A poll on reason and reality

[hnk45acp]

You don't gain anything by compromising your principles from the start. That's just the first step towards a slow loss by attrition.

Nothing in life is absolute, except maybe death. We can all dream of that perfect utopia but in the end it's just a dream one day you'll wake up and find that you'll have to deal with people who don't quite believe as you do. So unless you are the the king of your one-man country, reality applies to you.

On one extreme you have free reign/anarchy and the other extreme complete control neither is good the reality must exist somewhere in between.

 

[Sistema1927]

I only chose two, and only two:

1) Parental consent. It is MY job to raise my kids.

2) Private homes/business may restrict carry. Private property owners can set whatever limits they desire for their property.

 

[JesseL]

hnk45acp,

I understand what you're getting at, but there's no point in making any more concessions to your enemies than you absolutely have to.

I don't really think any gun control is reasonable. The other side would really like to completely ban all guns outside of law enforcement and the military.

I realize that reality is going to happen somewhere in the middle. I'm gonna do my best to make sure that it hits closer to my side.

 

[ilbob]

18 or older to purchase (gun, Full auto, suppressor, sbs, sbr, etc.). You need to set the line somewhere. 6 year olds should not be buying guns. The only real argument is what age to set the line at.

Parental Consent for those under 18 for usage, not purchase. Children need parental consent to do just about anything. Why would firearms be any different?

Backround Checks ie: No violent felons or Mentalally Handicapped. Generally - yes. Need to define mentally handicapped though.

Must pass basic knowledge test on (operation, use of force, hunt) No. The Constitution says nothing about ability or training. No argument that people should be required to show they know the hunting laws and basic firearm safety before being sold a hunting license though.

DUI type testing/laws for CCWers. Maybe. probably not.

Zero tolerance for carrying under the influence. If actually impaired.

Licensing for DDs, crew served weapons ie: tanks, artillery, planes. Maybe. Depends on where the line is drawn. An M60 is usually a crew served weapon, but SEALs sometimes use them as personal weapons.

No firearms in courts or seats of government. Courts - maybe. Seats of government - no. The court thing I would like to see more narrowly tailored. What difference does it make if you are there to pay a traffic ticket? is it just courtrooms, or the whole courthouse?

No firearms in "sterile" enviroments ie: Airplanes, prisons. Prisons - yes. Airplanes are private property and that should be the decision of the owner.

No WMDs ie: nuclear, bio, chemical etc. Likely. Need better definition though or rat poison will be banned.

Must be US citizen or have green card. We should not allow aliens into the country that are not firearms trustworthy in the first place. If we restricted such undesirables in the first place, then NR aliens could have firearms as well.

Remedy to restore rights of mentally handicapped & violent felons. Already exists. Is called a pardon for felons. The handicapped thing needs some better definition and a means of effective review by a court.

Private homes/business may restrict carry. Homes - yes. Businesses - maybe. We have already bought into the idea that businesses that are open to the public can be required to serve people they do not want to serve. There is no constitutionally enumerated right to eat at a particular restaurant. There is a constitutionally enumerated RTKBA.

Background checks at gun shows. If you buy into the background check idea in the first place, then how is a gun show any different than any other place you might buy a gun?

Any firearms dealer must be licensed. Licensed by whom? And to do what?

Mandatory 2 year military service. No. We do not need any more 'special" rules for "select" people.

 

[Titan6]

I voted with the majority except...

Destructive devices....

Tanks for example are just another piece of heavy machinery that in untrained hands could be extremely hazardous. We do not allow people to operate heavy cranes and large bulldozers without a license so I see no reason not to make people get an operator license for these as well. But ownership should not be an issue.

Geek w/ a .45 already addressed the problem with property rights. I have a reasonable expectation of controlling what people do in my home. That said I have never stopped anyone from carrying. I just reserve the right is all.

Parents restricting use...
So long as the law holds parents accountable for the actions of their kids the parents need to have the ability to control them.

 

[ilbob]

You do realize that the founders of this country were illigal immigrants, right? And you do realize that it does not specify US citizens but people. And that these rights are granted by a creator, so it is logical to assume that it means all people have these natural or godgiven rights.

