How free do you want to be poll

Ragnar Danneskjold said:

If someone cannot be trusted with a firearm due to criminal violence, why are they not sill in prison?

If someone has been released from prison due to them no longer posing a threat, why are they denied their rights?

Click to expand...

My view. If they can't be trusted with a firearm, they should not be walking the streets.

Bobson said:

Too many scumbags, not enough space. That may sound like a cold joke, but it's the honest truth.

"Bad people" walk among us because we don't want to continue to pay the bill it would cost to keep them segregated for life, and because we don't have the testicular fortitude to eliminate them entirely.

That's the root of this issue, whether we like it or not. Rather than arguing semantics, we'd be better served by discussing this.

I already addressed that. "Shall not be infringed" was a mistake, and that's why we have amendments to the Constitution. America's founding fathers were not infallible, omniscient Gods. They were men, and in wording the second amendment, they erred.

Click to expand...

I would think that if prison was a place that you REALLY didn't want to go, crime might be a little less commonplace. Nothing overtly cruel or anything, but growing your own food or other work required.

No control, if a felon is dangerous enough that they are prohibited from owning a gun why are they not still in prison.

3 - Moderate control Background checks, "assault" weapons disallowed but "reasonable" semi-auto allowed with mag restrictions. Shall issue CCW permits.

4 - Limited control Background checks at time of purchase, no mag restrictions, no registration, no CCW permit required.

Click to expand...

Define assault weapon. If its a semi-auto replica of a military arm, its not an assault weapon. Also, define background check. I know a few convicted felons who were convicted (note that I said convicted not committed) of non-violent felonies for things such as money laundering, forgery, and other "paper crimes" that resulted in no damage to anyone but they are all Class C felonies. Sure, if someone commits a felony offense with a firearm, they loose their gun rights for life. But all felons loosing most all their rights regardless of crime committed is a bit like asking for blood.

Also, does this apply to things like suppressors, night vision, full auto arms, DD's, and other things that you need NFA/FEL registrations for? That whole ball of wax needs reform but I think that just passing a background check in order to buy a grenade launcher & rounds for it is a bit loose on control.

FWIW, I voted for limited control as that is about all the control I feel I can deal with. Also, I don't have a desire to own a FA or DD, but the fact that several of those laws interfere with things I may want to do in the future that involve semi auto arms or accessories to any kind of firearm.

Shall not be infringed....I graduated Ms. Jennings 4th grade class. I got it. No Federal Government control whatsoever concerning firearms. You a bad guy and use a firearm in committing a crime we give you the night night needle. Dirt nap.
Law abiding citizens are covered under the Constitution.
Mental patients etc. cannot get drivers licenses in many cases and that is usually a State Law. Firearms should be covered under State laws. The Feds have no business in the firearms arena.

"Shall not be infringed" was a mistake,

Click to expand...

False ! It wasn't a mistake, I saw no intent to erase it on the document in DC. They copied it a bunch of times too....same structure of words.

I believe they were actually pretty close to the mark with their intent.

The fact that they started with "no" law other than this, and went forward to where we are law-bound today is pretty decent.

Imagine if they had written regulation in there, where we'd be !

I voted #5. Even with the statement as written, encroachment has occurred irregardless.

I would be interested to hear from the three people who voted for moderate control, as to what they mean and why.

I believe background checks and carry permits are important for safety reasons.

Great poll. Interesting results. I voted #4. In the same way we need to deprives some people of liberty (think prison) there are some who we don't need to keep in prison, yet also (for a time at least) need to be restricted from having firearms. Hence background checks are needed.

To all the people who are saying gun control laws only affect people who actually follow the law and therefore are irrelevant really need to pull their heads out of their... if that is the case, then what is the point of having any laws, period?

I would vote for some middle ground between limited and moderate gun control. Background checks, illegal for felons to have firearms (but there is an appeals process) shall issue ccw, no registration, no AWB, no mag restrictions.

To all the people who are saying gun control laws only affect people who actually follow the law and therefore are irrelevant really need to pull their heads out of their... if that is the case, then what is the point of having any laws, period?

