View Full Version : More effective/fairer gun control
Ok here's how i think it should be.
Convicted Felons cant own a gun, Period. If found owning one minimum of 20 years jail time.
I believe that any firearm should be allowed to be owned, and any firearm be allowed to be manufactured and sold(as long as buyer has correct certification) including FA's. They should have lvl1-3 training.
Level 1:
Prerequisite: Be a law obiding citizen
Proof of fire proof safe to store arms in
Age:15
Teach safty and regulations and than make sure that students pass the test with a good amount of range time under supervision. This would allow the owning of bolt action hunting rifles, and 22lr target rifles. Training would be performed with one bolt and one semi-auto 22 rifle.
Level 2:
Prerequisite: Lvl 1 Training
Proof of fire proof safe to store arms in
Age: 18
Would teach safe self defence firing and would re-emphasize laws. It would be a cource entailing a good amount of range time with both sem-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns. Shooter would have to demonstrate decent accuracy with both point shoot and sight shoot, while proving complete saftey in order to be certified.
Level3:
Prerequisite: LVL1-2 training
Proof of fire proof safe to store arms in
Age: 18
Would be a FA cource re-emphasizing the lvl1-2 cources, with much higher standards. A few minor infractions and the shooter would have to retake the cource. Shooter would have to demonstrate knowledge of gun laws, and control of weapons in both 3-shot and FA. Shooters would fire both FA's and Silenced weapons.
These tests would have very high standards that would have to be adhered to. It would not limit anyone(exept for felons) and would keep incompetant people out of the reach of arms. It would also improve safty in general and reduce the accidental injuries while making FA and other limeted guns obtainable at reasonable cost. It would keep those mentally not capable of owning a firearm out of they're reach. Licenses would have to be updated every 6 months with a competency live firing test, and if a licensee is convicted of a felony all his guns would be confiscated and license taken away. In all honesty some of those guys you see buying shotgun ammo at walmart, probobly should have a shotgun.
KarlPMann
06-02-2006, 12:05
Hmmmmm. :twisted: OK, so what's the purpose of requiring a "Fire Proof Safe"? Is that just to raise the cost of owning firearms so high that only the rich could afford them? I mean, we ALL know that fireproof safes do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to protect a gun from fire/heat damage!!! We also know that fireproof safes are VERY POOR burglary resistant safes!!! So what's the sense in requiring them?
Then let's get to the whole safe thing....
In order for the safe to be effective at keeping a would be burglar out, it has to be large, heavy, well made, and fairly thick. That means expensive, fairly slow to open, and hard to move for those of us unfortunate enough to not own their homes.
What sense would it make to spend more money on a safe, than on the gun itself? I mean, if I just wanted a small, inexpensive, home defense handgun, then why would I be required to spend large sums of money to house it.
Let's not even get into the whole cost of this great idea.....
Gun, training, permits, safes...... :evil:
I got a much better idea, let's just learn to live with the idea that this is still a free country and we still have a RIGHT to own them!!!
Karl. :P
2ndChildhood
06-02-2006, 12:09
let's just learn to live with the idea that this is still a free country and we still have a RIGHT to own them!!!
Karl. :P
Karl, you're such a reactionary! :mrgreen:
I'm with Karl on this one. Lets get back to an innocent until proven guilty model. Show you are responsible (define that however you may, I have mine) and you may do what you like.
Cannot responsibly accept some freedoms, you lose them. The rest of us should not.
Great-Kazoo
06-02-2006, 23:27
delphi
read a few of your other post and replied to some (hey even this one)
what dosage does your doc have you on?
while i do feel firearm training is a good idea. i also know its up to the individual to CHOOSE if they want to take a safety course.
and while we're at it why not say limit purchases to 1 gun a month.
are you one of those hunter/sportsmen i've heard about??
Pretty much i think their are allot of people in this country that are incompetent of owning a firearm. People who never even have shot a gun before and think that an AK is cool just because they saw it in a video game or movie can go buy one without ever having had any type of safty training.
Do you guys honestly think somone should have a an assault rifle without even knowing how to load the magazine into it or arm it correctly let alone know any safty standards?