It is pretty clear from the use of the term "the people" in other amendments and especially the preamble that the term does not apply to every person in the whole world, but to individuals in a select group.

<added> Note that the word "person" is used in a number of places. If they had meant the 2A to apply to all persons, they probably would have used that word instead.

 

[ilbob]

Tanks for example are just another piece of heavy machinery that in untrained hands could be extremely hazardous. We do not allow people to operate heavy cranes and large bulldozers without a license so I see no reason not to make people get an operator license for these as well. But ownership should not be an issue.

I am unaware of any government restrictions on who can operate heavy equipment, other than that the employer is required to make sure they do so in a safe manner. Anyone that wants to can buy any piece of heavy equipment and operate it on his own land, if he can afford it.

 

[Officers'Wife]

HI Titan6

We do not allow people to operate heavy cranes and large bulldozers without a license.

Uh... Not quite, I was taught how to operate a D-6 (a medium to large bulldozer) when I was 14 and allowed to run a drag line (crane) the year after. Insurance concerns and bonding may demand certain conditions and experience in some areas but no licensing is required.

Now, just FYI I was driving semi-trucks when I was 15. Both the county sheriff and the state police were aware I was doing so and there was nothing they could do about it as I drove them only on my Dad's property. On private property a child or adult can operate any machine they desire without license as long as they stay within the property lines.

Selena

 

[eliphalet]

What do you guys think of a Federal Law mandating shall issue CCW for anyone

Shouldn't have to have it. What does "Right to keep and bear arms" mean in the first place? We are being "infringed" that is what should be or IMHO is against the law.

 

[lee n. field]

What are "reasonable" real world gun regulations that are acceptable?

Where's "none of the above?"

 

[RKBABob]

Tecumseh wrote: RKBABob: You do realize that the founders of this country were illigal immigrants, right? And you do realize that it does not specify US citizens but people. And that these rights are granted by a creator, so it is logical to assume that it means all people have these natural or godgiven rights.

But you are better off changing it to RKBA-but only sometimes-Bob.

So you're saying that the current crop of illegal aliens are here to overthrow our government and replace it with something more to their liking?

You bring up a good point about these rights being granted by our Creator. However, a person can forfeit these rights by making victims out of his fellow citizens. We are also granted life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... and all three rights can be "suspended" by society if you do not play by society's rules.

The best way to prevent those whom society has deemed unfit to bear arms from purchasing them is the background check. While not perfect, it is only a slight inconvenience to most of our 80,000,000 American gun owners.

Now, back to illegal aliens. Why would I distrust illegal aliens, but be willing to trust Resident Alien ("Green") Card holders with the same rights as myself?... One simple reason, ILLEGAL aliens are currently engaged in at least one crime. I do not believe that anyone swims across the Rio Grande at 3am, steals another person's Social Security number to establish an identity, and evades both the INS and the taxman is an honest person who can be trusted to obey any other laws placed upon him by his host nation. Further, having gone through great lengths to not immigrate through legal channels casts suspicion that he may well have a criminal record in his home coutry. Play by our society's rules and your rights won't be infringed upon.

Once again...

1.) Below 18, and your rights are held in custody by your parents.

2.) Your rights can be suspended by society... this is the basis of our entire criminal justice system. We can take your freedom, your life, and your right to bear arms.

3.) You can't have a nuclear weapon... heck, the entire Russian military can't secure theirs. Does anyone think a Wal*Mart safe is enough security for a 12 mega-ton warhead?

4.) The owner of private property is the Sovereign ruler of his land... you're bound to his rules, or get off his property.

Look at the polls... someone must have agreed with me! Actually, ilbob said almost the same things in his post... why doesn't anyone ever pick on ilbob?

 

[Ed Ames]

Private property. If it's my place I have a right to say "no" to anything and anyone. I can't have that right for myself unless I respect it for others.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Rollback

You use the term "reasonable" along with "real world." I would remind you that as of a couple of hundred years ago, all of what many term "reasonable" regulations would have been regarded as foolishness and oppressive.

I propose a rollback to sanity.

18 or older to purchase (gun, Full auto, suppressor, sbs, sbr, etc.)
Yes. Some kind of functional Adult threshold. Could be 16, could be 18. Could be 18 without restrictions, parental okay or "Shooter's Ed" training for younger. No restrictions on parental gifting of guns.

