Common Sense Gun Control?


PDA






Pigoutultra
March 17, 2011, 08:48 AM
What is common sense gun control? I hear this thrown around a lot by people who try to say that gun control is popular. Even my own governor is in favor of "common sense" gun control laws. I have a strong feeling that what I consider common sense and what these people consider common sense is completely different. It just seems to me that they use this phrase to mean ANY gun control law. Someone who's never owned a gun before might think it's common sense to limit handgun purchases to once a month, but for someone who owns guns knows that it is completely ludicrous. If someone has 10 handguns in their ownership, why should they have to wait a month before they buy a new handgun every time? The fringe might even think that it's common sense that the 2nd Amendment is in reference to a Militia, I don't think I need to explain that one. Any thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "Common Sense Gun Control?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HGUNHNTR
March 17, 2011, 08:52 AM
More importantly why do guns need controlling, they are inanimate. And why do gun rights advocates keep spouting off the words "gun control", like it's a real thing?

jgiehl
March 17, 2011, 08:54 AM
The only thing I can really think that would involve "common sense gun control" would not be "laws." To me common sense gun control would really be:
Don't point a firearm at people unless they are not wanted in your house.
Know what's behind your target.
DO NOT teach your kid it's a GD toy.
Really just things like that.

But I'd say if a politician says "common sense gun control," it's just their way of saying let's get rid of them. Kind of how I wrap my mind around that.

ctbullseye
March 17, 2011, 08:55 AM
If they would start enforcing the overwhelming amount of laws on the books already they would stifle a large percentage of illegal firearm purchases. Just remember, proper gun control starts with stance and breathing unless presented an aggressive situation.

jaysouth
March 17, 2011, 08:59 AM
"common sense" gun control is leftist code for registration and eventual confiscation.

They are afraid of us ordinary taxpayers and sheep who own a gun.

They should be.

Southern Rebel
March 17, 2011, 09:00 AM
"Common sense" is a feel-good phrase that has no real meaning, but it is hard to attack because it is so ambiguous. After all, how can anyone be against "common sense" or "protect the children" or "help the less-fortunate"?

Anytime I hear that expression used, I tend to think of a car salesman saying "have I got a deal for you!". I will listen to your proposed deal or your proposed common sense, but with a great deal of caution - because in each case, the other party has a vested interest and it generally has nothing to do with what is in my best interest!

(Common sense in the general population is really not that widespread. :rolleyes:)

HGUNHNTR
March 17, 2011, 09:05 AM
Jaysouth-->^ No, it has nothing to do with leftists, or conservatives, and everything to do with those that value individual liberties. Those folks are both liberal, conservative and politically unaffiliated. Don't draw lines of distinction and alienate our allies based on political affiliation. I would definitely call myself a Liberal in my politics, and am a strong supporter of my second amendment rights, as are many of my Liberal friends. Don't toss me under the bus for that. Being a Liberal, and supporting the 2nd amendment is a natural as bread and butter my friend--unfortunately it is popular today to divide up groups of people into "teams" to make the news easier to understand, and more entertaining for the masses.

-lets also try to avoid the tired old cliche's about gun control and hitting your target---it's not new, or funny anymore.

Pigoutultra
March 17, 2011, 09:16 AM
I see it mostly as the politicians think they know what's best for us and can make decisions for us. That is not what liberty is. If I had a dime for every time a politician said "I'm looking out for the best interests of my constituents." when what the politician is doing is very unpopular, I'd me a billionaire.

hso
March 17, 2011, 09:17 AM
"Common sense gun control" is yet again another reasonable sounding term used by antis for introducing laws to restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners in the US while doing nothing to limit gun crime.

We already have more than sufficient laws in this country, but don't apply them reasonably.

roguejesse
March 17, 2011, 09:23 AM
The only "Common Sense Gun Control" would be keeping guns out of criminals hands. How do you do that you might say. Lock 'em up, no plea bargains, no reduced sentencing, no early parole. Why is it that we have criminals that are out on the streets after a long list of convictions for violent crimes?

Another Common Sense item, is why am I legal to carry in one State, and once I cross some arbitrary border, I'm automatically considered a criminal because I am armed. Let's use some common sense and have reciprocity. After all we don't need a driver's licence for each State we drive through.

Pigoutultra
March 17, 2011, 09:31 AM
The overwhelming majority of crime would be ended not by more/less gun control as people will say. Now I am a libertarian, I don't know how THR members will react to this but I'll say it anyway. The illegality of drugs and the thriving black market that creates is what causes the majority of crimes and the solution would be to legalize drugs in order to bring them out of the black market to make crime less profitable. I definitely agree that allowing guns to be carried anywhere would be a great deterrent to crime, but gun control doesn't kill nearly as many people as the war on drugs. Now the RKBA is protected by the constitution, but the right to do whatever you want to your own body is protected by natural law. I see any attempt to limit the freedoms of people who by their own actions aren't violating the rights of anyone else as the most evil thing to exist on this earth. RKBA is the final check and balance to insure the protection of liberty and any "common sense" law that restricts it is misguided at best, malicious at worst.

