If There Were No Antis What Gun Laws Would You Have?

Status
Not open for further replies.
velojym, I agreed with what you say for years, with a couple of minor concerns. Those concerns have become magnified in recent years to the point where my objection to a military draft is practically gone:

1. While a professional military class like we now have offers certain benefits, such a class increasingly becomes divorced from the general civil population in terms of politics, philosophy, sense of life, morality and ideas of justice. Eventually the professional military class can become alienated from society and either withdraw from civic affairs in disgust or actually subvert the civil will. This has happened a lot historically. It is happening now.

2. It's been a long time now since we had to raise a huge army to fight a huge war. We may never have to again. But it really could happen. A war in Pakistan with Chinese intervention, widening into a general South Asian conflict, for example, would require millions of troops, not tens of thousands, to bring to a successful conclusion. After the first year, the professional military class will have suffered casualties. They could lead a vastly expanded army as cadre, much as happened in 1942-1944. However, you need the incoming large numbers of troops. Relying on a trickle of volunteers isn't practical. Hoping the large conscript armies we may face will simply go away won't work.
 
Duke of Doubt said:
My idea of sensible gun control:

1. No sales of long arms to those under 18.

2. No sales of handguns to or possession by those under 21.

3. No sales to or possession by aliens illegally in the United States.

4. No sales to those prohibited by court order (subject to strict 2nd Amendment scrutiny) from possessing a firearm.

5. No sales to those adjudicated mentally incompetent, unless and until adjudicated mentally competent.

6. No sales to those renouncing their citizenship, unless and until citizenship restored.

7. No sales of full auto weapons without the purchaser paying a substantial bond and completing either an authorized extensive training course or military qualification.

8. No export of firearms without federal export license.

9. No import of firearms without federal import license.

10. No manufacture of firearms other than for personal use without federal manufacturing license.

11. No sale of firearms not meeting reasonable safety standards, said standards based solely on safe operation of firearm as designed, and NOT to include safety devices, locks, or specific features or designs.

12. Destructive devices subject to system similar to current system.

13. Firearms on airplanes must be checked and secured in baggage, inaccessible to passengers.

14. No sales to or possession by members of an organization dedicated to violence against the American people or their lawful representatives or agents.

15. No sales to or possession by agents of foreign governments, INCLUDING diplomatic personnel, except as provided by international agreement or military protocol.

16. No possession of, IN A PUBLIC PLACE, by persons otherwise prohibited from firearm possession of realistic non-guns. Realistic non-gun is defined as a non-gun likely to be mistaken for a genuine firearm by a non-expert. A rebuttable presumption that a firearm is NOT realistic is created by the addition of a conspicuous orange colored muzzle cap.
Click to expand...
If there were no antis, it would be necessary to invent them.
 
Looks like there are more than a few NRA members here who believe in gun control.

I will stick with the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
For the record I'm not in favor of ANY law that infringes on my right to bear arms or that will prevent me from defending myself, be it from common street thugs or government thugs.


In an ideal situation the constitution would be adhered to and this whole argument will be pointless. As that is not likely to happen and Obama is pushing for "Common sense gun laws" then FINE, let's talk about "common sense" gun laws!


First, The focus of law should be on taking those individuals off the street who "initiate the use of force to violate the inalienable individual right to life and property of other human beings". Any individual human being who initiates the use of force to violate the inalienable individual right of another human being, irrespective of the object or substance used, is a criminal to that extent.


By said criminal act, the initiator of force, at that moment loses the right to life or any protection under the law and may be deal with by the moral retaliatory use of force at any level essential for the intended victim to maintain his or her right to life and property inviolate against criminal aggression including lethal force.


Second, All gun laws addressed to the ownership or use of particular type of gun should be repealed! Splitting hairs over a muzzle break, pistol grip, folding stock or any other mostly aesthetic piece of hardware is a nightmare to keep track of and in most cases causes a otherwise law abiding gun owner to break the law inadvertently. It will also do away with police scratching their heads wondering if a item is "Legal" and prevent false arrests and charges.


Here is where First and Second compliment each other. It matters not to a victim or victims what kind of gun or whether they were injured or killed by a truck, automobile, baseball bat, coke bottle, poison or the hundreds of thousands of other objects and/or substances that can be used to cause injury or death. i.e., the focus of the law should be on the "INITIATOR", i.e., THE CRIMINAL who initiated the use of force to commit the act of aggression against another human being!


