Anti-gun Gunnies

[Monkeybear]

Whats the difference between drivers ed and a drivers license?

 

[M_Olson]

Whats the difference between drivers ed and a drivers license?

not much. they are two parts of the same process.

 

[Notch]

"He's no different than all those people who support background checks and the like for gun purchases."

So...should ya have to show a drivers license? Or a state ID? Or should the illegals get them too? How bout the folks who have "been in" for violent crimes? Sorry, you beat and rob someone buying a gun should be as difficult (or impossible) as it can be made. I know... a criminal can get a gun if he wants to (blah blah blah), so what? A kid can get booze if he wants to as well, but we try to make it tough to do so. A person can vote more than once, but we try to make it hard to do so. Rolling over and giving up aint my cup of tea.

But I'm just sensible that way.

 

[Nameless_Hobo]

Background checks really aren't "gun control" per say, they're basically proving you're not a crimminal.
Crimminals loose their rights when they commit a crime, not allowing them to vote or own a gun legally is just icing the cake on their punishment, I also don't think it's a "gun control" as long as it stays to preventing crimminals and not everyone.

That being said, I'm sticking with the "if you're not for it, you're anti."
Call me ignorant, call me a jackass, but, I believe if you want
"reasonable gun control," such as requiring training, registering, licenses, and the like, you're an anti, even if you own EBR's.
You're with us or you're against us.

 

[the pistolero]

How bout the folks who have "been in" for violent crimes?

If what they did was so bad -- and, of course, in many cases it is -- then what exactly are they doing walking free in society? It seems to me the background check for gun purchases is akin to mowing a weed with the lawnmower instead of pulling it up by the root.

Sorry, you beat and rob someone buying a gun should be as difficult (or impossible) as it can be made.

If you're that big of a danger to society, then what are you doing walking alongside free men and women? I've said it before, and I'll say it here too -- the antis make it sound like we advocate arming child molesters and wife beaters when we actually would in many cases advocate keeping them behind bars. Regardless of whether a child molester/wife beater/rapist has a gun, they're still arguably a danger to society. The antis want to make it sound like we advocate arming these people, and we'd be well-served to turn that argument around and slam it right back at them.
"So you think it's peachy to let rapists and child molesters free in society as long as they don't have guns? What makes you think the lack of a gun is going to make them that much less dangerous? Last I checked, knives, crowbars and the like made quite handy weaponry. You wanna do background checks for those, too?"

 

[Monkeybear]

If you're that big of a danger to society, then what are you doing walking alongside free men and women? I've said it before, and I'll say it here too -- the antis make it sound like we advocate arming child molesters and wife beaters when we actually would in many cases advocate keeping them behind bars. Regardless of whether a child molester/wife beater/rapist has a gun, they're still arguably a danger to society. The antis want to make it sound like we advocate arming these people, and we'd be well-served to turn that argument around and slam it right back at them.
"So you think it's peachy to let rapists and child molesters free in society as long as they don't have guns? What makes you think the lack of a gun is going to make them that much less dangerous? Last I checked, knives, crowbars and the like made quite handy weaponry. You wanna do background checks for those, too?"

You seem to be arguing that because these people should be locked away instead of on the street they should retain the right to own firearms. I agree with you that many people walk the streets that should have remained behind bars but that is not the case. I believe that violent/sex offenders should not be allowed to own firearms. The fact that baseball bats, crowbars and knives make perfectly fine weapons dose not convince me that we should sell guns to violent/sex offenders.

Fix the problem with the unreformed being released from prision and I rethink the whole argument. Reform the prisons first and then maybe somebody in prison will actually have the opportunity to reform.

That being said, I'm sticking with the "if you're not for it, you're anti.

I don't believe that anyone should be licensed to own a gun. I don't believe that there should even be a Class I, II and III or any tax stamp. It is merely a deterrent. I do believe that despite there being almost as many guns in our country as there are people this whole dark and dangerous taboo/mystique prevents the average non gun owner from having a basic understanding of firearms and thus firearm safety.

I am saying is that if you are carrying a firearm for SD then you acknowledge that you are willing to use it to defend your life including times that you are in public. Because you will possibly be firing a gun in public it is important for public safety that you know the fundamentals of firearm safety. Because you may be firing against a public backdrop I have no problem with requiring a basic safety course. If you want to call it a "license" to carry, call it a "license" to carry but keep in mind that the only requirement I agree with is the class. I don't even think you need a background check because you did that when you bought your gun, heck they can give you your "license" right after the class. It will just be a sticker you put on your ID.

Find a skeet range that will let a new shooter walk around the place with a loaded shotgun without a basic course or someone to follow you around first.

I would have no problem with that.

Want to change my mind? Fix the problem of firearm ignorance and promote safe responsible firearms ownership. Don't treat anyone who had ideas about firearms that are different than yours as anything less than another person. You will scare people off if you blast them for thinking machine guns are illegal. Its frustrating but being a jerk won't help.

Sell your guns to your unarmed friends as cheap as you can stomach. I have sold several guns for far less than I paid for them and gave another away to people who had never owned a gun.

Take anyone to the range you can convince to go with you.

Talk to people who disagree with you about guns. Don't get zealous, don't lecture. Just talk. When they get used to the idea they will get curious. I just convinced a friend of mine to purchase my AK for half what I paid for it under the guise that it is an antique. He knows its not an antique, he just wants it. He was completely anti a year ago. Lets see how long it is before he wants me to take him to the range.

Fix the problem with people being afraid of guns and afraid to learn about them and I will rethink my stance on a basic safety class requirement.

 

[TEDDY]

any of you old enough to have lived in free america.before 1968 you could walk into a gun store and by any thing.why was not there masive crime and murder.the gov gave guns to schools for rifle practice.they gave guns to gun clubs[pistols & rifles].and amunition.is it because your parents were too lenient with you that you all turned to criminals.
the second says you may have guns is that it.I thought it said infringe.that does not mean some it means all gun rights.as for for machine guns until 1934
you could own MGs period.there are a lot of 08/15 maxim guns because the troops brought them back without interferance from any one.whe have become a nation of bigots.I dont want you to have **** because I dont like it.well I will be glad to be gone in a few yrs altho I am not rushing it.
:banghead:

 

[charlie505]

some NYC Gun owning Anti's

Chuck Schumer
Robert DeNiro
Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton - her SS agents carry them for her.
and last but not least - Mayor Bloomberg

Just saw this thread and had to vent.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

The way it should be for MG's is just filling out a 4473 and then direct deposit to ATF ($200.00 tax) maximum time in store 30 min compared to 6 months+, I think a Vermont style carry is the best. minimum age 18, and there has been talk of safety classes before BUYING this is a stupid idea, IMO the only safety questions should be the four rules on 4473 mostly for the "lets shoot beer cans off our heads and caterpillars on the concrete sidewalk" group, Oh yeah I changed my mind on silencers too I think they should be OTC for buying just like Frenchbushmaster said it was in France "like buying bread at the bakery" , Also If you want to hunt with a .50 BMG feel free Outdoor Life doesnt like that idea it should be noted.

 

[Ninja42]

I have a friend whom I introoduced to shooting about half a year ago, who appreciates northern europes nazi anti gun laws. I actually had a long and interesting conversation about it with him yesterday, and it turned out that he is as anti.gun as my hippie parents

He likes the law that classes any pistol or revolver with a total length of less than 210mm as 'dangerously concealable', and thereby illegal for civilians to own. Because we all know that the murder rates would skyrocket if one could buy a CZ 75b WITHOUT also buying a replacement barrel that was 5mm longer than the original. When I argued that the law was just herrassing normal non-criminal shooters like myself, and didnt actually prevent any crimes at all his reply was; 'you are just grumpy because the extra barrel will be expensive, and because your weapon will look like **** with it. But laws should not be modified to save you a few kroner on dangerous weapons, or satisfy your esthetic sense, it is here to protect us from ourselves.'(!)

