Quantcast

Firearm laws you do support....

Discussion in 'Legal' started by bear71, Aug 24, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Owen Sparks

    Owen Sparks member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    4,523
    No one contimplating mass murder in a state like Arizona that has the death penalty is going to be disuaded by any gun law. Guns are things, crime is an ACTION. Any law criminalizing a thing presumes a person guilty before the fact simply based on the potential to misuse the thing to commit a crime. This is contrairy to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
     
  2. usmcpoolee

    usmcpoolee Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    I support two gun laws:

    Full rights to open and conceal carry anywhere in the United States at 18 years of age.

    No guns for anyone convicted of a violent crime.
     
  3. Caliper_Mi

    Caliper_Mi Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,672
    Location:
    Michigan
    Voting is an internal process to our country, so should be restricted to only citizens.

    Self defense is a basic human right so I don't see the need to restrict it the same way. If someone has gone through the process to be a documented alien, they are most likely not the guys you would want to worry about.
     
  4. henschman

    henschman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,880
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    Though it isn't exactly a law, I support the part of the Declaration of Independence which states:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it [...]"

    Along with making a great case for the right of revolution, which is the prime rationale for the right to bear arms, this passage also explains why I disagree with all gun control laws, and most laws in general. Essentially, a law is nothing but a threat of force. If governments truly derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, as this passage states, then the government has no right to the use of force that an individual does not have. An individual's right to use force is limited by his rightful liberty... by that I mean the maximum amount of liberty that can be shared equally by all people. Or, as Thomas Jefferson (the author of the above-quoted document) put it, unrestricted action according to our own will within the limits drawn around it by the equal rights of others. The only way force is justified is in defense against a threat to our rightful liberty. Therefore, government's only just role is the protection of this liberty.

    I do not believe in any laws that place a "prior restraint" on the exercise of any rightful liberty, including the right to own/buy/trade weapons. This would invalidate all licensing, training, or mental health prerequisites. Prior restraint laws are overly broad... they apply force to everybody in order to prevent a small subset of individuals, who are deemed threatening, from engaging in an activity. The only way I believe that anyone should have any liberty denied them is after being convicted in a judicial proceeding of violating the rightful liberty of another person, after the accused has had the opportunity to defend himself. This provides a remedy that is narrowly tailored, and eliminates the threat without using force against those who pose no threat. Therefore, if it is believed that an individual, because of some specific charactaristic, poses a threat to the liberty of others by his mere possession of a certain weapon, then let the matter be determined in a fair trial before a neutral forum wherein the accused has a chance to defend against the accusation.

    And obviously I am against any government action that is calculated to "incentivize" (a euphamism for "force") people to engage or refrain from engaging in any activity that does not threaten the liberty of other people, like where to open a gun store, or what kind of car to buy, whether to get married or have kids, etc.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2011
  5. GambJoe

    GambJoe Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    226
    Location:
    Richmond TX
    I'm going to get in trouble here but here goes.

    Safety laws and hunting regulations. Such as adequate caliber, rifle bans while hunting around built up areas, drinking and handling loaded fire arms.

    Violent felons, mentally ill who are proven to be a danger to self and others.

    Ammunition meeting some sort of quality and safety standard.

    Interstate transportation of guns and ammunition. Local laws for the same.

    Regulate CCW permits.

    Not allowing security companies to arm their employees without back ground checks and mental health screening and training (see Observe and Report).

    Limit artillery pieces to organizations like, re-enactors, American Legion and the like, permit to fire them with or with shells.

    No automatic weapons unless meets registration requirements depending on local laws.

    No weapons, like rockets, missiles, grenade launchers or any weapon that can kill scores in second, anti aircraft or armed aircraft

    Limit the quantity of military style weapons that can be sold in a day. Limit quantity of handguns sold in on day. I'm not sure how to word this but I don't think an individual should be able to walk into a store and buy 10 rifles or hand guns because they are probably be doing something illegal.

    Regulate import and export of fire arms.

    I'm sure there's more.

