Forum members who support "reasonable gun control"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Noirfan

:D Yes

because it goes back to a very basic question - do people here who are adamant about their rights believe there should be NO control on guns ? If that's the case, then it is the opposite extremism of the anti's who want total abolishment. In that case, neither side wins.

I am for the FFL transfer, reasonable precautions, open carry and CC allowed in every state WITH A PERMIT. Why not ? There is a great responsibility in carrying and I for one want the person next to me who is carrying to be responsible. Not just BORN so I get a gun. Maybe that sounds more like a privilege but heck, we are talking about a lethal weapon. I don't feel like getting shot by a mom with a stroller reaching for a pacifier and no clue about safety.
 
Some seem to repeatedly miss the central point.

'Reasonable laws' - - - - -for what purpose ?

Gun crimes are down, gun accidents are down, your likelihood of being a victim in a mass shooting is less than being struck by lightning, and bee stings kill far more people. Many more people are protected from violent crime when they were able to defend themselves with guns, and in the overwhelming majority of these incidents, all it took was showing a firearm to cause the predator to run away. The gun was never fired. Violent crime goes down in places where right to concealed carry laws are enacted.

So again . . . . laws for what purpose ?

Too readily, some people accept the premise of the other side. Thy assume that 'we need a (new) law'. They don't question if that notion is actually true or not.

The 'do something' disease and 'there outta be a law' mentality has put far too many useless laws & regulations on the books.
 
Being from a family where cousins, uncles, etc have folders at the local authorities offices, I see these people that I grew up with who have made bad decisions getting chunks of their lives taken away. Recently Kentucky began considering a bow a firearm so now these people who have paid a debt to society years ago are still being punished for their actions. For people that grow up living 11.5 months waiting for deer season, why is it that we feel the need to take their rights because of something totally unrelated, and in the distant past?

Do I feel that there are people who shouldn't have guns, yes. Do I feel that stripping a person of their right to defend themself because they once sold a bag of pot to a cop when they were a teenager? Absolutely not. When the debt to society is paid we should call it what it is, history. We don't remove peoples larynx for slander, nor do we cut off hands for theft. We no longer use "the scarlet letter" to identify people nor do we tattoo any billboards across their forehead, so why do we feel the need to hold on to this system of punishment which is inefficient, unenforceable, and otherwise simply dumb. -politics

Politically it would be career suicide to openly take the stance that current weapons laws are failing. They are burdensome, expensive, inefficient etc. the argument will always start with "what if". Starting any argument over a legal matter this way is basically accepting that your wrong but making a point. Wrong because you are presuming guilty due to a trend. So as soon as the what ifs start it's an emotional battle in which everybody who has a background worse than a speeding ticket is out to get everyone else, especially the children.

We need to tackle this and do it quickly before the "For the children" and "For the good of society" crowds take away the rest of our rights.
 
(reply to the stop the drivers license analogy)

That´s a 2A absolutist stance.

Being a right does not make it right.
It can stay a right. Make it well regulated.
And by well i mean in a good, senseful way.
 
The problem I have with the position being argued by Noirfan and ohbythebay boils down to this:

A restriction in freedom is reasonable only if it comes with a commensurate gain. In other words, some overriding public interest must be served.

Can you demonstrate that the requirements you are advocating come with such a gain?

80+% of crimes are committed by people with no criminal history, so a criminal background check could at best reduce something less than 20% of crimes. However, that 20% will still have ready access to firearms because firearms are simple mechanical devices.

There is no such thing as a "mental health check" because mental health is not an understood subject. What you are describing is either looking for court records or subjective screening by people who really can only guess about the mental state of a person they are talking to, and have zero track record of predicting future behavior. The mentally ill are far more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator of crimes.

So here is my proposal for reasonable gun laws:

1) Require that public schools include firearms training, including live fire, starting in 5th grade. Make federal funds available for shooting facilities at public schools, and allow the transfer of military weapons to schools for use in training.

