Firearm laws you do support....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some people can't see the difference between having a glass of wine with a fine meal, and downing a 12 pack, maybe?

I'm okay with Idaho's treating guns like cars, with the same legal definition of "intoxication." I believe it also applies to boats in public waterways, bikes on public streets, etc. It's not so much a "gun law" as a law about intoxication.

Otherwise, I am okay with one gun law: don't shoot people unless it's in legitimate self-defense. That's about it. I don't care what you are, or who you are. And if someone belongs in jail, KEEP HIM IN JAIL, don't let him out and tell him he can't have a gun.
 
Last edited:
Some people can't see the difference between having a glass of wine with a fine meal, and downing a 12 pack, maybe?

I'm okay with Idaho's treating guns like cars, with the same legal definition of "intoxication." I believe it also applies to boats in public waterways, bikes on public streets, etc. It's not so much a "gun law" as a law about intoxication.
Click to expand...

Pennsylvania has no law prohibiting consumption of alcohol while armed, or being armed while intoxicated. We don't have regular instances of formerly responsible armed people losing control of themselves and shooting up bars or engaging in running gun battles on the streets. In fact, I can't find a single instance of such a thing occurring. I can find reports of armed robberies of bars, bartenders, and patrons. Why should I lose my right to defend myself because I like to have a few adult beverages now and again? Why should legislation that purports to address a nonexistent problem be supported?
 
Azul said:
Laws prohibiting violent felons from possessing weapons are effective? I was under the impression that gun control didn't work. Or is it not about prevention of violence, but rather prosecution after the fact?
Yes, I agree there are some vile people in our society, but instead of inventing crimes, like possession of a firearm by a felon, let's permanently incarcerate and execute these people for the very real, violent crimes that they commit.
Maybe those kinds of laws actually do make society safer. I highly doubt it, but maybe they do. It doesn't matter to me though because I want to live in a free society, and freedom most definitely isn't safe.
Click to expand...

Yes, such laws are effective in the sense that they're better than nothing. In the real world, for example, a parole office can show up at a parolees house at any time. I'm 100% in favor of keeping it a crime if a violent felon possesses a gun while on parole. If the parole officer searches the house and finds a gun in the parolee's possession, then the parole officer should have the tools to make possessing the gun punitive for the parolee/violent felon.

Imagine this scenario to bring it home. A criminal drives-by and shoots up your house while you're in there. Ten bullets pass through your house, but nobody in your house is hurt. You're irate. The cops manage to get the perpetrator. He gets out of prison in five years or less. Are you going to be writing your legislator in support of this criminal's Second Amendment rights? Or are you going to be OK with a law in place already that makes it a crime for this violent criminal to possess a gun?

Felons automatically forfeit other rights besides the Second Amendment right. So, I have no problem whatsoever with not allowing violent felons to have Second Amendment rights. That's the way the ball bounces.

Regarding keeping people in jail, the unfortunate reality is that the prisons are already overcrowded. Meanwhile, there's no room in the budgets to increase suddenly the number of prison facilities by a factor of five or whatever. Plus, laws don't allow life sentences for a first offender who, for example, performs a drive-by but injures nobody. That guy is going to be out of prison again. That's reality. Let's work with reality, not some sort of cartoon fantasy.
 
Last edited:
Two gun laws I support:
1) Require reporting of stolen firearms to police. It doesn't infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms (the government doesn't even need to know that you have a gun until you no longer do) and does actually have a chance of cutting down on gun violence.
2) Require all anti-rights politicians to post signs on their yard informing the public that they have no guns with which to defend their corrupt selves.
 
Something to remember about locking them up until they are ready to own guns:

Consider the recidivism rate. Most people who get out of prison aren't getting out because they have seen the light of rehabilitation. They are getting out because their prison system is broke. They aren't ready to become productive members of society. They haven't paid any debt to anyone. They are getting out because they are the least dangerous prisoner THIS MONTH.If you want to keep them in until they are ready for society, you are pretty much talking about eliminating parole entirely, making three-strike rules more like one and-a-half strike rules, with life sentences for all violent offenders.

