[Ukraine Train]

If gun laws were entirely up to you, how would you restrict guns in the US? None of us like registering them, or being told where we can't carry but would you do away with background checks or otherwise restrict certain individuals from owning guns? Would you restrict certain types of guns from being owned by just anyone?

[sm]

No Gun Laws Period!

[Mark Tyson]

Other than allowing state level restrictions on violent felons and sociopaths, none.

[Ian]

I would repeal all existing gun laws, make no new ones, repeal the law authorizing my position, and then fire myself.

[Waitone]

Bump and add:

I'd be utterly ruthless and savage in dealing with people who commit crimes using firearms. Its one thing to demand responsibility. Gotta have it matched with accountability.

[dav]

It just happens to be a very small land, surrounded by hostile governments

[Marko Kloos]

I've posted this before in a similar thread a few months back:

If gun control were up to me...

...there would be no regulation, taxation, registration, or any other infringement of weapons ownership. Every man, woman, and responsible child could walk into a gun store, hardware store, Gats-R-Us, or gas station, and buy any pistol, shotgun, buzz gun, belt-fed weapon, grenade launcher, howitzer, tracked field artillery piece, or Multiple-Launch Rocket System of their choice, with no paperwork and no questions asked other than" "Will that be cash or charge?"

The corollary is that anyone caught committing a violent crime with their new hardware will be removed from society post haste.

[Ukraine Train]

Marko, you say "responsible child." If there are no laws concerning purchasing, how would you keep the irresponsible ones from buying guns? How would you determine who is responsible in the first place?

[sm]

I'm not Marko, I do want to address the question tho'.

Once upon a time we didn't have so many 'gun' laws, we ( society) were more responsible, we hadn't relinquished our rights to the gummit. Parents taught among other responsiblities, firearms. No gun locks, no permits, no required safes, no waiting period. Just send in postcard if want and have delivered to your door-COD. Children were taught about that gun behind the kitchen door, on the lamp table. Afield a child was taught also.
Parents, family members, elders "knew" when a child became of age.

Didn't need the Komandant's approval back then...damn sure don't need the Komandant today.

[ChickenHawk]

This kind of thread pops up every once in a while, and it makes me crazy.

I absolutely loathe having to assume the role of an "anti" (which I am NOT), but you guys miss the whole point of living in a civilized society. You're spoiled because you live in one, and have no concept of what it would be like not to.

We live in a society of laws. That is a good thing. The kind of society described by most of the above posts is a cross between anarchy ("no laws") and some kind of dictatorship lead by the types most countries find reprehensible ("utterly rutheless and savage against those who commit crimes")

The only reason this may sound good to you is because you're lucky enough to live where it isn't true and you have no idea.

I don't want my neighbor to have bombs in his house, nuclear or otherwise. I also don't want him to have grenade launchers. Clearly there is a line of some sort that must be drawn in a civilized society.

The rub is always in finding where to draw the line. That's the thing. And that too, is part of living in a civilized society.

But to say that we should have no laws, and then we'll just kill anyone who violates our concept of proper use (of those things that we do not want to regulate in any way) is ridiculous.

Come get me,
ChickenHawk

[TheOtherOne]

Sorry to say it but if I had all the control, I would want to keep all the control. Thus all guns would be illegal for everyone but me and my army. Of course there would be heavy taxes on all the citizens to support my own personal extensive and expensive gun collection.

But being a serf, I can't really think that way.

[sm]

I respectfully disagree.

My neighbor has a stove, responsiblity is taught with that stove. If my neighbor is NOT responsible she may leave and set our complex on fire. She may stick her head in it and kill herself. Consequences exist for both cases. There are NO locks, safes, permits required to own a stove. A Child again, is deemed responsible to operate by the responsible parent, family, and elders.

She has strike on matches also...restrictions on matches?

It is not the ITEM it is the intent of user...this has and always be the bottom line.

I don't care if my neighbor has stoves, matches, guns, nukes, hammers, baseball bats or a battleship.

I still say: NO Gun Laws Period !

[Sean Smith]

If I was king? The only people that wouldn't be allowed to own firearms would be people who were previously found guilty of using a gun to commit a violent crime. Of course, if I was king most of those crimes would have the death penalty, so it would be somewhat redundant. :D

[ChickenHawk]

re1973

OK, let's talk cars.

Would you make the same case for them. Responsibility taught at home?

So, there are no taxes (must admit I wouldn't mind that myself so I threw it in :) ), but also no speed limits on any road, no traffic lights or stop signs, and what's the point of those pesky yield signs at merges anyway?

Why is it that laws make so much sense when they apply to anything but guns?

