Gun Control Poll

[NineseveN]

It's all a slippery slope, and some of the responses in the thread are indicative of why we're having such a hard time with gun rights, and why we have for many, many years...we're defeated from within. The whole idea of 'reasonable restrictions' and gun owners trying to decide for other free men and women what level of liberty they should be afforded makes me want to vomit .

Folks here, on this sight eek: ) talk about how it should be illegal for felons to purchase or own firearms, yet they directly contradict themselves by saying that "gun bans don't lower crime because criminals ignore or break the laws (hence making them criminals) so therefore we should have no gun bans".

Doesn't it then stand to reason that these same people would also say "making laws to keep criminals from owning guns doesn't lower crime or the number of criminals with guns because criminals, by their very nature ignore or break the law (hence making them criminals) therefore, we should have no laws against criminals owning guns".... you’d thin that would make sense, but apparently many of those here use these ideas and terms such as liberty only when it suits their own selfish interests. This kind of thinking, the whole 'reasonable restrictions' idea (as if there was such a thing when it came to rights ), the whole giant group of gun owners and special interest groups (including the NRA) that think they get to pick and choose what liberty means and only when it suits them and that they get to pick and choose who gets to own and use firearms make them no different than the anti-gunners except that the level of gun control they wantand will tolerate] is lower.


These folks, along with the Brady Bunch/VPC and the antigun politicos are the ones that brought us:

Mandatory waiting periods

CCW permit systems in lieu of Vermont Style Carry

The Assault Weapons bans

The NFA and the GCA

...and this was all done to assuage their fear of crime and certain undesirable people having gun, (as if anyone has a right to feel safe, and even if they did, as if it superceded the Second Amendment). These gun owner use the same arguments they use to argue against the gun control that affects them, they also use to argue for their own level of gun control.


I want a bayonet on my AR-15, so assault weapons bans don't work because criminals get them anyway and a bayonet does not make the weapon any more deadly, nor is it, in any configuration, more deadly than a 30.06 deer rifle.

BUT

I don't think anyone really needs 30 round magazines or fully-automatic rifles. I don't want Tyrone the gangbanger criminal having easy access to a machine gun, and machine guns are deadly.

The two sentiments come out of the same mouths here on this and every other forum gun owners use to discuss things. Stop blaming the VPC and the Brady Bunch or your favorite scapegoat politicians...blame yourselves because you gave them the leverage by being selfish and ignorant as to what liberty truly is and why the Second Amendment exists in the first place (here’s a hint, it’s not just to protect you from crime). And now, it's probably too late to get back the things that have been lost. Those in power crave only one thing, more power, and they don't relinquish what they already have unless they're forced to.

The rest of us are tired from banging our heads against the curb for the last 10, 20, 30 or 40 years trying to tell all these ‘reasonable restrictions’ people where this is going to get us in the end…like I said, don’t blame the Anti-gun crowd, start looking inward and perhaps it’s time to start holding yourselves accountable. :banghead:

To be honest, I'd rather some gun owners just turn anti-gun, I'd rather have a smaller, yet solid group of people focused on the what liberty and the second amendment means fighting hard for what truly matters than 10 million of these half-way Second Amendment supporters...number only help when they're all fighting for the same thing, while the anti-gunners are trying to get our necks into the nooses half of the gun owner demographic is simply arguing that they want silk ropes instead of jute.



Couln't you guys have all taken up kite flying instead?

 

[Marhaben]

No restrictions on small arms, including full-auto weapons, other than being 18 years of age. I agree with an earlier poster who said everything should be given at a certain age, like driving, voting, drinking, etc. To me, being 18 makes the most sense. If you are allowed to die in a war, why not buy a beer or a handgun?

Grenades/mortars/artillery, however, should be illegal for general civillian use, except for those who register with the government for lengthy backround checks, expensive licensing, and intensive training. Reason being, storing and safely using such equipment is hazardous and shouldn't be treated lightly.

As for background checks and felons...well in today's society I agree with backgroiund checks, but ideally all violent criminals would be executed after being sentenced and allowed two appeals. No muss, no fuss.

 

[coat4gun]

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here, for a bit....