Bubba613
March 17, 2011, 09:36 AM
"Common sense" unfortunately means whatever someone wants it to mean.
I think it is common sense that with guns so commonly available and even easy to make it is pointless to enact numerous restrictions on individuals engaged in lawful transfer. It is also common sense to punish criminals in a manner that will deter future wrong doing.

leadchucker
March 17, 2011, 10:17 AM
Misuse of a gun is already a crime. That is common sense gun control.

If you have common sense crime control, you automatically have common sense gun control.

jaysouth
March 17, 2011, 10:23 AM
Jaysouth-->^ No, it has nothing to do with leftists, or conservatives, and everything to do with those that value individual liberties. Those folks are both liberal, conservative and politically unaffiliated. Don't draw lines of distinction and alienate our allies based on political affiliation. I would definitely call myself a Liberal in my politics, and am a strong supporter of my second amendment rights, as are many of my Liberal friends. Don't toss me under the bus for that. Being a Liberal, and supporting the 2nd amendment is a natural as bread and butter my friend--unfortunately it is popular today to divide up groups of people into "teams" to make the news easier to understand, and more entertaining for the masses.

-lets also try to avoid the tired old cliche's about gun control and hitting your target---it's not new, or funny anymore.
Well, that's an interesting perspective.

How many conservative gungrabbers are there? How many conservatives send money to sarah brady? Do 1% of NRA members describe themselves as liberals, I think not?

Help me out, what conservative senator has been in favor of sweeping gun controls? Which liberal has espoused gun control, registration, confiscation? Let me see, I can think of jean fraude kerrie, hillary, gillebrand, shumer, kennedy, both dodds(father was original gun grabber) both dems from NJ, dickturban, boxer, finestein, algore, murray, and on and on and on. Not to mention their organs, AFL-CIO, Nat council of chruches, PTA, Columbia BS, American BS, National BS, NEA, NOW and on and on and on.

If you are a pro 2A liberal, goodonya. But it is a liberal v. conservative thing.

M ammo
March 17, 2011, 10:28 AM
+1 on that

merlinfire
March 17, 2011, 10:53 AM
Common sense?

No firearms for violent felons or the mentally unfit.

I think 18 is still a pretty fair age for purchase, but for rifles AND handguns IMO.

Beyond that, I don't really see what else is necessary. All other laws and restrictions are attempts to curtail the actions of criminals by criminalizing criminality.

HGUNHNTR
March 17, 2011, 10:59 AM
Help me out, what conservative senator has been in favor of sweeping gun controls? Which liberal has espoused gun control, registration, confiscation? Let me see, I can think of jean fraude kerrie, hillary, gillebrand, shumer, kennedy, both dodds(father was original gun grabber) both dems from NJ, dickturban, boxer, finestein, algore, murray, and on and on and on. Not to mention their organs, AFL-CIO, Nat council of chruches, PTA, Columbia BS, American BS, National BS, NEA, NOW and on and on and on.
You are totally missing the point my friend--step outside of your previous way of thinking about this issue and open your mind to a new one.

But it is a liberal v. conservative thing.
OK you've re-worded a phrase on a t-shirt.
Good for you, polarize the issue and distance yourself from the folks that can have a voice that is heard in the "liberal" community. Who do you think would be a more effective spokesperson for the 2nd amendment, a gay liberal african american male that can articulate his love for personal freedom that extends to firearms ownership for personal protection, and recreation, OR a typical conservative white male spouting cliche's about guns. Which camp does the conservative pro gun group need to do their best to integrate into the fold? Which group will be the most effective at turning the tide in favor of gun rights?
All I'm saying is that there is NO NEED to polarize this debate along political lines--it is pointless. Yes the majority of Liberals are anti gun, and the majority of conservatives are pro gun---THATS NOT THE POINT. The point is this: This issue is about civil liberties, and talking about gun rights in the framework of civil liberties does MUCH more to advance our cause than politicizing the issue. I know you want to feel like your on a team, -- that is not an effective way to approach this fight however.

Do 1% of NRA members describe themselves as liberals, I think not?
This is where the problem lies---imagine if more Liberals were on board. Many want to be, many are neutral to positive about gun ownership. The name calling and stereotyping does little to further their curiosity, or create a positive experience with firearms I can tell you that for sure. I've converted many a Liberal friend to a 2nd Amdmnt supporter by presenting the issue as an issue of personal liberty, and that beat the hell out of telling them they weren't welcome to go to the range since they were a bunch of gun grabbing tree hugging pansies thats for damned sure.