Obviously this analogy (and any other we come up with) breaks down quickly, so please don't attack the analogy itself.

If there were no laws on any kind of weapons at all (where this thread is going) people would do what the always do ... collect into clans of similar beliefs, and then wait for the first disagreements to happen.

I like our society and our great country better than that picture.

Regards,
ChickenHawk

[Mark Tyson]

Chickenhawk

I don't want my neighbor to have bombs in his house, nuclear or otherwise. I also don't want him to have grenade launchers. Clearly there is a line of some sort that must be drawn in a civilized society.

The question was about guns not bombs or grenades or anything else. While I don't know anyone with a howitzer I think it's okay if you live on a ranch or something to have your own private towed artillery piece or something similar. Before GCA 68 people had all kinds of heavy weapons. If you live in a built up area I think that's a little different. The difference is between driving 100 mph down a dry lake bed in Nevada and driving 100 mph past a middle school in Staten Island.

[Kaylee]

moving to L&P.

-K

[Moparmike]

If I were in charge of making gun laws:

Kids and Schools
Without parental permision:

No one under the age of 18 may purchase a handgun.

No one under the age of 12 may purchase a rifle or shotgun.

No one not employed by a school district may possess a firearm on school property, unless their child attends that school or they have express permission [in writing] that the firearm may be possessed there. If it is a student, it must be kept in a locker in the office until after school.

General laws

A firearm used in the defense of one's self or another person by ANYONE reguardless of criminal status or age shall be considered legal.

No one may purchase any full-automatic weapon or firearm with a caliber larger than one (1) inch (or 25.4 millimeters) WITHOUT having filled out a yellow form. No extra taxes may be levied upon the purchaser of said firearms. This information will go into a database, for the sole purpose of calling up the militia.*

No one with a prior violent crime may purchase or possess a firearm.

No one may use a firearm in a violent crime, under penalty of death.

No one may posess a firearm where a sign is posted requesting that firearms not be on the premises. Any place where such a sign is will take full responsibility for the safety of the occupants of said premises, under penalty of law.

No minor (under the age of eightteen {18}) shall posess a firearm unsupervised, unless hunting or on private property. Parents violating this law will have their all firearms revoked for a period of one (1) year, with the exception of a personal defense firearm for the household. Minors violating this law will have firearm privledges revoked for one year.

Explosives (with the exception of gunpowder) and explosive devices shall be purchased and registered with the Bureau of Explosives.**

All forms of carry of all weapons are legal, except where prohibited by sign. As mentioned previously, if weapons are banned on a premises, the owner takes full responsibility for occupants of the premises.

* As defined by law.
**Notice how the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms arent in that name anymore.:D :neener:

Ok, flame away about how tyrranical I am.

Edited to add defense part.

[sm]

Re: cars.
There is a rub. Taxes are collected and monies (what isn't pocketed by greedy politicians) to build and maintain roads. DLs are considered a privilege not a Right .

Hence anything "privileged" ("permitted") can be revoked. Now that is the reason I don't want Control Laws, in this case Gun Control. It is a RIGHT, IMO to keep me from becoming a "subject" of my own gov't, or "enemies foreign or domestic". If we allow ourselves to be "permitted" we have allowed ourselves to have that permit revoked. We then become vulnerable to enemies foreign and domestic.

Personal responsiblity.
A person uses a match to arson in which a person dies, there is a price to pay--right then IMO. A person whom uses a firearm in violent manner is responsible--right then. Matches or gun...intent of user not item used.

Since tax dollars are used we get ticketed for driving too fast,or passing a stopped school bus. Too many points and that "privilege" to drive is taken away.

Now, some people just ain't wired right, we call them "criminals". Laws currently exist in regard to firearms, driving without a license, driving drunk, arson...etc. Criminals do not pay attention to laws since they are wired differently. The responsible citizen whom has rights and privileges are often victims.

Accountabilty, swiftly for these persons IMO.

IIRC in Turkey 1st offense DUI is the death penalty. IIRC not many DUIs occur, and for damn sure no repeat offenders, and the jails ain't babysitting them either.

So no gun laws, period. Ok criminal the playing field is even. You do the crime you pay...maybe DRT...maybe when caught. Free up some tax momies going to build/maintain prisons for the violent criminal, improve roads or lower my taxes.

And you know that CPA that is doing time for felony embellezment...give him his guns back, he is not violent, heck he just got caught doing what the politicians do. Give him a chance to help us keep our monies from being squandered.

---
MoparMike,
I say again, No gun laws Period.

I was a Minor and used a handgun to protect myself and sibs. I/ we would probably be dead/maimed/ whoknowswhat thanks to your "restrictions".
Sorry , but that revolver was next to my crib when I came home as a baby. I was taught 4 rules,and how to use. That gun was always loaded-Always in my room, sibs taught the same rules as I...being the eldest, and that door being broken in, sibs went behind/under heavy furniture...I was a minor remind you...when that door caved in and two men came crashing in.
Grateful I had a gun, knew how to use, had the mindset...you do what you gotta do. No 911 back then...we did have personal responsiblilty and firearms tho'.

I hope you never see "the elephant".
I and others have.
You will will never forget meeting him if you do.

[tunaman]

And you know that CPA that is doing time for felony embellezment...give him his guns back, he is not violent, heck he just got caught doing what the politicians do. Give him a chance to help us keep our monies from being squandered.


Can I get an amen!?

[sm]

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=34976

[Moparmike]

re1973, I understand your position. I accounted for that with the private property clause:No minor (under the age of eightteen {18}) shall posess a firearm unsupervised, unless hunting or on private property. Parents violating this law will have their all firearms revoked for a period of one (1) year, with the exception of a personal defense firearm for the household. Minors violating this law will have firearm privledges revoked for one year.Kids defending their home will recieve medals and keys to the city, not firearm revocations.:)

[ChickenHawk]

DLs are considered a privilege not a Right
I always have had trouble understanding the difference between the two, with regards to this board.

Obviously, gun ownership is not permiited throughout the world, or even throughout the western world. So, it isn't so basic a right as we would wish it to be!

Personally, I feel privileged to live in a free society where I can carry a gun (which I do), so thinking of it as a privilege doesn't bother me.

Either of those privileges/rights are so because they are granted us by the law of the land we live in.

Either one of them could be taken away by passing similar laws (or another constitutional amendment). I add this only because I believe people become complacent with things they think of as rights. Like they could never be taken away.

So do I sound pro-gun ownership? You bet I am! But, that doesn't mean I think they should go totally unregulated. Just as driving a car should not.

Oh, I almost forgot...
IIRC in Turkey 1st offense DUI is the death penalty.

I don't think you really want to trade your life here for one in Turkey. Again, that aspect may seem appealing or 'just' to you, but life there compared to here would not.

Regards,
ChickenHawk

[Lone_Gunman]

This thread raises 2 questions in my mind that I wish someone more philosophical than I am would please clariy...

First, to those of you who favor no weapons laws, and say you punish people who use guns in a crime more severely, my question is WHY?

Why would you punish someone using a gun in a crime more severely than someone who uses a baseball bat. It really doesnt matter much to me if I am killed with a hand grenade or beaten to death with a baseball bat, in fact, it might actually prefer the former.

Trying to justify no laws by punishing people more severely for using guns doesnt make sense and is a poor rationalization. I realize you are trying to create a situation where personal responsibility is important, but in the end all this would do is make a murder committed with a gun more of a crime than a murder committed with something else. Dead is dead, and the intent is the same; the punishment should also be the same.

Secondly, to those who would deny ownership to violent felons who have been released from prison, I am not sure I understand that. If they have been released from prison, then they should not still be a threat. If they are still a threat, then they need to stay in prison. If you are saying they are still threats but have been released anyway, would you also support a law that makes it illegal for them to own any weapons, including knives, baseball bats, tire irons, etc. If a released felon decides he wants to murder someone, do you really think making it illegal for him to buy a gun is going to matter???

[Chris Rhines]

Were I in charge, not only would there be no gun laws, there would be no laws restricting the ownership of any property. It is not my place to tell anyone else what he may or may not own, nor is it anyone else's place to tell me the same.

Every time one of these threads comes up, a few people pipe up about how they 'don't want their neighbor to own such-and-such...' To them I say, "Tough." What your neighbor owns is none of your damn business, unless its infringing on your person or property. If you're not willing to leave other people alone, then you forfeit any right to be left alone yourself.

- Chris

[Moparmike]

Well, this thread didnt ask about violent crime punishment in general, Lone_Gunman. That is an entirely different topic.:)

[Mark Tyson]

Chris,

I would say that it is my business if my neighbor decides, for example, to build an incinerator in his backyard. It affects the health of the whole community. You don't live on an asteroid isolated from everybody else. The police powers of the states to regulate for public health is a widely accepted doctrine, upheld by the supreme court in the Louisiana slaughterhouse cases among others. Individualism is good, but you can't just go around doing anything you want.

[Lone_Gunman]

Chris Rhines,

While I agree with your absolutist philosophy in theory, it will not work in the real world, as most people cannot, or will not, support the idea that anyone should be able to own anything.

