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 11, 2013, 03:04 PM   #1
Coyote Blue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2011
Location: West Miami,Florida
Posts: 107
Do You Support Any Gun Control Laws?

Do You Support Any Gun Control Laws?

Since the Bill of Rights in 1791, we have evolved into a complex world. 222 years has brought us from a mainly rural,largely homogeneous environment of 5 million people to a largely urban/suburban diversified population of 310 million.

Should there be exceptions to the 2nd Amendment in the society of America today?

All comments and votes are appreciated.
__________________
"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." G.K. Chesterton

From The Cleveland Press, March 1, 1921
Coyote Blue is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 03:33 PM   #2
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
I voted no, but I think some clarification is in order. Are we talking restrictions above and beyond what we have? Or restrictions beyond a simple reading of the 2A (which would indicate all types of weapons for anyone)? If it's above what we have, no way, we have enough, we have things in place to keep firearms out of the hands of those who would likely do the most damage.

If it's above a simple reading of the 2A, I'd say some, very limited restrictions are reasonable. Measures to keep guns out of violent criminals and the mentally ill. Restrictions on highly destructive weapons (though I'd stop short of fully automatic weapons...they were never used often in crimes, and they'd certainly be useful to a militia) are reasonable, I think. But I wouldn't go much beyond that.
Gaerek is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 03:52 PM   #3
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 888
What Gaerek said. I do believe some laws need to be in place, the background checks as they are now, fine. There are some reasonable laws that should be in place (so long as they're enforced) to effectively keep criminals from obtaining weapons through legal channels (if they so chose to go that route)

But anything beyond what is stated in our 2A, no, I do not support any of it.
Kimio is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 04:03 PM   #4
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,147
Enforce the ones we have now, including tying mental health records into the background check system. Nothing else needed. the guns how loophole is a red herring for the anti gun crowd
JWT is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 04:18 PM   #5
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Enforce the ones we have now, including tying mental health records into the background check system. Nothing else needed. the guns how loophole is a red herring for the anti gun crowd
I pretty much agree, but think there are some that could be repealed.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 04:30 PM   #6
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,383
Absolutely!

If "Gun Control" means putting projectile on target, absolutely.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 04:32 PM   #7
Coyote Blue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2011
Location: West Miami,Florida
Posts: 107
27 Words

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No background checks,walk onto a plane, go into a police station or a courthouse,no permits, ad infinitum. OK?
__________________
"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." G.K. Chesterton

From The Cleveland Press, March 1, 1921
Coyote Blue is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 04:32 PM   #8
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,837
Guns and ammo should be sold on the shelves between hammers and hatchets at Home Depot. If the store manager thinks you are old enough and sane enough to handle a hatchet, there shouldn't be any problem buying a gun.

The bottom line - I trust a schizophrenic with a gun more than I trust over half of our legislators with a pen.

Quote:
No background checks,walk onto a plane, go into a police station or a courthouse, ad infinitum. OK?
Yes. If the president wanted to carry a gun, do you think he would have to endure background checks, be prohibited from walking onto Air Force One, be banned from a court house, or police station?

I do not want to live in a land ruled by a King who has more rights than ordinary citizens do.

Last edited by Skans; April 11, 2013 at 04:40 PM.
Skans is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 04:38 PM   #9
Coyote Blue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2011
Location: West Miami,Florida
Posts: 107
Cool post! Agree with every word. We could do that at Western Auto in 1955. Bought a .22LR at age 13 right off the shelf. No parental permission,no problem. No ID.

A better world,a better time. At least for me.
__________________
"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." G.K. Chesterton

From The Cleveland Press, March 1, 1921
Coyote Blue is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 04:48 PM   #10
cvc944
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2013
Location: Lenhartsville, PA
Posts: 164
I voted 'no' because I think we have way more than enough guns laws already. Sure our society is becoming less and less civil, and it seems the quick fix is to pass law after law to keep pace with bad behavior turning into ever worse behavior. But it must not work, because if it did, D.C. would have to be the safest place in the country.
cvc944 is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 06:39 PM   #11
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,424
Quote:
27 Words

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
5th Amendment - 108 words...

Quote:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Shall not be infringed shall be infringed with due process.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 06:41 PM   #12
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 1,298
I'm the solo 'undecided' vote

My option wasn't represented.