There are at least 250,000 household items and chemical substances other than guns that could be used by a criminal to cause injury or death... and or to commit suicide. i.e., any kitchen, bathroom, laundry room or garage has an endless variety of such objects or substances to commit murder or suicide. To license every such object or substance would create a federal, state, county and city bureaucracy many times larger than the one we now. Like trying to regulate aforementioned objects or substances, regulating every aspect of gun ownership is costing millions, is taking cops away from other duties and only hurts LAW ABIDING citizens.


Third, All waiting periods should not apply to people already owning guns. If the person already has a gun why does he need a cooling off period? Also the waiting period should be waved during a natural disaster or other widespread crisis where the need to protect oneself is pressing and self evident.


Forth, Magazine capacity and if the magazine is detachable should not even be considered. It interferes with the guns intended operation and it really makes little difference if the person has 4 ten round magazines or 2 twenty round ones.


Fifth, All carry permits should be valid in all states. There should be a standard concealed carry permit like a driver's license that would be honored in every state. Just like you don't forget how to drive when you cross a state line, you don't forget gun safety or how to use a gun. With the First, Second and Forth laws in place this makes perfect sense.


Sixth, The limit on how many guns a person can buy in any given period is ridiculous. What's the difference if he owns one or ten… armed is armed and if they already own a gun the point is really moot.


Seventh, Mandatory trigger locks or other biometric security devices are dangerous when the gun is needed in self-defense situation. And anything with a battery is prone to failure. Even a 1% failure rate is unacceptable if your life is on the line. Security of firearms should be the owner's choice and responsibility and not the states.




To anyone who suggests that the United States needs more gun laws, I would suggest that we have more gun laws than we need. The laws should reflect commonsense rather than fear and paranoia generated laws drafted by uneducated politicians or politicians with a personal or political agenda (Carolyn McCarthy is a prime example). An hour spent on the internet will leave you astounded that we are able to carry arms at all between plethora of existing Federal and State laws. And people ask, "With all these laws why does crime continue?" And therein lies the rub. These laws don't apply to criminals no matter how many and what types of laws are implemented. Criminals don't buy through legitimate channels. They don't undergo background checks. They don't have their fingerprints reviewed by the FBI.


Are there too many laws. Sure. And they affect the legitimate gun owner unfairly. There are 280 million firearms legitimately owned in the US. Social mores, conscience, personal responsibility, are among the reasons you don't see any crimes committed just because people own guns. Crimes are committed with guns because of criminal intent, firearms do not cause the crime.



We should be treated fairly. Most gun control legislation seems to assume that because we own and carry firearms, that we're somehow predisposed to commit the violent criminal acts of rape, robbery and murder. That's simply not the case and it goes to the center of the entire issue.

Legislation that is supposedly aimed at reducing crime, should focus solely upon criminal possession of a firearm during a criminal act. It should be focused upon reducing the common ways in which felons obtain illegal firearms. It should be focused upon increasing penalties for crimes where the perpetrator possesses, brandishes, fires or uses the firearm to injure someone intentionally.


Now that's a truly common sense statement, if I've ever heard one. Law abiding gun owners, commit no crimes. Even for the biggest dunce among us, this is not a difficult concept to understand.




We simply want to see laws that leave the law abiding firearm owner out of the loop of firearm related legislation aimed at reducing violent crime.

That's it. It's that simple.

Thanks for listening,

~Brogan






"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est"

("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands")
~Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)




"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."

-- Plato(429-347 BC)
 
No carrying a gun when under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Mandatory sentencing when a firearm is used in the commission of a crime. I'm also okay with background checks to make sure the insane or felons don't get to purchase guns in the first place.

That's it.
 
JerkFace11,

Your right, i would rather have no infridgement. i forgot the OP and its hard for me to imagine a world with NO antis. Im stuck in compromise mode. just to clarify i dont want to compromise with antis, but i feel its the only way, short of violence to stop the full erosion of our rights.
 
just to clarify i dont want to compromise with antis, but i feel its the only way, short of violence to stop the full erosion of our rights.
Click to expand...

The problem of compromise is they we are always the ones giving up something we already have and they anti's are getting something they never had.

