Firearm laws you do support....

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bear71

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
300
Location
Minnesota
Please state some firearm laws that you agree with and believe to be just, though the typical NRA member might not.

I believe there is a ban on proprietership of a gun shop within the city limits of Minneapolis or so I was told by a pawn shop owner in Minneapolis. That was his response when I asked him where he keeps the guns for sale.

I like this law, there are several good shops in the immediate suburbs all around the city. It forces Minneapolis residents to get out of the city and spend some money in the suburbs. Plenty of suburbanite money being funneled into the city, nice to see some funneling out.
 
I support not allowing violent felons or illegal aliens from owning guns, possibly an age limit for 18. I also think there are some places guns shouldn't be allowed such as airplanes, courtrooms, etc. where heated tempers or politics take place.

Other than that, I don't support most gun laws. None of the gun control acts, Lautenberg, carry restrictions, ammo restrictions, magazine restrictions, gun style restrictions, etc. Most of it is smoke and mirrors.
 
You support a law banning individuals from opening lawful businesses where they choose to, simply because it benefits other businesses in different areas?

I can't really get behind that one, personally.

As far as laws that I support...there's not many, really. I'm all for keeping violent criminals away from guns, except the existing laws meant to do just that aren't effective at all.

So I guess the answer to your question is: none.
 
"You support a law banning individuals from opening lawful businesses where they choose to, simply because it benefits other businesses in different areas?"

Yep, money funnels into the city for Vikings, Twins and Timberwolves entertainment, food, pre game, etc., the business owners have a monopoly on that money. The suburbs have a monopoly on firearms sales.
 
As a general rule, the gun laws I support are the ones that are equally enforceable on everybody, including criminals. To keep it simple, that's a quick question I ask myself about a particular gun control law: Is it equally enforceable on everybody? If not, then I don't support it.

Here are examples of gun-related laws I support:
-If you use a gun during a robbery, then the offense is aggravated and the penalty is enhanced.
-You cannot bring a gun into a courthouse.
-You cannot bring a gun into a prison.

Here are examples of gun-related laws I do not support:
-Any "may issue" law.
-Waiting periods to purchase a handgun.
-10-round limit on magazines.

=====

By the way, this is a good thread. However, the idea of supporting a gun control law because it's good for business is repulsive to me. Freedoms of the Second Amendment are precious. We have to do everything we can to preserve these freedoms. Sacrificing a freedom for the temporary purpose of possibly improving business is like flushing the Constitution down the toilet.
 
Last edited:
"Sacrificing a freedom for the temporary purpose of possibly improving business is like pissing on the Constitution."

You felt compelled to edit your post from "...improving business is assinine." to "improving business is like pissing on the Constitution."

Looks like I've got your attention, :) though your edit is a bit Low Road.
 
I only support those that don't violate the 2A...

I really believe that anyone unable to own a gun over 18 should be locked up. If you are too dangerous to own a gun then you should not be allowed to own a kitchen knife, automobile, gasoline, glass, shoelaces etc... So basically the 2A in full force.
 
"Any of my edits was putting it mildly. I was trying to say my thoughts in the nicest possible way."

Yeah, I know, it's good to express passion. I'd have no problem if the law was reverted. To me, the law really isn't harmful to firearms, but moreso to business practice in Minneapolis. Anyone with a bicycle can easily get to a shop. I tend to support suburban business' over urban business' so it doesn't bother me that suburban business owners have this particular advantage.
 
where heated tempers or politics take place.
Click to expand...

So essentially the entire world, every road, every political forum, every debate every meeting in business or politics, every family dinner table, every...every place were two or more human beings interact.
I have never seen a place where human beings interact that does not result in heated tempers due to strongly opposing opinions on at least an occasional basis.

You have the RKBA unless more than one person is present. :(


"But but I didn't mean it that way". Oh but you did, because the definition of such places as defined by others would be endless and never ending as "just one more" prohibited location was continually added in "common sense" legislation where people could misuse firearms.
 
bear71 said:
Yeah, I know, it's good to express passion. I'd have no problem if the law was reverted. To me, the law really isn't harmful to firearms, but moreso to business practice in Minneapolis. Anyone with a bicycle can easily get to a shop. I tend to support suburban business' over urban business' so it doesn't bother me that suburban business owners have this particular advantage.
Click to expand...

I suggest instead a government incentive (government grant) for gun owners who set up shop outside of city limits. A broad restriction on firearms for the sake of benefiting some businessmen today is a shortsighted approach to the "problem". Further, it's not even a problem to many people.
 
"May I suggest a government incentive (government grant) for gun owners who set up shop outside of city limits. A broad restriction on firearms for the sake of benefiting some businessmen is a shortsighted approach to the problem."

You may. Plenty of them going on inside the city, why not in the suburbs?
 
""But but I didn't mean it that way". Oh but you did,"

You gotta let him make his case, zoog. Doing it for him is projection. That's not good for debate.
 
this one
PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT

The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.

H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.
Click to expand...
 
bear71 said:
You may. Plenty of them going on inside the city, why not in the suburbs?
Click to expand...

OK, if that's what you want, then that's why I suggested going for a government incentive instead of a broad law. It's common for government to guide business policy through government incentives (grants, tax breaks, etc.). Guiding the temporary flows of business via stagnant laws is not so common, and thank God.

Are we having a communication failure of some sort?

bear71 said:
""But but I didn't mean it that way". Oh but you did,"

You gotta let him make his case, zoog. Doing it for him is projection. That's not good for debate.
Click to expand...

Uh, what are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
Dang, jake, I'm having a hard time keeping up with all your updates and edits.

"But but I didn't mean it that way"

zoog was putting words in another posters keyboard. He was channeling leadcounsel.
 
Doing it for him is projection.
Click to expand...
No "projection" is imagining or "projecting" others have your own subconscious beliefs, desires, motivations, or fears because those are what you would think in the same situation. So someone ascribes such things to other people.

I would not have arrived at the same conclusion or example as what I put forth as his potential response, but merely used it to reply to something similar to the rebuttal most likely to be put forth based on the logic already demonstrated, and the fact they are also someone who also views themselves as a firearm supporter:
Essentially that they only meant places which they feel are "common sense" locations where firearms pose more harm than good. And I meant to demonstrate that thier definition of such places would differ from the definition of others utilizing the same logical and legal precedent.
 
countryboy -

I suspect everyone here supports castle doctrine whether they enjoy it or not. The purpose of the thread is to present a law that everyone may not agree with, that you still support. The topic is meant to inspire some healthy debate.
 
i liked having policy back me up when i turned down a sale to a crazy guy last week-

"im sorry sir, i do not believe you have the capacity to safely own this firearm"

customer response N/A due to THR decency rules...
 
zoog -

My definition of "projection" from the Oxford American dictionary "5. An estimate of future situations based on a study of present ones".

5. An estimate of future situations (leadcounsel's anticipated response) based on a study of present ones (leadcounsels initial post)."
 
"For that problem, I suggest the quote function. It's really cool."

I'm not that computer literate, seriously.
 
"Well, at least this thread was cool until it became an exercise in Debating Tactics 101."

jake,

Proper and fair debate is important particularly regarding firearms laws. You're amongst pro gun people here and falling apart. What are you going to do when confronted by a flaming anti gun nut that debates well while in front of an audience of curious people? You may lose for the cause on skill alone. That produces even more anti's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Interesting case: Koscielski v. City of Minneapolis
Replies
3
Views
747
Standing Wolf
S
D
  • Locked
Gun shop suing to stay in Minneapolis
Replies
5
Views
690
Diesle
D
MrDig
  • Locked
Failed Social Experiment?
Replies
11
Views
983
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