Maybee a fireproof safe is a bit overdone, but some type of safty mechanism should be used unless it's a pistol which could be kept by the side of your bed.
And the tests and permits wouldnt be all that expensive, at least they would make sure that the guy next to you in the firing line doesnt shoot you because of accident and lack of safty training.
Basically it would be a goverment regualted thing and would keep you much safer. Knowing some people that own guns(who are truely incompetent at anything) I am very scared to admit they even live in my state. Basically i think they should at least have an IQ test to own a gun :D
But before bieng allowed to purchase a gun mandatory safty should be tought to perspective buyers.
Also with this type of law in effect it would allow Machine guns to be easly accessible again, which is one major right that was stripped away of us. Easly affordable military grade weapons.
And no i dont hunt, in general i'm not the type of person that would like to kill things.
I do like poking holes in paper, and am an avid collector of firearms, i like they're mechanics, I like how each one is different.
Plus limiting it to one a month wouldnt do crap, what does it matter if an incompetant idiot gets ahold of one or two ak's, one is enough to cause accidental tradgedy.
Honestly Delphi, this looks remarkably like the Canadian laws.. it's not working so well up there. I had the chance to talk with a Canadian shotgun collector; for instance he can't even display his replicas because of their weapon security laws.
Manditory training, even if it's the intro to firearms course that the NRA offers or the likes is a good idea for certain. I don't disagree with some of what you say, but the good ol' second ammendment doesn't require safes or training and I'm going to side with the founding fathers on that one.
RYAN50BMG
06-03-2006, 09:58
You sure spend alot of time typing dumb $hit. [poke]
Delphi, there are so many false assumptions in your concept that I can't even go over them in detail right now. Maybe later when I have the time to disassemble them.
Well pretty much guys i know you are all against tighter gun control, as am i. But in all honesty you have to agree some people are just not fit to own a firearm.
I think that if their is one thing that should be required its certified NRA training.
All that on top was just an idea, you have better please give it. But i certainly do thing a training cource could do no harm. IF your gonna spend hundreds on guns why not spend 50$ on somthing that will help keep you and your freinds alive?
RYAN50BMG
06-03-2006, 15:19
You mean like "Spell Check"? [headbang]
You mean like "Spell Check"? [headbang]
+1
[poke]
If spell check is all you care about.... than you have no hope in reasonable argument.
HunterCO
06-03-2006, 22:47
If spell check is all you care about.... than you have no hope in reasonable argument.
Delphi for gods sake quit while your behind.
enough said.
Great-Kazoo
06-03-2006, 23:33
Basically it would be a goverment regualted thing
like the crime bill and brady background check. see how well those went over.
10round mag limit, another good idea that didn't do sh^*t to slow crime down. only thing it did was jack the price of full cap mags out of this world.
waiting period for a gun, same there.
perhaps you should be posting over on the VPC boards. i'm sure your ideas wil be met with open arms, [poke]
ronin223
06-04-2006, 03:28
I am opposed to everything you said delphi.
A fire proof safe would mean make gun ownership difficult for the poor or lower middle class, and limit middle class and upper class gun ownership. ( i.e. buy a $200 shotgun because you want to shot some clays after watching the olympics and you never owned a gun or $1000 gun safe and $200 gun)
Second any testing of qualifications to own guns would just be perverted some day so it will be difficult to own a firearm. i.e. 500 question safety quiz which must be done in 50 min, must be able to shoot a 12 inch target at 600 yards with a pistol to qualify to own a gun, etc.
The old saying there are no good gun laws is correct in my opinion. If someone robs or murders with a gun blame the criminal not the gun.
robsterclaw
06-04-2006, 03:59
Those are some very liberal ideas, especially for someone who compares liberals to slinkies. Are you posting questions like this to counter-act the people who think you may be too immature to carry guns? Or are you just throwing out ideas to see what people think, because it's not clear what your agenda is.
Anyone that seems as desperate to carry a gun concealed, as you seem to be is frightening all by itself. Next you'll be posting that the oldest child in a family should be able to carry at an earlier age, because generally they mature faster, because of the responsibility.
