The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

View Poll Results: Do You Support Any Gun Control Laws?
None, the 2nd Amendment rules 165 75.34%
Yes,there must be some restriction's 45 20.55%
Undecided 9 4.11%
Voters: 219. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old April 13, 2013, 09:41 PM   #76
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,398
Quote:
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.
Ah, but have you seen the things that are punished as felonies these days? In some areas, I can become a felon for screwing up badly enough on my taxes, for a minor youthful indiscretion with drugs, or for writing a check I didn't have the funds to clear.

In the old days, felonies were seen as serious, harmful crimes. Nowadays, we've got a lot of malum prohibitum laws that make felonies out of less serious offenses. By the original definition, I might agree. By our modern definition, I simply cannot.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 07:08 AM   #77
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,294
Quote:
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
If i wanted to harm someone using a firearm i woldent be getting close and personal. Certainly not close enough for someone to use a knife or stick getting that close sort of defeats the purpose of having a firearm.
My original point was that some pro gun are trying to say that firearms are no more dangerous than a stick or a knife in the wrong hands. I disagree firearms are designed to kill they have being developed over hundreds of years to do one thing more efficiently and that's kill. Some are more efficient than others a AK47 is more efficient at killing multiple tragets in as short and efficient way as possible than a air rifle that's what it was designed for. Except this and then make the arguments that its the person with the intent that's the problem people should stop trying to deny that firearms are designed to kill.

Last edited by manta49; April 14, 2013 at 07:24 AM.
manta49 is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 07:45 AM   #78
bikerbill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,363
If you're talking about new laws, not a chance. But there are existing laws, such as no automatic weapons, background checks for FFL purchases, etc., that I do support, because they have some actual value. The laws being proposed now are useless for the purported purposes for which they are being put forth, that is, the reduction of mass slayings. We all know, I'm confident, that gun control laws really are yet another way that the uber-Liberals want to control US. The things happening now in this country, thanks to Obama and his stooges, are apalling, but those we've chosen to represent our interests are, with a few exceptions, failing miserably ... no more gun control! Period!
__________________
"If all guns were built with mechanisms that kept them from firing when held sideways, we could end gang violence." humorist Frank Fleming
bikerbill is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 09:17 AM   #79
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,398
Quote:
But there are existing laws, such as no automatic weapons, background checks for FFL purchases, etc., that I do support, because they have some actual value.
I'm going to keep you guys on the ropes on this, but what value do they really have? The NFA is a scheme that pretty much just collects a tax to support the agency collecting the tax. The NICS system hasn't been shown to be a significant factor in reducing crime, and even when it's violated, said violations are rarely prosecuted.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 09:49 AM   #80
jeepstrapped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2009
Location: SD
Posts: 141
In my "perfect world" the next time there is a majority of Second Amendment advocates in the House, the Senate, and the White House, all firearms regulations would be repealed.

I don't think this is likely to happen, but I think it is something we need to continually remind our elected officials that this should be the goal.
jeepstrapped is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 10:12 AM   #81
Dashunde
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 1,704
There are some really good thoughts in this thread and I'm coming to the conclusion that there is no right answer.

On the surface agreeing to background checks on all transfers seems like a rational approach, unfortunately it does in fact lead to another foothold on the erosion of 2A.

On the other hand, not being willing to run checks on all transfers makes us appear unreasonable, often misconstrued into the notion that America's gun culture just doesnt care about the mayhem on the fringe of our hobby.

Its very difficult to convince the rest of the population that guns don't create crime.
Dashunde is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 03:41 PM   #82
WIN1886
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 578
2nd amendment

I believe our founding fathers got it right and it should not be infringed on !
WIN1886 is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 07:30 PM   #83
Joe_Pike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 30, 2010
Posts: 1,033
I went to the book store today to pick up a copy of The Constitution. I thought I had one, but can't find it. The first book I picked up had interpretations from some author in it. Paraphrased, he said "the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own guns for their own personal protection and for militia purposes, but the Federal and State Governments have the right to limit what types of weapons you can possess. Funny, when I read the 2nd Amendment it said no such thing.
__________________
Stay Groovy
Joe_Pike is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 08:52 PM   #84
Boomer58cal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 968
I quote...
"On every question of the constitution let us carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was past." Thomas Jefferson.

Despite this clear evidence, gun control proponents attempt to "squeeze" the text of the second amendment. Any law that restricts the right of an American citizen to keep and bare arms in anyway what so ever is un constitutional. Period. The second amendment is not negotiable!

The constitution, the bill of rights and the government do not endow us with our rights. Our rights come from whatever god you believe in and the founders said so. The bill of rights is simply the recognition of our god given rights and the promise not to screw with those rights. The second amendment is in fact absolute! Only another amendment can change that legally.

Of it isn't clear I voted no gun restrictions.
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war.
We're from the government, we're here to help
Boomer58cal is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 09:12 PM   #85
coldbeer
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2012
Location: Woodhaven MI
Posts: 477
I believe mentally ill people, felons and illegal aliens should not be allowed to own a firearm so I voted yes for some restrictions.
coldbeer is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 10:51 PM   #86
Boomer58cal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 968
Who gets to decide what mentality ill means?