If the idea were to be implemented, how exactly would you deal with the chaos that would follow when your sheep realized they no longer had a shepherd??

[sm]

CH our Forefathers saw to the wording that makes it clear we have rights. Now we can split hairs about that, but the fact remains WE in the US have it known, be it for the sake of the Gov't ( ahem, a reminder politicians) the citizens, or any other nation...friend or foe.

Mopar, sorry, nope.
So I'm a minor, not on private property ( especially mine), I'm not hunting. I do have my revolver, as I did often as a kid.
So you are going deny me, even a responsible minor, the ability to defend myself if a neighbor gives me a ride and he is carjacked at gunpoint...and I'm in fear of my life,or my neighbor's?

You are going to deny me the right to use the handgun I know the shoe repair/ gas station/retail clerk/liquor store owner... has behind the counter, in his vehicle...etc. NOPE The person may have already been shot...screw the rules In fear of my life and further harm...I ( a minor) am gonna to use my right regardless to defend myself.

You are going to deny me the right to use the gun that skittered accross the pavement when the LEO was shot and the BG is coming at me or someone else , in the mall, the parking lot...

Your gonna tell me your mom's purse in on the ground, mom is being beaten and raped in a dark remote parking lot after the movies, you are 10 y/o and won't go for the gun in mom's purse? I ain't buying it.

When you have "yeah's and buts"...you have lost something...that "something" might be your life. "Yeah but your not supposed to have a gun the law says--BANG--death is permanent. Remember reality sucks, and BGs ain't wired right.

[jimpeel]

I would retuen the firearms laws to where they were in 1790.

[Moparmike]

[sigh]

Ok, you have brought up a good point. However, I still dont think that minors should be carrying around handguns.

Maybe a Minor's handgun permit is in order. (FOR MINORS ONLY. ONCE 18, IT WILL NO LONGER BE NEEDED.)

I have edited my post for clarity.

[Powderman]

Moparmike, I agree with you 100%

I would also exclude violent felons from owning firearms. Moreover, I would also exclude from owning guns any repeat offender (recidivist). In other words, if a person keeps on committing stupid crimes or non-violent felonies, then they should not own firearms.

The owners of weapons such as cannon, grenade launchers, howitzers or mortars would be held completely and personally responsible for any damage their weapon caused or any injury thereof, except when used in tmes of national emergency.

One thing I would restrict:

Absolutely, positively NO WMD. No nukes of any size or configuration. Period. No chemical or bio, either. Period.

[Chris Rhines]

Mark Tyson - I actually touched on just that point. "What your neighbor owns is none of your damn business, unless its infringing on your person or property." I neither want myself, nor expect others to run around doing anything they want to. I do, however, expect and insist that others respect my person and property, just as I respect theirs.

Lone_Gunman - I don't really have any vested interest in 'dealing with' people who can't behave themselves. Humans are fairly resiliant creatures; I think that most of them would get along just fine in the absence of the Nanny State looking over their shoulders. The ones who can't, well, they can starve to death (or get filled full of lead) for all I care.

More after dinner.

- Chris

[Telperion]

This information will go into a database, for the sole purpose of calling up the militia. Ah, so you say now. Like handling a kid a cookie jar for the sole purpose of safekeeping. He'll figure out other purposes later. :neener:

[BHPshooter]

Bravo, Chris. I agree.

That's really all I want -- to be left alone.

I also disagree with the argument that driving is a privelege, not a right. Let's recite Amendment 9. The right to free travel is a basic right, I think most people will agree (and it is also suggested in the 1st amendment).

Think of when the country was founded -- what was the main mode of transportation? Horses. Were horses registered? No. Were riders licenced? No.

Now we don't use horses for travel. In fact, in a lot of places (in Utah at least) it's illegal to "drive your horse" to work or to go shopping.

What option does that leave? Driving. To say that driving is a privelege totally undermines the freedom to go where you want when you want. Not to mention the ridiculous law of having to pay outrageous fees to register your vehicle year after year, after Big Brother sees to it that it's in proper working shape (us peasants aren't smart enough to know if our tires are bald or if there is less than 3/32" brake lining left). Should we also have to put up with "your papers, mein herr?" at every state border? There is only one step of difference between the two ideas.

If anyone should base a right on necessity, it ought to be driving. Don't get me wrong, there are way too many idiots out there, but liberty is rough-and-tumble stuff. I wouldn't trade it for the world.

Wes

[Lone_Gunman]

Chris, I understand your point, and understand that I fundamentally agree with your philosophy...

In a society where no one will take personal responsibilty for the things they do, however, an absence of laws would quickly degenerate into chaos.

