MaterDei
Member
Nada
Compromises on gun control that we might accept. No, really, any good ideas?
- Thread starter Geckgo
- Start date
- Status
FAS1
Member
Ole Humpback
Member
For a good rundown of why "compromise" is bad:
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html?m=1
We have given up so much, and what has the other side gave up in return?
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html?m=1
We have given up so much, and what has the other side gave up in return?
Kybill
Member
I favor no new laws or restictions unless we simply limit the number of rounds allowed to the secret service or other government security personnel to whatever limit is in existence in the most restictive state. So if an individual in NY is allowed 7 rounds that would allow up to 7 single shot weapons in a single protection detail for one of our elite ( or a lesser number of weapons as long as no more than 7 rounds were accessible at any given moment).
With the lowest violent crime rate in this generation and still falling what exactly is the motivation for any new restrictive legislation or for any "compromise". There's no data indicating that we have a problem to solve.
The existing laws should be effectively enforced, the existing systems for firearms purchases should be effectively employed and any state's not reporting the needed information to keep people like Cho, Loughner, and Holmes from legally purchasing firearms should be forced to comply.
These nightmare events should be treated as just that, nightmares. They're too rare and too limited to warrant any change in national legislation.
The existing laws should be effectively enforced, the existing systems for firearms purchases should be effectively employed and any state's not reporting the needed information to keep people like Cho, Loughner, and Holmes from legally purchasing firearms should be forced to comply.
These nightmare events should be treated as just that, nightmares. They're too rare and too limited to warrant any change in national legislation.
Enforce existing law.
Eliminate "gun free zones" at education and worship locations. Legal to own and carry shouldn't end in the highest concentrations of loved ones.
Encourage partnerships with groups like NSSF or NRA to others such as Ad Council to promote safe ownership/use of guns. Eliminate the taboo. Here is a quick safety video by the NSSF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIWqrFC0d9k Now, imagine that it aired where the general public might actually see it and star someone the public might actually listen to.
Make available a system for background and stolen firearms checks for private sales. Strictly voluntary and only a yes/no response.
Make grants available for firearms training. What is the firearms and ammo FET being used for anyway?
Acknowledge that suppressors may be used as a safety device and exempt them from NFA.
Eliminate "gun free zones" at education and worship locations. Legal to own and carry shouldn't end in the highest concentrations of loved ones.
Encourage partnerships with groups like NSSF or NRA to others such as Ad Council to promote safe ownership/use of guns. Eliminate the taboo. Here is a quick safety video by the NSSF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIWqrFC0d9k Now, imagine that it aired where the general public might actually see it and star someone the public might actually listen to.
Make available a system for background and stolen firearms checks for private sales. Strictly voluntary and only a yes/no response.
Make grants available for firearms training. What is the firearms and ammo FET being used for anyway?
Acknowledge that suppressors may be used as a safety device and exempt them from NFA.
Here's a crazy idea on compromise: Enforce existing laws, and actually penalize those that break them. As far as swinging at the "good idea pinata" and coming up with laws for "safe storage" etc, we don't need the government telling us to use some common sense when it comes to securing our firearms in an appropriate manner, whatever that may be. Just like we don't need them to tell us not to drive while intoxicated. When the .gov gets into the business of legislating common sense, it gets messy, intrusive, and restrictive.
As a community, I think we can do a pretty good job of policing ourselves, amongst ourselves, without any help from the .gov. It's like asking a doctor to fix your car, or a mechanic to conduct open heart surgery, or, maybe, like asking some "lawyer politician" to come up with "good ideas for guns". Sounds crazy to me.
As a community, I think we can do a pretty good job of policing ourselves, amongst ourselves, without any help from the .gov. It's like asking a doctor to fix your car, or a mechanic to conduct open heart surgery, or, maybe, like asking some "lawyer politician" to come up with "good ideas for guns". Sounds crazy to me.
What "common sense" tells us is that government should be trying to identify the root cause of violent crime, identify the current methods being used to address the root cause of violent crime, propose real ways to mitigate those real causes that may involve doing away with laws and programs that don't work, bolstering those that do and introducing new ones based on fact based studies that don't duplicate existing effective programs.
The data doesn't indicate and relationship with controlling firearms ownership beyond controlling access of criminals and those who are not capable of safely owning firearms. Everything else is pointless.