Felons that are now free men have paid their debt. If you believe their debt isn't paid why are they now free and not in jail or dead? Anyone that has done something horrific enough not to deserve their basic rights dose not deserve to live. IMO of course.

Illegal aliens are not citizens and don't have the right to keep and bare arms.

Not one single law that restricts "American citizens" from having the means to protect themselves, their families and their country from all threats, both foreign or domestic is constitutional. This is a fact, not an opinion. Look up infringed in the dictionary. These rights are not negotiable, nor debatable. They simply are that, rights.

Boomer
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war.
We're from the government, we're here to help
Boomer58cal is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 11:04 PM   #87
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
[Felons that are now free men have paid their debt. If you believe their debt isn't paid why are they now free and not in jail or dead? Anyone that has done something horrific enough not to deserve their basic rights dose not deserve to live. IMO of course]

The law does not agree with you, and neither do I. Some actions that we take in life cannot be undone and the consequences last forever. So it is with felons. They should have thought of consequences before they committed felonies. Some debts cannot be fully paid even though prison time may be finished. Prison time is only a part of the penalty.

Whoever the law says is the one who gets to dedide what/who is mental illness.

When people commit crimes and horrific crimes such as school shootings attempts to prevent it again are bound to happen, even though only window dressings.

Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 *¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 *For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old April 14, 2013, 11:51 PM   #88
Boomer58cal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 968
Those who wrote our constitution agree with me. I have read their words. That is much of where my beliefs come from. Our founders were quite clear about their reasoning for those beliefs as well. Just because politicians have eroded our rights slowly over time does not mean the law( the constitution) does not agree with me. Any law that restricts those rights is unconstitutional and the founders said it is not only our right, but our duty to fight back with whatever means are necessary.

In the past when a felon was released from jail his weapons were returned to him because his debt was paid, because any debt that could not be paid in full was paid for with their life. And people wonder why crime rates are so high now days.
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war.
We're from the government, we're here to help
Boomer58cal is offline  
Old April 15, 2013, 12:47 AM   #89
Dashunde
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 1,704
Quote:
Our founders were quite clear about their reasoning for those beliefs as well.
The Second Amendment is about as clear as mud.
Dashunde is offline  
Old April 15, 2013, 03:07 AM   #90
Old Grump
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
Quote:
The Second Amendment is about as clear as mud.
They were quite clear but if you have a problem understanding such an esoteric concept as rights and not infringed I can recommend a few good dictionaries. I suggest a copy of the Samuel Johnson English Dictionary. written in 1755 so you can see exactly what the words meant that the founding fathers used. I would also recommend studying the Federalist Papers where the arguments used to support the amendment and the reasoning behind the wording. Federalist Papers #46, pages 243-244 to be exact.

I also suggest reading Sir William Blackstone commentaries and John Adams the literal father of the second amendment.

Quote:
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. - A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 3:475 (1787-1788).
John Adams
__________________
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 April 15, 2013, 08:07 AM   #91
Dashunde
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 1,704
Quote:
They were quite clear
Unfortunately its meaning has been repeatedly argued in both Federal and State Supreme courts going back to the early 1800's.

I Support 2A in mind and wallet, but I for one could do without the "well regulated militia" part.
Dashunde is offline  
Old April 15, 2013, 08:12 AM   #92
Hunter Customs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2005
Location: Osborn, Missouri
Posts: 1,812
Quote:
In the past when a felon was released from jail his weapons were returned to him because his debt was paid, because any debt that could not be paid in full was paid for with their life. And people wonder why crime rates are so high now days.
Exactly, and that's what we need to return too.

It's also time for all this gun control BS to stop, and gun ownership to quit being the polictical football it's become.

The 2A is very clear, in my opinion only those that want to destroy it and the rest of the constitution think it's "as clear as mud".

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
Hunter Customs is offline  
Old April 15, 2013, 09:48 AM   #93
coldbeer
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2012
Location: Woodhaven MI
Posts: 477
Felons and lunatics are the reasons we risk losing our rights in the first place. When you break the law you willingly give up your rights. Letting these idiots own guns is just asking for trouble.
coldbeer is offline  
Old April 15, 2013, 09:50 AM   #94
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 1,312
Dashunde
Quote:
On the other hand, not being willing to run checks on all transfers makes us appear unreasonable, often misconstrued into the notion that America's gun culture just doesnt care about the mayhem on the fringe of our hobby.
I'm not so much concerned about appearing unreasonable. In my world, when the gov't makes rules, these rules inhibit my freedoms (if only just a little bit) and the gov't needs to justify nibbling away at my freedoms. The onus of defending my freedoms shouldn't be on me.