2) Require that police forces, in order to receive federal funds for training facilities, offer the use of those facilities to the public. No more "police only" ranges paid for with public funds.

3) Require that the current exise taxes paid for firearms and ammunition (currently 10% of handguns, 11% of long guns and ammo) go to training facilities and organizations. Build shooting ranges with that money, so people have safe places to shoot.

4) Remove restrictions on safety devices for firearms. No more control of silencers, grip configurations, etc.

5) Remove import restrictions. If it is legal to own, it should be legal to import.

6) Remove magazine design and capacity restrictions. If I want to carry 40 rounds of ammo, it shouldn't matter whether I carry it in one 40 round or ten 4 round magazines.

I could go on.

By increasing real-world training opportunities, and removing valueless restrictions, we would increase public safety in a measurable way without reducing individual freedom. Why do you propose restrictions instead of these positive steps?
 
The problem with "reasonable gun control" is it presumes there is somebody reasonable out there you could have a discussion with; but there isn't. The people pushing gun control want nothing less than a ban - they aren't even happy with the laws in places like England or Australia.

Let's look at "Everytown for Gun Safety" - one of their Board member was former DHS Director and Gov. Tom Ridge. Ridge believed that bans on semi-auto weapons and magazines were "reasonable gun control" even though that idea couldn't find 41 votes in a Dem Senate immediately after Newtown. He quit EGS because he thought their agenda was too anti-gun. Think about that for a second!

Right now there is nobody on the other side who is willing to negotiate in good faith. You must imagine that any law passed will be administered in whatever way is most hostile to legal, peacable gun ownership. This is why ideas like mandatory registration or licensing, which can seem reasonable on their face, are ultimately unworkable and dangerous to our rights.

I think this is where many new gun owners fall into the "reasonable" trap. They aren't familiar with past backstabbings or deals that were not upheld. They don't realize the politician talking about "nobody wants to take your guns" in fact said 20 years earlier they'd ban every gun the could. As a result, many of them lack the proper measure of skepticism in evaluating new proposals and think those of us warning them otherwise are paranoid or deluded.
 
I offer the following observations for thought.

Elected representatives in DC are aware of the statistics. If they weren't, antis would not quote one set of statistics while pros quote another. My conclusion is safety simply isn't the issue as each side knows the other side. If we agree our side (pro gun) is using hard, honest data, we should agree that antis are compelled by a different end game.

Yes, let's quit with drivers permit analogies. Driving is not an enumerated right guaranteed by our Constitution nor does the government stand at the doors of the DOT and randomly determine who MAY pay money to apply for a permit and who MAY be "granted" the privilege.

Presumption of innocence, that's why registration has no place in our country. There is no safety measure for the populace in knowing who has firearms. Sure firearms are lethal weapons, just like pitchforks, knives, pencils, lawn mowers and rocks. (Consult Friday the 13th, Batman The Dark Knight, David and Goliath).

Know first and foremost that control is the operative word in the "discussion". This has never been about safety, the numbers prove that out. The better analogy would be Israel being told to give in to a few demands by the Palestinians beginning with the desire to eradicate all Jews. Would you call Israel unreasonable for holding their position then?
 
Last edited:
ohbythebay said:
DO you have a RIGHT to vote ?

Then why do you have to register ? To ensure compliance with the law.
Click to expand...
Registration is not a universal requirement for voting (North Dakota does not require registration), and it has a shady history.

It was originally a method of disenfranchisement of foreign born, non-white, and poor, people. The goal was to create a registry of the people who should be allowed to vote. In other words, racism and class warfare. It was another form of poll tax.