I would like to see a mechanism so that people who are considered threats b/c of mental health issues can be put on/removed from the NCIS by their doctors with out permanent "banned" status. Imagine if, in the Aurora case, the doctor treating the shooter could have loaded his name to a secure database from the office instead of only reporting to the local police (who should also be told).

Additionally, I think that mood-enhancing drugs that have known side effects that cause suicidal/homicidal thoughts should come with a no-stigma warning label that says "you cannot purchase firearms while taking this medication" much like you shouldn't operate heavy machinery while taking crap that makes you drowsy.
Perhaps there should be a notice posted that firearms and other dangerous implements should be secured from these people while they are taking these drugs.
There should be a painless, quick way to remove these limits when the patient stops taking. I know that this opinion may not be popular on this forum, but this enhancement to the existing system seems to be the only adjustment we need to take.

Drug companies would fight this. Doctors would fight this. Doctor/patient confidence would be bruised, but if the doctor is already calling the name to the local police or prescribing sometihng, the issue is already in the public domain... Most people who take these drugs might fight these types of rules, but if the side effects are thus, then limits have to be implemented. Why do we need more rules when the holes in the system are easy (for me) to see? Why do we need new dykes when a few patches would stop the leaks?

I don't think that the police should kick in your door and take your property. I don't think that you should have to turn in anything you owned before the prescription started, although I could see how people would think that the gov't might want to do this to be "completely safe."

my 2 c.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 09:35 PM   #13
vytoland
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 614
restrictions = YES...........No firearms to crack heads, gangbangers, humans with a history of violence, repeat felons...........

Last edited by Vanya; April 21, 2013 at 08:03 PM. Reason: invective.
vytoland is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 09:47 PM   #14
Mr. James
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 1,521
We already have laws against murder, robbery, rape, assault, tortious imprision, whatever. Enforce them. No gun laws, period, full stop, end of sentence.

Quote:
The bottom line - I trust a schizophrenic with a gun more than I trust over half of our legislators with a pen.
Truer words have never been typed.
__________________
"...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat
Mr. James is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 10:01 PM   #15
Dashunde
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 1,696
If someone is unwilling to meet at a FFL for a quick inexpensive check and clean transfer then I'm not in a hurry to sell to them.

BUT... I have no love for a registration process and there should be a side-step for legit immediate family/heirloom transfers...to be backed as a felony if its violated.

Off the cuff in the late evening I'll say that I'm completely pro-gun, but I'm also completely weary of being associated with the fist pounding "thou shall not infringe" folks who refuse to accept any reasonable realities of the modern world...ie; dont make it easy for felons to buy guns through private sales.

Last edited by Vanya; April 21, 2013 at 08:04 PM. Reason: remove reference to deleted post.
Dashunde is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 10:23 PM   #16
Coyote Blue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2011
Location: West Miami,Florida
Posts: 107
No worries. They exchange with each other in the ' Hood or they steal them from you or me.

What you want is gun control as late as it may be! In the "modern".world,.whatever that animal is!
__________________
"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." G.K. Chesterton

From The Cleveland Press, March 1, 1921
Coyote Blue is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 10:26 PM   #17
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,156
No. The private citizens should have anything they want. No nuclear weapons (obviously), no poison gas, and maybe no explosions over a certain limit. You don't want anybody launching a JDAM at another country. But automatics, suppressors, "street sweepers", Howitzers, anti-tank guns, RPGs? Sure. For some of these items I even support a registry. For instance, I have no problem with the NFA laws for destructive devices. I do, however, a problem with the NFA laws regarding automatics and the manufacture dates.
dakota.potts is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 11:02 PM   #18
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,319
Quote:
I'm also completely weary of being associated with the fist pounding "thou shall not infringe" folks who refuse to accept any reasonable realities of the modern world...ie; dont make it easy for felons to buy guns through private sales.
It's already a crime to sell a gun to a person who's disqualified from owning one, and it's a crime for a felon to possess a firearm. More laws aren't going to discourage people who flaunt the law.

All restrictions on private sales do is create a meddlesome malum prohibitum situation in which decent people are turned into criminals by statute.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 11:27 PM   #19
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 834
I don't know about more "laws", because I'm opposed to laws that cannot be enforced.

