Common Sense Gun Control?

[Walkalong]

What is common sense gun control?

Code for something they can pass off as good for us.

 

[earlthegoat2]

How come Common Sense Lawyer Control is never brought up?

After all if common sense universally existed we would not need lawyers. Why did the founding fathers not include something like this in the Bill of Rights as well?

Seems off topic I know but it is merely an example to the lunacy of so called common sense.

 

[Wes B]

Common sense?

No firearms for violent felons or the mentally unfit.

I think 18 is still a pretty fair age for purchase, but for rifles AND handguns IMO.

Beyond that, I don't really see what else is necessary. All other laws and restrictions are attempts to curtail the actions of criminals by criminalizing criminality.

above by: merlinfire

I am in somewhat agreement. Get rid of all the laws, FFL, NICS, NFA, different states having different laws, restricting silencers, restricting machine guns.

If you haven't been convicted of a violent felony, and/or are not mentally unstable; you should be able to buy what you want, where you want, when you want.

Also, in a sense it may be a left or right issue but it isn't that clear cut and dried.

The two big ones that come first to mind.

President Reagan is responsible for The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, which expanded the Gun Control Act of 1968, and is the central issue concerning automatic firearms, machineguns, today.

President George Bush senior also passed an executive order limiting imports of foreign made semi-auto rifles and semi-auto carbines.

President Clinton signed the Brady Bill.

So, each party, Republican and Democrat has played their part in passing these asinine laws.

So, instead of bickering back and forth about which party did what, or is responsible for what; instead, demand from whomever is running for political office to let you know what their position is on "Common Sense Gun Control" and let them know, if they are going to continue with these harebrained schemes they won't be getting votes.

And, I also agree with Wayne La Pierre on this:
http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/obamaletter314.pdf

More time could be spent on the real issues and causes of violence.

 

[bushmaster1313]

What is common sense gun control?

Get a good solid stance
Two hands on the gun
Both eyes open
Take a breath and let it out 1/3
Keep your finger off the trigger until you are on target
Squeeze so that you are surprised when it fires.
Repeat often

 

[Owen Sparks]

How about common sense religion control?

Common sense speech control?

Common sense peacful assembly control?

Common sense warrentless search and siezure?

 

[NavyLCDR]

How about common sense religion control?

Human sacrifice is a no-no. Most animal sacrifice is.

Common sense speech control?

Hate speech is for the most part regulated, as is yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Common sense peacful assembly control?

Most public assemblies require city/county permits.

Common sense warrentless search and siezure?

For officer safety, of course!

 

[Meta]

While we should make efforts to welcome all RKBA folks to the community, what may be of some help here is to help progressive/liberal types understand how their camp is intrinsically, by design hostile to individual liberties. While it may posture on issues that appear to affirm individual liberty, affirming alternative lifestyles, sexual liberty, etc, these are all used as wedge issues to bash conservatives and undermine the civil society. Behind the curtain is the core belief that the state and not the individual is engaged with the creation and preservation of civil society. Yes, the priesthood of the left, the great sages that are produced at Harvard and Princeton, they are the ones we should trust to give us what we need. That is liberalism. Utopia through better government to control people and prevent their lesser natures of individualism, greed, individual liberty, get in the way of the path to utopia.
Seriously, and with all due respect, anyone who really wants to understand progressive history, should read a book by Jonah Goldberg called Liberal Fascism. It's an excruciatingly detailed and thoroughly researched work that takes you back to the roots of the progressive movement and through to the modern day stars of the democratic party. An excellent read.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

^ You should really read an accurate desciption of Liberalism. Your definintion is more the Fox news version.

Political Liberalism: Concept that the preservation of individual liberty and maximization of freedom of choice should be the primary aim of a representative government. It stresses that all individuals stand equal before law (without class privileges) and have only a voluntary contractual relationship with the government. It defends freedom of speech and press, freedom of artistic and intellectual expression, freedom of worship, private property, and use of state resources for the welfare of the individual.

 

[Tommygunn]

You should really read an accurate desciption of Liberalism. Your definintion is more the Fox news version.

Political Liberalism: Concept that the preservation of individual liberty and maximization of freedom of choice should be the primary aim of a representative government. It stresses that all individuals stand equal before law (without class privileges) and have only a voluntary contractual relationship with the government. It defends freedom of speech and press, freedom of artistic and intellectual expression, freedom of worship, private property, and use of state resources for the welfare of the individual.​

If we were living in Socrates' day ... or even 1799 for that matter, I'd agree. However, as it is now the so-called "Fox News" definition is the best definition there is.
You might dodge this by claiming that the Democrat party isn't really gone LIBERAL, but is "progressive." Contest the semantics all you want, but modern day liberalism has nothing to do with individual rights and everything to do with collectivism and the destruction of individual rights and personal liberty.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

^ Yep just like the Patriot Act I suppose. Oh whoops that is supposed to be conveniently forgotten.

 

[Tommygunn]

So I guess you believe it was OK to keep intelligence "stovepiped" into each individual intelligence agency as it was prior to 9/11?
I didn't care for the way the Patriot ACT was passed but it has had little to no effect on individual rights.
And I never heard bupkis from liberals when "Echelon" was revealed in the '90s.

 

[rustedangel]

I think semantic precision is important, as most philosophical arguments end up boiling down to semantics. For the sake of clarity I prefer "progressive statists" or just "statist". To me, all political questions center around whether you preserve individual liberty or advocate greater latitude for the state.

Also, I can't agree more with HGUNHNTR re: patriot act. It blows my mind to hear political partisans fiercely advocate for limited government, until the guy from their team is in the white house.

 

[merlinfire]

I think it's time to have a frank discussion about common sense measures for 1st amendment control. Ban High Capacity paragraphs, fully-automatic motormouths, and armor-piercing rhetoric. Think of the children!

 

[Pigoutultra]

Melinfire, I believe they are already trying to ban some rhetoric. When it comes down to a federal law that heavily infringes on our constitutional rights, they always try to justify it with the commerce clause which is written to LIMIT power, not GRANT power as with the rest of the constitution.

 

[AlexanderA]

Classic liberalism, in the 19th century sense, is a far cry from what we call "liberalism" today. It's really become a non-helpful pejorative term.

But, really, the whole "liberal" versus "conservative" debate misses the point. It's a very shallow, one-dimensional analysis.

What we really need to do is separate the social issues (in which the differentiation is between "libertarian" and "authoritarian") from the economic issues ("collectivist" versus "entrepreneurial").

For example, to call someone a "socialist" has no bearing whatsoever on whether that person is for or against gun rights. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are "socially" owned (either by the government or by other collective entities, such as workers' cooperatives). You can have democratic socialism (such as in Sweden), and you can have authoritarian capitalism (such as in China). How do these systems fit on the "liberal-conservative" continuum?

Frankly, I'd rather have a collectivist (actually, mixed) economic system that respects individual rights, than a Chinese-style capitalist economic system that tramples those rights. The key thing is that if you have protected individual rights (including the right to a vote), you can always change the economic system -- but if you don't have individual rights, you can't change anything.

 

[Larry E]

The people who say "common sense gun control" mean that you and I shouldn't have guns, their bodyguards should be armed to the teeth, and if they're in a good mood maybe the police and military can be armed, but only on duty, and very carefully supervised.

If they're sort of "light common sense gun control" we might be allowed to store a gun at the local police station and be allowed to use it under direct supervision by the police.

It's a totally BS "newspeak" phrase to make people who don't own guns or shoot believe that gun owners are unreasonable and don't have any common sense.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Common Sense

The term "common sense," as it applies to rules and regulations, means

requiring no recourse to science or logic;
beyond the confines of mere cause & effect, and having no need of such validation;
deriving from a superior meta-physical morality beyond the reasoning ability of mere mortals.

Therefore, obviously, it doesn't require your understanding, since it is clearly beyond your grasp to begin with.

The term "common" in this usage refers to an elite level of insight and wisdom unavailable to ordinary folk.

See also: hubris.

 

[gbran]

Heretofore, common sense gun control has always meant infringement of law abiding citizen's rights. it's just that simple.

 

[Onmilo]

Common sense to one person is madness to another.

Common sense tells us walking in a mine field will get one blown up yet people still plow them up,,,and blow themselves up.

 

[AlexanderA]

"Common sense gun control" or "reasonable gun control" is also a tactic to peel away certain clueless gun owners from the RKBA cause. Remember that there are millions of casual gun owners, that maybe have a couple of guns that they use for hunting or target shooting, but that are otherwise typical suburbanites. These are the people that inflate the polling statistics, cited by the anti-gunners, that say that large percentages of "gun owners" or even "NRA members" agree with them. This is a slippery slope -- what's "reasonable" today is the first step, what's "reasonable" tomorrow will be a step further, and so on. There's simply no satisfying the anti-gunners until all guns are confiscated. As Diane Feinstein once said, "I'd like to see them all banned!" It's a visceral thing. The Washington Post, for example, for years has had a rabid anti-gun editorial policy. Why? Because Philip Graham, its former publisher, killed himself with a shotgun. His widow, Katherine Graham, took it upon herself to start an anti-gun crusade, which continues to this day.

 

[gamestalker]

I'm an over whelming advocate of good comoon sense gun control. This is what I taught my children at an early age for their safety, and that of other's while handling any firearm. Any individual not practicing common sense gun control is a danger to their self and other's in proximity of them. This same analogy is to be applied to operating automobile's or anything that can pose a risk by not using common sense when using it, driving it, or drinking it.
But on a more serious note, gun control is simply violating our constitutional right to keep and bear arms! It has no positive effect on violent crime, and has proven to be an effective means of enabling the violent criminal to act with less fear of being stopped by a law abiding citizen using lethal force. FBI stats clearly show the increased violent crime trends in states that have restrictive gun laws that either prevent citizens from defending their selves without fear of legal issues, or make it nearly impossible to over come the cumbersome process of legally carrying a firearm. That is why I love my wonderful state of Arizona. Our state just made some needed changes to our gun laws that took effect on July 29th, 2010. Just when I thought it couldn't get any better too!

 

[BullRunBear]

People who speak of common sense gun control, or any gun control, are not interested in controlling guns. They are interested in controlling people.

Jeff

 

[almherdfan]

Sure. Commit a violent crime-no gun for you! Loss your marbles-no gun for you! Too young to vote-no gun for you (w/o adult permission).

I cannot fathom why folks want to create conflict where none should exist, which is what happens when RBKA advocates make broad condemnations of "liberals". (or vice-versa).

Frankly, I'm often offended by "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" groups. It's quite clear that there are far too many people that don't bother to learn a damn thing about the issue beyond what they think they know.

Perhaps if firearm enthusiasts would focus on "common" ground rather seek out divisiveness, the issue would simply would not exist. Then again, that's probably true for most of our political issues.

Wake up, my fellow citizens! Don't be manipulated by pundits that are motivated by profit.

 

[Prince Yamato]

"Common Sense Gun Control" is a lot like "mild diarrhea"; flowery terminology to make you think better of a bad situation.

 

[One-Time]

No such thing as 'common sense gun control' as gun control doesnt make any sense, nor does it work nor will criminals follow laws regardless what they are