It has moved away from those origins, but in the process it has lost much of its purpose. If non-citizens can be registered to vote simply by getting a driver's license (and I know for a fact that this happens), the purpose of registration has been defeated and the justification for maintaining the system is gone. It should be abolished.
 
vito said:
A major problem with "reasonable" gun control is that what is "reasonable" is not universally agreed upon, as well as the reality that the folks calling for "reasonable gun control laws" usually are pretty open about really wanting the total elimination of firearms from civilian ownership. Each time the pro-gun side agrees to some "reasonable" restriction of their rights, it becomes the new starting point for more "reasonable" new laws. The reality is that the gun is not the problem, but human failings. Violence and crime will not disappear, so the anti-gun folks will just want to keep adding more and more restrictive laws, claiming they are just "reasonable" steps to protect everyone from violence.

It is for this reason that I almost reflexively oppose any new gun restriction, because I know that all I have done is not end the discussion but just moved the starting line closer to what my opponents desire. Compromise does not work when one side will never accept any compromise on their ultimate goals but uses false compromise as a temporary tactic.
Click to expand...
This right here is the problem. I expect there may be "reasonable" gun laws...I mean intellligent reasonable people with a good understanding of the constitution should, in theory, be able to reason some out right? Well wrong. Because there can simply be not definition of reasonable. It is not a difinitive thing. Heavy. Well 50,000 lbs is pretty darn heavy for a car. It's a mightly light for a yacht.

You cannot define what the thing is.

So you are left with working strictly off of the constitution and the laws that we have. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is down in black and white. All of the words there are difinitive...or least much close to being definitive than the word "reasonable".
 
I am for the FFL transfer, reasonable precautions, open carry and CC allowed in every state WITH A PERMIT.
Click to expand...

Here is the thing: there are ample examples of states that require every transfer go through an FFL and mandatory permitting. None of those states are great places to be a gun owner. In every state with may-issue licensing, the permit is used to generate campaign funds and limited to a privileged few. Things like "self-defense" are not considered a good cause to receive a permit. Open carry is frequently outlawed entirely and there are restrictions on types of firearms, standard magazines are banned, etc.

On the flip side, there are states like VT, AK, etc. They require no permit to open carry or conceal carry. They don't force private sales to go through an FFL - and in none of those states are any of the fears you have taking place (accidental shootings, additional crime, etc.)

So why, when we have two clear examples of how those systems work out, would any gun owner choose the California, NY, NJ, CT, MA model?
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
The problem with "reasonable gun control" is it presumes there is somebody reasonable out there you could have a discussion with; but there isn't. The people pushing gun control want nothing less than a ban - they aren't even happy with the laws in places like England or Australia.
Click to expand...
Bingo! Therein lies the problem; most of the "reasonable" gun laws proposed by gun-control groups are intended to further reduce civilian gun ownership in the US by any means possible.

Sure, "universal background checks" are great in theory: If the sole purpose was simply to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I could see myself supporting that. But the same people pushing for UBCs are also pushing for another federal "assault weapons ban", and the only purpose of the AWB is to further restrict civilian gun ownership by inventing a nebulous, made-up class of firearm (whose definition is constantly changing) and then banning it. They sell the AWB by tricking the public into thinking they're banning machine guns, and it's working; polls show 59% of Americans support an AWB.

If you support a ban on "assault weapons" then you fall into at least one of the following categories:

1) You're completely ignorant about firearms and you have no idea what the AWB actually bans.

2) Your goal is to further restrict civiilan ownership of firearms by any means necessary.

These are the people we're dealing with. Their overall reason for wanting UBCs is to further restrict civilian gun ownership, and that's why I can't support them.
 
"Reasonable" is a moving target. The more "reasonable" you allow, the more unreasonable it becomes.

Our problem is not a gun control problem, it is a crime problem. Deal with crimes (real, not imagined) in an effective manner, and leave the rest of us alone. In other words, people who do violence to others, whether as criminals or due to mental illness, should be locked up as long as they are dangerous. Everyone else should be free to live their lives without restrictions on their right to self-defense. That is "reasonable" to me.
 
I dont argue for reasonable gun laws. I generally agree with post #31 by Ed Ames.

