Sound Good Gun Laws you would support?

Here we go again...

Any right that can only be exercised upon completion of affirmative conditions as required by the government is not a right.

Your premise is insulting.

Matt

No. Just like "Prove you're not a criminal", "Prove you're not an idiot" puts a burden of proof on the citizen before allowing the free exercise of a right. The burden of proof should ALWAYS be on the State before imposing an infringement on a citizen.

1. Every household must possess at least one firearm

2. All schools receiving public funding must have at least one person authorized to carry, and trained to do so

3. All those who wish to discuss why someone would "need" a firearm must first explain why someone would "need" to be able to speak freely or belong to an organization of their choice

4. Prior to any consideration, any proposed law must be soundly demonstrated to not infringe on the rights of the people to bear arms

Any right that can only be exercised upon completion of affirmative conditions as required by the government is not a right.

Your premise is insulting.

Click to expand...

indeed - offensive and foolish

when the Obidenshumersteins finish with it it'll become a 4 year college course and require a nasa physical with a psych screen

The problem is we don't need "gun laws". We need "violence laws". The notion of a gun law undermines the key issue at play - the violence perpetrated with the gun. Take New York for example. They made it a harsher punishment to use a gun against first responders. That ignores other acts that can be taken against first responders. They made it so a therapist has to say if his client made a credible threat to use a gun...they should have made it so there's a credible threat to use violence.

They're focusing on the guns, which leaves a lot of territory for violence untouched, while at the same time reducing the rights of law-abiding citizens. This is a lose/lose for the pro-gun community, and a lose/win for anti-gun. We all want to stop violence, and I want to keep my guns. So if we could look to solutions along those lines, it's win/lose for them, and win/win for us. I'll take 2 wins on my side and 3 wins total over 1 win total (not on my side). The antis, however, would rather we get 0 wins and they get 1, so they "win".

Aisiguy...

1. I believe people should have the freedom to NOT own guns if they don't want to. But they shouldn't tell me that I can't either.

2. Two people, that way the one person can't be the first target and eliminate the threat to an active shooter.

3. People should be allowed to discuss whatever they want. In public office, the first consideration must be the bill of rights. Anyone seeking to restrict the Bill of Rights without a constitutional amendment must be struck down.

4. Or any other right guaranteed by the constitution.

proposed laws:

(1) - any location desiring to be a "gun free zone" must provide:
-a secure perimeter
-armed security
-effective entrance screening
-liability for any harm done to people in the GFZ
-a weapon-check station with security and a NQA policy on what gets checked in or out
-disarmament of LE entering also


(2) - any elected or appointed member of the government passing unconstitutional legislation is removed from office and thrown in prison forever

(3) - all gun laws now apply to LE and government

(4) - NFA repealed, sound reducing devices ENCOURAGED by paying citizens $20 each to install them

New Laws.... all elected politicians that vote for a law that is proved unconstitutional are immediately fired. ...no gun free zones.... school resource officers available at school district request.... authorized school administrators and teachers that they may carry a concealed handgun.... that's about it.

No to magazine limits. No to "universal background checks". No to banning any firearms currently legal. That about cover it?

1, Require proof of safe firearms handling training before a person can buy a firearm from an FFL, this can be a hunter education card, any fire arms training class certificate, CCW permit, or can be completed by watching a 1 hour video and taking a 10 question test, video can be watched at home, and test can be administered by any FFL or accredited firearms instructor (NRA, etc.), certificate will be issued so this will be a 1 time only requirement.

Click to expand...

If you make this easy enough not to be burdensome, it would be meaningless. I can see it as an excuse for an FFL to tack on another $10 or $20 to the transaction costs. In fact it would be a "nose under the tent" for more and more onerous "training" requirements. Exhibit A is the law that was passed in NY yesterday.

p.s. here is another one, provide a toll free hotline that private sellers can call to check the background of potential persons involved in a private party sale, make this voluntary, and with no traceability, basically let anyone call and get a NICS background check done before making a sale.

Click to expand...

This could be a counterproposal to the plan for "universal background checks," which seems to be gathering steam. Unfortunately, it may be too late for any such counterproposals. By making the checks both mandatory and done through FFL's, the antis are using the tried and true technique of "co-opting the stakeholders." In other words, they're neutralizing the possible opposition of FFL's by dangling a new stream of income in front of them.

I can understand when people want to offer things like this... but what this ultimately is doing is caving. You might think you're being a matador and side stepping the bull and its 2 horns, but what you're really doing is side stepping and still getting gored by one of the horns. All of these "common sense" gun laws are intentionally missing the bigger picture. This discussion should not be about the gun. This is the fallacy of this entire situation. Evil people do evil things. Crazy people do crazy things. You're stepping right into their trap and saying to the non-logical segment of public that guns are the problem. Yes, by advocating certain "common sense" laws will kind of sort of slightly appease the anti-gun crowd, but they want it all. They'll take what you hand them, and continue to take until nothing is left.

BigFat I agree almost 100%. I disagree with the clause that citizens get paid to attach suppressors, because that would suggest the government knows who has suppressors.

Maybe arming teachers / armed police in schools, but asking LEO's be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us while a reasonable position in our minds, is not going to go over well with the general public.

Click to expand...

The inverse is true of the current state of gun laws. The problem is that LEOs fight the same criminals we defend against...except they have backup and preparation (and often the element of surprise). If the government says we only need so much, then logic states that LEO would need the same.

This would serve to discourage gun control by applying it to everyone instead of just the masses. Apply it to those writing and enforcing the laws, and the position will change.

Well in the way many young kids are raised in irresponsible ways it does make me wonder who should be responsiable for their "rights"?

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Welcome to the world of gun control ... this is just the start ... hopefully you can successfully defend your rights against a ground-swell of American public opinion turning against gun owners.

I hope you are a lot more successful than we were after the school shooting here that took our handguns. At least you have rights and not just privileges.

Anyone on psychiatric medicines cant have guns, and people living with them have to secure their firearms where they can't be gotten to by crazy person. Sorry, but I have no problem disarming crazy Prosac- frenzy kid. How to do this effectively, I don't know. Note this is for people actually on medicine, or about to be on medicine, not just somebody who says they're depressed to their shrink.

Media would never release names of mass shooters, their pictures, ect, and would be limited to 10 or 15 minutes an hour on reporting spree shootings.

Any city over 100,000 would be required to maintain a free firing range with volunteer instructors.

If you have any job where there are other people you'd have the option of buying a modern milsurp weapon for protection.

The last two or aren't completely serious, though I'd like to see them, but I thought the article on psychiatric medications and the spree killings was pretty convincing. Those medicines are something that needs to be looked into, it seems there might be alot more murders b/c of that stuff than you might think, and I dont just mean high profile spree murders. If I remember right that crazy woman who drove her kids into a pond was on them, too, for example.

I think the OP fails to recognize what is meant when people throw around the term "compromise" these days. At the very least, we want to maintain the status quo. The opposition doesn't want us to have any gun rights whatsoever but rather various priviledges they may bestow upon us at the government's discretion. The "compromise" is that we'll meet somewhere in the middle. It's not really a compromise at all when we consider only one side is expected to give any ground. And they're not really looking for our input short of us suddenly agreeing with their point of view, caving.

Midnight Oil said:

I can understand when people want to offer things like this... but what this ultimately is doing is caving. You might think you're being a matador and side stepping the bull and its 2 horns, but what you're really doing is side stepping and still getting gored by one of the horns. All of these "common sense" gun laws are intentionally missing the bigger picture. This discussion should not be about the gun. This is the fallacy of this entire situation. Evil people do evil things. Crazy people do crazy things. You're stepping right into their trap and saying to the non-logical segment of public that guns are the problem. Yes, by advocating certain "common sense" laws will kind of sort of slightly appease the anti-gun crowd, but they want it all. They'll take what you hand them, and continue to take until nothing is left.

Click to expand...

I think we're on the same page.