1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun laws- if you were in charge, what would you keep?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by goon, Sep 15, 2004.

  1. goon

    goon Well-Known Member

    I have a disagreement with a guy on another board, and that has got me thinking about what gun laws I would keep if I were in charge...
    If I were in charge, I would eliminate all the gun laws in this country. There would be restrictions on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, but things like tanks, attack helicoptors, artillery, mortars, machine guns, explosives, and rocket launchers would be completely legal under federal law. Background checks would still be done, but not as they are today.
    See, all the violent criminals would either be dead or locked up forever. Nonviolent ex felons who served their time and who had led law abiding lives would be granted all of their rights back after a specified time. Nonviolent repeat offenders would be exiled, probably into the Atlantic Ocean on a tire inner tube and banished from ever returning to US soil. If they make it to England, they live.
    I would also add in mandatory militia service for every citizen (except active military and some LEO) within a certain age bracket. People with disabilities would still be required to attend if their disability wasn't too severe. For example, my brother wears hearing aids in both ears, but he can still use a rifle. He would be required to attend (although he would be there anyhow).
    What would you do?
  2. jpIII

    jpIII Well-Known Member

    Restrictions I wouldn't mind:

    I thought about it for a while, and the only restriction I could come up with that I dont mind are perhaps local ordinances pertaining to shooting within city limits for purposes of keeping down on the unneccessary "noise pollution". Obviously, self defense cases etc would be exempt.
    I just don't want ear defening noises coming from my neighbors.

    With that said, I would be perfectly ok with it, if my neighbors used a proper backstop and a silencer.:D

    heck for that matter, it sound like fun!:D
  3. armoredman

    armoredman Well-Known Member

    I'd keep one - Vermonts' law that states it's illegal to carry a firearm with intent to violate the law....
  4. GigaBuist

    GigaBuist Well-Known Member

    - No brandishing, and by brandishing I mean pistol in hand, waving it about, and yelling like a lunatic.
    - No pointing it at people that don't need killerin'.
    - No killerin' people that don't need killerin'.

    - Noise issues are prefectly legit. If you're too close to other folk's homes then use a supressor... which can be purchaesd at your local hardware store.

    That's about it for me.
  5. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    I'd keep the Second Amendment. All possible crimes involving firearms are already covered under other laws.

    MICHAEL T Well-Known Member

    Always wanted law that says each year on your Birthday you get one free killing. I figure if everbody had this right would make for a very polite world.:what:
  7. goon

    goon Well-Known Member

    Someone on the AK forum had a similar concept.
    Everyone gets one and only one, ahem how shall I put it? Butthole permit.
    One permit in your lifetime. You can save it as long as you want and even not use it, but no one would know whether you had used yours or not.
    I think that people would be alot more civilized if that were the case.
    The guys on the AK forum are a little more crude than we are over here, but all in all, I like them.
    I fit in well over there. Sometimes here, I have to ... Ummm ... wait until I have cooled down to post a reply.
    That is usually good though.

    Also, I wasn't really thinking of the 2nd ammendment as a gun law, but I guess it is. I'd keep it.
    I also guess that allowing localities and states to sort of taylor their own laws makes sense. People in California know nothing about what people in Georgia need.
  8. 2nd Amendment

    2nd Amendment member

    I'd eliminate everything that pertained directly to firearms. I'd create laws which dealt in downright Draconian ways with those who misuse them, and very clearly define "misuse". Crimes with firearms would virtually vanish, both because of the fact nobody would want to face the penalties and because those who did would only have the opportunity to do so once... "Repeat Offender" would become a forgotten term.
  9. Tamara

    Tamara Senior Member

    I wouldn't keep any gun laws, just murder laws, assault laws, rape laws, and robbery laws.
  10. 4570Rick

    4570Rick Well-Known Member

    I keep them all except for about 20,000 of them. :scrutiny:
  11. foghornl

    foghornl Well-Known Member

    No Nuke-Bio-Chem for Jon & Jan Q. Public-Citizen...other than that, what ever you can afford to feed/shelter/clothe.

    National Reciprocity for CCW. No qualifiers such as active/retired LEO only. period.

    When the Grand Jury/Prosecuting Atty et al says good shoot on a self-defense case, end of story. No 'wrongful death/liability' suits from family members of said miscreant. Any ambulance chaser bringing such a suit is instantly suspended from the bar for a period of not less than 5 years.

    No suing firearms manufacturers because some miscreant(s) stole weapon(s) and used said weapon to murder Casper Milquetoast, innocent private citizen. See above for remedy to this one.
  12. Mad Man

    Mad Man Well-Known Member

    I don't know about "keeping" any gun control laws, but I'd require the government -- and government employees -- to be bound by them too. None of this "LE are exempted" crap that we've been seeing.

    If the police have access to nuclear weapons, artillery, anti-aircraft rockets, and tanks, then the citizens in that jurisdiction should too. If the police don't, then the citizens don't need them either.

    If the police are allowed to keep machine guns and .50 BMG rifles to fight crime, then the citizens in that jurisdiction should, too. If the police are prohibited from keeping machine guns, then so could the citizens in that jurisdiction.

    If all the police are allowed to have is a .38 revolver, then so should the citizens. (Not that I'd be happy with that type of situation, but I would accept it under the rules. What I hate now is being told that nobody needs a machine gun except crime lords and mass murderers, which is why the police are allowed to have them).

    The benefits of such a policy are:

    1) it answers the question about "does the Second Amendment cover nuclear weapons and rocket launchers? If not, where do we draw the line?"

    2) the government wouldn't pass any gun control measure that they don't want to live with. Yeah, there could still be gun control laws, but they would tend to be more sensible.