Kids these days seem far less mature then they were 20 or 30 years ago. They all want everything now, they have no patience. They want to make 30 dollars an hour sitting on their lazy ass, they don't want to pay their dues and work their way up in a company. Some of which may pertain to you, some may not. I was generalizing.
1 last thought......the point being made about spell check...... an occasional word mispelled is not bad, but too many shows a lack of respect for the people who read your posts. I've been a member of many messege boards, for many years, and your posts won't be taken seriously due to spelling errors, horrible grammer, no paragraphs, and some of the other fairly easy to fix communication problems. Just take half a minute before you press the submit button and give it a quick look over.
If spell check is all you care about.... than you have no hope in reasonable argument.
That is where You are wrong Son, Hard to take someone seriously when they can't spell for crap. Even the simple misuse of "Their","There", and "They're" is just irritating. I don't claim to be the Be all, Know all, of the spelling and punctuation world. But, it is definatly Guys like You that make Me feel better about My spelling. Buy Yourself a small dictonary, it'll do You a world of good.
I won't get into the original argument, I think robsterclaw,ronin,and the rest of the guys have covered it very well. I will say this though, every point You made is the cornerstone of libtard, gun grabbing thinking. Granted, I have seen a few People that I think shouldn't be allowed within a 100 yards of a gun, But, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the right to own that gun.
In closeing, in Your sigline, change it to "Being" thank You.
Basically I am against the government limiting what types of weapons can be produced. (Machineguns)
I thought that maybe if a good amount of testing could show that a person would be responsible, than they could own any weapon they wanted. Also with the tests they should be very stick so they could not be changed to impossible requirements.
Basically I think that allot of people in this country are generally just not intelligent enough to carry a gun. Many things that our forefathers have written have been changed, and there are many gun laws on the book right now. I think it would be better if all of those were thrown away and NRA training would just be a requirement for anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
And I have already said in an earlier reply that i wouldn’t mind getting rid of the gun safe part.
Do you guys really think that all the laws that we have on the books right now about guns are better than just a simple NRA safety test? The liberals in this country would never let us get rid of all the gun laws currently on book, that’s why one would have to give them a substitute so they can be happy. I think a NRA test would be the simplest, and easiest.
Amendment II
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.
what part of "shall not" and "Infringed" is so hard to understand :?:
(websters)Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break -- more at BREAK
transitive senses
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2 obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE
intransitive senses : ENCROACH -- used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
synonym see TRESPASS
Our founding fathers were quite intelligent. They were very deliberate in their wording for the Constitution and bill of rights.
I think a NRA test would be the simplest, and easiest.
Just like a liberal. Looking for a simple and easy fix. Then again, spell check is simple and easy....
Listen more, type less.
OK Guys.. enough givin the kid sheit .. Either constructively address his "ideas" or just have the courtesy to let it go. I'm guessing his intent was to start a discussion on a topic that is worthy of conversation.
But you really should run the spell checker on your more verbose disertations.
Verbose, Hmmmm, Hadn't seen that one in awhile. Very good :mrgreen:
KarlPMann
06-04-2006, 19:27
And the tests and permits wouldnt be all that expensive,
Yeah, that's a great idea, and then we'll know who owns all those nasty ol' guns. Then when we need to take them away from those lazy jews and other worthless vermin we'll know where to find them....
:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
Karl. :roll:
What is this, our best ARFCOM open forum impression? So much for constructive conversation.
Well at the moment we have more than just a "little" gun control, hell they even make production and importation of some guns illegal and not just full auto’s, even some semi-autos are banned from importation. I think that an NRA test would REDUCE the amount of gun control present in America today.
As said before I am against gun control myself, and I truly don’t think that you guys are thinking this through enough, you see the word gun control and go nuts. How about you sit and think about this for a second. If their was a standard safety test INSTEAD of all the gun control laws on the books right now. IT WOULD MAKE FOR LESS GUN CONTROL. Sure it might not be 100% ok but it would be a move in the right direction.
How about you guys be a bit more constructive and think a little before you just shoot everything down and claim that I’m a liberal? I seriously doubt a liberal would even visit a forum like this. Basically when it comes down to it a NRA test would lessen gun control in general if it were the only form of control.
I would like to see NO gun control what so ever but we have to be realistic the anti-gun freaks in this country would never let that happen, so we would have to make a compromise.