    Common sense law don't bring a gun to church or bars unless legally required to.
     
  6. Grunt Medic TXARNG

    Grunt Medic TXARNG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    214
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    It's common sense that I have the right to defend myself against a violent attacker - unless I go to church or stop for a beer?

    Why are 'military style' weapons any more deadly than 'hunting style' weapons, and thus worthy of special regulation?

    You oppose private ownership of grenade launchers (40mm) but have no problem with reenactment and veterans' groups live firing artillery (155mm)?

    You support some kind of 'ammunition safety standard' (beyond current consumer safety laws, apparently) - would this then outlaw reloading, since no government agency can supervise it?

    It looks like you advocate a lot of gun-specific laws when the bahavior under consideration is already covered by other laws. Can you articulate why you believe this is necessary?
     
  7. GambJoe

    GambJoe Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    226
    Location:
    Richmond TX
    Excuse me I'm not a lawer

    I wasn't nessecarily agreeing with the laws not allowing carry in a church. My personal opinion is common sense says you don't need a gun in chuch or a bar.

    In this instance yes. I don't think crimminals, as in Mexico, are using lever guns. Yes they are obtaining Mexicain military weapons but we are adding fuel to the fire. What about people getting straw buyers to purchase large amounts then selling them illegally.

    No the modern atrillary I see infront of legion halls are are probably non working and should not have ammo. I was refering to reenactors with black powder. I think if they do demostrate with an actual cannon ball and they met all the locals requirements for it, why not?

    Ok, maybe be I'm wrong here, I don't know how much the government regulates ammuntion. I'm just assumming they have some say over tolerences, clearances. I could be wrong probabably the manufacturers do a good job of self regulating. Why regulate reloading?


    I'm not sure I understand you. Can you be more specifiv?
     
  8. leadaddict

    leadaddict Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    523
    Location:
    Iowa
    ...because no one is ever harmed in church. :scrutiny:
     
  9. Grunt Medic TXARNG

    Grunt Medic TXARNG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    214
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Certainly - and please understand I wish to engage in respectful debate, and not argument.

    I wasn't asking you to defend your opinions from law books, just trying to understand where you're coming from. I understand that you feel you don't 'need' a gun in a church or a bar - but do you feel you should take that choice away from your fellow Texans?

    All consumer goods are required to be safe and usable under consumer safety laws. Anyone injured by a product found to be defective can and does sue for compensation. I asked why you felt ammunition needed to be held to a different standard - especially given that vanishingly few people are injured by such. If the Government were to institute standards specifically for ammunition we could find those laws being enforced the same way agriculture laws are enforced now - where ag officials are shutting down meat, vegetable and dairy farmers and ranchers because their proucts don't meet standards tailored for mass production - so that home reloading could become illegal just as co-op distribution of raw milk now is.

    Straw buys are already illegal - and you propose more laws in an attempt to stop people who are already committing a felony. I simply do not follow your line of reasoning on how this could work. People are not buying crates full of semiautomatic rifles in quantity to ship across the border - not only would that raise huge red flags, but dealers would be losing their FFLs over it - and we would be seeing such all over the news.

    I hope that clarifies the points I want to respectfully debate on.
     
  10. rajb123

    rajb123 member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    892
    I would prefer to have NO laws governing the ownership or use of firearms. This would promote the use of firearms by many more people and would result in fewer crimes and less criminal activity.

    When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!
     
  11. ILikeLead

    ILikeLead Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    171
    Location:
    Arkansaw Ozarks
    I believe that it should be against the law to use a gun for murder or as a weapon in a crime such as rape or robbery.

    It should also be a law that if a person steals a gun, he is to report to the nearest FFL to have that gun registered in his name... and so we can run a background check to make sure he is a citizen in good standing

    (Sarcasm Off)
     
  12. kk0g

    kk0g Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    156
    Location:
    Peru, Iowa
    Not a single one. No gun law has ever stopped someone from picking up an inanimate object and murdering someone else with it.............. and never will. To believe otherwise is utter fantasy. The ONLY people that gun laws affect is honest law abiding citizens as obviously they are the only ones who obey the law. By definition criminals do not obey the law in the first place, how exactly will another law make them obey the ones they're already breaking?
     