    3) the citizenry would be as well armed as the government agencies which are supposed to "serve and protect" us, which I think goes along with the intent of the Second Amendment.

    Obviously, the wild card is the military, which has different needs, purpose, and rules of engagement than any domestic government agency. But in theory, the military is not supposed to be enforcing the law in the United States anyway.

    Unlike the military operating in foreign lands, the police and citizenry they "serve and protect" are in the same community, and need to protect themselves against the same bad guys. Therefore, they should have the same tools. The only thing the "LE exemption" from gun control laws has resulted in is resentment, disrespect, and distrust among a group of people that have traditionally been the strongest supporters of the police.
  13. mfree

    mfree Well-Known Member

    No restrictions on types of firearms, period.

    NBC, yeah, those get restrictions.

    Here's a kicker of an idea though.... open carry, legal everywhere, anywhere, anytime. CCW requires a license that involves training. What does this accomplish? The people who carry guns, a criminal looks at them, sees the gun, and don't know their skill level. The people who don't carry guns openly, a criminal looks at them, sees no gun, and realizes this could either be sheep for dinner, or someone with a CCW who will eat their lunch handily and permanently.

    Draconian punishments for violations with weapons are also another way to go, instead of banning the arms themselves. If someone uses a gun in conjunction with another felony, the penalty for that felony is instantly quintupled. If it's a violent felony, death by firing squad (maybe using, oh, smoothbore .72" musket with real black powder just to be symbolic).
  14. mhdishere

    mhdishere Well-Known Member

    Sorry folks, but I think I'd draw the line at explosives too. Mostly because of the level of training and ability required to use the safely, I don't want my drunken neighbor playing with a charge that could take out my home too.

    Quad .50's sure look like fun, but how to get you enough money for all that ammo???? You HAVE to be a government to afford to shoot those things!
  15. Mad Man

    Mad Man Well-Known Member

    Is a murder somehow more tragic when committed with a gun?

    "I'm sorry about your loss, Mrs. Byrd. But at least you can take consolation in knowing that your father was dragged to death behind a truck, rather than shot with an evil firearm."
  16. Third_Rail

    Third_Rail Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't. Most of the "common" military explosives are easily made, and quite safe to handle. I'd draw the line at having a cumulative mass over 25kg of explosives in a single storage unit, which must be 500 feet from any dwelling.

    A $10 permit and 2 hour safety class should be mandatory, as should US citizenship and a basic background check (i.e. is this person a habitual thief?)

    Explosives were, are, and will be a fantastic tool that most people would love to be able to use because of their usefulness. Just because someone can use them for evil doesn't mean that they should be restricted.

    Oh, and if someone has another storage unit, 500 feet from all structures, including other units, then they may keep another 25kg, etc.

    It worked for years and years and you didn't hear of criminals blowing things up wantonly. Why? Explosives are expensive to buy, last I checked. Even their basic chemical precursors are rather expensive in a lot of cases.

    Before replying "Yes, but....", think of this: almost every argument you can make about explosives can apply to firearms as well. Both are tools, and useful ones at that.
  17. Matt G

    Matt G Moderator Emeritus

    Agreed. I have the same problem with enhancing the penalty because the murder was a hate crime. Now, I'm all against hate crimes of every variety, but I just can't see explaining to a family that the murder of their beloved son or daughter, who worked as a clerk in a Kwik-E-Mart during an armed robbery, didn't count as much as another murder, because the motive in the other murder included hate of race, creed, etc.

    I would maintain a ban on possession of firearms by convicted violent felons.

    I would maintain a ban on firearms in jails and prisons.

    I would maintain ban (at the municipal level) on shooting in municipalities, outside of safe practice areas or emergencies. (Note: simple "discharge within the city limits" would be a ticket, unless substantial danger to others shown.)

    I would maintain the law that forbids obscuring a firearm's identification numbers. (Hey, if my gun's stolen, I want it back!)

    I would create a new law: Starting at kindergarten and continuing every year through graduation, every schoolchild would have to go through a day's worth of intensive firearms safety training each semester. He or she would have to demonstrate a proficient knowledge of firearms safety in a written and physical test (age appropriate, of course), or he or she wouldn't graduate. Guns are a fact in this society, and even if a parent didn't want their child around them, that parent sure wouldn't want another kid to accidentally (I'll use that word with children) or negligently (as adults) shoot their child. Repetitive safety training is the answer.
  18. mhdishere

    mhdishere Well-Known Member

    My comment wasn't for prevention of criminal actions with explosives, everyone on THR knows that if someone wants to commit a crime they'll go to whatever ends they need to to get the tools to do so. I'm much more concerned with someone just being stupid in handling the stuff.

    Given your requirements of storage units 500 feet from any other buildings and mandatory training/licensing, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I could just picture my neighbor having 100 lbs of the stuff in his basement and there being a big hole where my house used to be. If you knew one of my neighbors you'd know this might be an issue. In my area most of the home plots are 80x100 or so, there's no place I could store something like that where, if it went up, it wouldn't damage at least two homes in addition to mine. For that reason I make sure I keep only small amounts of gasoline (usually a gallon or less) for the lawn mower and stuff, I have to run to the station more often but if something bad happens I'm minimizing the potential damage.

    I realize that explosives, like firearms, are useful tools. I also think every firearms owner should have safety training, that should go for explosives users too.

    I hope I clarified my position, as you certainly did yours.
  19. Tamara

    Tamara Senior Member

    ...but you repeat yourself. ;)
  20. Mad Man

    Mad Man Well-Known Member

    It is interesting -- but not surprising -- that the same people who ridicule the idea of "abstinence only" education for sex ed think it's a great idea for gun safety.

    It also works the other way, too, but I don't think as frequently, since the gun culture has a large libertarian faction.

Share This Page