law, yet I have heard no mention of amending HIPA to make the new law legal.

It is another case of the government wanting to pick and choose what law they have to abide by.

[Old Grump]

I agree with the above, but i am not going to buy that a knife is more capable of causing multiple casualties than Ak47 in the hands of someone intent on killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

If i had to make a choice i know what i would rather come up against.

Sp a gun will make you deader than getting stabbed in the back? You do know more deaths are cussed by bad drivers, medical mistakes and accidents but most of us only go "Tsk, tsk tsk, aint that just awful." and continue on with our gun campaign anti- or pro-.

A terrorist killed 13 people. injured 50 more and temporarily blinded another thousand or more without a gun on the Tokyo subway. Some Saudi fanatics killed 2,753 people in New York and no guns were used. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 800 more, no guns were used. Like I said, it is not the weapon but the intent of the weapon user. Want to talk about machete's and Africa?

[Romeo 33 Delta]

I will accept nothing more than the current system with ONE enhancement.

I want a MANDATE that states be required to provide data on all ADJUDICATIONS OF MENTAL DEFECT and INVOLUNTARY COMMITTMENTS (equivalent to that which they are now required to do for Felony Convictions and Domestic Abuse/Restraining Orders). It's already on the #4473 as a "prohibited persons" disqualifier and that information is the result of DUE PROCESS. (Oh, and the Feds can pay ALL the costs on this)

ANY other kinds of "mental health records/information" that is NOT the result of Due Process, any other kinds of "Soft Science" mumbo-jumbo as the mental health status of a person (you know, the kind where 6 experts can give you at least 8 different conclusions, unless some change their minds, in which case it can be at least 12 different conclusions), any information with respect to which drugs someone is taking (need I go on, or do you get my drift?) ... NOT EVEN IF HELL FREEZES OVER!

The only new "sensible gun control measures" other this that I will accept is that BATFE be required to investigate and prosecute all instances of INTENTIONAL FALSE INFORMATION provided on a #4473. Judges need to go for the maximum sentences (10 years per lie) with sentences served consecutively.

Unless and until the DOJ and BATFE are willing to show me that they are serious about doing their jobs ... NO MORE STUPID, NEW LAWS THAT CAN'T BE/ WON'T BE ENFORCED.

I harbor no illusions that this will end "rampant gun violence", but I am not willing to go down the "Enemy of the State" route that the Left seems to be pushing. That IS a Bridge Too Far.

I can and do accept that we are stuck with this stupid Brady Bill Background Check. What I can't and won't accept is the "set up to fail" that the present system exists in. Until the missing "mental health" data loop-hole is plugged, the present system's penchant for failure is nothing more than a self-fulfulling prophecy. The NICS Background Check System fails because it was apparently designed to fail. Why? Because it affords the perfect excuse "we have to do more" ... more reasonable gun control (which will also not solve the root problem, thus opening the way for yet another round of gun-grab frenzy).

I'd prefer to just compromise with: Let's just go back to the way it was, pre-Brady. If you can't agree to that, Mr. Lefty, then my next compromise will find us back in 1934. Still want to play?

[Tom Servo]

We had our lowest crime rates in American history before the GCA of 1968

That conflicts with every source I've ever read on the subject. Crime rose steadily from the early 1950's until peaking in the late 1980's. We need to be careful what data we use to make arguments.

For example, I prefer calling it 'expanded background checks' rather than referring current gun proposals as restrictions.

Well, they are restrictions. Why call them anything else?

I don't understand why a lot of you are seemingly ok with an NCIS check when buying a gun from a LGS but somehow buying a gun at a gunshow without a background check is somehow infringing on your 2A rights.

I'm not OK with it. As MLeake pointed out, we have no data whatsoever proving that the Brady Law has done anything to reduce crime or violence. All the NICS system does is generate more paperwork, fund more payroll at the FBI, and often to wrongly delay or deny guns to purchasers.

The whole background-check system is a solution in search of a problem. It's a meddlesome failure of social engineering. Why would anyone want to expand upon it?

Fewer gun crimes = Fewer attacks on 2A.

This is also a problematic argument. If more folks start burning crosses or distributing seditious literature, does that mean my 1st Amendment rights will be in danger? No. They are rights, not privileges. They should not be subject to the whim of social policy.

The anti's won't give an inch if violent crime falls. In fact, they'll take credit (whether it's due or not) and say "hey, our way worked! More bans!"

Some folks are missing the forest for the trees. Any gun-control law that gets passed is another step for them; it is not the end.

[Coyote Blue]

You are agreeing..We had.our.lowest crime.rates.before 1968. Why be careful with the truth!

[Tom Servo]

We had.our.lowest crime.rates.before 1968. Why be careful with the truth!

Because truth is very subjective. Look at the situation in the United States in the 1960's. We were fighting a very unpopular war, racial tensions were simmering over, and we had different ideas on policing and sentencing than we do today.

It is impossible to prove that low crime rates are solely due to gun laws (or the lack thereof).

[4V50 Gary]

Even in the Colonial Period, felons could be disarmed.

The trouble is that the definition of "felon" has changed. In the past, it was things like burglars, arsonists, murderers, rapists, those who commit mayhem, and armed robbers. The definition has been expanded by statute and while some are good, not all restrictions would have been recognized by our founding fathers.

[Coyote Blue]

Tom,look at.post #30.. I mentioned 1960 as the.low level not 1968. This.was before JFK,Nam and the riots. Anyway we are on the same page .Back to.the Jacuzzi!

[gav1230]

I think keeping our current laws would be fine of they were just enforced better, the second ammendment does refer to a "WELL REGULATED militia" after all.

[Tom Servo]

I mentioned 1960 as the.low level not 1968. This.was before JFK,Nam and the riots. Anyway we are on the same page .Back to.the Jacuzzi!

Actually, 1960 wasn't very low, either.

I agree with you that an expansion of gun rights probably does reduce crime, but neither of us can prove it. We must remember that correlation does not equal causation.

However, this jacuzzi you speak of intrigues me. I do have panic attacks requiring the use of wear water wings in more than two feet of water, and I'll need to bring my pet ocelot, but otherwise, it sounds like a blast.

[Coyote Blue]

Ocelots are not allowed in Ocean Drive jacuzzi's! We'll have to find a substitute. Perhaps a small Peke! We can work it out!

[BumbleBug]

Originally Posted by gav1230

...I think keeping our current laws would be fine if they were just enforced better...

Bingo, +1 for me!

I can't help but feel like this push for gun control is part of a giant overall diversion tactic. The federal government & the state of the union is a total disaster!

The house is on fire & they want to fix the drip in the kitchen sink! Just proves divide & conqueror still works on the masses.

...bug

[Hunter Customs]

Felons should not have guns. Period.

I don't agree with the above statement either, however some felons should not have guns, they also should never be turned out in society.


As for the poll I vote no, I guess some will call me a fist pounding 2A supporter.

I believe my reasons for being a staunch 2A supporter stems from the fact that I've seen first hand where compromising the 2A has taken us, along with the fact that in 1968 I took an oath to protect the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign or domestic.

I took that oath seriously and plan to honor it until the day I die.

I don't recall anywhere in that oath any words relating to any compromise of the 2A or the compromise of any part of the constitution.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com

[Skans]

Felons should not have guns. Period.

I disagree with this as well. What's the point in keeping non-violent criminals who have paid their debt fully to society, from having guns? For example, what purpose does it serve to keep a Bernie Madoff type from having a gun? It has nothing to do with protecting society - it's simply government saying "you didn't play by our rules, and now we can keep you forever from protecting yourself".

I'm all about making criminals pay the price for the crimes they commit, even capital punishment for violent crimes less than 1st degree murder. But, once a criminal pays the given price, whatever that price is, then full rights should be automatically restored and the records sealed from non-law enforcement.

You either want someone to be a citizen of your society, locked up or dead. Making someone a "half" or a fractional citizen just doesn't work; it never has.

[Gaerek]

Felons should not have guns. Period.

I'm going to third disagreeing with this statement. A guy I know is considered a felon because he had barely enough marijuana on his person to be considered intent to sell. Thing of it was, the amount (I forget how much) was really just another arbitrary number. If he had a few grams less, it would have been a misdemeanor. The thing of it was, he had been stopped by a police officer for speeding about 10 minutes after he bought it. His theory was to buy in bulk so you don't have to be buying all the time. He bought himself enough to last for several months. He never once sold even a gram of pot, it was all for personal consumption, and that's what was argued in court. But because the amount he had was over the legal definition of intent to sell, that's what he was charged with, regardless of his actual intent.

He's paid his debt to society, but since he has the label "felon" because of something he did almost 20 years ago as a stupid 19 year old, he's "half a citizen."

But even beyond that, part of your punishment for a felony is having your rights restricted/suspended. But once your debt to society has been paid, you should have all your rights restored fully. If you don't want a "dangerous felon" from getting guns, then make sure he stays in prison for life, that way he can't harm anyone anymore.

