What gun control measures do you support?

Which of these gun control measures do you support?

  • Absolutely none.

    Votes: 218 31.8%

  • Convicted, violent felons only.

    Votes: 453 66.1%

  • I support the restriction of certain kinds of firearms, such as NFA weapons.

    Votes: 36 5.3%

  • I support the restriction of "junk guns".

    Votes: 24 3.5%

  • I support a registration system.

    Votes: 18 2.6%

  • I support restrictions on open carry or concealed carry.

    Votes: 20 2.9%

  • I support restrictions on under-21 purchases and concealed carry of handguns.

    Votes: 78 11.4%
  • Total voters
    685
Status
Not open for further replies.
I find the concept of restricting "junk guns" to be profoundly unsettling.

We mostly stood aside or cheered when Bryco / Jennings / Lorcin went under but it's simply not good practice to throw someone else's baby off the sleigh.

Most of us figured that out with the '94 AWB but there were (and are) still too many that won't fidgit until their own ox is gored. Whether that ox is evil black rifles, Hi-Points and MPA or whatever, everybody's "solid citizen" firearm is somebody else's "junk".

I'd expect that to Josh Sugarman they're all junk and he'll happily work his way from Lorcin to Hi-Point to Barrett to Bushmaster to Blaser to Holland & Holland.

To some that appreciate fine English side-by-sides, your Mossberg 500 is a junk gun.

I personally find MPA's product to be trashy and their advertising to be offensive but at least I've learned a lesson: they have a right to be there so long as they're conducting themselves legally. I'll not be party to tossing them under the bus. I wish I'd figured that out earlier than I did.
 
CliffH: I agree with you on no early release, but I see a LOT of people saying variations of "if they're not reformed/safe to be in society, then they shouldn't be released". Since the purpose of prison is punitive NOT reformative this attitude could absolutely mean a life sentence for that first robbery, as opposed to a 4-8 year sentence required by statute.

Stevie-Ray: see above. There's a HUGE difference between "paying your debt" and being "reformed". Say I get sentenced to 5 years for burglarizing a home, and I serve all 5 years inside. The week I'm released I move into my mom's house (your neighbor) and break into your house to get money for my drug habit (based on an actual case I handled).
Did I "pay my debt"? Yes. Am I "reformed"? No. Should I have been released in the first place? You tell me.

As far as the "felon" issue--stop selectively listening. The issue is violent felons. A "bar fight" is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions that I've looked at--unless you're talking about totally losing control and caving the guy's head in or stabbing him with a knife, but then it's no longer "just a bar fight", is it? Theft is a felony, but it's not a violent felony and would therefore not preclude you from RKBA or voting. The Hi-cap-magazine-as-a-felony issue is moot, because (in this hypothetical world we've created) ownership of any weapon and any accessory by a non-violent felon is legal, therefore not a felony.

Brigadier:
By supporting that, you are saying that if you stray a little too close to a county jail building while looking for the right building (easy to do in a nearby county, who has the inmate workers in a small, simple looking building right next to the courts) then they should never be allowed to own a gun again
Click to expand...
--?????
What does this have to do with anything? If you legally possess the gun, how does walking near a convict (or building containingconvicts) suddenly become--anything? If I drink a beer in a restaurant where children are eating, does that constitute "providing alcohol to minors" in your world? I don't mind arguing points, and I know that this can get emotional here, but let's try to keep some rationality please.
 
I'm trying to synthesize the stance of those opposing my viewpoint--mainly those advocating no restrictions--so I can understand it better. It seems to boil down to 2 basic stances.
I'm sure you'll let me know where I'm wrong :):

A) Prison should be reformative, not punitive, and prisoners should not be released until they are "safe", even if this means life sentences for lesser crimes. Since all people outside of prison are now "safe" people, anyone can get a firearm.

or:

B) No restrictions at all, despite the fact that the system is what it is. Rapists, robbers and murderers who are released after serving a full sentence should be allowed to own guns as soon as they hit the street. Since my wife and I have guns too, it'll be even and I'm willing to risk my safety and my children to these predators to protect RKBA.
 
This is a role of government question.

Those, like me, who favor no restriction, do not believe the government is endowed with the right to determine who is 'safe' to own a gun and who isn't. Doing so would grant the government the ability to restrict access to arms based on the voice of the people as prescribed by law. I view the point of the second amendment to be that the people do not have a voice in the regulation of this individual right.

I also did not accept the phrase 'violent felons'. I have investigated some of the crimes that can earn you a violent felony card, and not all of them include violence. They also vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Finally, the concept that prisons are meant to be punitive is flawed, at least based on my education in the Fred House Academy in Draper, UT, where I was trained as a correctional officer and graduated as valedictorian of my class. It is a correctional system. There is a punitive aspect due to the fact that inmates must be incarcerated, and in some instances further restricted in their movements, interactions and activities for the safety of themselves and others. However, the end goal of the system is to provide rehabilitation and a support mechanism so the inmate can correct their behavioral problems and rejoin society as a productive member. Inmates are required to successfully complete certain programs to be eligible for parole (in most cases).