  13. GambJoe

    GambJoe Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    226
    Location:
    Richmond TX
    Ok GM I hope I'm not coming of hostile to you either.

    No I don't want to take away the right of fellow Texans right to go to church or a bar with a handgun. I think in these two cases maybe a little self regulation is required.

    Once again the gov regulates nearly everything. I'm not asking for expansion of consumer law but asking about manufacturing standards. I know there's tons of Mil-Specs out there that spell out the dimensions and composition of a bullet. There's for instance standards for pipe ie. material and dimensions. Does the Fed have similar regs for ammuniton?

    I asked that people google Carter Country, not to pick on them, one of their employees was indicted by a federal grand jury for questionable sales. There were others Unless the manufacturer's are involed in illegal gun sales, guns are comming from dealers. Would not having the ability to buy 10 ( and I'm not stuck on this number) firearms at a time really affect anyone but crimminals.
     
  14. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,710
    Location:
    Hot and Humid FL
    So, allowing mental patients to acquire guns easily and legally is OK with you?

    Hmmmmmmm.......how many of those folks are you willing to house in your home?
     
  15. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    The ONLY gun laws I ever support are those that are ABSOLUTELY necessary for the preservation of freedom, under the most strict view. It is naive to think that there should be NO standard. And just as with some limits on free speech and religion, etc. there must be some boundary... you can't have rampant slander, libel, and false fire alarms or that would destroy the 1st Amendment. Allowing guns EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE would be total anarchy in modern world. There really would be no law and order.

    For instance, no guns in courtrooms, no possession of guns by inmates in jails or mental patients in mental hospitals, on airplanes, etc. There is obviously too much room for intimidation or escape, violence, or disaster, etc. In fact, it would be a certainty, and no judge could rule fairly if the parties were armed. 100 armed people on a plane aren't going to be any safer when the intent of the armed terrorist is to shoot the pilots or shoot holes in the airplane engine or gas tanks!

    All of the other feel-good slippery slope laws really are just that... cumulative 'minor, common sense' encroachments that are ineffective and never good enough for the anti-gun crowd; they always want one more law from the most recent flavor-of-the-day killing with the evil gun-of-the-day. And they really just serve to whittle away the 2A, one letter at a time.

    I support carry in almost all public places, except locations where armed people could attempt an overthrow of elected officials or judges. I even believe that my 2nd Amendment rights trump your private property rights under 'equal protection of the laws.' For instance, a business owner should no more be able to discriminate against my carrying a weapon in his establishment or baseball game or whatnot than he could ban a woman, a black man, or any other protected class.
     
  16. Seminole

    Seminole Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    689
    Location:
    Where the west begins
    Ditto. Any law that infringe to any degree on the right of the people to keep and bear arms violates the Constitution.

    The only legitimate function of law is to provide for the punishment of those who harm transgress on the life, liberty, or property of others. The fact that anyone keeps or bears arms harms no one. Any regulation of such is therefore illegitimate.

    You asked.
     
  17. spartan00054

    spartan00054 Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    96
    Location:
    Southern California
    As a black-gun loving Californian, I'd just be happy if the CURRENT (post-AWB) Federal statues were all that there were, with the glaring exception of 922r - related import bans.

    But, I know myself well enough to be sure that just as soon as I had finished filling my safe with newly available semi-auto L85A2s, G36s, FAMASs, and genuine Steyr AUGs, I'd think longingly of supressors and rock'n'roll switches and start to despise the 1934 NFA just as much as I currently hate every law on the books in this stupid state.

    So, in my heart of hearts, I suppose that would only go so far as to support preventing felons, insane people, hard drug users, and anyone who quotes or otherwise references COWADOOTY while at the range from possessing firearms.
     
  18. henschman

    henschman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,880
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    Mental patients could still be barred the use of arms in a free society, after being adjudicated to be a danger to the life and liberty of others in a court proceeding after having had a chance to defend themselves.