Parental Consent for those under 18 for usage, not purchase
No. See above. Common sense applies (yeah, I know). This should be a culture thing, not a law.

Background Checks ie: No violent felons or Mentally Handicapped
No. Dumb idea. Creates black markets, doesn't stop bad guys. I don't care who has a gun if EVERYONE has one.

Must pass basic knowledge test on (operation, use of force, hunt)
No. Perhaps for younger shooters, maybe in the 12 to 17 bracket. Anyone who makes it to 18 without knowing how to use a gun will suffer cultural embarrassment.

DUI type testing/laws for CCWers
No. What is this "CCW" of which you speak?

Zero tolerance for carrying under the influence
No. Zero tolerance for doing bad (or truly stoopid) things. The "while drunk" overlay is silly.

Licensing for DDs, crew served weapons ie: tanks, artillery, planes
No. What is this "licensing" of which you speak?

No firearms in courts or seats of government
No. If elected officials don't want to get shot, they need to conduct themselves in a way that doesn't encourage shooting them.

No firearms in "sterile" environments ie: Airplanes, prisons
No. Okay on prisons, kind of by definition. Airplanes? Why? The pilots and crew are all armed, and so are all the other passengers. No bombs, though.

No WMDs ie: nuclear, bio, chemical etc.
Yes. No explanation needed.

Must be US citizen or have green card
No. We want EVERYONE -- in ALL countries, everywhere, to carry. Two hundred years ago, everyone got off the boat with his own gun. Anyone found visiting the U.S. without one should be asked why.

Remedy to restore rights of mentally handicapped & violent felons
No. No need. If they're out on the street, they have their rights. No special process needed.

Private homes/business may restrict carry
No. These are separate questions. I might be okay with "private homes" but that's not something that needs a law.

Background checks at gun shows
No. What is this "background check" of which you speak?

Any firearms dealer must be licensed
No. Silly idea. I want hardware stores, general stores, grocery stores, florists, newsstands, and coffee shops to sell guns. And those that don't sell guns should at least sell ammo. And what the heck is up with clothing stores not selling holsters, huh?

Mandatory 2 year military service
No. Not related to gun ownership. Separate issue.

 

[hnk45acp]

Mandatory 2 year military service
No. Not related to gun ownership. Separate issue.

thanks for voting.
I put the mandatory military service choice in there for those that believe that the " A well regulated militia" portion of 2A refers to possible militia/military service therefore military service would be part of gun ownership.

 

[bigghoss]

a lot of people are aginst backround check stating that the criminals shouldn't be on the streets anyway. well I agree that we need to be harder on crime and put criminals away and keep them away. but untill that happens I will be in favor of instant backround checks. now if we can actually put people away untill they are ready to rejoin society and play nice then there won't be a need for backround checks

also I don't think just anyone should be able to get their hands on nukes and such however things like handgrenades and RPG's shouldn't be restricted as long as the people using them are being responsible. why shouldn't I be able to blow up my old TV on my own property? provided I have enough room to do it safely.

something that I would like to see it gun safety taught in schools, but they'd probly muck it all up

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Mandatory 2 year military service
It got 13 votes I now know there are lurkers around,

That said I listen to Cope Reynolds (The Shooting Bench) and he said and I quote "Until we can all get on the same shooting music were sunk we have no chance the 2nd amendment is either a right we need to support or not can't have it halfway"

That right there is the cold hard truth.

 

[Danus ex]

18 or older to purchase
Yes. While age is by no means an indicator of maturity, being a legal adult is a reasonable expectation for many rights and responsibilities in the United States.

Parental Consent for those under 18 for usage, not purchase.
No. The way it works now is fine.

Background Checks ie: No violent felons or mentally handicapped.
No. Sellers should use their judgement and are not obligated to sell anything to anyone. True, if someone is really bent on getting a gun, they'll get one somehow--but no gun retailer with a clue would knowingly sell to someone who's obviously deranged.

Must pass basic knowledge test on (operation, use of force, hunt).
No. As a declared right in the United States, keeping and bearing arms should not require any special and potentially discriminatory licensure.

