The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 20, 2012, 05:34 PM   #26
Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 3,710
Driving a car on public roads is not an inalienable right bestowed upon us by our creator not to be infringed by our government. Defending oneself with the use of a firearm is, as stated in the U.S. Constitution.

So, NO, I would not agree to national restrictions on firearm ownership through the guise of a national training requirement for ownership. I will not agree to any further erosion of my rights, in fact I demand the ones already taken be returned to me.
__________________
Pilot
Pilot is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 05:40 PM   #27
BikeNGun1974
Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2012
Location: Valley Forge, PA
Posts: 80
Gun laws I would like to see passed:
- National Constitutional carry
- repeal NFA


Not much else.
__________________
-Tom
BikeNGun1974 is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 05:49 PM   #28
ronl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Posts: 794
We have more than enough "sensible" gun laws.
ronl is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 06:00 PM   #29
Gerry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 382
There is no correlation between Brady rankings and homicides caused by firearms. The Brady ranking is a point system introduced by the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" to measure the strength of state gun laws using a variety of criteria: http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategu...scriptions?s=1

Here we see that the strength of gun legislation does not seem to influence the rate of gun murders within the United States, yet we see a strong relationship between poverty levels and homicides: http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/20/i...-conversation/

Legislation should not be based on placating an emotional public at an opportune time to win votes, but instead on sound science. According to all the science and sociological data available to us at this time, reducing income disparity and improving conditions for the poorest of Americans would strongly affect the rate of gun violence. Strengthening gun laws, even the "sensible" ones it seems, will not.
Gerry is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 07:21 PM   #30
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Before the GCA 1968, this kind of stuff did not happen...The worst school mass killing was in 1927,,,and it was by a BOMB not a shooting...I challange you to find a school shooting prior to the GCA1968? If you find one, tells us all about it OK?
That's a bit broad, I can think of one without even looking...Charles Whitman at the University of Texas 1966. I'd imagine there are others. "This kind of stuff", spree/mass killing, most certainly happened before 1968 and will continue to happen, regardless of the method used.
sigcurious is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 07:36 PM   #31
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
I am old (over 65) and I will state, I do not remember anthing like this prior to teh GCA68..I looked up your Whitman guy, yep, that was pre GCA68, However, I was Out-of-country at the time that happened. BTW: the University of TX is a "weapons free zone" bet if you check, it was back then too.

GCA68 would not have prevented Whitman, and did not prevent Newtown, CT..even the CT AWB and mag limits did not prevent Newtown.

Ok, other than Whitman...let's hear about tehm
hermannr is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 07:42 PM   #32
mayosligo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
No. Nothing would change incidents of mass shootings.
mayosligo is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 07:47 PM   #33
Crankgrinder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 794
I do not care about extended mags for pistols holding 30+ rounds or 100rd mags for ARs, to me theyre more of a novelty item. If the gun came from the factory with 15 or 17 then thats the limit it ought to be. ARs were made in the first place to accept 20 rd mags. 30 rounders came as a request from troops trying to keep up with the nva and the vc back in nam so i dont know about those. I am not okay with being forced to use reduced capacity mags at a limit that they get to set.
Crankgrinder is online now  
Old December 20, 2012, 07:55 PM   #34
Warrior1256
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2012
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 156
The antis have shown time and again that they will be satisifed with NOTHING short of a total ban on civilian gun ownership.

Feinstein said so herself stating that if she could have gotten 51 votes in the senate she would have outlawed guns for civilian use.

We have to hang tough, conceding nothing and fighting any attempt to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights.

Everytime that we give in it simply emboldens the antis and they come back with more demands.
Warrior1256 is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 08:01 PM   #35
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
Except for her of course.
hermannr is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 09:50 PM   #36
Romeo 33 Delta
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2009
Posts: 315
I'm 68 now and have been a gun owner for 58 of those years. I'm also an Infantry combat vet.

1. I will have NO ONE tell me that I cannot sell my private property without involving a third party ... license holder.

2. I don't need ANY firearms course. I know I'm smarter than an area Chief of Police (now a State Liason for Gun Safety Deptartment head or some such BS) who shot himself in the hand while cleaning his personal weapon at home.

3. If a gun show promoter wants to ban non-dealer sales, FINE ... it's his venue!

4. If the government wants to ban non-dealer sales, NO.

5. We have enough GUN laws already. We need a means of identifying and then denying firearms to mentally unstable individuals. What we have works fairly well; let's see if we can improve the data base.

That comment about some people wanting to buy below the radar and those people being the ones who should probably be watched was a snotty swipe at best. I have bought from dealers and non-dealers. I personally don't care about "paper". But I know some upstanding folks who do and that's their priviledge.

That's my 2 cents. I know I'm a hard case on gun rights and I'm not by nature inclined to compromise just to appear to be reasonable. If compromise is so important, I demand that the gun grabbers do the compromising ... otherwise, leave the table and don't come back until you have something to offer ME!
Romeo 33 Delta is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 10:25 PM   #37
Magnum Mike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2007
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 334
Special training! Heck no. I feel I shouldnt have had to pay for a course and then throw the state another $100 for a permit now!
You got to be kidding right! The anti's would make the course so hard and expensive that only the politicians could own guns!!
NO NO & NO!
Magnum Mike is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 10:51 PM   #38
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 2,002
OK, let's see some common-sense, reasonable rules for gun control come from the other side, such as :

Concealed-carry permits be valid across all state lines, in order to prevent crimes on interstate travelers.
A NICS check be performed on all private sales at gun shows, or by a local sheriff on request. No FFL is needed for private transfers.
Require locked storage in a cabinet or safe of all unloaded firearms in the home. Your self- or home-defense piece is exempt.

That's all the gun control I've give you. Now, let's see some common-sense, reasonable proposals for dealing with the mentally ill, criminals, and those on psychoactive drugs, in order to prevent mass shootings.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 11:15 PM   #39
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 524
I think we need to look at this as a negotiation, which it is. What will you give, to get something in return?

I would put FFL NICS checks for private sales/transfers on the table. In return, I would expect something "reasonable", like more protection for travelers passing through ANY state, like getting diverted/stuck in NYC airport.
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 11:19 PM   #40
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerry
There is no correlation between Brady rankings and homicides caused by firearms.
Don't fall into the terminology trap. You have two serious errors in that one simple sentence.

First, the firearms don't "cause" homicides. The firearm may be the tool, just as an axe or a hammer or a knife or an automobile may be the tool, but the firearms are not the cause. The cause is the person who aims the firearm and pulls the trigger.

Second, don't allow "them" to inflate their statistics. "Homicide" means the killing of a human being. Statistics on "homicides" with firearms include all homicides using firearms. In addition to "murders," this also includes suicides, lawful shootings by police officers where the result is the death of the perpetrator, and lawful self defense with a firearm where the result is the death of the perpetrator.

Don't say (or write) "homicide" when/where the concern is "murder."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 11:22 PM   #41
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by hermannr
I am old (over 65) and I will state, I do not remember anthing like this prior to teh GCA68..I looked up your Whitman guy, yep, that was pre GCA68, However, I was Out-of-country at the time that happened. BTW: the University of TX is a "weapons free zone" bet if you check, it was back then too.
I don't think it was then, and if it was they bent the rules into a pretzel. Whitman was initially slowed down and contained by "civilians" pinning him down with privately-owned hunting rifles until the police could muster a coherent response. In those days municipal police departments didn't all have dedicated SWAT teams and highly trained snipers.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 11:42 PM   #42
ferrarif1fan
Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2009
Posts: 64
Killmanjaro,

I want to make one comment about your post. You suggested a NICS check on all sales at gun shows. I'm in agreement. I don't see why that venue is any different from purchasing from an FFL. Same check for the same transaction...sounds fine to me. I also like your other suggestions as well.

But I do want to comment on no checks whatsoever on FTF transactions. When I sell a handgun in my state of Kentucky, I ask to see the buyer's KY drivers license to make sure I can legally sell the gun to them. I also have a bill of sale that has a statement the buyer reads and signs that states that they have assured me they are legally able to purchase the gun. In addition, I write down a driver's license number or their CCW license number on my copy of the bill of sale. I assure them that the document will never see the light of day unless a member of law enforcement knocks on my door asking about a gun that used to belong to me that was used in a crime. I tell them I do these things to do my best to keep guns out of hands that are legally not able to own them. So far, NO ONE I've sold to has found that unreasonable.

I do these things because I am a responsible gun owner who wants to do what I can to make certain my gun does not fall into the hands of someone who, by law, is not supposed to have it. Since I live within a few miles of Tennessee, you don't know how many times I've had people try to talk me into an interstate FTF deal without involving an FFL. I always remind them it's a felony and I do not intend to go to prison or lose my right to own firearms. In EVERY case, the TN resident has been unwilling to comply and has hung up. I've also had women calling me asking me questions about the gun I have for sale with the man whispering questions in the background. I've never sold to any of those persons.

I bring these stories up to illustrate that FTF sales, although many here will say is their right, puts guns into the hands of some people who legally can't, and probably shouldn't own them. I'm sure many will condemn my conditions of sale and say they wouldn't buy from me, but guess what, it's my gun and I'll do as I please with it. And I will do my best to never sell it to someone I think may use it for nefarious purposes.

To sum up, it would be nice if all guns sales would go through the NICS check. Yeah, it would add a few dollars to each transaction. But I have one friend who's an FFL who transfers every gun for $10 and another local FFL who will do it for a "big bag of dog food" (his words exactly), which he then donates to the local animal shelter. If a transfer was required, trust me, those who charged exorbitant fees would find themselves doing no transfers and would soon adjust their fees downward.

I am disappointed by most of what I've read on the few gun forums I frequent regarding solutions to some of the tragedies we've experienced lately. I am in total agreement that gun control won't keep criminals from obtaining and using guns. But I do not agree that just because that statement is true, we should absolve ourselves from trying to provide positive suggestions to help alleviate the problem. To do so seems uncaring, irresponsible, and certainly paints a bad picture of gun right advocates in the public's eyes. And right now, that's exactly what they're wanting to see.

I have guns and I want to keep my guns to be able to protect myself, my family, and those I may be around if the next criminal or lunatic opens fire. But I am also willing to jump through a few more hoops if it might make our society a little safer.

Robert
ferrarif1fan is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 11:48 PM   #43
stevelyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell
Posts: 2,618
Quote:
are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

Nope. With all the gun laws on the books, there's nothing "sensible" left that can be added without encroaching on my rights.

Repeals? Now that would be a step in the right direction.
__________________
Herman Cain '12

Squished bugs on a windshield is proof the slow/heavy bullet theory works.
stevelyn is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 01:42 AM   #44
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?
Yes. Yes there is. I would pass a federal request that each state enable a type of local "civil militia." I use militia loosely because I'm not talking about citizens who are to be called up to fight a war. I'm talking about local and state governments accepting volunteers to pass a thorough background check. Then the state or local LEO agency provides free training. Then the "civil militiaman" has not only the right, but the responsibility to carry a firearm with him at all times. No arrest powers, only the expectation to use force to protect the lives of others. Everyone else will be allowed CCW permits, but whatever restriction the state wants to apply is fine. Local governments and schools will be required to certify or hire a certain percentage of "militiamen" (or women), much like firearm competent affirmative action. These members will be required to attend annual (or semi-annual) training, provided free of charge by the local LEO agency. This is my version of gun control that I want to see.
5whiskey is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 05:01 AM   #45
SVO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2009
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 694
No.