    I disagree. The relatively small number of people who would carry a gun with bad intent would be dissuaded from violent action by the larger number of armed people who have no desire but to protect innocent life. The only ones who would not be deterred would be crazy people who don't care if they die... and they would be stopped quicker on average than they are now, when they can rely on target-rich gun free zones. Judges or anyone else could still have enough security surrounding them to protect them from most contemplated threats.

    And what would be so bad about anarchy? Anarchy does not equal chaos, you know. I don't think any of us really know what it is like, since it has never really been tried except for in small communes (which didn't turn into the Lord of the Flies, FYI). It would be nice to see it tried somewhere. I for one am willing to give it a shot. I think I would greatly prefer anarchy to the Administrative State.
     
  19. GambJoe

    GambJoe Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    226
    Location:
    Richmond TX
    Anarchy without chaos is like communism without totalitarianism. It can't be done. A world without laws? Things are the way they are for a reason. Human being's need rules, without them we are like animals. Maybe you would like to live in the Sudan or Somalia.

    This country was created by some pretty smart men who believed in governance and they wrote a constitution to express how it should be done.

    Discussions on anarchy worked good at cafe's in Paris and for leftist radicals during the sixties. It impressed the ladies. In Germany, an indivdual making up his own rules, turned into individual's collectively making up their own rules, it was called Nazism.
     
  20. rajb123

    rajb123 member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    892
    During the times of the so-called wild wild west, there were, in effect, few gun laws and presumably, even folks with mental issues owned or had access to guns. The violent crime rates committed with guns was relatively low in those days dispite what the movies and books about the time portray as the norm.

    I suppose people with mental issues would be much less likely to harm others if everyone, or nearly everyone, was armed.

    By the way, I beleive the Arizona gunman knew right from wrong and he should not be able to claim an insanity defense.
     
  21. wishin

    wishin Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,430
    Location:
    Georgia
    So, using that line of thinking, why not just make it legal for known violent felons on the lam to buy all the guns they want across the counter? Might as well save them the trouble of finding a black market source! I think not.
     
  22. Jonah71

    Jonah71 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,223
    Location:
    Central Missouri near Whiteman A.F.B.
    I pretty much agree on this one.
     
  23. egg250

    egg250 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    114
    I also support the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    Violent felons should not be able to purchase/possess firearms of any type. Nor should anyone who lacks the mental capacity to be responsible for their own actions (includes all insane persons).

    Minors should not be able to purchase firearms, however may possess them when appropriate. Hunting comes to mind but is not the only purpose for possession of a firearm.

    Courthouses, police stations and other government buildings should NOT be off limits to the gun toting public. I am a law abiding citizen and there is no reason I shouldn't be able to carry a weapon wherever I choose.
     
  24. meytind

    meytind Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    New York
    What I meant was people with felony convictions who have been released from prison. If these people shouldn't have their rights, why did we let them out of prison to begin with? If a criminal wasn't executed, and has served his/her time, then I believe all rights should be restored.
     
  25. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    46,825
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    GambJoe, a nutzoidal type went into a church in Dallas and shot a bunch of folks. What we've done that's just dumber'n dirt is to create free-fire zones where a hostile gunman is quite safe--which is not the intent of the proponents of laws creating free-fire zones.

    What was discovered and statistically calculated by the number crunchers who wrote "Under The Gun" (U of Fla Press; Wright, Rossi and Daly; 1985) was that even post-1968, no gun control law passed in Florida had affected the rate of violent crimes involving firearms. Other studies since that time have merely reinforced their conclusions.

    In general, gun control laws have an effect similar to the Assault Weapons Ban: Reducing drive-by bayonettings.

    About the only arena for rational discussion has to do with adjudicated mental health cases, and adjudicated violent felons. That discussion began with the Anti-Federalist papers. From a modern-day law standpoint, only the NICS appears to have utility, but it only proves a negative--and no governmental record-keeping is truly up to date.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice