Firearm laws you do support....

[henschman]

In a free society, it would not be as if ANYONE could have a gun, ANYWHERE, as some of you suggest... people would still have the right to control their own property. For instance, airlines could make whatever rules they wanted about bringing various weapons on board their planes, and could institute whatever security screening procedures they wished. They may be more or less rigorous than we have under socialized airline security, or just different. Some may decide to do strip searches and racial profiling while others might issue every passenger a billyclub. Some might provide firearms to their crew, others might try to create a gun-free environment. As long as the relationship with their customers is one of mutual consent, it's all good.

 

[GambJoe]

Art Eatman, allot has happened since 1789 and 1985. To say that the subjects I brought up shouldn't be open to rational discussion is wrong. I thought the OP question was gun laws that I could agree with. I sighted a few I could agree with. I'm sure there is more.

Can we have a rational discussion on why it's a constitutional right to purchase 10 or more ar's in one day? I think we should.

 

[JohnBT]

"Human being's need rules, without them we are like animals."

Uh, human beings are animals. We're not plants or minerals.


_________________

"Can we have a rational discussion on why it's a constitutional right to purchase 10 or more ar's in one day? I think we should."

Sure, it is a right. And there's no good reason not to purchase 10 or more if you want 10 or more. You need to justify - constitutionally - why you would restrict a freedom in America. It's not up to us explain a Constitutional right to you and defend it, the burden is on you to change the Constitution. Would you have us explain why there is freedom of speech or freedom of religion? I hope not.

You can puchase 10 cars in a day if you can afford it. You can purchase 10 houses. Ten or more ARs won't cause trouble sitting in my closet. I don't see that's theres a problem until one or more of them is misused. And that goes for the cars (could be used in robberies), the houses (could be used in prostitution or drug dealing), or 10 or more of anything.


John...Living in the Land of the Free

 

[General Geoff]

Can we have a rational discussion on why it's a constitutional right to purchase 10 or more ar's in one day? I think we should.

Easy. Common law right to Contract, and the right to Property. ARs are property, and purchasing one from someone else in exchange for compensation like money is a contract.

All within one's established rights to purchase ten ARs if one can pay the asking price, or negotiate a deal agreed upon by both parties.

 

[MudPuppy]

In response to oneounceload's contention about statutory rape:

Tell that to the 18 year old senior who got his 17 year old girl friend pregnant and got convicted of "statutory felony rape".......

That's NOT statutory rape in Florida. 24 or older with a 16/17 year old, I'm okay with that being a felony.

But I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. I think it's crazy I could be convicted of a felony for something in California that is legal in Texas, but that would still count against me if I moved to Texas?

I am generally in favor of far fewer regulations, but coupled with punishments for actual misuse. But, NFA weapons are practically never used in violent crimes, like murder (1 I know of, ironically by a LEO?). Highly regulated. Glocks and AKs, much less regulated, used frequently. True?

(To be clear, I think our guarantees of freedom outweigh our guarantees of absolute safety. Granted, some may prefer safety over freedom, that's why they have plane tickets and airports in London--every place else in the world has it great according to the anti-gun crowd, I can't see why they don't pack it in and go. Quit trying to break the last bastion.)

 

[GambJoe]

How do criminals get guns? Where do they come from?

"Human being's need rules, without them we are like animals."
Uh, human beings are animals. We're not plants or minerals.

No, we are human beings.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

About the only ones I support are licensing requirements for destructive devices and maybe machine guns, and I think those should be shall-issue as well.

No barrel length restrictions. No restrictions past 18. No waiting periods, no magazine limits, no limit on number of purchases in a given time frame, no carry permits. I would support making all adult citizens' driver's licenses be a default carry permit and only revoking those of violent felons.

 

[archigos]

Violent felons should be required to stay in prison as long as they are deemed threats to society. A dangerous person is dangerous with or without guns.

 

[JohnBT]

"No, we are human beings."

Well of course we are human beings, we aren't cats or dogs or lizards. But have eyes, lungs, heart, skin - need I go on? - and are animals all the way, through and through.


"How do criminals get guns? Where do they come from?"

The criminals or the guns? I bet you have a slick answer for this one too.

John

 

[GambJoe]

Where do crimminals get their guns?

John

I agree, we are part of nature, just try not peeing for 8 hours. But to some people it would be a religious thing i.e. God created man in his image. For me it's the human race's promise that we can rise above being animals and build a world without pain and suffering. Animals no mater what their talents will never be able to do that. Also when we loose sight of what we truly are as humans it makes it easy to reduce people to something less than human. Think what was done to the indigenous people around the world when western man got to them, slavery, wiping out the native American, what the Nazi's did to the Jews, gypsies, the infirm and any one that stood in their way. Often the excuse was they were less human.

Yes where do criminals get their guns? I asked first.

At my age I prefer to be called sparky not slick.

Joe

 

[theory]

Questionable hindrances to the 2nd Amendment:
1.) The government requires special permits to own automatic weapons and suppressors.
2.) CCW permits. (I do agree with the training aspect, though.)
3.) Barrel length restrictions - if I want a street sweeper for home defense, how is that hurting anyone?
4.) Magazine capacity restrictions.
5.) Ammo purchase restrictions.