In earlier gun discussions, he have stated that he was happy that the .45 ACP and .44 spec/mag calibers are banned, because 'the police wouldnt stand a chance if the criminals suddenly got acces to weapons as powerful as those'. He also likes the fact that we have to endure a two year probation period as active shooters in the gunclub before we are permitted to buy weapons of our own, because 'the law makes sure that the only people who gets access to guns are those interested in competition shooting, while people who like guns for their ability to harm other people are usually not dedicated enough to wait for so long.'

This guy is probably my best friend in the entire world, but sometimes he makes himself sound like just another dumb sheep. A sad thing that is..

 

[yesit'sloaded]

I'll go ahead and add my 7.62 cents. I think a decent system would look like this:

Real crimes against people (rape,murder,assault,robbery of a person) should be dealt with very harshly, maybe even bring back public hanging.

Guns should be available to anyone over 18 and anyone under 18 while holding the parents responsible.

Carrying should be fine and dandy and safety rules should encouraged but a course should not be required to carry.

Machine guns cost too much for gang bangers to shoot anyway..the argument about mass usage just doesn't hold water. Even if an Uzi cost a dollar shooting it would run you around 6 bucks a magazine assuming you shoot cheap stuff. It takes more than one magazine to learn how to make it hit POA consistently.

 

[Halo is for Kids]

I thought this thread was dead and gone.

As the OP I feel I need to add my OPinion:

-To operate under the idea that all those released from prison are rehabilitated is self-deluding.

-To operate under the idea that all convicted felons are unfit to legally obtain guns is self-deluding.

- To operate under the idea that all convicted felons are unable to obtain guns is self-deluding.

The laws that prevent felons from legally obtaining guns are a band-aid. We know that prisons are not effective at rehabilitation and don't turn criminals into responsible citizens. For lack of a better fix the laws on the books are designed to make it more difficult for convicted felons (people proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed a felony) to obtain guns. Legal or not criminals will obtain guns.

I’ve understood this since I was a little kid. If I wanted to own guns as an adult I would have to be responsible. I understood that when you commit a felony you have voluntarily revoked your RKABA, among others.

My perfect gun control system allows the free people to anonymously obtain (keep) and carry (bear) arms. If you choose to commit violent crimes you are no longer a free person, whether in prison or not. You’ll just have to get your guns illegally; I’m not going to make it easy for you.

 

[The Annoyed Man]

No Constitutional right is an unlimited one...

I have this kind of discussion all the time on my own website, and not just about 2nd Amendment rights. Anyway, I would point out that, as far as I can recall, the 2nd Amendment is the only one which specifies that the right it enumerates "shall not be infringed." The 1st Amendment doesn't say that.

Now, the argument that is often used to justify infringment of any amendment is the 1st Amendment exception that we are not supposed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. However, that is not a free speech issue, but rather a safety issue. You are perfectly free to speak the world "fire" in a theater - just not in a manner that will engender panic and lead to unncessary injury and destruction. The government DOES have the power to pass and enforce certain laws relative to public safety.

Similarly, governments are perfectly free to pass certain safety laws relevant to firearms. For instance, pretty much every city in the nation has a local ordinance against discharging a firearm within the city limits. Obviously, discharging said firearm in an act of self defense is exempted (unless you live in California, where self defense is regarded as a crime, not a right), but you can't just go out and empty your AK into the sky at midnight on New Year's Eve. So the issue, constitutionally speaking, ought not to be whether or not one has the constitutional right to keep and bear a M2 .50 Cal machine gun, but whether or not the 2nd Amendment encompasses the right to discharge it within the city limits.