But as a staunch gun supporter (and parent), I have to say that perhaps we should do a better job at putting out the word to ourselves...

A guy I know recently had a break in. Among the items stolen were 14 firearms, including 2 AR-15s and at least 4-5 handguns. None of them were locked up or in a safe, some were under the bed, some in a closet, some in the living room, etc. This guy didn't even know the serial numbers to these guns.

I have to tell you, if one of my kids were murdered by one of this guy's guns, stolen in a quick break in by a couple of meth heads, I would forever consider this guy partly responsible.

A guy who can afford 14 guns can afford a $100 Homak steel cabinet to store them in safely.

One reason why there are laws against drunk driving is that a small percentage of drivers drove drunk, putting other drivers at risk. To the extent that a small percentage of gun owners put many others at risk, we should not be surprised to discover that many people object to this.

I am at least one gun owner who feels that if you are going to keep and bear 14 or 44 or 144 firearms, be responsible enough to secure them against casual theft. (Or don't be surprised if laws are passed that none of us want to deal with...)
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 11:30 PM   #20
Dashunde
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 1,696
Tom your right on principle, but theres problems with it in execution.

I dont want to be the one to enforce existing laws or to figure out if the buyer is lying, and I sure dont want to be responsible for any of the possible outcomes.

As the seller of an ordinary object it should not be incumbent upon me to determine if the buyer is a felon... I want them (or me) to pony up 10 bucks to our selected FFL to run the FBI check for peace of mind for all. Exactly the same thing they'd have to do if they bought it new over the counter.

If a firearm is not "ordinary object" then of course its in another category... a gun in fact, the sale of which to be taken more seriously than a WeedEater on Craigslist.
As responsible gun owners and sellers we should welcome a system that indemnifies us of making the call as to whether or not the buyer qualifies.

We should welcome a proper, swift and full functioning background system WITHOUT registration.
Dashunde is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 11:46 PM   #21
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 834
Laws exist to accomplish objectives.

To the extent that laws fail to accomplish their objectives, they are ineffective.

To the extent that they cause unintended consequences they may be dangerous.

The fundamental failure of your argument is that such legislation would both be ineffective and dangerous.

If Crip A wants to obtain a weapon from Crip B, B will exchange said weapon for cash or narcotics from A. No record of this transaction will exist. it cannot be proven that such transaction ever actually occurred.

Therefore, universal background checks impose a burden on those inclined to obey laws while doing nothing to prevent those disinclined to obey laws from procuring firearms...which is what the law was intended to accomplish.


The fallacy is in believing that because the law exists, it will be obeyed.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 11:47 PM   #22
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,156
Dashunde, that sounds great as long as it becomes a pathway for background checks and not a gun control law. If I could be 100% sure that this system would ONLY check the person's history, would not so much as ask to what firearm is being sold, and would remove private sellers from liability, I think I would be for it.

But I cannot be so sure.
dakota.potts is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 12:18 AM   #23
Dashunde
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 1,696
Quote:
The fallacy is in believing that because the law exists, it will be obeyed.
That applies to any and all laws. If a cop (or camera ) didnt see you run the red light it didnt happen...right??

Doc, laws exist to maintain the fabric of a society, normally based on the collective values of that society as set fourth by our elected officials.
Our society has already said "no felons" or others who have done things in their lives to prevent them from passing a background check. I have no problem with that being applied to all sales Without registration.
Dashunde is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 01:25 AM   #24
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Dashunde, the problem is the proposed system is unenforceable without registration, so you can't have it both ways.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 01:48 AM   #25
Coyote Blue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2011
Location: West Miami,Florida
Posts: 107
Quote:
Dashunde, the problem is the proposed system is unenforceable without registration, so you can't have it both ways.
Trying to reason with him is quite obviously a loser. He wants gun control which cannot be controlled. What does that tell you about his mindset?

There are more pleasant opportunities than trying to persuade the un persuadable who cannot see those forests for the trees. A lost cause. Give it up.
__________________
"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." G.K. Chesterton

From The Cleveland Press, March 1, 1921
Coyote Blue 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 03:22 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 0.14116 seconds with 10 queries