Sorry for the language, but I feel it is appropriate.

ball3006
March 17, 2011, 11:07 AM
Common sense gun control allows you to keep all your shots in the black. The best gun control puts all your shots in the X ring. Any other meaning of the term gun control is so much liberal spew. It sounds to me like there is a lurking DU here trying to drum up positive views on their agenda on this topic. chris3

HGUNHNTR
March 17, 2011, 11:09 AM
Common sense gun control allows you to keep all your shots in the black. The best gun control puts all your shots in the X ring. Any other meaning of the term gun control is so much liberal spew. It sounds to me like there is a lurking DU here trying to drum up positive views on their agenda on this topic. chris3

Ugh

Manco
March 17, 2011, 11:36 AM
There aren't many gun laws that I would describe as common sense, although it seems that disallowing felons and the mentally ill from purchasing a handgun at a licensed dealer fits the bill well enough (yeah, they could always buy one off the street, but let's keep the focus narrow for now). The problem is the way that such laws are enforced, causing much inconvenience and frustration for those who are falsely flagged for some weird reason, while allowing people--including some who have committed heinous atrocities such as the Virginia Tech massacre--who do have a history of mental illness walk right out of the store with the murder weapon. The other problem is that the poor enforcement of such laws practically always works to the advantage of anti-gunners and gun-grabbers, since being "common sense" they're virtually unassailable, and whenever an avoidable tragedy happens to result, there is a renewed outcry for even more anti-gun legislation. This is yet another example (of many) of politicians and criminals working together to corral and control law-abiding citizens--the "sheep" if you will (see the attached image ;)).

Common sense is merely an excuse for placing more restrictions on our liberty--another step toward the ultimate goal of taking it away completely. After all, that is the ultimate goal of every governing body, comprising mere mortals who are given something as dangerous and corrupting as power, which is why the Founding Fathers of this country wisely decided that the citizens should be armed. Common sense is never a good reason to make laws or keep them around in the absence of positive results--against crime--to show for it. By this standard, virtually all gun legislation should be abolished, in my opinion.

HGUNHNTR
March 17, 2011, 11:38 AM
Yessir Manco--agreed.

rustedangel
March 17, 2011, 11:46 AM
Hopefully everyone got the platitudes out of their systems, because I don't know how many more poor attempts at humor I can take!

HGUNHNTR, I completely agree with your thoughts regarding aligning the message for the target audience. I'm personally very guilty of maligning my own beliefs by spouting alienating and inflammatory rhetoric at people instead of reasoning with them, which becomes an excercise in frustration for both parties and accomplishes nothing. I have had some limited success in introducing my liberal friends to shooting, and a good percentage of them actually have a lot of fun once they forget their own bias against guns and just engage in the activity.

Pigoutultra, as an econ nerd I agree with your (off topic) point regarding drug prohibition causing more damage and crime than it prevents. Whenever there is demand for a service or good, markets, whether legal or illicit, will find a way to deliver that good. Attempts at supply restriction only increase the market clearing price, thus providing greater incentives for new suppliers to enter the illicit market.

NavyLCDR
March 17, 2011, 11:59 AM
I don't know.... according to some of these "pro-2A" and "pro-Constitution" people, common sense gun laws are whatever the government claims is common sense at any point in time.....

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/concealed-carry-discussion/17096-common-sense-reasonable-regulation-etc.html

:barf:

Sky
March 17, 2011, 12:10 PM
I remember a phrase that went something like, " There are some people a lot smarter than you and me that has figured this stuff out".

I used to believe that orders issued or laws written were made for the betterment of the individual and society. I guess many, when older, begin to wonder where are these smart men and women especially after reviewing some of the inane corrupt things that get written into law for the few and not the many.

The Journal of the American Medical Association recently reported that As many as 106,000 deaths occur annually in US hospitals due to adverse reactions to prescription drugs that are properly prescribed by physicians that use them as directed by the drug companies.

http://www.newswithviews.com/health_care/health_care4.htm

Pigoutultra
March 17, 2011, 12:21 PM
Rusted, it is on topic. I was just hoping someone would disagree so it could explain to them that the motivations for the drug war are very similar to those of gun control. Some people feel that they drugs can't be used responsibly and some people think that guns can't be used responsibly. The motivation is the fear that if given drugs or guns people will do stupid things and commit crimes. I will admit that they are different and most certainly guns can be used responsibly, but denying someone the right to own a gun because of the POSSIBILITY they will do something illegal is just wrong. Just as denying somebody the right to consume any substance they want because of the POSSIBILITY of them doing something illegal is wrong. I am adamantly opposed to anyone telling me how to live my life and what I can and can't do. If your neighbor owns a gun, he is not violating your rights. If your neighbor smokes weed, he is again not violating your rights. There is no justifiable reason to restrict freedom for a false sense of security, no matter how illegal either is they will still be used by bad people for bad things.

HGUNHNTR
March 17, 2011, 12:24 PM
An important distinction between gun use and drug use regardless of legality is the fact that guns do not alter your mental state, drugs most certainly do.

rustedangel
March 17, 2011, 12:32 PM
As a lawyer I once interned for said: "I believe people ought to have the right to shoot themselves in the leg if they want to. I mean it's their leg!".

Edit: I think Pigoutultra's comparison still stands. Guns can be used to cause harm, or they can be used responsibly. The crime in a gun crime is not that you hurt someone with a gun, it's that you hurt someone. In my mind murdering someone with a gun is not materially different from murdering someone with a knife or chainsaw. Similarly, you can hurt someone while in an altered state on drugs, or while drunk, but it's not the altered state that is the crime, it's the harm. I drink to mild inebriation on a semi-regular basis without harming anyone, and I think that many people can use many drugs in a similar fashion without ever harming anyone. Personally, I think that in general when you get into the business of trying to prevent bad things from happening because object X is "too dangerous" you create a lot of negative and unanticipated side effects.