Some (but not all) safety laws make some kind of sense when people live cheek by jowl within the confines of a town or city. But there is no compelling constitutional argument - in my view - that would prevent one from owning said machine gun and transporting it between home and range where it can safely be discharged. Of course, the issue of firearm regulation has been previously decided by the SCOTUS, but that does not make it a good decision, and it can always be overturned given the right social climate.

In the event of armed revolution - which is why we HAVE a 2nd Amendment to be begin with, so that we are always capable of revolting if our government should become too tyrannical - all bets are off, and an armed citizenry would be damned glad to have access to fully automatic weapons of any caliber.

In any case, I always refer back to my opening paragraph. The 2nd Amendment is the ONLY amendment in the Bill of Rights that specifies that it shall not be infringed.

 

[Joe Demko]

Crimoney. Why don't we all just point at each other and cry "witch!"?
This quest for ideological purity is like a plague visited upon us by our enemies.

 

[mgregg85]

I'd have to agree there are many elitist gun control nuts out there. A great example would be good ol'Rosie. She said that all gun owners should be put in jail but also has/had a bodyguard with a CCW. Sure guns are unneccesary if you live behind 10' walls and have armed guards.

 

[TwitchALot]

I'm a big gun rights guy, but my statement was simply disagreeing with the 2A purists out there. I do not believe any right is unlimited, including the right to bear arms. There is no unlimited right to speech, or to press, or to any other right outlined in the founding documents.

In my opinion, this also means that we cannot just go out and buy any weapon we want, at any time we want. In my opinion, states (not the feds) have the right to put reasonable gun control laws on the books. "Reasonable" is determined by the people of each respective state, as long as the burden of gun owning folks is not too great. For example, a background check is 'reasonable'. Training may be 'reasonable'.

As intended, the rights are unlimited. Freedom of speech isn't a blank check to say whatever you want, and it was never intended to be. Arguing otherwise sets a very dangerous precedent. Consider the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Should we make exceptions to those under "reasonable circumstances"? Say... the threat of terrorism?

I agree with background checks because I don't think people convicted of felonies, (certifiable)crazy people, sex offenders, and multiple violent crime offenders should be allowed to own firearms. Its when you start adding people who have done nothing to that list that I start to get mad. I think a simple call takes a few minutes and keeps the criminals out of the gun shops/shows.

I disagree with this contention. People convicted of felonies shouldn't necessarily be debarred of the right to bear arms (crazy people, multiple violent crime offenders, okay).

The reason being is that first of all, not all laws are just, and justice is not always served even if the laws are just. Second of all, it's just another excuse to deny people the right to bear arms. What if there is an unjust law in my state that makes it a felony to possess a magazine with a capacity over ten rounds? Should I be denied the right to bear arms for life because I had that 11 round magazine? (I can make them more ridiculous if you'd like).

The second reason is that just because someone committed a felony doesn't mean that they're evil for life. Consider Dog the Bounty Hunter (bear with me). Yeah, he was a criminal at one point. He made mistakes. But now he's not only a law-abiding citizen, he is a bail enforcement agent working for the law. I believe that people can change, and simply because one made a mistake in the past, or did something bad, doesn't mean one can't become a responsible, law-abiding citizen.

A buddy of mine who is a lifelong gun owner and owns dozens of firearms has often said that he sees no reason that anyone other than military and LEO's should be allowed to own guns that hold more than 10 rounds. I disagree.

Let me address this as well, because it's important for everyone.

Such justification is the same one that authoritarians use. "You don't need it, so you shouldn't have it." Well let me tell you something- we don't "need" a lot of things. No one can say that they live in a free society if reasons like this are sucked up by the public. If one values a free society, one must value freedom and liberty. And you can't value those two things if you believe that people should be barred from doing or owning things simply because "there is no reason to."


We don't "need" alcohol. It's dangerous, increases domestic abuse cases, deaths by drunken drivers, and horrific accidents that deform children and adult alike.