However, the recidivism rates indicate flagging success in this endeavor. That is a topic for a different time.
 
Convicted, violent felons only.

First of all, convicted violent felons should not be out of the gray bar hotel.
But if they are, a law won't stop them from having a gun...But it's a good way to lock them up for life without parole if they get caught with one.
 
My view is that we should not be making policies about gun ownership, because they simply don’t work. What seems to work is harshly punishing people who use guns illegally.
For instance, if you commit a felony with a gun, you get a mandatory five-year add-on to your prison sentence. Where this has been done there is some evidence gun violence has declined (albeit with some substitution towards crimes being done with other weapons).
These sorts of laws are attractive for many reasons. First, unlike other gun policies, they work. Second, they don’t impose a cost on law abiding folks who want to have guns.
 
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=390596
I swung by one of my favorite toy stores last night and had something really weird happened.

Standing around with the owner and a couple of other regulars when this youngish lady comes in and starts timidly looking around. We all look at each other and you know we're all thinking "oh, first timer, let's help". So the two of us back off and the owner (a super friendly and pleasant guy) goes into his whole "make the customer feel welcome and comfortable" routine (which he's very good at).

So the woman says she's interested in a gun and eventually she points to a nice pistol in the case and says "can you tell me about that one"?

So he starts telling her about the CZ line and so forth and the question comes up "so do you have a specific purpose in mind, target shooting or...." and this woman cuts in with "well I really need something in case I have to shoot my husband".

WHAT!

She wasn't making a poor joke, she was serious as a heart attack.

The owner kinda stumbles and says "I'm sorry, what?" and this lady says "well, my husbands getting kinda rough and I think I'm going to have to shoot him".

So the owner kinda stops for a minute and then says, very quietly, "Miss, you just basically told me you are planning to shoot someone. I can't sell you a gun."

(as you can imagine, we're all in HIGH ALERT mode by now)

She gets this weird about-to-cry look in her face and says "but I NEED one and soon".

The owner says "hey lady, I tell you what, I can call the police and you can wait here and when the arrive you can tell them what is going on". Well the lady FREAKS and yells some obscenities at the owner and storms out the door (leaving her purse behind).

So we're all kinda standing there in shock for a few minutes and then the owner says "the hell with this, I'm calling the cops". We agreed that was probably a good idea.

So he phones and tells them the story and that he still has the ladies purse with her ID. The cops say they'll be right over.

AND NOW IT GETS WEIRD!

No sooner does a uniformed officer arrive and start taking notes then this big ANGRY man storms in to the store DEMANDING to see the owner and raising six kinds of hell about how some SOB at THIS STORE refused to sell guns to his wife because she's a woman and that it was her GOD GIVEN RIGHT to be able to buy a gun and somebody better damn well obey the law or they were going to get SUED!

Yup, the woman had gone back to her husband (the one she wants to shoot) and told him some BS story about being turned away for being a female, etc.

So the cop takes this guy aside and gets him calmed down and sets the record straight. Then the guy basically says "Oh, I wonder if she's stopped taking her meds again".

WAIT, WHAT?!?

So this guy was coming in to demand that the owner sell a gun to a person undergoing psychiatric treatment who had expressed a desire to kill him?!? Oh man I can just guess what that household is like!
__________________
Click to expand...
Well after reading this I must ask what the
Quote:
what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand

folks think of this? This is my exact arguement for some gun control is necessary.................
Click to expand...
here is a good excuse for basic gun control..........now what do you think?
 
here is a good excuse for basic gun control..........now what do you think?
Click to expand...
Not much...

That was a unique situation. The gun store owner stumbled into doing the right thing.

I can't think of any law that would have prevented the lady from buying a gun except one that would be so onerous as to be anathema to law abiding citizens who should not be restricted at all.
 
Convicted Violent Felons Only

I almost checked "absolutely none."

But... the way I see it, citizens are allowed certain civil rights. Convicted felons surrender some of theirs. They can't vote and have other restrictions.

So... in that respect, they don't enjoy the full rights of citizens. But as far as I'm concerned, for those of us who ARE citizens.... no restrictions. Period.
 
That was a unique situation. The gun store owner stumbled into doing the right thing.
Click to expand...
So for the sake of arguement, By restricting her rights to gun ownership, the right thing was done? HMMM intresting,

any one else want to key in on this?
 
I don't think so. Replace "crazy lady" with mild mannered and battered housewife, who because of our jacked up legal system, has no real way of keeping said abusive husband from killing her next time he gets good and drunk, apart from a useless restraining order. She says she needs the gun in case she has to shoot her husband, are you going to tell her no?
 