Quote:
All and any who are not in prison have the right to own Any Arm they deem necessary to Protect themselves and their loved ones. They have the Right and Responsibility to do so.

So why should we take this "Right" away from people in prison? It could easily be argued that while in prison, people need protection from other prisoners or severe beatings by prison guards, too.

Kinda extreme question, I know, but why draw the line?

The line is drawn because when in prison many of the criminal's rights are suspended as part of the punishment. Protection then becomes the responsibility of the State.

It is sad to think that people in prison are not being protected. It really is our Responsibility to make sure that those in Jail are protected. Their sentencing probably did not include abuse and beatings.

Once released from prison, honoring of all rights should be restored. To not do so only hinders their move back into society. Make their move back harder and they are much more likely to return to crime as a way of life.

 

[coat4gun]

+1 NineseveN

I agree 100% with your post. Some in here really are the enemy from within.

 

[thesneakyrussian]

except age and mental (possibly criminal) record no restrictions on small arms whatsoever.

otherwise you get yourself CA, NY, IL, Mass, HI, europe, australia, russia, mexico, south america, china, list goes on.

 

[thesneakyrussian]

I agree 100% with your post. Some in here really are the enemy from within.

you should read calguns board. that's what scares me the most is that people irreversibly think the way most of californians think: everything that's not explicitly allowed -- prohibited, among other things of the same nature.

 

[cmidkiff]

'Gun crime' that doesn't involve injury, intimidation, coersion, or murder shouldn't be a crime at all.

If someone commits a violent crime, lock them up. For a good, long time. If they get out and do it again, lock them up permanently.

If you're not in jail, you should be able to exercise your rights... all of them.

'Gun Control' is all about putting your rounds where you want them to go. Laws limiting your constitutional right to keep and bear arms aren't about gun control, they're about citizen control, just like raid is about roach control.

 

[jke456]

My position is born of extremism.

The anti's and their lobbyist will never stop because to stop will put them out of a job.

Their extremism has pushed me into the position that all 20,000 worthless laws used to control lawabiding citizens should be null and void.

The 2A is pretty well written and understandable no matter what or how the anti's wish to distort it.

I wholeheartly agree with nineseven that we have some problems within from any who can actually read the 2A and then say " so and so gun law would be ok"

I currently live in ILL. and if black-o-puke gets his assault weapon ban I will be come a felon . That is the bottom line as I refuse to give up any of my guns that I currently lawfully own. Guess we will have to see how far the courts are willing to go to actually see if the assault weapon infringes on my God given right that is documented in the 2A.

It sickens me to come on this gun rights board and to have members (curious how many are anti's in disguise) stating they are for one form of gun control or another.

As far as kids with guns go, if my children injure or otherwise harm someone with a hammer that I let him have( and didnt let him have) I am responsible and could end up in the slammer myself.

My sone has been going to a blackpowder range for over two years. On our first day(he was 10) I had 3 members of the range stop me and tell me that he is the safest kid they have seen on a range and he is welcome their anytime. I taught him well from before time he was able to first raise a gun and actually have the strenght to squeze the trigger.

Gun safety and marksmenship should be taught in all the schools from an early age. Just like driving.

Enough rambling I think I have given my position on this poll

jon

 

[45s save lives]

gun laws

I do not support gun laws of any kind because the law was already written with the 2nd ammendment. Why people think this is a "living document" is beyond me. It should be interpreted as it was written. Also I dont see lawyers or us for that matter defending it like the 1st or the 4th ammendments. We should! Also I dont support laws because criminals dont follow them anyways.

 

[thesneakyrussian]

Also I dont support laws because criminals dont follow them anyways.

couldn't agree more. first time i see someone who has the same view as i do. laws, cops, law enforcement, correctional system is there not to make the society better or safer. it's scary how few people actually understand it or even care about it. even worse, people trying to defend the system currently in place.

 

[steelsfx]

So many of you are saying "I only want xxxx and age restrictions of 16/18 yrs." Care to give us reasons why? Most of you have said "If you can fight for your country/drive, you should be able to own a gun." Aside from accidental shootings when untrained kids were messing around with guns, do you have any evidence that a properly-trained 14 year old is any less capable of being responsible with a firearm?