NavyLCDR
March 17, 2011, 12:36 PM
An important distinction between gun use and drug use regardless of legality is the fact that guns do not alter your mental state, drugs most certainly do.

I was going to stay out of this. Oh well.....

The Brady Campaign uses the same argument about banning guns. When it is pointed out to them that cars kill more people every year than guns do, and yet there is no effort to ban cars, the anti-gun crowd will claim that guns are specifically designed to injure and kill, whereas cars are not, therefore it's OK to regulate guns or ban them altogether, but those same regulations and bans should not apply to cars.

Pigoutultra
March 17, 2011, 12:45 PM
Gun Hunter, I'm not saying they should be combined ever. And it could be argued that when you are carrying your mental state is much different than if you were not carrying. You are more tolerant and alert. If you are ever in a situation where you have to use a gun and kill an assailant, there is no doubt that your state of mind will be altered for a long time as you cope with taking the life of a fellow human. What I argue is that if what I am doing is not violating any one's rights, then I should not be punished and have my own rights violated. Telling someone they can't own a gun or they have to sift though a pile of bs forms and jump through hopes is a violation of their rights. Telling someone that they cannot use a substance in the privacy of their own home is a violation of their rights as well. If on the other hand someone uses a gun to commit a crime, they should be punished for the crime, but people would own guns and don't commit crimes should not be punished, same goes for drugs. And just to clarify in case someone is getting the wrong impression, I have never used any "illegal substance" in my life, never drank, smoke, snorted, slamed, hit, or dropped anything.

HGUNHNTR
March 17, 2011, 12:50 PM
I'm totally on board with you Navy, I was just pointing out the fact that I can drive down the street with a gun in my hand, or drive down the street smoking cocaine and the possibilities that arise from the presence of each variable vary greatly.

I guess you could argue that guns were designed to protect life--just it is the last ditch effort when all other measures have failed.

Sky
March 17, 2011, 01:01 PM
The Journal of the American Medical Association recently reported that As many as 106,000 deaths occur annually in US hospitals due to adverse reactions to prescription drugs that are properly prescribed by physicians that use them as directed by the drug companies.

Legal FDA approved drugs Probably kill more a year than the other stuff.

Is a double post from #24

happygeek
March 17, 2011, 01:02 PM
An important distinction between gun use and drug use regardless of legality is the fact that guns do not alter your mental state, drugs most certainly do.


So we should ban alcohol? After all
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39938704/ns/health-addictions/

Alcohol is more dangerous than illegal drugs like heroin and crack cocaine, according to a new study.

British experts evaluated substances including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and marijuana, ranking them based on how destructive they are to the individual who takes them and to society as a whole.

Researchers analyzed how addictive a drug is and how it harms the human body, in addition to other criteria like environmental damage caused by the drug, its role in breaking up families and its economic costs, such as health care, social services, and prison.

Heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamines, or crystal meth, were the most lethal to individuals. When considering their wider social effects and harm to others, alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the deadliest. But overall, alcohol outranked all other substances, followed by heroin and crack cocaine. Marijuana, ecstasy and LSD scored far lower.


The Prohibitionists of yesteryear used many of the same arguments that are today used for banning marijuana. We tried it their way and it got a lot of people killed, and the perverse thing is that alcohol consumption went up (http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm).

Personally I can't believe that Prohibition II has lasted this long without more people being against it and voting accordingly. Honestly I'd have to agree with Pigoutultra that Drug Control more than likely has gotten considerably more people killed than Gun Control, and that's just in this country. It's killing a good many more down in Mexico.

rustedangel
March 17, 2011, 01:09 PM
...I can drive down the street with a gun in my hand, or drive down the street smoking cocaine and the possibilities that arise from the presence of each variable vary greatly.

Non sequitur. You are comparing a responsible and safe use of a gun (having one while driving) to an irresponsible and unsafe use of a drug(operating a vehicle while intoxicated). Driving while intoxicated, whether by alcohol or some other substance, is comparable to shooting without a proper backstop, improper trigger discipline, or some other violation of gun safety rules.

Pigoutultra
March 17, 2011, 01:17 PM
I don't know about you guys but I believe people with mental illnesses should not be barred from legally owning firearms either. You are punishing someone for something they can't change and if they haven't committed any crimes they should have the same rights as we do. I also believe that a non-violent felon should be able to get their record expunged much easier and it would also help if felony actually meant felony. For example, if you are driving along and you have a gun and are pulled over for speeding in a school zone you are screwed because of the unconstitutional Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995.

HGUNHNTR
March 17, 2011, 01:18 PM
^ Rusted Angel--Hey man ya got me, I'll buy that. I guess I had just never thought of a reasonable way to use narcotics, you present a sound argument...I suppose you could---thanks!

Happygeek- I love alcohol :) I am certainly not suggesting banning anything, just pointing out perceptions.

rustedangel
March 17, 2011, 01:42 PM
HGUNHNTR - I know a few people who occasionally indulge in MDMA, mescaline, and cocaine for recreation. They have jobs, some of them have college education, and are otherwise productive members of society. It's not a choice I make for myself, but I fully support their right as human beings to make that choice for themselves.