Rob thats all fine and I agree, what if she is lieing, and also her husband did say she could have been off her meds...........so is it a lie to cover premeditated murder? Is it ok to sell a gun to some one who just said they are going to kill another person..........my point is you throw the mental health and or premeditated crime thing in there and it messes up the works so to speak.
 
I agree with RobMoore. I own a handgun. I hope I only shoot targets with it. But ultimately, it and my AR-15 were purchased as defense weapons. The range time is for proficiency (and fun).

If this lady had turned up dead in her living room the next day, what would be be saying about the refusal to sell her a gun? What if the law had prohibited her from buying one? We see postings here all the time bemoaning a tragedy where someone wasn't armed and prepared and ended up dead.
 
March of the what if's

If this lady had turned up dead in her living room the next day, what would be be saying about the refusal to sell her a gun? What if the law had prohibited her from buying one? We see postings here all the time bemoaning a tragedy where someone wasn't armed and prepared and ended up dead.
Click to expand...


what if ..........If this ladies husband had turned up dead in her living room the next day, what would should he be saying about the refusal to sell her a gun? What if the law had prohibited her from buying one?

Would the store owner now be an accessory knowing she was going to kill her husband?

We could what if all day long, but the facts are this she said she might have to kill her husband, Her husband said she in taking"meds" this thing can go either way. Caution to the wind either for or against gun control because once we start down this slipery slope its really hard to get back to the starting point.

In this case I think everything went as well as it could have, but for other mental cases Cho at VT being the freshest on my mind, should people like him be allowed to have firearms. I think there could be a better system and rules than currently on the books.
 
We should be able to arm ourselves for self defense and for sport. That right should belong to anyone who is mature enough and sane enough to be entrusted with lethal force. Those who exercise this right need to understand the potential consequences of what they are doing and be held accountable for their actions while armed.

If someone actively demonstrates that they are a threat to others, I think their right should be suspended until they actively demonstrate that they can again be trusted with firearms.

Many posts have said that prohibiting convicted violent felons from having guns won't work because they will always get them on the street. When they do, they become 'felons in possession' and can be taken off that street again. There should be a well defined legal path by which they can regain those rights, but they need to make the effort.

Someone young enough to be tried and sentenced as a juvenile should not be on the loose with firearms. Most juvenile sentences end the day the criminal becomes an adult. Don't know about you, but I am not thrilled by the idea of our local gang-banger 'car club' set toting uzis in any case.

Psychologists and therapists are in some cases expected to report clients who threaten suicide. Anyone who, by their own words or actions, makes clear that they intend to kill others should be disarmed, at least temporarily. If they can be spotted before they go fugoid, there is no excuse for letting them carry out their threats.

I like the post by streakr on page two of this thread. Issue gun-owner licenses like drivers' licenses. Available to anyone who is willing to demonstrate very basic competence, understands the laws, and formally accepts responsibility. After that, no need for transfer checks, no records of who owns how many of what or where they got them. Why not expect someone who wants to carry a lethal weapon to make at least as much effort as someone who wants to drive a car?
 
Officer's Wife:
Trouble is you are trying to compromise with people that see a compromise as one more step towards their ultimate goal
Click to expand...
Let me preface my statements by saying that, although I see an advantage in national legislation since it stops the whole "I can do X here, but can I do X there?" problem, I am a firm believer in State's rights. In your state, CCW may not be a problem--your voters agree with it, are pro-gun, whatever--so these conditions would never come into play. They are what I would like but since the majority of your voters want a more liberal policy, that's what you have.

In my state, and other anti- states, the majority of the voters don't want CCW. My premise is: how do we get CCW back on the table in a way that satisfies the majority in these states? In this case, my suggestions are compromises, but they are compromises towards our goal instead of away from it.

To repeat myself--do we want to expand our rights and carry the cause to the land of the antis, or do we simply want to entrench ourselves in a defensive position to keep the places that are already on our side? Wars are never won by staying defensive, and not trying new tactics simply allows the antis to anticipate what our fight will be from day 1.
 
Come on down to South Florida and tell me you want every Cholo ganster open carrying. No sir, I think the CWP process that Florida has in place is just fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Gun Control Supporters Launch Frenzied Campaign
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
RetiredUSNChief
RetiredUSNChief
C
  • Locked
What have you sent to your representitves?
Replies
3
Views
293
xsquidgator
X
T
  • Locked
  • Poll
Do you support ANY gun-control laws?
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Replies
614
Views
22K
rbernie
rbernie
R
  • Locked
Support for Gun Control at an All-Time Low
Replies
21
Views
937
Carl
C
H
  • Locked
  • Poll
I do support gun control...
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
hso
hso
Back
Top