[JerryM]

I support laws that prohibit mentally incompetent people, convicted felons, and those with criminal records from buying or owning firearms. The fact that some laws are unenforceable 100% does not mean they have no impact. For example, traffic laws are not 100% enforceable, but they do cause most of us to drive slower, etc.

Our society has morally degraded to such an extent that some laws are necessary that were not 50 or more years ago.

Mankind is not capable of enforcing justice or without considering personal gain. That does not mean we go to anachy.

So, Yes, I do support some gun laws.

Jerry

[manta49]

Sp a gun will make you deader than getting stabbed in the back? You do know more deaths are cussed by bad drivers, medical mistakes and accidents but most of us only go "Tsk, tsk tsk, aint that just awful." and continue on with our gun campaign anti- or pro-.

A terrorist killed 13 people. injured 50 more and temporarily blinded another thousand or more without a gun on the Tokyo subway. Some Saudi fanatics killed 2,753 people in New York and no guns were used. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 800 more, no guns were used. Like I said, it is not the weapon but the intent of the weapon user. Want to talk about machete's and Africa?

All of what you said above is true. I don't think there should be any further gun controls in America. And lots of thinks can be used to kill someone its the individual that has the intent to kill that's the problem not the weapon he uses. My point is don't try to convince me that a knife or similar is more efficient at killing than a firearm if that was the case there would not have hundreds of years of firearms devilment. That's why police armies and civilians carry firearms that's why people on this forum carry firearms for self defence and not a knife. PS If that was the case this would be a knife and other form of weapons forum and not a firearms forum.

[MLeake]

manta49, some thoughts:

1. It is easier for most people to do violence with firearms; less training is necessary, and less luck is typically necessary - this is much the same reason why the crossbow supplanted the long bow.

2. In the hands of a skilled person, a knife could be the more effective tool, depending upon intent. (If the intent is to take down a target with minimal noise, for instance.)

3. While this is a gun forum, many of us probably carry knives, too. Some of us are also into martial arts training. It would not surprise me if quite a few TFLers participate in knife and martial arts forums.

[manta49]

3. While this is a gun forum, many of us probably carry knives, too. Some of us are also into martial arts training. It would not surprise me if quite a few TFLers participate in knife and martial arts forums.

OK but if any on this forum had to go into a life threatening situation and could only take one weapon i think most would take a firearm. The knife and martial arts would be backups. If someone was shooting at you twenty yards away a knife or martial arts would have little effect on the outcome. Armies train on using knives and martial arts but the firearm is their primary and most deadly weapon.

[MLeake]

manta49, you're right, if I knew there were life-threatening (and unavoidable) danger, I would go with the firearm.

That said, I have not yet had cause to use a firearm. I have had cause to employ some martial arts skills, on a couple occasions, and I would speculate that in general there are a lot more scenarios that justify the use of such than there are scenarios that justify the use of the firearm.

(Note: one occasion involved immobilizing an aggressor without actually harming him; another involved slipping a punch thrown by an idiot, and making him think really hard about whether he wanted to try again - he decided he did not. Such skills are useful, and lack of such skills might make it difficult for one to successfully draw a weapon if one is attacked.)

I don't want to veer the thread too far, though, so...

The point is, firearms are lethal, of course, and they are easier to learn to use effectively, if not skillfully, than are most other weapon types. BUT I still see the issue as being one of intent, rather than tools, and still believe that the way to deal with the problem is to deal with the bad actors, rather than to villify those who own tools.

[redrick]

The reason a felon shoudn't legal buy a firearm is because they can't follow the rules of a civil society. Their loss of rights should be a deterent for them not to commit a crime. Drug deals cause alot of gun violence and murders.

[Old Grump]

My point is don't try to convince me that a knife or similar is more efficient at killing than a firearm if that was the case there would not have hundreds of years of firearms devilment.

Read my post again and don't be putting words in where there aren't any. I never said guns were not more efficient I said they are not any more deadly than any other weapon and that is a true statement. Dead is dead. You want efficient go IED, fire bomb, gas bomb...

I only make the point that any crime of violence is a crime and using a gun does not make the crime any more heinous. All crimes committed with a weapon are equally heinous and all should be treated equally. Severely and quickly and with long sentences.

By the way some of us are just as deadly with a stick as others are with a knife and at close up and personal distance do not count the man with a knife or a stick as being unarmed just because the other man has a gun.

[mayosligo]

^^^so very true.

There are already too many gun controls. Most make little to no sense so why support nonsense.