The data doesn't indicate and relationship with controlling firearms ownership beyond controlling access of criminals and those who are not capable of safely owning firearms. Everything else is pointless.
here here! There's strength in using this arguement...the 'left' is using the incident why shoudn't we? Is it not true....if it was secured in a safe they would be alive today?
and #32
from my posters for Feb 8th thread...
TAX CREDIT FOR GUN SAFES!!
GOV'T/NRA SPONSORED SAFE GUN HANDLING CLASSES!!
''PASS-THE-CLASS'' GET A TAX BREAK ON FIREARMS!!
MAKES TOO MUCH SENSE EH??!!
INCREASE MASS GUN CRIME PENALTIES TO LIFE IN PRISON, OR WORSE! HARD LABOR SENTENCES FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS! WHATS THE MATTER...SCARED CRIME WILL GO DOWN??
Last edited:
Ole Humpback
Member
Safe storage is relative. What I consider to be safe storage is not what someone else considers to be safe storage.
Example; three people own guns who all lock their doors when they are away and bar them when they are home. One is a single person, the next person is married, and the last person is married with children. The single person considers safe storage to be under the bed, the married person considers safe storage to be a small box in the closet, the married with children person considers safe storage to be a Walmart type lock box that keeps the kids out.
In each situation, their storage is safe for their given situation. But the thing anyone should take away from this is that their homes are locked. We all know that burglars can beat the door to our house down given enough time, so whats to say that a gun safe will fair any better? Most "safes" that the average person can afford are not safes, they are security cabinets that can be breached with little more than a hammer or Sawzall. True safes require power tools or torches to breach, but they are not impenetrable and will eventually fail. So what's the minimum standard to be met for a safe: a UL rated RSC or a UL rated TRTL-30?
However; the thing that chaffs me the most about the "but if she had locked her guns in a safe" argument is this: parents for the most part will take their children into their confidence on most any matter. Lets suppose she had stored them in a safe and the safe was locked at the time Mr Lanza killed her. And for arguments sake say that she had told Lanza the combo to the safe/where the key is several years prior to him developing mental health issues. Who's to say that the safe would have kept him out especially if he recalled the method for opening it?
Example; three people own guns who all lock their doors when they are away and bar them when they are home. One is a single person, the next person is married, and the last person is married with children. The single person considers safe storage to be under the bed, the married person considers safe storage to be a small box in the closet, the married with children person considers safe storage to be a Walmart type lock box that keeps the kids out.
In each situation, their storage is safe for their given situation. But the thing anyone should take away from this is that their homes are locked. We all know that burglars can beat the door to our house down given enough time, so whats to say that a gun safe will fair any better? Most "safes" that the average person can afford are not safes, they are security cabinets that can be breached with little more than a hammer or Sawzall. True safes require power tools or torches to breach, but they are not impenetrable and will eventually fail. So what's the minimum standard to be met for a safe: a UL rated RSC or a UL rated TRTL-30?
However; the thing that chaffs me the most about the "but if she had locked her guns in a safe" argument is this: parents for the most part will take their children into their confidence on most any matter. Lets suppose she had stored them in a safe and the safe was locked at the time Mr Lanza killed her. And for arguments sake say that she had told Lanza the combo to the safe/where the key is several years prior to him developing mental health issues. Who's to say that the safe would have kept him out especially if he recalled the method for opening it?
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Here're some words of wisdom from Judge Legg:
"If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government’s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a “good and substantial reason” why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs."
Source: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/MDUSDisCtRulingGoodCause.pdf
The ONLY "compromise" that should EVER be considered here is the due process by which a convicted criminal may be deprived of his legal right to own a firearm. A criminal has compromised his own rights by his own actions and should be held accountable for it.
No law-abiding citizen should have his rights compromised in any way outside this process.
"If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government’s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a “good and substantial reason” why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs."
Source: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/MDUSDisCtRulingGoodCause.pdf
The ONLY "compromise" that should EVER be considered here is the due process by which a convicted criminal may be deprived of his legal right to own a firearm. A criminal has compromised his own rights by his own actions and should be held accountable for it.
No law-abiding citizen should have his rights compromised in any way outside this process.
- Status
Similar threads
