The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 21, 2012, 10:37 AM   #51
pturner67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2006
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 658
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.
pturner67 is online now  
Old December 21, 2012, 11:46 AM   #52
gaseousclay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 869
Quote:
What we feel is sensible is not necessarily sensible to the knee-jerk community.
define 'we.' not all gun owners are created equal and we all don't agree on the same things. i've seen knee-jerk reactions from both the pro-gun community and anti-gun community. the moment you say, 'keep your hands off my guns,' is the moment when everyone stops listening and we get nowhere. i'm not agreeing with an assault weapons ban per se, but I don't think it should be made easily available to just anyone. I have no problem jumping through a few extra hoops to acquire a gun - I have nothing to hide.
gaseousclay is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 12:06 PM   #53
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
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.
That is a logical non sequitur. You state that you do not believe that gun control will stop criminals from obtaining and using guns, but that the solution to criminals obtaining and using guns is gun control. The issue is that positive suggestions should not be in the realm of gun control, because gun control is just the red herring in this case. The real issue of violent crime in general and spree violence is multi-faceted and far reaching between various aspects of society and human nature.

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.
sigcurious is online now  
Old December 21, 2012, 12:36 PM   #54
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 370
Quote:
But I am also willing to jump through a few more hoops if it might make our society a little safer.
But you already acknowledged that more gun regulations will not make society safer. Rather than compromise away more rights, why not counter those "sensible but ineffective" proposals with something that could make us (or our children) safer? Are you (or the "public" that you fear is judging us as gun rights advocats) willing to lift restrictions that disarm us in certain locations, especially at location where we send our our most precious and defenseless ones (children)?
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 01:00 PM   #55
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaseousclay
define 'we.' not all gun owners are created equal and we all don't agree on the same things.
I believe that "we" refers to those who have a principled commitment to the civil right described in the Second Amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaseousclay
i've seen knee-jerk reactions from both the pro-gun community and anti-gun community.
I haven't seen anything thoughtless or over-the-top communications from Second Amendment defenders over the last week. I am sure some must've occurred, but the contrast against the gleeful dreams of greater restrictions is considerable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaseousclay
the moment you say, 'keep your hands off my guns,' is the moment when everyone stops listening and we get nowhere.
I do not want to go anywhere that begins with an agreement that the state should have its hands on my guns. If agreement on that point is what is required for the conversation, I would prefer to not have the conversation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaseousclay
i'm not agreeing with an assault weapons ban per se, but I don't think it should be made easily available to just anyone. I have no problem jumping through a few extra hoops to acquire a gun ...
I would have a significant problem in going through "a few extra hoops" for a rifle, a device that is used in criminal activities only infrequently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaseousclay
...I have nothing to hide.
Whilethat is unlikely, it may be true. However, whether you have something to hide is distinguishable from whether the state has any limits in the depth and extent of its interrogation before allowing you to exercise a right.

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.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 01:08 PM   #56
Old Grump
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--
Old Grump is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 01:22 PM   #57
Punisher_1
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.
Punisher_1 is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 01:43 PM   #58
Willie D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 1,116
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.
Willie D is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 01:46 PM   #59
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punisher 1
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.
Imagine the problems we would avoid if we applied that the voting.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 01:59 PM   #60
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
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.
This basic premise falls into the trap that some how an AR-15 is fundamentally different than any other semi-automatic rifle, or that only "assault weapons" could be used to commit such atrocities. Many incidents of spree/mass violence, did not utilize "assault weapons", based on the foundational logic of your statement, it should read "Maybe all firearms should be witheld until the age of 30...".

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.
sigcurious is online now  
Old December 21, 2012, 02:24 PM   #61
Odd
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.
Odd is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 02:34 PM   #62
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,427
I can't say I'd object to requiring FFL and 4473 forms for the black powder replica arms i.e. This one.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 02:36 PM   #63
mayosligo
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?
mayosligo is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 02:42 PM   #64
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
So perhaps mental screenings during the process for the Driver's license
Have you been to a DMV? You really want these people conducting mental screening? What do they know about mental health as a workforce? Next to nothing would be my guess. We keep asking what would stop these losses and honestly there aren't any good or easy answers... I guess you can try to outlaw evil, but it seems in thousands of years no ones come up with a 100% way to make it work.

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.
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 02:47 PM   #65
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaseousclay View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrarif1fan View Post
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
What I think gets forgotten ever since the 1968 GCA, is that the anti-gun crowd has never compromised a thing. All so-called "compromise" has been a ride down a one-way street. We (the gun owners) have given up parts of our rights, while "they" have given up nothing.

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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 02:55 PM   #66
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
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.
No way? How about any number of purpose built longarm cases/bags or any cases/bags that a long arm would fit in?

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...
sigcurious is online now  
Old December 21, 2012, 02:59 PM   #67
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,427
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.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 03:52 PM   #68
Double J
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.
Double J is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 06:58 PM   #69
Odd
Member
 
Join Date: August 24, 2011
Location: Enjoying snacks by the fo
Posts: 15
Quote:
Have you been to a DMV? You really want these people conducting mental screening? What do they know about mental health as a workforce? Next to nothing would be my guess. We keep asking what would stop these losses and honestly there aren't any good or easy answers... I guess you can try to outlaw evil, but it seems in thousands of years no ones come up with a 100% way to make it work.

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...
Quote:
No way? How about any number of purpose built longarm cases/bags or any cases/bags that a long arm would fit in?

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...
All good points. While the idea was bad, it was the only one I could think of there the anti-gun people end up having a taste of their own medicine.

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.
Odd is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 07:09 PM   #70
colbad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2012
Posts: 312
Criminal penalties for legal owners who fail to secure.
colbad is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 07:25 PM   #71
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,071
Welcome to The Firing Line, colbad!

Quote:
Originally Posted by colbad
Criminal penalties for legal owners who fail to secure.
Do you happen to have any suggestions for defining "fail to secure?" Or methods of enforcement?
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 07:26 PM   #72
arch308
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.
arch308 is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 07:32 PM   #73
Justice06RR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2010
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,262
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.
Justice06RR is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 08:50 PM   #74
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Criminal penalties for legal owners who fail to secure.
Welcome.... But here's some considerations... Many guns, if not most guns used in crimes are stolen. I'm sure some esteemed member of this forum can give you more specifics. Also keep in mind what good is a firearm if it has to be kept in some vault or safe, it defeats the purpose of having a firearm if you can't get to it before the BG does you in. Further what level of security is enough? Do we mandate a certain type of steel and Gauge.

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
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 09:33 PM   #75
Ghost1958
Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 86
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
Ghost1958 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 09:40 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 0.16007 seconds with 7 queries