If the gov't can't make their case for additional regulation using logic and empirical data to prove that there is a reason for this or that, then they can go pound sand. Example: Interstate highways were designed by civil engineers to carry traffic at a certain speed. The curves turn at X degree; they are banked at y degree, etc. If the gov't makes a law that says I cannot exceed speed limit Z b/c that would exceed the designed speed limit for safe travel, then I"m willing to accept that. If they say that I cannot drive a truck that exceeds weight limit AA tons b/c the road isn't designed for that, I'm willing to accept that as well.

I'm not seeing the beauty of the options recently laid out in Congress.

Dashunde, i'm not picking a fight with you personally. Your comment, however, resonates very strongly with me; my wife and I have had this discussion in many flavors over the past several years. She says "what could it hurt, if ..?" I always reply "How is it helping?" So...
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old April 15, 2013, 10:34 AM   #95
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
In answer to "what could it hurt?"

Let's see....

1) Would expand power of an already bloated federal government;
2) Would chip away further at individual freedoms, in a country that was theoretically founded on the principle of maximizing individual liberties;
3) Would require additional manpower to run the expanded system, plus cost of hardware and software upgrades, office space, etc (IE it ain't free);
4) Would lend credibility to the antis' claims that guns are bad, and therefore require regulation of a type which is not seen against other potentially hazardous items, and which is definitely not seen against other Constitutionally protected rights;
5) Would lend credibility to the idea that Second Amendment protections should only fall under "Rational Basis," since we aren't even requiring antis to prove that what they suggest would be effective, let alone necessary or least intrusive.

You get the idea. This isn't harmless.

And I really don't care about the perceptions of those who can't figure out how to look things up for themselves.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 15, 2013, 12:06 PM   #96
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 1,312
mleake
Quote:
In answer to "what could it hurt?"

Let's see....
Not that I disagree with your reasons at all, but I think that even to answer is to play defense. If you want to propose a new rule, you should be required to justify it (as more than "common sense.") If you don't have any empirical data that shows it will be helpful/effective/efficient, solving a particular problem specifically, etc (however many hurdles THEY should have to clear), then the proposer of a new law should withdraw their proposed legislation and try again.

But i live in bizarro world.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old April 15, 2013, 03:13 PM   #97
gaseousclay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 869
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Could you guys explain to me how gun shows work? Enlighten me so I have a better understanding of how gun transactions are done. MLeake pointed out that FFL's still have to go through NICS while personal sales do not. I guess I feel that once you're in a public domain such as a gun show then 'private' sales are no longer private and should be subject to NICS. This is one of the reasons why I avoid personal sales through sites like armslist.com -- I have no clue whether or not John Doe is a complete nut job or not. I think it's incumbent upon us as gun owners to be pro-active and weed out the bad guys.
gaseousclay is offline  
Old April 15, 2013, 03:21 PM   #98
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
gaseousclay, if you are at a gun show, with a booth, selling firearms then you had better be an FFL, because you will certainly appear to be in the business of buying and selling firearms. If you are an FFL, you have to use NICS.

On the other hand, if you are John Q Public going to the show with your privately owned gun that you would like to sell or trade toward something else, then you are a private seller and must comply with state laws governing private sales.

You'll see this at shows. Guys will have a gun or two along in hopes of selling or trading, but they aren't doing high volume sales, and they don't constitute a significant percentage of the business at most shows.

Also, if they end up trading with or selling to an FFL, then they will also end up using NICS (because the FFL is required to do so).

Going to a gun show in hopes of finding another private citizen there who has something you actually want to buy is a mixed strategy: If it works, you may find a really good deal, but the odds are you will not find what you are looking for.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 15, 2013, 03:27 PM   #99
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaseousclay
Could you guys explain to me how gun shows work? Enlighten me so I have a better understanding of how gun transactions are done. MLeake pointed out that FFL's still have to go through NICS while personal sales do not. I guess I feel that once you're in a public domain such as a gun show then 'private' sales are no longer private and should be subject to NICS. This is one of the reasons why I avoid personal sales through sites like armslist.com -- I have no clue whether or not John Doe is a complete nut job or not. I think it's incumbent upon us as gun owners to be pro-active and weed out the bad guys.
gaseousclay, at gun shows, sales work exactly like they do everywhere else. If I buy a gun from an FFL's stock, a NICS check must be done. It doesn't matter if I'm at a gun show, in the brick-and-mortar store, or hanging out with the store owner on my buddy Fred's back 40 acres. If I buy from a private party, "private party rules" apply. That means that a background check is only required if state law requires it, because federal law does not. Again, location is irrelevant. If the private party and I happen to be standing in the middle of a gun show, it's still a private-party transaction.
__________________
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 April 15, 2013, 04:45 PM   #100
Old Grump
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
Quote:
Unfortunately its meaning has been repeatedly argued in both Federal and State Supreme courts going back to the early 1800's.

I Support 2A in mind and wallet, but I for one could do without the "well regulated militia" part.
That is the part that gives the second its teeth and the rationale for why our rights shall not be infringed, There are no good gun laws, none.
there has never been any law passed regulating guns that has inconvenienced a felon from using one to commit a crime.
__________________
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  
Closed Thread

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 03:46 AM.


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 0.16215 seconds with 8 queries