I will also proceed to ignoring all the previous comments that were just flaming, and non constructive.
KarlPMann
06-05-2006, 15:40
NO! Karl.
So by saying no, you’re FOR keeping the harsh gun control laws we have on the books now? Am I right in that assumption Karl?
Delphi, don't try to turn this in to a battle of witty banter, you'll lose and lose badly.
Aye, well I’m just disgusted that so many are just not willing to have a logical debate.
It’s the reason we have such harsh gun control measures as of date, because many of us are not willing to budge let alone have an intelligent conversation.
Anyways if anyone wants to give some good input on this subject look at my last lengthy post.
The1andOnlyKC
06-05-2006, 16:00
Why not just make gun education part of the education kids recieve at school? [abused]
Ice Pirate
06-05-2006, 18:09
OK, I'll bite.
First, as a retired weapons instructor, I'll be one of the first to say that proper weapons instruction should be first and foremost in any gun owner's mind when they go to buy a gun. I'd personally love nothing more than to see the proper firearms education of all Americans, young and old alike, become a given in this nation. I'd love and support fully the rebirth of local gun clubs and shooting organizations that could support such education. In a perfect world, all people who chose to own a firearm would be responcible enough to seek out and obtain the education that would make them good upstanding members of the firearms owning community.
However, should we make this a requirement of buying a gun? Even if we did make it a requirement, who could enforce such legislation? Oh sure, gun dealers and shops would be checking and ensuring the training, but what about Joe Blow who's looking to unload a gun so he can afford to feed his family. Do you honestly believe that he'll check someone's credentials before selling him a gun?
You've stated that, "Some people out there should not be allowed to own guns." Don't get me wrong, I actually agree, in part, with that statement. However, I can also tell you that on more than one occation, I've stated, when seeing little kids in stores using foul language, ignoring their parents, reaking havoc and totally out of control, "Some people out there should not be allowed to bear young." Afterall, it's often these same out of control kids who have no respect for their parents, or authority of any kind, who are most likely to commit crimes with firearms. Yet, we don't see anyone suggesting legislation to make it mandatory for parents to obtain training before plowing youngin's out like puppies, do we? An undisciplined child can be far more dangerous than any firearm know to mankind.
What this all really comes down to is RESPONCIBILITY. A responcible adult, will take it upon themselves to get the training necessary to ensure the safety of their weapons, and their family. There is no reason for the government to infringe upon the responcible citizens because there are so many out there who are not responcible enough to ensure these safetys.
Responcibility is why we maintain laws that punish the people who missuse their freedoms. Lack of responcibility is why we create laws to punish all in the hopes of preventing anyone from miss using their freedoms.
So as much as I agree that training is vitally important to anyone who owns a firearm, and as much as I feel that Parental education is vital for anyone who reproduces, I must disagree that these forms of training be made MANDATORY. Especially if we are to leave it to the Government to control. Haven't you ever heard the phrase that strikes fear in the hearts of all free Americans? "I'm with the Government, I'm here to help."
robsterclaw
06-05-2006, 19:21
All in all, firearms training in schools is a wonderful idea. In '85 and '86 I went to school with probably the most amazing human I've ever met. He was a Korean who was in the states because of an assissination attempt on his father's limo with him inside. He was taught in school how to take apart, break down and maintain M16's and other firearms. He was also trained how to fire, and be safe with guns. I'm sure the Teacher's union would crap a kitten, but it is a good idea. They gave a hunter's safety coarse in our school, on school time when I went to school in Iowa. All we had to do was pay the fee.
And in my opinion it hasn't been the lack of gun's rights groups to comprimise, that has caused the over abundance of gun limitation laws. It's the scare tactics of the MMM and liberals that have caused it.
Do you know how many people do not know that machine guns and silencers are legal in this state? Take a poll, and most "normal people" think they are already illegal. How hard would it be for the gun snatcher groups to get laws forbiding machine gun, and silencers passed on a state level? Not too hard, I think since so many already think they are. The uninformed would vote for that law. They would just go with the thought that since they thought they were illegal before, might as well vote to make it happen.
^^^^^^
Very good guys, this is what I wanted to hear. Beautiful! And guess what I agree!
Ok guys, you know me; I build AK's I buy lots of guns, and show up at shoots with you. I'm on your side guys. I made this post as a devils advocate to spur some discussion, which I see, is much needed. Many of us cant or won’t listen to ideas that differ from our own. And in doing that, you look for simple, inadequate ways to shoot down that argument that was just made. In public opinion you would have a hard time convincing people that are uneducated in gun related issues, that the guy who just proposed something like what I just did would be wrong. You would just look like ignorant people that cant defend they're beliefs. And guess what, your good ole friend the gun grabber would have his way.
What you guys have to learn is to read something for what it's worth, what’s behind it or listen to what someone is saying and not just proclaim they are idiots and just move on. Because that wont prove anything to anyone, it will just make you look worse. As gun owners we all have a serious right, it is one that we must ALL defend, because sooner or later a gun grabber will want your guns. So I beg you guys, don’t do what you did here. Do what you saw Robsterclaw and Ice Pirate do, listen and than proceed to tearing apart everything that that person said with counter arguments. Don’t just say that the person who just proposed more gun control is an idiot. By doing what you have seen done above you don’t even have to say that the person is an idiot; the others listening in can draw that conclusion themselves. It is much more powerful to have the audience and potential voters think that the person is an idiot than if they just heard it from you.
So guys protect our rights, and fight with logical debate.
If I’ve made you guys angry, I’m sorry, but you know that I’m on your side and only trying to help.
I know many of you need the practice and would like to see what you can come up with. If you want please shoot it down some more. Also I will keep posting new “gun grabber” proposals so you guys can be more prepared for what might be thrown at you in the public arena. Get your practice in guys cause there are allot of gun grabber out they’re and I have dealt with enough of them to be able to impersonate them well.
Delphi
Fellow gun owner and friend that are just trying to help our cause.
robsterclaw
06-06-2006, 02:46
Delphi, sometimes I think talking to you is just a bunch of http://x10.putfile.com/10/28222411679.gif This is a gun oriented site, not the real world. If someone from the real world had said what you've posted, I'm sure it would have been debated. You're here and stated you like guns, want more of them, so when you (an informed gun friend) spout off some liberal type speak, it's going to get a different reaction then in the real world. I know that I for one can do more then hold my own in a gun arguement, and I'm only 37. I know many of the members here are older and wiser then I, so I'm sure they can hold their own also. Since this is the internet and I've never met you, I'll assume you told the truth about being 19. In that case I've been shooting guns and talking guns for longer then you've been alive, so in turn have many of the others here. If you want to have a healthy gun debate thread, start it upfront, don't play devil's advocate. It wouldn't hurt any to have a thread like that. It's just better without the pretenses.
OK.........who let Sarah Brady in? :-x
KarlPMann
06-06-2006, 18:25
[roll] Yup, that's kinda where I was going with it. If I want debate, I'll show up at the local monthly meeting of the Democrat Club. :roll: What I want here is just discussions with my shootin' buddies. Karl. :P
KarlPMann
06-06-2006, 18:29
Oh, and who invited the "non-union" smiley? [poke] Karl.
robsterclaw
06-06-2006, 20:27
Karl, would you be referring to this one? http://x10.putfile.com/10/28222411679.gif That would be me. It conveyed my thoughts better then the ones I could find here. :P I could have used this one also. http://x10.putfile.com/10/28209074591.gif But I didn't feel that one was warrented yet.
Well sorry if i made you guys mad, was just tryin to help :p
I figured we can use all the practice we can get :)
Great-Kazoo
06-07-2006, 00:24
I figured we can use all the practice we can get
stop typing and start shooting. you'll learn more.
Caliber357
06-13-2006, 20:45
"Basically it would be a goverment regualted thing and would keep you much safer."
Hmmm... seems like Jim and I hit on the same snag there in your pitch. That phrase up there is a blatant contradiction in terms, in my opinion. Personally, I feel safer keeping whatever firearms I choose to own, where I choose to store them, and ready to fire should I choose when and where to pull the trigger. A trigger locked gun is a blunt club with which to strike, and a firesafe-stored gun doesn't even provide that meager protection. I feel a hell of a lot safer with my safety-less 5-shot .357 sitting on my nightstand than I do about my unloaded, safety-equipped hi-cap ak-47 sitting in my gunsafe. Know what I mean?
OK I'm bored so I guess I'll share my views on these issues.
Convicted Felons cant own a gun, Period. If found owning one minimum of 20 years jail time.
Convicted felons should be able to own guns. If a person is such a threat to me that they should never be able to own a firearm again then what the hell are they doing out of prison? Besides, if a convicted felon wants to get a gun they can. All this law does is effectively disarms the ones that wish to become law abiding members of society. Saying once a criminal always a criminal is a pretty big assumption. Noone should be punished based on an assumption. Once you do your time (jail time, probation, parole, everything) then you should have your rights reinstated.
Here's a little story for you. I've got a buddy who got in a fight with his girlfriend. They were yelling at each other and he finally got mad and punched a wall. She called 911. She told us that she didn't do it out of fear. She did it to spite him. By the time the cops got there they had kissed and made up and everything was fine. Because of the nature of the call the cops had to arrest someone. Now, because my 20 something buddy punched a wall, he can never own a firearm again for the rest of his life.
[quote="Delphi"]I believe that any firearm should be allowed to be owned, and any firearm be allowed to be manufactured and sold(as long as buyer has correct certification) including FA's. They should have lvl1-3 training. [quote]
I agree that all firearms should be available to the public. I don't think that anyone should have to take a class to own anything, though. Classes should be made available and encouraged but they should not be govt regulated or required. Teaching firearms safety in schools would be a good way to get people familiar with them and make some of the taboos go away. Untrained people that are negligent with their firearms would undoubtedly be dealt with more harshly in court. That should be enough to encourage training.
Well I think I can take this one on.
The fact of the matter is that our system does not work, it's over crowded, and people that commit horrendous crimes get out after a few years.... Do you really want a Child Rapist, or a Murder that’s been in prison for 20 years to legally be able to buy a gun? I don’t. I agree with wtf are they doing out. But usually even ones who committed minor crimes come out of jail worse than they came in because they learned from the real bad guys. So i agree with making it illegal for a felon to buy a gun...
Now what your friend has done probably does not bar him from owning a gun, I don’t know what kind of a charge it was but it sounds an awful lot like a misdemeanor. I believe you can have those legally expunged and get your rights to own a gun again... Correct me if I’m wrong though.
"misdemeanor crime of domestic violence"
This is why I think disarming felons doesn't work. If a felon wants to get a gun they can. It's just as easy to buy a gun on the street as it is to get a gun in a store with all of the paperwork. Some would argue it's easier. By making laws that prohibit felons (or people with misdemeanor domestic violence) from owning firearms we're punishing them before they commit any crime. The only ones that won't go out and get a firearm are the ones that want to better themselves. We're taking away their right to self defense.
Here's another anecdote for you. A guy robbed a store when he was 18 years old. He went to prison and did his time. When he got out he opened his own business and became a productive member of society. Twenty years later he was robbed. He protected himself from the robber with a shotgun and ended up going back to prison for it. Over the course of those twenty years he had more than proven that he was reformed but because felons can never own a gun again he was punished for defending himself.
I'm not saying hand these guys guns as they're walking out the prison gates. I am saying, however, that when they're released and they finish their parole or probation that their full rights should be reinstated. If they commit another crime then we hammer them again. I don't know how long parole or probation can last but I assume it's several years in the case of serious crimes.
Disarming someone for having a misdemeanor domestic violence charge is absolutely ludicrous. I understand the concept but there are better, more temporary ways to handle that situation than permanently taking away someone's gun rights. There are people who took misdemeanor domestic violence convictions in plea bargains years ago who can't own a gun know since the law was passed.
Just for the record I also believe very strongly in capital punishment. I don't think that there's any greater deterrant than fear. That's why shall issue states have lower crime rates. If someone fears for their life then they're less likely to be pushed to commiting crimes. If someone proves that they're unfit for society by repeatedly commiting violent crimes then they should be put to death. Instead of coming up with laws that prevent people from possibly commiting crime we should be coming up with punishments that make people think twice about commiting crimes.
2ndChildhood
06-15-2006, 09:39
Artyboy, you make some convincing cases and I am torn.
On the surface, denying gun ownership to felons seems like a pretty straightforward way to make it harder/more penalty for bg's to have guns.
I know many here feel that _any_ restriction on gun ownership is another way of nibbling away at the edges of our rights and will eventually lead to loss of those rights.
Obviously, bg's who really want guns have no trouble getting them.
Your examples seem to me a demonstration of what's wrong with our legal system as much as anything else.
Mandatory sentencing = no room to consider mitigating factors and forces us into black and white decisions when in reality, everything is some shade of gray.
Domestic violence requirement that cops take _somebody_ away on a DV call again leaves no room for judgement calls good or bad.
"common sense" goes in hand with "resposibility".
No one (~) wants responsibility anymore, thus no common sense.
and the irony is that everyone (~) expects someone else to be responsible.
You're exactly right. Benjamin Franklin once said "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security". Liberty and responsibility also go hand in hand. It's too bad that more and more people are willing to give up their liberties for a stronger sense of security. Every gun restriction really does chink away at our rights a little bit at a time. The people that are making these laws might think that they have our best interests in mind but they won't be in charge forever. If they do end up winning then it leaves us, the people, defenseless if some dictator comes along and decides that he wants to start doing things his way somewhere down the line. I'm not saying that we're losing the battle because things have really started to swing our (gun owners) way over the last few years. Things could change at any given time, though. The gun grabbers have the media on their side which makes it pretty tough for us. Hell, most of the people that I talk to don't even know that you can own suppressors, select fire guns or several of the other toys that we like to play with. If more people knew that you could build an AK from a $100 kit and $50 in parts in your garage I think that they'd get scared. There are still a good number of people out there that would think "wow how cool is that" which is, in my opinion, keeping the anti gun media blitz at bay for now. We're being conditioned to believe that guns are dangerous and that normal people shouldn't be able to own them, though. Admitting that an ex felon is too dangerous to be trusted with a gun is just one of the first steps along that line of thinking.
I think the basic premis of your arguement is flawed. The basic principle of your arguements is that when the proper conditions are met, then the government will grant permission to own a firearm. This is just like a drivers license. Go look at what laws say about drivers licensese. They are "privileges" that the government can revoke at any time. This is different than a "right".
People in the USA have the RIGHT to bear arms not the PRIVILEGE to bear arms. This is the same as you have the RIGHT to free speech, not a PRIVILEGE to free speech.
Should we make sure that before you are allowed to make a public speech that you meet the required training requirements so as not to endanger anyone with your speech?
Or how about this, if you are properly trained in law, should you only have the PRIVILEGE of a trial (which can be revoked at anytime) and not the RIGHT to a trial?
Do you see what is the arguement?
-Dana
samuraii
06-15-2006, 13:38
Second step is making every infraction of the law grounds to remove your rights to own a firearm. First it's a felony, then a DV misdemeanor, then what? Before you know it they make you a criminal and the gun grabbers have won.
Oh and something interesting that I learned the other week that just chaps my a$$ is that UN treaties over-shadow our constitution. So if the US signs a treaty with the UN to get rid of all small arms...it will be post Katrina all over the US.
That is why IANSA (http://www.iansa.org/) and Rebecca Peters are so dangerous.
The fact of the matter is that our system does not work, it's over crowded, and people that commit horrendous crimes get out after a few years.... Do you really want a Child Rapist, or a Murder that’s been in prison for 20 years to legally be able to buy a gun? I don’t. I agree with wtf are they doing out. But usually even ones who committed minor crimes come out of jail worse than they came in because they learned from the real bad guys. So i agree with making it illegal for a felon to buy a gun...
It seems then that your beef is with the prison system. They aren't reforming most prisoners. How long does one have to pay a debt to scoiety?
I think there should be some probation period for felons to own firearms but they should be able get that right back and the right to vote. I also think that some felonies are different than others. Someone convicted of embezzling is probably less likely to commit a violent crime than some convicted of a felony which involved violence. I think the balck and white approach is wrong.