And for what? So YOU can drink and get wasted? So you can purposely impair your judgment? I'm sorry- but if you think your right to impair your judgment is more valuable than the lives that could be saved by outlawing alcohol, you're insane. There is no reason why one should be allowed to have alcohol. If chef's "need it," they can buy it in small quantities after registration. There is, however, every good reason to ban it. One else needs alcohol, and no one else should be allowed to have it.


Do you see how this line of reasoning has problems? Gun control is not about saving lives. It is not about protecting the people. It is about people who believe that their way is the right way for everyone. It's about people who will do everything in their power to ensure that their "world vision" comes to pass. It is about authoritarians who want to control other people because they don't feel that the people can control themselves. I've seen a lot of arguments about a lot of subjects. I'd advise that everyone consider the short AND long term ramifications of their arguments, logic, and reasoning. This post, by the way, is only a short tirade. There are more issues to talk about concerning the Second Amendment- what the words mean, why, the intentions of the Founding Fathers, other arguments and "evidence" for and against gun control. So on. But this is all I'll say for the moment. I know I've only scratched the surface of the posts that are here, and I'm sorry about that.


You want to talk to me about people having "no reason" to own firearms, or fully automatic firearms? You want to talk to me about "public safety"? I can spin it right back at you. Trust me. There is a reason why I believe that the Second Amendment is not only the backbone, but also the guardian of all other rights. To finish off the post, I'll steal a line from V from Vendetta.

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

 

[don]

gggman, excellent photo. It would make Oleg jealous

 

[ConfuseUs]

As far as felons with guns go, I think the laws are far too soft on violent felons who possess guns or use them to commit more crimes. The max Fed penalty is 10 years and/or a fine, whereas (IMHO) any person convicted of a violent felony should be given the death penalty or life without parole if caught with a gun. Enforcing tough law like that would get a lot of slimeballs off the streets, and a lot of others would clean up their act some.

It's pretty much the only gun control law I can think of that would actually affect gun crime (if it was enforced), but a lot of people who push for more gun control would never endorse it because it's much too tough on thugs who just didn't get all the breaks in life. They'd rather punish the law-abiding instead since we'll obey whatever stupid laws they can get passed.

The law should be toughened for non-violent felons too, but I think there should be a reinstatement process for people who have been convicted of nonviolent felonies.

 

[frogomatic]

there are two types of people who want gun control...

those who are so petrified of their own mortality that they want for anything even remotely dangerous to have never existed (my mother is one of these)

and...

those who want to exploit the disarmed

--------------

on felons owning weapons...

once a criminal has paid his debt, he should then be restored as a full fledged citizen

I also think that the debt levied onto criminals isn't nearly steep enough

if a person cannot be trusted with a weapon, then they should be imprisoned, institutionalized, or buried.

 

[The Annoyed Man]

Here's why I have conflicting thoughts about barring convicted felons from owning firearms...

We OUGHT to believe that the sentence served = justice served. Now, I realize that we live in an imperfect world, and that due to the vagaries of the criminal justice system, the sentence served is often not proportional to the crime committed. But in a perfect world, and assuming that everything about the criminal justice system works as intended, and assuming that a sentence served causes a man to walk the straight and narrow from then on, then once a man serves his sentence, he ought to be viewed by the rest of us as having paid for his crime and be forgiven of any further lifelong burden upon his freedoms. And although it may be the exception rather than the rule, there are many such men, who after being released from prison, reform their lives and become productive citizens.

THAT BEING SAID... There is every reason to bar a recidivist habitual criminal from ever owning a firearm. When a person demonstrates that they are are habitually unable to be trusted with the responsitibilities of liberty, they ought neither to be trusted with its benefits, and that shouldn't be limited to just firearm ownership. I would include voting, and the freedom to move about without notifying authorities.

 

[jackmead]

I always tell them, If you don't like it then don't buy one, and I won't make you start smoking or take away your motorcycle helmet.