Click to expand...

Because MOST laws punish people who have done bad things. They incarcerate such individuals for the safety of others.

IE, if you kill someone, then there is no further doubt as to your character. You have committed a heinous act and must be removed from society for the protection of others.

Same with theft. Same with rape. Same with assualt/battery. We're talking things that have a direct and measurable impact.

Now, consider "gun laws". They're not about punishing anything actually wrong. A gun sitting on a table or even in one's hands harms NOTHING. Its all about what they MIGHT do. The thing is, everything that one MIGHT do with the gun that is negative is ALREADY ILLEGAL.

Its not that no laws have purposes - it's that they LAYERED laws have no purpose. If you want to prevent murder you make murder a crime and anyone who commits it gets charged with murder.

Formula94 said:

To all the people who are saying gun control laws only affect people who actually follow the law and therefore are irrelevant really need to pull their heads out of their... if that is the case, then what is the point of having any laws, period?

Click to expand...

Who is the victim if you break a gun law, now who is the victim if you break a law about murder. See the difference?

I agree most laying is bad. Some 'layering' can be good though. We don't allow most people to have guns when they meet the president. Probably a good layer.

It's a gun forum. Did you expect a lot of 1s, 2s, and 3s?

formula94 said:

To all the people who are saying gun control laws only affect people who actually follow the law and therefore are irrelevant really need to pull their heads out of their... if that is the case, then what is the point of having any laws, period?

I would vote for some middle ground between limited and moderate gun control. Background checks, illegal for felons to have firearms (but there is an appeals process) shall issue ccw, no registration, no AWB, no mag restrictions.

Click to expand...

Ugh...well....we are talking about law abiding citizens here and gun restrictions on those law abiding citizens who have committed no crime but see their Constitutional rights infringed. I have some Windex for that belly button windshield if needed.

Deleted.

I think the difference is that our president is someone who lots of people already have the motivation to kill and I'm sure receives death threats on a regular basis. He is also a person we as a country have great motivation to not allow him to be killed. My point is that sometimes preventitive measures do make sense.

<this is in response to a post that is no longer there...>

I voted for Limited gun control, even though criminals can get guns regardless, having a background check helps prevent them from buying from reputable dealers and misuseing the firearm to do harm which may reflect back to the honest shop owner. I also believe that there should be mandatory education to anyone who intends on owning a firearm. It doesn't have to be much. Kinda like a Hunters safety course, education on how to safely handle the gun, basic functions of the gun, maintaining, safe shooting area's(bullet ricochet etc) and safe storage of the gun. Also a short class range visit with a simple handling responsibility test where you actually handle guns and then shoot a couple rounds. As far as a license goes it would be exactly like my hunter ed card is. Simple on record proof that I have completed a short course on responsible ownership and use. If a person is being irresponsible and is reported by forsay a range officer or other safety personnel like game wardens etc you should have to retest on your own dime(a small fee of 25$ or similar) and if you are a repeat offender potential suspension of "license". Of course this is far from a finished system and needs things worked out like, "What happens if my license is suspended, where to my firearms go" "What if an angry range officer or similar wrongly accuses me of improper use?" and various other issues. But that is what i believe would make firearms a more accepted thing, as well as reducing gun related non criminal accidents and whatnot. Of course guns used in crime will likely stay the same but thats more of a law enforcement issue (more so law system issue) for not stopping the importation of illegal guns and stopping suspected offenders before its a problem, IE gangs. If you have any thoughts or comments for me I am interested.

Felon's and those with severe diminished mental capabilities or mental disease should not have weapons

Click to expand...

Who determines what a mental illness is? Some people think that owning a gun means that you are mentally ill. The tea party and Ron Paul supporters have been called domestic terrorists. In the vast majority of history laws have been put into place to keep "undesirables" from defending themselves.

I choose LIBERTY. It means I am free to make my own decisions. Yes I understand that this means that there might be bad people out there who will use freedom to hurt others. In the end it is my life and I should be able to defend myself as I see necessary. All of the laws that have been put into place so far have not stopped mass shootings.