I know this has been discussed a lot over the last couple of days, but what I do argue against is the belief that the 2nd Amendment is somehow immune to such laws. It is not. It is not absolute. It was not intended to be. You can put restrictions on any amendment. A lot of people have this idea that every time you do you are somehow bastardizing the intent of the amendments and those that wrote it. That is equally untrue. The argument that 'shall not be infringed' somehow makes the 2nd amendment different is inaccurate and absolutely impossible to intellectually defend.

That being said, I am by no means an advocate of compromise. There are very powerful people in this country that are true gun grabbers. They also have a lot of oblivious followers. It is impossible to negotiate 'reasonable' with people that will stop at nothing but absolutes. So we have to be absolute ourselves. Its an unfortunate situation but it is what it is.
 
Just remember.......

During the Revolutionary War, only THREE percent of the people actually fought against Great Britain.
Only TEN percent of the citizens actively supported that three percent.
Approximately TWENTY percent considered themselves to be on the side of the Revolution, but they did not actively participate.
Towards the climatic end of the war, approximately THIRTY percent actually fought on the side of the British.
The rest of the citizens had no disposition either way. They didn’t care. They didn’t want anything to do with what they deemed to simply be a political issue.
 
I am for the FFL transfer
Click to expand...

Why?

I have to question whether the 68 GCA actually accomplished anything, especially given how bad it got in the decades following. The homicide rate went up after the 68 GCA, and it stayed up for decades (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html).

JMHO, but I think the last thing the Brady Campaign/CSGV/VPC/MAIG/etc want is for people to start questioning whether the 68 GCA actually accomplished anything. They'd prefer us to believe that the way it is now is the way it always has been and if you say that this person or that person shouldn't fall under the 'prohibited' class (which was created in 1968) or that the FFL system is really just creating busy work then you'll just be labeled as "wanting to put guns in the hands of criminals". After all, who wants that?

Getting off topic for a minute, one of my biggest issues with gun control is that it's distracting from what would actually help. IMHO what caused the homicide rate to go up in the 60s had nothing to do with guns, and what caused it to go down in the 90s had nothing to do with guns either. There's a war on something else that's the elephant in the room when it comes to talking about the homicide rate in the US.
 
Last edited:
Being a right does not make it right.
Click to expand...

?????????? Ooookay then...

All the infringements that people want to put into place are based on some type of emotional investment, or are done by people who want to somehow follow their own agenda for some reason (power?), and use that to play on the emotions of the aforementioned folks. Combine that with voters who are apathetic and don't care enough to actually research the issue for themselves and decide to take what politicians tell them at face value, and you have gun control laws passed.

We, as people, tend to get generational amnesia. We forget the past.

Range testing, and other hoops are not going to stop accidents. They happen. That's why they are accidents. It's also not going to stop one off idiotic behavior. The increasing number of people that have become part of the 'gun culture' (sorry for using yet another catchy 'anti phrase'), realize the responsibility that comes with firearms ownership. They take it upon themselves to become responsible firearm owners. That's good to see. We don't need some bureaucracy or unqualified politician to do that for us.

The reversal of anti gun thinking in the U.S. is a cultural shift that is causing an increase in ones awareness for their personal responsibility. And it's contagious, which is good. Hopefully, it will carry through into how we vote so we can continue to exercise our 2a RIGHT. As far as trying to compare us to other countries, I really don't care about that. The 2a is an American constitutional right.

It would be nice if other restrictive countries would follow suit, but that's for them to deal with.
 
"Reasonable gun control" is a liberal dog whistle.

Its their code word for gun confiscation.

They used that shtick in Great Britain for years and slowly took every gun away from the public (yea a few guns are 'allowed', but only as long as they desire them to be.)

Like I said, it's a dog whistle for them. "Reasonable gun control" is for fools.

Don't give them an inch. Not one inch.

Being a right does not make it right.
Click to expand...

Huh? Being a basic right, a right in our Constitution they say IS A GOD GIVEN RIGHT, dang well makes it right.