Prior to WW2 our country had less laws, more personal accountability, and fewer crimes.

Now we have more laws, less accountability, and more crime.

The nanny state steps in to maintain order through enforcement of draconian laws when personal responsibility fails.

[sm]

Sorry Mike

NO Gun Laws Period.
IIRC you are under 21, a "minor" by definition in this State. Got a permit? Whatcha doing carrying that 10mm around? Oh its your word your going to the range, to maybe go deer hunting, to get repaired. :uhoh:


Sorry - your busted !:D

Mike not picking on you, but when the dams of Control are cracked, the floods come forth.

A lot of us hunted before and after school growing up, guns... long guns even handguns were carried to school, left in vehicles, we had knives too...were *gasp* minors. I'm talking Jr High even. OMG we even shot guns in school,along with archery...we were better off for it too.

So cute young 16 y/o cheerleader drives to school, stays late for practice, ( dark), takes a couple of GFs along for the game in another town, its dark, flat tire, she is not allowed the handgun Daddy gave her? Sarah Brady would have her and GFs "submit and be passive". No way Jose, many a cheerleader had guns, grew up knowing how to use, carried/trained practiced when I went to school. Sounds like responsible parenting to me.

Personally I'm adament against Sarah Brady's Idea of flashing neon signs "get some".

I'm too stubborn and serious about NO Gun Control Period. Ever seen a rape victim Mike? Ever watch one die. I have. Another friggin elephant.
Too many times age/waiting period/Gun Control Law resulted in death.
Death is no respector of age/race/gender...

[Standing Wolf]

If I were suddenly to find myself the supreme law maker of the land, I'd defer to the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.

[Moparmike]

IIRC you are under 21, a "minor" by definition in this State. Got a permit? Whatcha doing carrying that 10mm around? Oh its your word your going to the range, to maybe go deer hunting, to get repaired.Nope. However, even if the gunstore says that after I am bought ammo for that pistol that I can carry both in the same part of my car (trunk), I sure as hell aint gonna do that through Springdale.(2) " "Minor" means any person under eighteen (18) years of age; and " Taken from Arkansas Code (Non annotated) > Title 5. Criminal Offenses. > Subtitle 6. Offenses Against Public Health, Safety, Or Welfare. > Chapter 73. Weapons. > Subchapter 1. Possession and Use Generally. > 5-73-101. Definitions.

I just wanted enough control over guns to be exerted so that we have a free society, but not the epitomy of the gun's corrollary to "problems=nails, and we have a hammer" sort of thing.

The scary part of this whole thread is that the more I type, the more I sound like an anti.:uhoh: :eek: :scrutiny: I guess I am just too young and distrusting of fellow man to have them all governing themselves. A crapload of freedom is ok. I just see the "None whatsoever" as a little too anarchistic, even for my libertarian leanings.

Legal info looked up at http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/NXT/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=blr:code

[sm]

http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/arkansas
Must be 21 Years of age to apply for a Concealed Handgun Permit.

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/NXT/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=blr:code
State of Arkansas
80th General Assembly A Bill ACT 419 OF 1995
(2) Is twenty-one (21) years of age or older;

In the "eyes" of the State one is viewed differently, depending on what the "eyes" see.

Hence my argument for less gummit, less gummit meddlin'. Period.
Still have my Draft card, 1H from 1973 ... graduated in '73, turned 18 in April...'Nam almost had me. Had to wait till 1976 to buy booze. I could die for my country at 18, Just couldn't get drunk till 21. In the "eyes" of the gummit, that is.

I assure when my good friends daughter drove on her own to Springdale for a wedding she was armed. She is 17 btw. she had her first gun as kid, felled her first duck at 7 ( IIRC). She has been shooting longer than driving. When daddy bought that new car for her(at 15) for her to learn and have, it came with a new gun and lock box and other "goodies". IIRC she took her first handgun hunting squirrel at 9.

Sorry I'm only allowed by Art's Grammaw to describe myself as hard-headed, tenacious,persistent, a CWG, stubborn...others use words that Art's Grammaw wouldn't approve of. :D

[labgrade]

After a (very quick scan), I would default the firearms purchase law to those who had the money to buy any weapon whatsoever - yup, full-auto/mail-order.

Just subscribe the whole pre-'34 law to what it was = anybody can buy anything they want - catalog, etc.

There is nothing since that has prevented anything "bad" from happening & at worst, the extra legalities have prevented way too many legal-owners than the "bad guys." The bad guys always get 'em anyway, right? (Isn't that our take?) = laws never prevented a bad guy from getting a gun .... ?

Why restrict the comon person from ever having access to any firearm?