-Dana
Second step is making every infraction of the law grounds to remove your rights to own a firearm. First it's a felony, then a DV misdemeanor, then what? Before you know it they make you a criminal and the gun grabbers have won.
Oh and something interesting that I learned the other week that just chaps my a$$ is that UN treaties over-shadow our constitution. So if the US signs a treaty with the UN to get rid of all small arms...it will be post Katrina all over the US.
That is why IANSA (http://www.iansa.org/) and Rebecca Peters are so dangerous.
The fact that they chose the 4th of July of all days makes me even more nervous about the whole UN conferance thing. They've got some balls doing something like that. It just seems like they're testing the waters to try and measure the American public's general reaction to the whole situation.
HunterCO
06-15-2006, 22:31
Second step is making every infraction of the law grounds to remove your rights to own a firearm. First it's a felony, then a DV misdemeanor, then what? Before you know it they make you a criminal and the gun grabbers have won.
Oh and something interesting that I learned the other week that just chaps my a$$ is that UN treaties over-shadow our constitution. So if the US signs a treaty with the UN to get rid of all small arms...it will be post Katrina all over the US.
That is why IANSA (http://www.iansa.org/) and Rebecca Peters are so dangerous.
The only thing dangerous is me if they ever want to try it. NOTHING can ever take my rights read my sig line. They may think they can and all I can say is God help them.
[usa]
samuraii
06-16-2006, 09:22
The fact that they chose the 4th of July of all days makes me even more nervous about the whole UN conferance thing. They've got some balls doing something like that. It just seems like they're testing the waters to try and measure the American public's general reaction to the whole situation.
That is exactly what I believe they are doing. Nothing quite like celebrating our independence by having a conference on small arms and ways to take our freedoms away. :evil: Because the gun bans/restrictions are working SO well in Canada, Australia and the UK don't you know. :roll:
Like that saying goes, they will never take your hunting rifle from you. They will call it a sniper rifle first.
While I agree with Hunter, one thing to think about. If it ever did happen those that didn't comply would be criminals and there would be US and UN military forces here to enforce the new treaty.
The fact that they chose the 4th of July of all days makes me even more nervous about the whole UN conferance thing. They've got some balls doing something like that. It just seems like they're testing the waters to try and measure the American public's general reaction to the whole situation.
That is exactly what I believe they are doing. Nothing quite like celebrating our independence by having a conference on small arms and ways to take our freedoms away. :evil: Because the gun bans/restrictions are working SO well in Canada, Australia and the UK don't you know. :roll:
Like that saying goes, they will never take your hunting rifle from you. They will call it a sniper rifle first.
While I agree with Hunter, one thing to think about. If it ever did happen those that didn't comply would be criminals and there would be US and UN military forces here to enforce the new treaty.
I just hope upon hope that enough of our military and LEOs would take a stand and realize that what those people want to do is unconstitutional and take our side. I've gone to some big public message boards and asked people what they think of our gun rights and the overwhelming response seems to be positive. That doesn't mean that most of them would fight for their rights but as long as the majority wants to be able to keep their guns then I don't think that the govt would be stupid enough to take them away. You never know how far someone will go if you really push them. I think that they're going to wait until the majority wants to give up their guns before they make a move like that. That way they can just label the people who resist as criminals and nut cases and the general population will accept it. Oh wait that already happened in Waco :oops:.
The UN is trying to take our guns away????? You've got to be shitting me..... :evil:
If that happens they are gonna have at least one really F'ing pissed american at they're doorstep in NYC!!!!!!!!!!! Like wtf.... in my opionion we should get rid of the UN........
If this happens, which i'm sure it wont, their will be no limit to my rage.....
I think i'd have to prepare some real fireworks on the 4th of july! :twisted:
http://www.stopungunban.org/
The UN could screw up a free lunch and is corrupt to its core. We need to get the US out of the UN and get the UN the hell out of the US.
Townhall.com: We're From the U.N. and We Want Your Guns (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/MaryKatharineHam/2006/06/16/201493.html)
In a recent debate LaPierre did with Rebecca Peters, who is heading up the NGOs’ gun-ban efforts, Peters told him that Americans need to give up on the notion of self-defense because it’s something that only happens in movies.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.