If you're competent to own a firearm, it's crazy to attach a bunch of restrictions. If someone really wanted to, they could a pencil deadly, but we don't require children to earn a pencil usage permit.

 

[Guillermo]

the only firearm law that I support is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

everything else is abridging that right

 

[VPLthrneck]

^^^^^^ dittos! ^^^^^^

 

[mes227]

* I think that in order to carry a firearm on one's person one must prove to the government that one can adequately aim and control a firearm and is responsible enough to react/discern scenarios and appropriately employ force. IE, a carry license.

This is completely consistent with the 2nd Amendment. The phrase "a well regulated militia" was written in the late 18th century and at that time "regulated" meant trained.

 

[Davek1977]

For me it's the human race's promise that we can rise above being animals and build a world without pain and suffering. Animals no mater what their talents will never be able to do that.

And, as humans, we have not ever accomplished such a goal either.....putting us on equal footing as the animals in that regard. Much like you say there cannot be communism without totalitarianism, I've yet to a human civilization free of pain and suffering. While both may technically be possible (though I have no clue how ) the fact is in the history of man it hasn't happened, nor is there any indication that it ever will. At best, we can strive to minimalize suffering and pain, but to build a world where it was nonexistent is an impossibility under the laws of physics, without ever even taking the nature of humanity and its tendency towards self-destruction into consideration

I'm in favor of a bare minimum of laws.... no felons, no one deemed mentally incompetent after a valid, lengthy review (no "one person says he's nuts, so lets deny rights based on that") no one with an established history of violence

 

[GambJoe]

And, as humans, we have not ever accomplished such a goal either.....putting us on equal footing as the animals in that regard. Much like you say there cannot be communism without totalitarianism, I've yet to a human civilization free of pain and suffering. While both may technically be possible (though I have no clue how ) the fact is in the history of man it hasn't happened, nor is there any indication that it ever will. At best, we can strive to minimalize suffering and pain, but to build a world where it was nonexistent is an impossibility under the laws of physics, without ever even taking the nature of humanity and its tendency towards self-destruction into consideration

I agree with alot of what you say, but we are trying. No Utopian here. Look at how many countries stopped starvation and common desease. 200 years from now it's going to be a very different world.

I answered the OP, to say there's laws on the books that I don't know about, some I would agree on some I won't.

Maybe I'm confused but but I look at the 2nd amendment as I look at the 6th commandment. Spells it out for you. But it's more complicated than that.

Having the right to own a machine gun might cause the police to overreact in any situation. You might gain freedom's in one area and loose it in another. Carry in a church you give anti's even more reasons to press for ban's.

 

[henschman]

Quote:
* I think that in order to carry a firearm on one's person one must prove to the government that one can adequately aim and control a firearm and is responsible enough to react/discern scenarios and appropriately employ force. IE, a carry license.

This is completely consistent with the 2nd Amendment. The phrase "a well regulated militia" was written in the late 18th century and at that time "regulated" meant trained.

The "well regulated militia" claus is prefatory language. The operative clause of the second amendment is the part where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's just a matter of grammar. Under the original Constiutional scheme, if anyone were to be doing any regulating of the militia, it was to be the states, since the national government was given no power to do so under the Constitution. However, the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause caused a lot of the essential liberties protected by the Bill of Rights to be incorporated against the states, as well... plus a lot of states have their own Constitutional protections of the right to bear arms.

But back to the idea of Due Process, because it has a direct bearing on the assertion that one should have to prove to the government that one is competent in order to be able to exercise a liberty like carrying a gun. The 14A says that no state shall deny anyone "life, liberty, or property without due process of law." What do you think? Do you think the right to life includes the right to defend your life when threatened? Do you think that "liberty" includes the ability to arm oneself as long as one is not a threat to others? To me, the answer is obviously yes. So why, then, should you have to prove to anybody that you are competent to exercise these liberties before you can do so? Shouldn't the burden be on the State to show why it should be able to limit someone's liberty, rather than on the individual to prove to the state that he deserves liberty?

That is the root of my disagreement with prior restraints on liberty. I don't think it is any more proper to require official permission to bear arms than it is to require official permission to speak or publish. They are both essential liberties that our political system is designed to protect, and which no one has any right to infringe on.

 

[Guillermo]

My personal opinion is common sense says you don't need a gun in chuch

perhaps doing a search "church shootings" might change your mind.

I cannot imagine not carrying in church.

 

[GambJoe]

It's God's house.

 

[Guillermo]

It's God's house

I am very glad that Jeanne Assam had a handgun in "God's house" when a man when into the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and started shooting.

I would argue that all houses where his followers linger are "God's house" but not to get off track...if you believe a church is more valuable that other structures the means of protecting it should be more readily available than others.

 

[Davek1977]

It's God's house.

ANd that means you are safe there precisely why? Its been proven time and again that nowhere is safe from random violence, churches certainly included. I don't know about YOUR God, but MINE believes in taking reasonable steps to protect yourself, and if the conditions merit it, that certainly includes carrying in church or anywhere else legally permitted. Sure, in an idealistic, utopian world, criminals would respect places like schools, churches, parks, even our city streets......but the world isn't idealistic, and theres no limt to the places one may seek to do you harm. Remember, just because YOU might choose to respect a "gun free zone" its quite unlikely most criminals would. A gun free zone is essentially an "unarmed victims" zone, IMO