We've tried being reasonable and reasonable didn't work. And I resent those who are willing to surrender the ownership of 30 round magazines as long as they are able to keep their 20 round magazines. If we accept and surrender the 30 round magazines, sooner or later, we will be asked to accept and surrender the 20 round magazines. The goal is not to restrict the number of rounds in a magazine, the goal is to eliminate magazines. The same applies to the other points of "reasonable". Some people are being less than smart in believing reasonable will work.
SVO is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 06:48 AM   #46
Punisher_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 136
This is why firearms owners will be left out of the process. We go from one extreme to the other amongst ourselves. How are we going to convince the law makers of anything? Something with new restrictions is going to be proposed and possibly pass based on popular desires. So if compromise is on the horizon I'd figure out the least restrictive changes. Hopefully like 90 percent of what is proposed in Congress it won't pass. I hope not.
Punisher_1 is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 07:31 AM   #47
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,289
Quote:
OK, let's see some common-sense, reasonable rules for gun control come from the other side, such as :

Concealed-carry permits be valid across all state lines, in order to prevent crimes on interstate travelers.
A NICS check be performed on all private sales at gun shows, or by a local sheriff on request. No FFL is needed for private transfers.
Require locked storage in a cabinet or safe of all unloaded firearms in the home. Your self- or home-defense piece is exempt.

That's all the gun control I've give you. Now, let's see some common-sense, reasonable proposals for dealing with the mentally ill, criminals, and those on psychoactive drugs, in order to prevent mass shootings.
I like those. I'll add:
Minimum 20 extra years for use of a firearm in a crime.
Minimum 20 years for illegally selling a firearm to a criminal.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 08:20 AM   #48
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Minimum 20 extra years for use of a firearm in a crime.
Minimum 20 years for illegally selling a firearm to a criminal.
We need to be careful with blanket regulations like that.

For example, if I'm wrongly accused of shoplifting and happen to be carrying at the time, that could be a real problem for me. What if I sell a gun privately to someone who gives no indication of being a criminal? Do I deserve to spend a significant portion of my life in prison?

It's well-meaning on the surface, but in practice, it has the potential to be very problematic. This is how things like the Lautenberg amendment create so many problems.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 09:16 AM   #49
gaseousclay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 869
Quote:
I am disappointed by most of what I've read on the few gun forums I frequent regarding solutions to some of the tragedies we've experienced lately. I am in total agreement that gun control won't keep criminals from obtaining and using guns. But I do not agree that just because that statement is true, we should absolve ourselves from trying to provide positive suggestions to help alleviate the problem. To do so seems uncaring, irresponsible, and certainly paints a bad picture of gun right advocates in the public's eyes. And right now, that's exactly what they're wanting to see.

I have guns and I want to keep my guns to be able to protect myself, my family, and those I may be around if the next criminal or lunatic opens fire. But I am also willing to jump through a few more hoops if it might make our society a little safer.
well said and I agree with you 100%. I guess I find it a little disappointing that when we gun owners talk about 'sensible' gun laws we either tout apathy or we espouse the idea that jumping through those extra hoops is somehow eroding our gun rights. If you can still get a gun but close those loop holes I think this is a good thing imo
gaseousclay is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 09:44 AM   #50
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,289
Quote:
Quote:
Minimum 20 extra years for use of a firearm in a crime.
Minimum 20 years for illegally selling a firearm to a criminal.

We need to be careful with blanket regulations like that.

For example, if I'm wrongly accused of shoplifting and happen to be carrying at the time, that could be a real problem for me.
***Accused is not convicted. personally I'd be fine with the death penalty for using a fiream in the commission of a crime. If there is the will then anything can be achieved.


Quote:
What if I sell a gun privately to someone who gives no indication of being a criminal? Do I deserve to spend a significant portion of my life in prison?
***If you don't take the proper precautions and break the law, you betcha.

Quote:
It's well-meaning on the surface, but in practice, it has the potential to be very problematic. This is how things like the Lautenberg amendment create so many problems.
Again, if you want to actually stop something, you have to properly punish and reward. You want to drop gun crime significantly, you literally drop the hammer on gun crime.
zincwarrior is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15819 seconds with 7 queries