Take that idea to your state legislature and see what reaction you get. We would basically have to turn Alaska into a camp for lifetime incarceration with hard labor. Sounds like a good science fiction story. Not going to work in reality.

I support the ban on felons owning guns, but I would support changing it to violent felons. Felons have lost their right to keep and bear arms under the DUE PROCESS OF LAW named in the Constitution.
 
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That's the law that I like, mainly because WE THE PEOPLE made that law to protect us from the government. A few people can cause some crime, sure, but to REALLY rack up the death numbers, it's gotta be a government.
 
Yes, such laws are effective in the sense that they're better than nothing.
Click to expand...

This again? Are they more effective? Really? Can you show how they are better than nothing? No, you can't. They make you 'feel' better is all.

If you have the need to feel better that's fine, just admit it. But don't claim that the law has helped the crime rate. It has not.

This is the part where some freak out and say that I'm in favor of arming felons because they have no rebuttal. I am not. I just know that the law has had absolutely no impact on the crime rate. At all. FBI and DoJ data confirms it, and all the info is posted in the other gazillion threads we've done on this.

I said I was going to stay out of this one but be honest, don't just make stuff up.

Before 1968 there was no law against felons having firearms. The violent gun crime rate now is about the same as it was then.

In the real world, for example, a parole office can show up at a parolees house at any time.
Click to expand...

In the real world, however, this doesn't happen often enough to actually have an impact on the gun crime rate.

Sounds good, makes us feel better, but it doesn't really do anything.

No gun law has ever had a provable impact on the gun crime rate. So they all make us feel better, make it seem like lawmakers are "doing something" but in the end the gun crime rate doesn't go up or down in a pattern that matches gun control laws.

Violent crime is a societal problem. It's always been here and it always will be here. Gun laws won't ever change that. For proof simply take a look at any of the countries with complete firearm bans.
 
Last edited:
Pennsylvania has no law prohibiting consumption of alcohol while armed, or being armed while intoxicated. We don't have regular instances of formerly responsible armed people losing control of themselves and shooting up bars or engaging in running gun battles on the streets. In fact, I can't find a single instance of such a thing occurring. I can find reports of armed robberies of bars, bartenders, and patrons. Why should I lose my right to defend myself because I like to have a few adult beverages now and again? Why should legislation that purports to address a nonexistent problem be supported?
Click to expand...

This might be the best post ever, on the entire Internet. Seriously. +1
 
I really wish I could be idealistic like some people, but idealism was beaten out of me by real life. Reality is not nearly as fun, and I would go back if I could.

To anybody here (including Azul and TexasRifleman), please answer the following question to help me understand your mindset:

A criminal drives-by and shoots up your house while you're in there. Ten bullets pass through your house, but nobody in your house is hurt. You're irate. The cops manage to get the perpetrator. He gets out of prison within five years and goes on parole. Are you going to be writing your legislator in support of this criminal's Second Amendment rights? Or are you going to be OK with a law in place already that makes it a crime for this violent criminal to possess a gun?

This criminal is a first offender and will be getting out of prison. So, keeping the criminal in prison is NOT an option in your response.
 
Last edited:
Yes, such laws are effective in the sense that they're better than nothing. In the real world, for example, a parole office can show up at a parolees house at any time. I'm 100% in favor of keeping it a crime if a violent felon possesses a gun while on parole. If the parole officer searches the house and finds a gun in the parolee's possession, then the parole officer should have the tools to make possessing the gun punitive for the parolee/violent felon.
Click to expand...

The problem that I have with the prohibition against "felons" owning guns is that you can be a "felon" now for having a few marijuana plants growing in your basement, or various other non-violent acts. If we disposed of any "felonious" law other than those actual crimes against persons or property, I'd have no problem depriving them their ownership of firearms until they'd paid their debt to society. Of course, since the VAST majority of violent felons in America are multiple reoffenders, it would make sense to just line them up against the prison wall for a mass machine-gunning. Dead felons commit no crimes.

Imagine this scenario to bring it home. A criminal drives-by and shoots up your house while you're in there. Ten bullets pass through your house, but nobody in your house is hurt. You're irate. The cops manage to get the perpetrator. He gets out of prison in five years or less. Are you going to be writing your legislator in support of this criminal's Second Amendment rights? Or are you going to be OK with a law in place already that makes it a crime for this violent criminal to possess a gun?
Click to expand...
What if, in those five years, you got caught committing some felony that didn't impinge upon the rights of others. Dirtbag gets out, and now you're a prohibited owner. Then what do you do?
 
jakemccoy said:
Yes, such laws are effective in the sense that they're better than nothing. In the real world, for example, a parole office can show up at a parolees house at any time. I'm 100% in favor of keeping it a crime if a violent felon possesses a gun while on parole. If the parole officer searches the house and finds a gun in the parolees possession, then the parole officer should have the tools to make possessing the gun punitive for the parolee/violent felon.

Felons automatically forfeit other rights besides the Second Amendment right. So, I have no problem whatsoever with not allowing violent felons to have Second Amendment rights. That's the way the ball bounces.

Regarding keeping people in jail, the unfortunate reality is that the prisons are already overcrowded. Meanwhile, there's no room in the budgets to suddenly increase the number of prison facilities by a factor of five or whatever. Plus, laws don't allow life sentences for a first offender who, for example, performs a drive-by but injures nobody. That guy is going to be out of prison again. That's reality. Let's work with reality, not some sort of cartoon fantasy.
Click to expand...
Cartoon fantasy? Please pardon me for my feather-brained day dreaming. I'm so thankful that you're here to keep me in the real-world :rolleyes:
I have no problem with restrictions imposed as conditions of parole. Never said I did.
As for prison overcrowding, there is an easy solution to that. Release everyone convicted of a crime involving drugs (buyers and suppliers as long as they are non-violent) and prostitution. But I'm guessing you'll just consider that more cartoon fantasizing.
btw No amendment in the constitution grants rights, it only restricts the gov't from violating natural (or god-given, whichever flavor you prefer) rights.
 
Azul said:
I have no problem with restrictions imposed as conditions of parole. Never said I did.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, you did in post #35 when you said you don't support any firearm laws. It's OK. It's just the Internet, and people speak with imprecision all the time.

Just so you know, parole is not nearly as restrictive as something like house arrest. I currently have a client on parole. He can travel around California with minor restrictions.
 
Last edited:
I support laws punishing people for the misuse of firearms, like murder, mayhem, armed robbery, etc. Most everything else is an intended infringement.

I am a male and have the special equipment I was born with, but that doesn't make me a rapist, so don't try to take my equipment away or tell me how to use it.
 
jakemccoy said:
Well, actually, you did in post #35 when you said you don't support any firearm laws. It's OK. It's just the Internet, and people speak with imprecision all the time.

Just so you know, parole is not nearly as restrictive as something like house arrest. I currently have a client on parole. He can travel around California with minor restrictions.
Click to expand...
I don't support any firearm laws that restrict the rights of people not currently serving out a sentence for a crime (whether physically in the prison or not.) Maybe I should have clarified before, but I didn't think I needed to. Sorry.
 
Let's be careful out there

I support a law to prohibiting foreign born fascist persons from having security details carrying loaded weapons after they are elected president of the United States of America. Clearly, these weapons should be stored, firing pins removed, in locked gun cabinets in guarded armories for maximum safety for the children.
 
A criminal drives-by and shoots up your house while you're in there. Ten bullets pass through your house, but nobody in your house is hurt. You're irate. The cops manage to get the perpetrator. He gets out of prison within five years and goes on parole. Are you going to be writing your legislator in support of this criminal's Second Amendment rights? Or are you going to be OK with a law in place already that makes it a crime for this violent criminal to possess a gun?

This criminal is a first offender and will be getting out of prison. So, keeping the criminal in prison is NOT an option in your response.
Click to expand...

So you frame the question such that there is no way to answer, since I can't change anything else. Why is that?

Do you really believe that a first time offender WON'T be able to get a gun when he gets out, if he wants to?

If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

And the problem is you've defined the question in a way that no answer works by making the gun somehow part of the crime, and refusing to change anything else in the criminal justice system.

Why do you have the disclaimer that since he's a first time offender he should only get 5 years, and I can't change that?

Don't you think that changing THAT would do more good than having more gun laws?

Why do you tell me that keeping the prisoner in prison, or simply giving him the death penalty even up front for violent use of a fiream, is not an option?

By you phrasing your question that way you HAVE to have gun laws to make people feel safe, even though they really aren't.

There are other ways to deal with it. In the case you've presented all the gun laws do is make me feel better. If the scumbag wants a gun, he's gonna get one.

But the political answer is to coddle the criminal, then pass laws that make people feel a false sense of safety. That's clearly not working.

As I said, you've turned it to make it sound like I am for the arming of criminals and nothing could be further from the truth. But the fix is not in gun laws.
 
Last edited:
I've been reading THR for a while, and couldn't resist registering and responding to this thread.

Personally, I don't support any gun law whatsoever. Some of the more common gun laws that gun owners support are restrictions against the mentally ill and convicted felons.

First the mentally ill: Who decides what mentally ill is? The government does. Which means that the definition of mentally ill can change administraion to administraion depending on who's in office. Now it could be anyone with an IQ less than 20 (the legal definition of an idiot in CA), and in 5 or ten years it could change to anyone who wants a gun for self defense, automatically disqualifiing anyone from owning a gun. If we as gun owners say that it's ok to do that then eventually the definition of "mentally ill" will get more and more narrow.

Convicted felons: In my opinion, laws that prevent convicted felons not only violate due process, but are immoral. If a person comits a crime and is then sentenced for it and serves his time in prison (or whatever the punishment is) his debt to society has been paid. Period. In essence, the government is punishing him for his entire life even after he already served his sentence.

I view the 2A just like I view the First...no regulation at all. Many people agree with the "fighting words" restrictions on the 1A, but what happenes when the definition is expanded to using the word "gun"? We can't give up even a little of our rights without expecting that more and more will be taken by the people we give in to.
 
Honestly, the only firearm related laws I support are the 18+ age requirement to purchase a firearm and not being allowed to bring weapons into prisons and court houses.
 
I think that illegal aliens and people convicted of felonies should be allowed to buy guns. Where does it say in the Constitution that they cannot?

If they are too dangerous to own a gun then they should not walk the streets.
 
I wouldn't mind seeing a simple safety test as we need for hunting or driving etc. Some people weren't raised the same as some of us and could benefit from some basics. However I'd rather no laws because once you start where's the line get drawn?
 
So should felons lose their First amendment rights? Their right to a jury trial? Their freedom from illegal search? Due process? How about people under 18?

Or is the Second Amendment, as the Brady bunch has claimed all along, somehow different from the rest of the BOR?
 
Yes, I support one gun law.

The second amendment to the constitution of these great United States of America.

That's the one and only LEGAL gun law ever written. :banghead:

Every other gun law ever written is unconstitutional and as such is null and void.

But I won't argue the point on the side of the road at 2 am with a duly appointed officer of the law. :eek:

I obey the laws. I also eat leafy green vegetables. I don't have to like either one. :p
 
Yeah according to the Brady bunch thinking the word "people" in the First Amendment means individual citizens...then suddenly changes to mean the National Guard (or government, whatever)...then changes again back to the original meaning. When you really think hard about it, the reasoning for gun laws is totally absurd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Interesting case: Koscielski v. City of Minneapolis
Replies
3
Views
746
Standing Wolf
S
D
  • Locked
Gun shop suing to stay in Minneapolis
Replies
5
Views
689
Diesle
D
MrDig
  • Locked
Failed Social Experiment?
Replies
11
Views
982
rhubarb
R
W
  • Locked
Philadelphia Challenges NRA's Challenge of New Gun Laws
Replies
10
Views
1K
armoredman
armoredman
P
  • Locked
Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Dex Sinister
D
Back
Top