DUI type testing/laws for CCWers.
No. As we already see in partial-issue states, the ways in which law enforcement interprets and enforces CCW restrictions varies greatly.

Zero tolerance for carrying under the influence.
No. Too much of a gray area--one man's buzzed is another's blotto. Instead, ask "is the person genuinely dangerous?"

Licensing for DDs, crew served weapons ie: tanks, artillery, planes.
No. Market forces place these items outside the reach of almost everyone. Anyone who wants one bad enough to pay for it probably won't use it to cause harm. Psychos who do use these items to cause harm will be very few and very far between.

No firearms in courts or seats of government.
No. Government buildings are public property.

No firearms in "sterile" enviroments ie: Airplanes, prisons.
Sorta. In prisons it would be wise to lock your weapon up at the front desk. On commercial aircraft, firearms are clearly necessary.

No WMDs ie: nuclear, bio, chemical etc.
No. Market forces and government control and ownership place these items beyond the reach of nearly everyone--especially nuclear weapons. It takes very specialized knowledge and equipment to manufacture chemical and biological weapons, and the market for these items is so minuscule few would ever attempt to profit from it. Those crazy enough to want biological and chemical weapons can already obtain them on the black market.

Must be US citizen or have green card.
No. Is the buyer of age?

Remedy to restore rights of mentally handicapped & violent felons.
No. If they're on the street it's because we let em out.

Private homes/business may restrict carry.
Yes. Basic property law. However, trespassing can only be charged if the carrier does not leave the property.

Background checks at gun shows.
No. As stated earlier, I would not advocate background checks in general.

Any firearms dealer must be licensed.
No. Lets keep prices down and quantities up!

Mandatory 2 year military service.
No. Atrocious, facist idea. We the people are already the militia.

 

[siglite]

Wow. Reading the results of the poll are kind of freaky. THR clearly has a lot of folks that support gun control. This disturbs me.

 

[RKBABob]

something that I would like to see it gun safety taught in schools, but they'd probly muck it all up

Keep your finger off the trigger untill you've asked the target about his feelings,
and have tried to understand his motivation for aggression.

 

[Werewolf]

I note that lots of folks seem to think that having to be 18 to purchase a gun is a reasonable restriction.

Prior to 1968 (I think that's when the law changed) there was no age limit. A 12 year old could go to the hardware store and buy what ever he or she wanted.

Of course Congress found it necessary to change that because of all the school shootings and asassinations commited by kids up to then.

How'd that work out again??????

 

[Feanaro]

18 or older to purchase (gun, Full auto, suppressor, sbs, sbr, etc.)

As Werewolf points out, generations of children somehow managed to survive to adulthood despite being able to buy firearms. But minors in general don't have the same rights as adults do and this is so "reasonable" that no one would ever be crazed enough to oppose it.

Parental Consent for those under 18 for usage, not purchase
Private homes/business may restrict carry

These have nothing to do with firearms and everything to do with property rights.

Everything else is garbage or not necessary.

 

[Soybomb]

I find it very disturbing to think that so far 23% of us, people who are probably the most vehemntly pro-firearm people around, are okay with things like tests for gun ownership. Can you guys show me why a state that requires that like CA is safer than one that doesn't or are you falling victim to the same brady group style "i imagine...." plan for legistlation?

Very surprised at the lack of respect for private property.

I did not check this box because its vague. I support a property owners right to ask you to leave their property for wearing a gun, an ugly shirt, boxers instead of briefs, or whatever other reason they wish. Leave when asked or the police will be called on you for trespassing. I would not support a law making the carry of a weapon against the property owner's wishes a cime itself. I also wouldn't pass a law to punish people extra harshly for wearing boxers on posted briefs only property. Some states have this right, some don't.

 

[RioShooter]

Actually, ilbob said almost the same things in his post... why doesn't anyone ever pick on ilbob?

Maybe because his handle is IL-bob and you're RKBA -Bob.

 

[RioShooter]

Usage Test?

Almost one-fourth believe a usage test is desirable.

Can anyone name just one other product that requires a usage test for purchase? IMHO, that is one of the most outrageous restrictions on the list. If a usage test guaranteed safe operation, there wouldn't be any traffic accicents.

 

[packnrat]

what would be the "dui type testing" for a gun