The implicit assumption in your statement regarding reasonable ways to use narcotics is that since there is no reasonable way, it is acceptable to prohibit them. I believe this misses the point entirely of what governments should do versus what governments should not do. I do not want governments involved in the business of deciding certain behaviours are unacceptable because there's no good reason to engage in them. Think about it, this is the same argument anti-gun folks use against guns. Certain guns don't have a legitimate function, aren't for hunting, are only designed to kill people, etc. I don't believe you should have to justify your actions to engage in them.

What I think governments should do is help protect the liberties of their citizens. If my liberties end where another person's liberties begin, we have a reasonably good guideline for what is acceptable versus what is unacceptable. I think we all agree that a citizen is 100% capable of owning and using firearms without ever causing harm to another citizen. There are behaviours you have to follow to make sure you are not infringing on another person's liberty, and that is the origin of the rules of gun safety and gun safety culture. Similarly, I personally believe that people are capable of using drugs, if they so choose, without harming others. Certainly, if they harm others they should be punished for doing so, but the crime is not the drug use, it's the act of harming others.

HGUNHNTR
March 17, 2011, 01:48 PM
The implicit assumption in your statement regarding reasonable ways to use narcotics is that since there is no reasonable way,Nope, not true, I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm serious. You presented a very sound argument and presented it in a way in which I had never viewed recreational drug use. While I would never condone it, I agree with you that as long as you aren't endagering another human being (even indirectly) then have at it.

oneounceload
March 17, 2011, 01:53 PM
One gun a month - when they limit you buying Starbucks or fast food to the same time frame - they're more deadly than my gun..............

Common sense is the misnomer used to whittle rights away and confuse the ignorant public which has been dumbed down by 50 years of public education at the hands of the LBJ Great Society folks

Gun Control is using two hands to put all of your shots in the bullseye - nothing more

Pigoutultra
March 17, 2011, 01:54 PM
Amen, Rusted! I find it disturbing though that the places that should have the most freedom when it comes to the carrying of firearms tend to have the least amount of freedom. Such as schools and parks and federal building. These are all managed by the government and it's the governments duty to defend the liberties granted to us by the constitution not to take them away. I also don't like the idea of people having to "EARN" the right to buy/carry a firearm. That is not what natural law is about, everyone is born with equal and absolute rights. Any infringement especially that done by a government is intolerable.

rustedangel
March 17, 2011, 01:55 PM
I think we are in agreement HGUNHNTR. I apologize if I extrapolated too much from your statement :)

Thanks for the support Pigoutultra! I live in Seattle, and most people here favor big, heavy handed goverment. The idea that people should be able to decide for themselves what to do with their lives is just a foreign concept to a lot of people I talk to, and it makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

AlexanderA
March 17, 2011, 02:02 PM
There are plenty of armed, pro-Second Amendment "liberals." The problem is that most of "institutional liberalism" has been co-opted by the anti-gun crowd.

When pro-gun "liberals" try to find a voice in pro-gun organizations, they tend to get drowned out by self-styled "conservatives."

Actually, "liberal vs. conservative" is a very shallow way of looking at the political spectrum. It's useful only when choosing up sides in the polarized "tribal" wars.

Political alignment doesn't break down along just one axis. There are at least two axes: economic leftist versus economic rightist, and libertarian versus authoritarian. For example, I would probably come down somewhere in the "libertarian-left" camp. The problem is, at least in America, that the existing parties are strange aggregations of disparate ideas. Thus you have Republicans, for example, espousing some libertarian ideas (gun rights) and some authoritarian ones (restrictions on drugs and abortions).

Nushif
March 17, 2011, 02:10 PM
"Common sense" is a feel-good phrase that has no real meaning, but it is hard to attack because it is so ambiguous.

I'd agree with this one. The term "common sense" can't be defined, so it's largely useless in an in-depth argument.
There's a couple more of those, especially once you delve into the nuts and bolts of arguing philosophy. Sadly though both sides of any given argument love throwing those around as if they were gospel. (No pun intended, actually .. for once. but I'll claim it anyways.)

It's like discussing "redness." What is "red?" How do you define it? Can you point to one particular wavelength and say this is red, and is the next billionth of a micrometer in wavelength no longer red?

It's issues like that, that make a lot of really meaningful topics hard to discuss.

Nushif
March 17, 2011, 02:11 PM
Also, AlexanderA is dead on. Yup.

Pigoutultra
March 17, 2011, 02:12 PM
Abortion is just one of those issues that libertarians can't agree on consistently. They are both pro-rights, just rights to different beings where they are mutually exclusive. It's difficult to come to an agreement on rights when granting someone rights takes away another's rights. Another issue is should pregnant women maintain the right to take whatever substances they please? This is also difficult to agree on just the same as abortion. But let's not get into those debates here, they tend to turn bad.