Keep you your logic skippie and you won't have any rights cause they will decide it's well, not right.


During the Revolutionary War, only THREE percent of the people actually fought against Great Britain.
Only TEN percent of the citizens actively supported that three percent.
Approximately TWENTY percent considered themselves to be on the side of the Revolution, but they did not actively participate.
Towards the climatic end of the war, approximately THIRTY percent actually fought on the side of the British.
The rest of the citizens had no disposition either way. They didn’t care. They didn’t want anything to do with what they deemed to simply be a political issue.
Click to expand...

And where do you get this statistic? Did they poll everyone back then?

Think about what you are saying. If only 33 percent were on the side of the revolutionaries then 67 percent WERE NOT.

And if THIRTY percent actually fought for the British against those 'THREE' percent, well that just does not compute.

Deaf
 
Last edited:
So then in a sense

reasonable gun control is nothing more than appeasement. Hmm...Interesting. I have to say this thread has made me look at this in a different way so there is value here - where some of us thought that FFL and registry is no big deal, I see now, what is the value add? Nothing. It would merely be appeasement and would do nothing to stop the random acts of violence.

Thanks for discussing this like gentlemen ...it has been enlightening.
 
MP7: With all due respect, I truly don't believe you understand our Constitutional Republic's statement of 'rights'.

First, I fail to understand what you mean when you say that 'being a right doesn't make it a right'. That just does not make sense.

ALL, and every enumerated right in our Constitution IS a right. Our Constitutional structure is in sum a statement of what powers our Government has........and if they're not stated, it doesn't have them.......our Bill of Rights is a list of those powers that governmental authorities may not encroach upon and since nearly all of the ten enumerated amendments directly address the PEOPLE........as does #2........it occupies as sacred a position as speech, press, religion, the right not to incriminate one's self....et al....

Remember, unlike Germanic law, our's must specify those things that are prohibited.
 
A lot of people that think this way just haven't been in deep thought about the issues and where it could go from there long enough.

I admit I was just out of HS when the Brady Bill was trying to go through. I thought about it and decided that maybe people shouldn't have assault rifles. However, as the years went on and I looked into the issues more I decided that there shouldn't be restrictions on what guns people should be able to own.

Several years later I find myself on the side of the fence with the absolutists. No laws will stop determined and crazy people from killing and hurting their victims. Convicted felons can get a gun whenever they want also. So in my mind these laws are stupid and unproductive. Some people really do get reformed in prison. Granted not as may that don't, but giving someone their privileges back is that much more reason to walk the straight and narrow.Because someone made a mistake in judgment when they were young is no reason to disarm them for life. These are just ways to get more of the cake and erode our rights.

It's not about public safety, it's about control and that's the bottom line.
 
One other thing that reinforces my absolutist position is the other sides views. They make arguments on fiction, tell lies to get the public on their side and produce skewed polls to support their wants. If it were righteous this wouldn't be necessary. It is so easy to punch holes in their arguments and positions. A legitimate need supported by logic is hard to ague with. This is why they lose more traction than they gain in the fight .

Think about the laws they passed in CT after the Newtown shooting. Will any of them actually stop another attack like this? Certainly not. Murder is already illegal no matter what tool you use to commit it with. The odds of that happening again in anybody on this boards lifetime is astronomical. However, don't think the other side wont claim that the reason it hasn't happened again was due to the new gun laws they passed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

V
  • Locked
40 Reasons to Support Gun Control
Replies
2
Views
865
ZeroX
Z
D
  • Locked
40 Reasons to Support Gun Control
Replies
16
Views
2K
skinnyguy
S
B
  • Locked
Gun Control Supporters Launch Frenzied Campaign
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
RetiredUSNChief
RetiredUSNChief
O
  • Locked
Gun Control Forums
Replies
15
Views
2K
AK103K
AK103K
N
  • Locked
40 reasons for gun control-tongue in cheek
Replies
6
Views
763
Billll
B
Back
Top