On another note, the Swiss Landwehr/Landsturm model has been applauded by a few posters in this thread. Please realize that issuance of rifles (pistols to officers/medical staff) to male civilians is after compulsory military service during which the individual was properly trained. Simply mailing battle rifles to American civilians will put powerful tools in the hands of many millions of untrained people. Also, the Swiss government sees fit to provide each militia member with only 72 rounds for their rifle, additional ammo must be purchased by the individual. All ammunition purchased in stores is registered. Fewer than half of the Swiss cantons have lax carry laws...eleven do not require permits while the other fifteen require necessity be shown...

And here I thought they were all gun-happy while enjoying their green pastures, laundered drug money, and fancy chocolates...

Further reading:
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/faqs/talk-politics-guns/pro-gun-faq/part2 (do a ctrl-f for "switzerland" to avoid scrolling through pages and pages)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

 

[gezzer]

Shall not be infringed Sad replys on a gun board

 

[Cosmoline]

I have no problem with state and local controls over the USE of firearms. There is no Constitutional right to cap off rounds on a downtown street. Otherwise, I can see no justification for any prohibition on ownership of ANY SMALL ARM including RPG's and mortars.

However, I would not object to restricting ownership of explosive ordinance, since by its nature it kills in a radius on its own without the control of a human hand directing each little fragment from the shell. Plus, there's the small matter of blowing the block up if you don't know what the hell you're doing. But if you want to fire inert rockets from a launcher or have contests hitting marks with non-explosive mortar shells, knock yourself out.

 

[Avenger29]

I believe that you should be able to by any weapon or weapon system that you want, at any age, as long as you have the money... from an M-1 Garand to an M-1 Abrams with a functional main gun- if you can pay for it, you can have it

 

[Lindenberger]

Anarchy

I sense external forces calling forth the Anarchist Demon long buried deep within my heart. I got problems enough dealing with three different personalities--me, myself and I.
I was almost rid of me, but myself wouldn't allow it.
__________________________________________

Anarchy is freedom. Yes--the anti-gunners are right. An absolute reading of the 2nd Amendment is an invitation to anarchy. Anarchy is freedom. Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Freedom is not for the cowards who run our government, nor for the cowards who demand that the government protect them. Anarchy is good. Anarchy is righteous. Anarchy is Gods original plan for Israel--until the cowards demanded a king. No man--or group of men--have any business ruling over another man. Freedom is Gods greatest gift to man (aside from redemption). Cowards fear freedom. Cowards fear free men. Cowards fear free men with guns. So do tyrants.
____________________________________________________



Anarchy? We don't need no stinkin' Anarchy! We got cowardice!

 

[TonyW]

 

[BFWE]

Missing the point:

Some of ya'll are missing the point.

Gun control laws fall into the category of silly superstition. It is called "Totemism" and is the very simple and subtle escape from reality where a thing instead of the person is blamed for a bad consequence.

Solving a social problem -- like murder, rape, and political corruption -- can not be done without addressing the person instead of the thing!

Firearms - "Assault Weapons" - cannons/mortars - etc don't kill people -- stupid idiots do and are encouraged by people who blame the tool. When you start to blame inanimate objects for human evil deeds you are stepping back to savagery.

NO restrictions! Period! Handguns - Rifles - Automatic Weapons - Mortars - Cannons - etc.

 

[wahsben]

The only restriction that I could totaly agree with is that violent felons should not be legally allowed to purchase firearms. Yes they will get them elsewhere but let them do so. If a prisoner was released from jail and went to a gun store and bought a firearm and went on a shooting spree all our guns would be on the chopping block. The Brady's, VPC etc. would all be going hey look what these people allowed a violent criminal to legally purchase a firearm and look at the consequence. Many fencesitters would then side with the anti-gunners because most people would agree or for the liberals feel that it makes no sense to allow a murderer or known violent criminal ever to legally purchase a firearm and therefore it would set us back further than ever.
I forget the exact quote but it had to do with all peaceable citizens having the right to bear arms.
As far as children go they should be under adult supervision until they can demonstrate that they are responsible. This can be at different ages because every child is different.

 

[Euclidean]

That would have disqualified some very nice people very much on our side like our very own Oleg Volk and Kim duToit, among others.

Of course, they came here legally, and are not criminals.

Well you'll notice first of all, I said that law really shouldn't exist because it's not enforceable, but it's a simple matter of I don't want these millions of illegal Mexican nationals to have the legal right to vote, own firearms, etc. If there's not a citizenship requirement, maybe some kind of legal authorization? A visa or something?

I've never immigrated to America myself. I know there's a couple of forms and a test involved. I do have a Russian friend who is a legal immigrant and he told me it's no big deal, but that's just one person. Is it more difficult than say getting a concealed handgun license? How long does it take?

Dishonorable Discharge: Requires a full court martial. Basically, it's part of the sentence for a felony conviction.

That's why a dishonorable discharge bans you from owning a gun, because it's basically a felony conviction.

Educate me: Aren't court martials only held when the guy does something truly, horribly awful, like commit treason, kill another soldier, commit multiple acts of rape, etc? My impression is that if they're not executed for it, discharge from the military is their punishment in lieu of prison time. That's always the impression I've got from friends, family and acquaintances who serve. Is that accurate?

Or is it like the civilian world where any little thing like peeing behind a dumpster or accidentally carrying a firearm into an airport terminal is grounds for trial?

At any rate you'll notice I said this isn't enforceable either. While there are some statutes I support in spirit, I question whether they should be on the books or not because I think laws you can't enforce, no matter how well intentioned, should not be laws and consequently you must constantly question your own stance on certain issues.

Also, it's not fair to take my or anyone else's comments out of context. The previous poster left the impression that I did not essentially say "I suggest this but I'm not sure about it..." when I made the original comment.

 

[p35bhp09]

you can be court-martialed for any number of reasons. basically what it comes down to is are you liked by your chain of command. One poster earlier in this thread asked if I payed attention while I was in the Navy. No offense but I probably know more about the UCMJ and military discharges and their consequences than a lot of people(a few of my friends including my roommate in the barracks were court martialed and I myself went to OIC mast for unauthorized absence.) Yes a lot of people do get court-martialed for terrible crimes but normally a court martial is convened for everyday offences. Now I'm not saying people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions but the military has a different set of laws than the civilian world. Some of the laws have to be different because of the role of the military but many are unnecessary. How does this relate to firearms purchases? According the the law, Anyone with a DISHONORABLE discharge cannot purchase a firearm. If you have a bad conduct, other than honorable, medical, general etc, your safe. Sort of. Military convictions and civilian law does not mesh perfectly. A military conviction does not exactly equate to a felony or misdemeanor. It is how each state views it that matters. If you went to a general court martial you could receive the maximum possible sentence for your crimes. Therefore, if your crime carries a maximum sentence of five years then the civilian side is going to consider you a felon. Special court martials are a different story. Up until april of 2002 the maximum sentence you could receive was 6 month confinement. So say you are special court martialed for an offence that if general court martialed would carry a maximum penalty of five years. Under special court martial rules(up until april of 2002) you could only get 6 months. Some states consider that a felony, some don't.
Back to the point of the post, you can receive a Dishonorable discharge for a variety of reasons that should not take away your right to purchase a firearm for the rest of your life.

 

[648E]

NONE

 

[GrOuNd_ZeRo]

I agree with the poster that fellons can own them after doing jail time since during jail time they can not have access to them.

Just to put this in perspective, would you disallow a fellon from buying a hammer if he assaulted someone with it 10 years ago? NO!

A gun is a TOOL! there is NO excuse.

If guns should be restricted or banned, so should airguns, black powder guns, (cross) bows, tazers, water guns, rubber bands, the list goes on and on...basically you would have to ban anything that can kill, otherwise it makes no sense IMO.

 

[aaronrkelly]

I agree with the NONE statement.

Make each person accountable for their actions, make parents accountable for their kids - blame those responsible. No need for gun control....

The problem has never been with the guns, its been with the people behind them.

 

[deolexrex]

Lindenberger-

Could you define anarchy please?

 

[cosine]

No gun control. Zero, zip, nada, nothing. No age restrictions. No background checks. No restrictions on who gets to purchase and own firearms. No waiting periods. No restrictions on weapon capability, capacity, etc. Nothing.

No gun control. Zero, zip, nada, nothing.

Do I make myself clear?