rstull85
March 17, 2011, 02:29 PM
Most gun laws don't make any sense. They don't want people to buy automatic weapons so the put a $200 tax on a rifle that costs thousands, you cant buy a short barreled rifle (without that tax) but I can pick up an AR pistol with a 7" barrel. Whats the difference between an AR with a 11.5" barrel and a R pistol with the same barrel, the law doesn't make sense (I know why they were implemented and when its just a pointless law). If they want to make a common sense law how about we start teaching basic firearm safety in the classroom. The anti 2A people always claim that if you have kids and keep guns it the house the kid is going to shoot himself, most responsible gun owners either keep their guns lock up or make sure they teach the kids firearm safety but not everyone does. And people that don't own firearms wont teach their kids firearm safety. I know its not the best answer, I don't like that they have to teach sex ed in schools but that might be the only place some of these kids are going to get that information. Just my .02

happygeek
March 17, 2011, 02:41 PM
That's because a AR15 with a 11.5 inch barrel and a buttstock is more concealable than a 7 inch barreled AR15 pistol that doesn't have a buttstock. :rolleyes:

Everyone knows that a shotgun with a 18 inch barrel is great for hunting, but a shotgun with a 17 inch barrel is only good for sticking up the corner liquor store. :rolleyes:

You have to remember that in 1934 $200 was a LOT of money. I could be wrong, but I think Thompsons sold for just under $200 back then; so they were in effect more than doubling the price thereby putting legal ownership out of reach of average joes.

Pigoutultra
March 17, 2011, 03:00 PM
Happy Geek, just another example of our current two-class system. One class has all the rights and privileges(eg. Qualified Immunity) and the other class(eg. US) has minimal rights and no privileges.

merlinfire
March 17, 2011, 03:52 PM
Everyone knows that a shotgun with a 18 inch barrel is great for hunting, but a shotgun with a 17 inch barrel is only good for sticking up the corner liquor store.

Get it in .410, its good protection against the worm at the bottom of the bottle

Shadow 7D
March 17, 2011, 04:00 PM
Using Both hands and a Proper shooting stance or supports...

As for COMMON SENSE DISARMAMENT

Read the second, read Heller, and then
like drugs
JUST SAY NO

cambeul41
March 17, 2011, 04:25 PM
"Common sense" gun laws = unsupportable by the facts.

Walkalong
March 17, 2011, 09:56 PM
What is common sense gun control?
Code for something they can pass off as good for us.

earlthegoat2
March 17, 2011, 10:22 PM
How come Common Sense Lawyer Control is never brought up?

After all if common sense universally existed we would not need lawyers. Why did the founding fathers not include something like this in the Bill of Rights as well?

Seems off topic I know but it is merely an example to the lunacy of so called common sense.

Wes B
March 18, 2011, 12:20 AM
Common sense?

No firearms for violent felons or the mentally unfit.

I think 18 is still a pretty fair age for purchase, but for rifles AND handguns IMO.

Beyond that, I don't really see what else is necessary. All other laws and restrictions are attempts to curtail the actions of criminals by criminalizing criminality. above by: merlinfire

I am in somewhat agreement. Get rid of all the laws, FFL, NICS, NFA, different states having different laws, restricting silencers, restricting machine guns.

If you haven't been convicted of a violent felony, and/or are not mentally unstable; you should be able to buy what you want, where you want, when you want.

Also, in a sense it may be a left or right issue but it isn't that clear cut and dried.

The two big ones that come first to mind.

President Reagan is responsible for The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, which expanded the Gun Control Act of 1968, and is the central issue concerning automatic firearms, machineguns, today.

President George Bush senior also passed an executive order limiting imports of foreign made semi-auto rifles and semi-auto carbines.

President Clinton signed the Brady Bill.

So, each party, Republican and Democrat has played their part in passing these asinine laws.

So, instead of bickering back and forth about which party did what, or is responsible for what; instead, demand from whomever is running for political office to let you know what their position is on "Common Sense Gun Control" and let them know, if they are going to continue with these harebrained schemes they won't be getting votes.

And, I also agree with Wayne La Pierre on this:
http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/obamaletter314.pdf

More time could be spent on the real issues and causes of violence.

bushmaster1313
March 18, 2011, 12:26 AM
What is common sense gun control?

Get a good solid stance
Two hands on the gun
Both eyes open
Take a breath and let it out 1/3
Keep your finger off the trigger until you are on target
Squeeze so that you are surprised when it fires.
Repeat often

Owen Sparks
March 18, 2011, 12:28 AM
How about common sense religion control?

Common sense speech control?

Common sense peacful assembly control?

Common sense warrentless search and siezure?

NavyLCDR
March 18, 2011, 12:40 AM
How about common sense religion control?

Human sacrifice is a no-no. Most animal sacrifice is.

Common sense speech control?

Hate speech is for the most part regulated, as is yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Common sense peacful assembly control?

Most public assemblies require city/county permits.

Common sense warrentless search and siezure?

For officer safety, of course!

Meta
March 18, 2011, 01:11 AM
While we should make efforts to welcome all RKBA folks to the community, what may be of some help here is to help progressive/liberal types understand how their camp is intrinsically, by design hostile to individual liberties. While it may posture on issues that appear to affirm individual liberty, affirming alternative lifestyles, sexual liberty, etc, these are all used as wedge issues to bash conservatives and undermine the civil society. Behind the curtain is the core belief that the state and not the individual is engaged with the creation and preservation of civil society. Yes, the priesthood of the left, the great sages that are produced at Harvard and Princeton, they are the ones we should trust to give us what we need. That is liberalism. Utopia through better government to control people and prevent their lesser natures of individualism, greed, individual liberty, get in the way of the path to utopia.
Seriously, and with all due respect, anyone who really wants to understand progressive history, should read a book by Jonah Goldberg called Liberal Fascism. It's an excruciatingly detailed and thoroughly researched work that takes you back to the roots of the progressive movement and through to the modern day stars of the democratic party. An excellent read.

HGUNHNTR
March 18, 2011, 08:49 AM
^ You should really read an accurate desciption of Liberalism. Your definintion is more the Fox news version.

Political Liberalism: Concept that the preservation of individual liberty and maximization of freedom of choice should be the primary aim of a representative government. It stresses that all individuals stand equal before law (without class privileges) and have only a voluntary contractual relationship with the government. It defends freedom of speech and press, freedom of artistic and intellectual expression, freedom of worship, private property, and use of state resources for the welfare of the individual.

Tommygunn
March 18, 2011, 10:38 AM
You should really read an accurate desciption of Liberalism. Your definintion is more the Fox news version.

Political Liberalism: Concept that the preservation of individual liberty and maximization of freedom of choice should be the primary aim of a representative government. It stresses that all individuals stand equal before law (without class privileges) and have only a voluntary contractual relationship with the government. It defends freedom of speech and press, freedom of artistic and intellectual expression, freedom of worship, private property, and use of state resources for the welfare of the individual.

If we were living in Socrates' day ... or even 1799 for that matter, I'd agree. However, as it is now the so-called "Fox News" definition is the best definition there is.
You might dodge this by claiming that the democrat party isn't really gone LIBERAL, but is "progressive." Contest the semantics all you want, but modern day liberalism has nothing to do with individual rights and everything to do with collectivism and the destruction of individual rights and personal liberty.

HGUNHNTR
March 18, 2011, 11:07 AM
^ Yep just like the Patriot Act I suppose. Oh whoops that is supposed to be conveniently forgotten.

Tommygunn
March 18, 2011, 12:00 PM
So I guess you believe it was OK to keep intelligence "stovepiped" into each individual intelligence agency as it was prior to 9/11?
I didn't care for the way the Patriot ACT was passed but it has had little to no effect on individual rights.
And I never heard bupkis from liberals when "Echelon" was revealed in the '90s. :scrutiny::scrutiny::scrutiny::scrutiny:

rustedangel
March 18, 2011, 01:46 PM
I think semantic precision is important, as most philosophical arguments end up boiling down to semantics. For the sake of clarity I prefer "progressive statists" or just "statist". To me, all political questions center around whether you preserve individual liberty or advocate greater latitude for the state.

Also, I can't agree more with HGUNHNTR re: patriot act. It blows my mind to hear political partisans fiercely advocate for limited government, until the guy from their team is in the white house.

merlinfire
March 18, 2011, 02:48 PM
I think it's time to have a frank discussion about common sense measures for 1st amendment control. Ban High Capacity paragraphs, fully-automatic motormouths, and armor-piercing rhetoric. Think of the children!

Pigoutultra
March 18, 2011, 02:56 PM
Melinfire, I believe they are already trying to ban some rhetoric. When it comes down to a federal law that heavily infringes on our constitutional rights, they always try to justify it with the commerce clause which is written to LIMIT power, not GRANT power as with the rest of the constitution.

AlexanderA
March 18, 2011, 05:38 PM
Classic liberalism, in the 19th century sense, is a far cry from what we call "liberalism" today. It's really become a non-helpful pejorative term.

But, really, the whole "liberal" versus "conservative" debate misses the point. It's a very shallow, one-dimensional analysis.

What we really need to do is separate the social issues (in which the differentiation is between "libertarian" and "authoritarian") from the economic issues ("collectivist" versus "entrepreneurial").

For example, to call someone a "socialist" has no bearing whatsoever on whether that person is for or against gun rights. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are "socially" owned (either by the government or by other collective entities, such as workers' cooperatives). You can have democratic socialism (such as in Sweden), and you can have authoritarian capitalism (such as in China). How do these systems fit on the "liberal-conservative" continuum?

Frankly, I'd rather have a collectivist (actually, mixed) economic system that respects individual rights, than a Chinese-style capitalist economic system that tramples those rights. The key thing is that if you have protected individual rights (including the right to a vote), you can always change the economic system -- but if you don't have individual rights, you can't change anything.

Larry E
March 18, 2011, 07:08 PM
The people who say "common sense gun control" mean that you and I shouldn't have guns, their bodyguards should be armed to the teeth, and if they're in a good mood maybe the police and military can be armed, but only on duty, and very carefully supervised.

If they're sort of "light common sense gun control" we might be allowed to store a gun at the local police station and be allowed to use it under direct supervision by the police.

It's a totally BS "newspeak" phrase to make people who don't own guns or shoot believe that gun owners are unreasonable and don't have any common sense.

ArfinGreebly
March 18, 2011, 07:19 PM
The term "common sense," as it applies to rules and regulations, means requiring no recourse to science or logic;
beyond the confines of mere cause & effect, and having no need of such validation;
deriving from a superior meta-physical morality beyond the reasoning ability of mere mortals.

Therefore, obviously, it doesn't require your understanding, since it is clearly beyond your grasp to begin with.

The term "common" in this usage refers to an elite level of insight and wisdom unavailable to ordinary folk.

See also: hubris.

gbran
March 18, 2011, 08:09 PM
Heretofore, common sense gun control has always meant infringement of law abiding citizen's rights. it's just that simple.

Onmilo
March 18, 2011, 08:19 PM
Common sense to one person is madness to another.

Common sense tells us walking in a mine field will get one blown up yet people still plow them up,,,and blow themselves up.

AlexanderA
March 18, 2011, 08:31 PM
"Common sense gun control" or "reasonable gun control" is also a tactic to peel away certain clueless gun owners from the RKBA cause. Remember that there are millions of casual gun owners, that maybe have a couple of guns that they use for hunting or target shooting, but that are otherwise typical suburbanites. These are the people that inflate the polling statistics, cited by the anti-gunners, that say that large percentages of "gun owners" or even "NRA members" agree with them. This is a slippery slope -- what's "reasonable" today is the first step, what's "reasonable" tomorrow will be a step further, and so on. There's simply no satisfying the anti-gunners until all guns are confiscated. As Diane Feinstein once said, "I'd like to see them all banned!" It's a visceral thing. The Washington Post, for example, for years has had a rabid anti-gun editorial policy. Why? Because Philip Graham, its former publisher, killed himself with a shotgun. His widow, Katherine Graham, took it upon herself to start an anti-gun crusade, which continues to this day.

gamestalker
March 18, 2011, 08:45 PM
I'm an over whelming advocate of good comoon sense gun control. This is what I taught my children at an early age for their safety, and that of other's while handling any firearm. Any individual not practicing common sense gun control is a danger to their self and other's in proximity of them. This same analogy is to be applied to operating automobile's or anything that can pose a risk by not using common sense when using it, driving it, or drinking it.
But on a more serious note, gun control is simply violating our constitutional right to keep and bear arms! It has no positive effect on violent crime, and has proven to be an effective means of enabling the violent criminal to act with less fear of being stopped by a law abiding citizen using lethal force. FBI stats clearly show the increased violent crime trends in states that have restrictive gun laws that either prevent citizens from defending their selves without fear of legal issues, or make it nearly impossible to over come the cumbersome process of legally carrying a firearm. That is why I love my wonderful state of Arizona. Our state just made some needed changes to our gun laws that took effect on July 29th, 2010. Just when I thought it couldn't get any better too!

BullRunBear
March 18, 2011, 08:47 PM
People who speak of common sense gun control, or any gun control, are not interested in controlling guns. They are interested in controlling people.

Jeff

almherdfan
March 18, 2011, 09:39 PM
Sure. Commit a violent crime-no gun for you! Loss your marbles-no gun for you! Too young to vote-no gun for you (w/o adult permission).

I cannot fathom why folks want to create conflict where none should exist, which is what happens when RBKA advocates make broad condemnations of "liberals". (or vice-versa).

Frankly, I'm often offended by "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" groups. It's quite clear that there are far too many people that don't bother to learn a damn thing about the issue beyond what they think they know.

Perhaps if firearm enthusiasts would focus on "common" ground rather seek out divisiveness, the issue would simply would not exist. Then again, that's probably true for most of our political issues.

Wake up, my fellow citizens! Don't be manipulated by pundits that are motivated by profit.

Prince Yamato
March 19, 2011, 12:20 AM
"Common Sense Gun Control" is a lot like "mild diarrhea"; flowery terminology to make you think better of a bad situation.

One-Time
March 19, 2011, 12:30 AM
No such thing as 'common sense gun control' as gun control doesnt make any sense, nor does it work nor will criminals follow laws regardless what they are

ArfinGreebly
March 19, 2011, 12:48 AM
Remember that in the field of logic, you can render a problem "unsolvable" by placing it in the wrong category.

WW II -- Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor in a massive airstrike. FDR convinces Congress to declare war on airplanes, because the attack was carried out from the air, and therefore "planes are the problem."

Category error. The problem is a hostile, aggressive nation driven by [whatever motives] and williing to commit wholesale slaughter to achieve [whatever goals].


People are murdered by criminals. Many criminals prefer to use guns for that purpose. Government wants to ban guns, because "guns are the problem."

Category error. The problem is bad people who do bad things to good people.


Goverment and anti-gun activists complain about and do exhaustive studies on "gun crime." Conclude that "guns must be controlled to reduce crime" because, clearly, you can't have "gun crime" without guns.

Category error. Crime does not have a valid noun-as-adjective causative basis. Eliminating tools does not eliminate crime, and never has. Objects do not cause actions. The crime is "robbery" not "gun." The crime is "murder," not "gun." The crime is "assault & battery," not "gun."


Crime is a domain requiring criminal control, not object control.

Manco
March 19, 2011, 12:37 PM
Category error. The problem is bad people who do bad things to good people.

From the point of view of anti-gun politicians, however, people are just people, and guns make people more dangerous than they otherwise would be, so guns are the problem. To them, things like individual human rights (e.g. self-defense) are mere abstractions that fade into the haze from their high-altitude perspective. :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Common Sense Gun Control?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!