I'm not willing to compromise any longer. Bring on the violence.

We can take them, we have the guns. ;)
 
...i dont want to compromise with antis, but i feel its the only way, short of violence to stop the full erosion of our rights.
Click to expand...

That is what they (antis) are counting on.
Compromising, never ending compromising, one inch at a time, is the method that they've outspokenly chosen to disarm the law abiding citizens of this nation. They've stated that openly.
One law at a time, one gun at a time, one regulation at a time, one compromise at a time will eventually disarm you and me.
 
No sales to indivuals under 18(parents can gift or buy for though) and at 18 you can purchase anything anyone else can buy

must undergo licensure, if you want to buy belt fed weapons, mortars, artillery, grenades etc. licensure would be having you enter a database as owning these arms and a background check-note ythe database would only have the special weapons in it. This would be free(to prevent abuse)

Full-auto M-16, AK47, uzi,etc would be normal purchase as long as it is not beltfed(capable of sustained fire)

silencers could be bought and encouraged(better for bystanders)

local laws can only limit where there may not be discharges, excepting your private property with a backstop( there has to be a law about ppl firing into the air, etc due to the potential danger)

that's it
 
I'd like to see two laws

1) New military weapons must be developed and manufactured in the US by US companies. Infantry rifles and ammunition will be made available through the CMP for training and competition. CMP will expand operations to sponsor other types of competition. Tax breaks will be awarded according to how well you score. Participation is strictly voluntary

2) You must purchase a minimum of three firearms. 1 for yourself and one for each child and grandchild

Ok, maybe 3) A program will be established for hopolaphobes to get help for their unreasoning fear
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see some required training in proper use of firearms as a prerequisite to carrying. Also training in the laws regarding proper self defense. I think training is more important than restricting purchasing.

The "background check" in place now is sufficient IMHO. There should be some checking of a person's past.
 
Main law: All guns are given to me for free, and anyone who i decide.

I would have only a few, no one ever convicted of a crime may posses a gun, and if the dealer finds something wrong with the person, ei, he is drunk or something, no sale, even if he is clean. NO RESTRICTIONS FOR MACHINEGUNS, actually, i would encourage them....but then people would get poor.....:D:D:D
 
I would only have two, 21 to purchase a handgun, 18 for rifles, other than that, none!:) If you commit crime with a gun, you do a very stiff prison sentence, no if's and's or but's. If you commit a crime with a full auto, add 10 years to the already stiff prison sentence.:D

If people would raise their kids right, if we could take our culture back to where it should be, we wouldn't need gun control. The role model for a lot of kids today is 50-cent.:barf::barf:
 
I love a lot of these 'that's it' posts.

Still too much regulation, considering the main purpose of civilian RKBA.
__________________
Click to expand...


K3 while I understand your point about "thats it" and about civilian RKBA, I fail to see how my 2 restrictions 1 discharging indiscriminatly(which i dont see how you can defend unless you'd rather put it under a standard reckless endargement charge which would be ok by me) And 2 licensing of grenades, explosives, heavy ordnance and belt fed weapons. Having free licensing will one allow the gov to have a record of who bought what ie you cant go buy a hand grenade toss it into a crowd just bc you "look" normal but are insane on the inside. also this would allow the gov to track who has what if these devices/weapons are stolen.
Another reason is public saftey, we all know machine guns are expensive to feed but the fact that two or three guys could pin down an entire area with minimal training, against ppl carrying normal arms being able to simply at least run a check on these ppl I feel is valuable.
My last point is that this wouldn't restrict the ppl owning whatever, just written down who owns what, imagine a 105 shell fired into a town by a nut, at least the police would know the ppl who own one in that area. I repeat ppl will not be turned down just registered so if it came to the real reason that the RKBA was written ppl just wouldn't turn them in(plenty would have them since reg is free so cost would be same as if no reg) So I fail to see how it infringes.
The constitution is a living document and we live in completly different times prof. criminals will always have guns, proff. criminals do not do school/church shootings etc. i would like there to be no such shootings and since as a normal person only walk around with a sidearm on me would prefer some nut didnt set up an m60 across from me in the park( i realize I can be taken out with a 22 but hopefully my armed freinds can return fire without having to brave a machinegun nest)
 
"Third, All waiting periods should not apply to people already owning guns. If the person already has a gun why does he need a cooling off period? Also the waiting period should be waved during a natural disaster or other widespread crisis where the need to protect oneself is pressing and self evident."

I've never thought of that but it makes huge sense.
 
K3 while I understand your point about "thats it" and about civilian RKBA, I fail to see how my 2 restrictions 1 discharging indiscriminatly(which i dont see how you can defend unless you'd rather put it under a standard reckless endargement charge which would be ok by me) And 2 licensing of grenades, explosives, heavy ordnance and belt fed weapons. Having free licensing will one allow the gov to have a record of who bought what ie you cant go buy a hand grenade toss it into a crowd just bc you "look" normal but are insane on the inside. also this would allow the gov to track who has what if these devices/weapons are stolen.
Another reason is public saftey, we all know machine guns are expensive to feed but the fact that two or three guys could pin down an entire area with minimal training, against ppl carrying normal arms being able to simply at least run a check on these ppl I feel is valuable.
My last point is that this wouldn't restrict the ppl owning whatever, just written down who owns what, imagine a 105 shell fired into a town by a nut, at least the police would know the ppl who own one in that area. I repeat ppl will not be turned down just registered so if it came to the real reason that the RKBA was written ppl just wouldn't turn them in(plenty would have them since reg is free so cost would be same as if no reg) So I fail to see how it infringes.
The constitution is a living document and we live in completly different times prof. criminals will always have guns, proff. criminals do not do school/church shootings etc. i would like there to be no such shootings and since as a normal person only walk around with a sidearm on me would prefer some nut didnt set up an m60 across from me in the park( i realize I can be taken out with a 22 but hopefully my armed freinds can return fire without having to brave a machinegun nest)
Click to expand...

1) I seem to have glossed over the discharge one. That falls under use, and reckless use of anything should be regulated. Possession and ownership is a different animal.

2) I cannot agree on the MGs etc. The government has tremendous firepower. Many police departments do as well. Civilians should have a respectable capability in order to keep the Houses of Lords honest. MGs and grenades fill that niche nicely, I would think. Therefore they ought not be regulated by the entity that needs to be kept honest.

105 shell? Them's expensive. Diesel and fertilizer? Not so much, and everyone has seen what kind of damage that cocktail can do.



Edit:

To add - Many people want to regulate possession, a passive thing. Many people want to criminalize an action that, by itself, affects nobody. Punish overt acts severely. Bubba shot the jukebox and all that. :)
 
HexHead, um... great point about how we have the guns, plus most all of the military would probably be with us. But if you started that the antis would cry out that those crazy gun owners are doing exactly what we said they would and many people would sympathize with them.
 
But if you started that the antis would cry out that those crazy gun owners are doing exactly what we said they would and many people would sympathize with them.
Click to expand...

They just need to be rounded up and sent to re-education camps. Again, we've got the guns. ;)
 
I disagree with "21 years of age to purchase a handgun". As a military member, I can carry a rifle, or in some cases if my AFSC were different, a pistol into the field, but when I was 18, I couldn't legally own a handgun to defend myself. I'd drop that down to 18.

Also I'd allow new select-fire weapons to be covered under tax stamps. It would make obtaining one a helluva lot cheaper if there weren't a finite number of them.

Short barreled rifles and shotguns could be owned without a tax stamp. Just because something has an extra 4 inches of metal hacked off doesn't make it any more deadly (more concealable, sure, but crooks don't pay much attention to the law as it stands anyway).

Be able to carry anywhere, with the exception of airlines.

Enact a clause that enables any politician who makes moves against our constitutional rights to be automatically impeached on grounds of breaking their oath to defend the constitution of the United States.
 
Anyone not on probation that can prove reasonable knowledge and responsibility with a firearm may buy firearms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Gun laws- if you were in charge, what would you keep?
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Muzzleflash
M
T
  • Locked
What Impact Would Greater Numbers Of CHPs Have?
2
Replies
25
Views
756
230RN
230RN
H
  • Locked
Were you ever anti-gun?
2 3 4 5
Replies
124
Views
7K
hdwhit
H
H
  • Locked
For those new to guns, here's the mindset you will find against you
Replies
6
Views
448
powell&hyde
P
R
  • Locked
How law-abiding are you?
Replies
7
Views
583
rbernie
rbernie
Back
Top