Forum members who support "reasonable gun control"

[1911 guy]

I think some people are missing the whole point of the second amendment to our Constitution. Can we all agree that the colonies refused to ratify it without the Bill of Rights? If you disagree, come back after a basic American History lesson. They considered the rights contained in the BOR to be important enough to refuse ratification without these written plainly.

Consider also that the very framers and founders who penned this document had just fought a war with, largely, privately owned weaponry, including cannon and mortar.

The text of the 2A: 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.

One word and phrase at a time, the phrase "well regulated" does not mean litigated into extinction. Regulated, in the context and common usage at the time of writing, meant well trained and equipped.

"militia", the founders answered this directly. "Who are the militia? The whole of the people." Direct quote. Don't take my word for it, look it up. Learn something.

"Necessary", impossible to maintain without.

"Security" maintain and hold as a possession.

"free" unhindered by intrusive and repressive government, elite class or arbitrary dictatorship.

"state" the nation, the collective United States of America.

"right" defined as inalienable, that is, unable to be abridged except by breach of natural, moral and common law.

"the people" all residents, not just citizens, because these rights do not originate from a document, but from natural, moral and common law, which transcend borders.

"keep" possess, own or have

"bear" to have under one's immediate control, to have on one's person.

"arms" any and all items considered to be weapons.

"shall not" cannot be done, again, without breaching natural, moral and common law.

"be infringed" to have any stipulation, compunction or abrogation against.

Put in the common speech of the twenty-first century, it would read something like this:

A well trained and equipped militia, comprised of the people, is a necessity to maintain freedom from arbitrary oppression by any force from within or without. Therefore, the right of the people to possess and have on their person any manner of weapon deemed fit by the individual, cannot be questioned.

 

[kwguy]

^^^^ Absolutely well put sir!^^^

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

Aurora, Gabby Giffords, Virginia Tech, Navy Yard - one thing all of those shootings have in common is that the murderer passed a NICS check. The murderer at Newtown didn't pass a NICS check; but his mother that he murdered with her own gun did - so it waan't super helpful there either.

It is especially ironic that CT had already enacted just about every proposed gun law made after Newtown and even after all of the bans and burdensome regulation failed to prevent the situation they doubled down and proposed a bunch more laws that also would have done nothing to prevent Newtown.

So what exactly is the point in establishing a registry of firearms and then doing nothing to pass legislation that might actually reduce incidents like Newtown?

 

[kwguy]

So what exactly is the point in establishing a registry of firearms and then doing nothing to pass legislation that might actually reduce incidents like Newtown?

Exactly.

 

[barnbwt]

"I am for the FFL transfer, reasonable precautions, open carry and CC allowed in every state WITH A PERMIT. Why not?"
Because the Feds control the permitting/licensing processes. In DC, there is one FFL left in operation with, I think, 100$ transfer fees. In NYC, the situation is similar. Reasonable for transferring a 50,000$ Purdey? Perhaps. Reasonable for transferring a Hi-Point? No. And the 2nd Amendment reflects the inalienable rights of all Americans courtesy of the 14th Amendment, regardless of station. And in pretty much every place where the CC/OC permitting system could be abused, it historically is/has been by somebody in a position of power. Seeing how 'may issue' is about to bite the big one at last, should tell you how legit 'shall issue' discretionary systems are. And if the permit is may issue, it will be issued regardless, so what is the permit process even preventing? Nothing; it's just a tax, like every other permit, paid in time and money. My driver's license does not guarantee I am a safe driver (especially in Texas) and yet mine is accepted by law in the other 49 and territories (I think territories have to accept it, too ). What do you know, I might get in a wreck in NYC; might even kill somebody. But for some reason, that risk is acceptable. Is it just because it's a gun that's involved that CC isn't? Because that's a weak argument to support such divergent policy priorities.

"Aurora, Gabby Giffords, Virginia Tech, Navy Yard - one thing all of those shootings have in common is that the murderer passed a NICS check."
Also both Ft. Hood shootings, as well as a double murder in college that claimed a classmate of mine and his sister. They all just 'snapped' and no one could have predicted it except in hindsight; but if we pass this law, it'll be different next time

"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."
Exactly; a lot of folks really don't see government/politics as a game of chess, complete with strategy, tactics, and motivation. I think many really see it the way it is presented on its face; as a bunch of people meeting with the sole intention of acting in the best interest of society at large with no other conflicts coloring the discussion. It's a fundamental (and apparently genetic) aspect of a persons thought process; that some people look for potential risks while others look for potential opportunities. IMO, the former is historically better for governance, while the latter is better for inspiring people (and getting dates ). Farmers vs. explorers. I won't go into which group actually keeps food on the table

TCB

 

[Bruno2]

One of the biggest points to look at with reasonable gun control measures is that the people responsible for making these laws and enforcing these laws are not reasonable. They will attach things to the bills that we didn't agree with and use the passage of the law to justify more stringent gun laws. They always come back for more no matter how much we give them.

Does anybody really think they will stop if we give them the UBC, assault rifles or hi cap mags? No they wont, then they will come for the pistols. After that they will come for anything else that cant be used for hunting. Then hunting guns that are more effective than others. Eventually they will leave with us back powder because everything else takes a cartridge. When somebody goes off and kills people with a muzzleloader then we just cant have any gun period. Now with nothing left to attack on the gun front they will try to force "stab proof" knives on us like they keep trying in Great Brittan.

It's control.

Look at what happened in Nevada with the Cliven Bundy incident. I am not making any reference to his character or approving or disapproving of his personal opinions. A group of individuals got together and stood up to the Fed Gov with their legally owned firearms. They resisted tyranny and were called domestic terrorists for it. Labeling them domestic terrorists was a foot in the door to justify means to disarm or punish these people for doing exactly what the 2A was made for. They are not criminals. They stood up for their rights and what they saw as an over reach as well as tyrannical behavior by their Gov.

 

[TreeDoc]

Bruno2, You hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I believe all private gun sales should go through an FFL transfer, background check and mental health check, by law. Once these checks are cleared, the person should be able to legally open or concealed carry anywhere.

I'm not going to talk about nukes because it's a silly example. However, I am against private citizen ownership of shoulder-fired explosives. The 2nd amendment absolutists basically support selling these things like candy bars. After all they are "small arms", right? When you have Stinger missiles near US airports, or piles of RPG shells in random garages, the safety/freedom tradeoff is no longer worth it.

Full auto, barrel length restrictions, or any of the NFA stuff doesn't matter to me. Repeal for all I care.

Just remember that it's easy to experience an echo chamber effect on a subject-specific forum. Not being a philosophical absolutist does not make you a traitor, stupid or misinformed.

This is where lack of understand in the laws really shines through. Stuff like RPGs, shoulder fired armaments, grenade launchers, artillery and mortars all fall under the NFA as Destructive Devices.

You don't think people should have access to them, but support repealing the law that heavily regulates them.

 

[kwguy]

^^ good point.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

Nope, I'm not starting this thread to bash them. And I'm not going to call them trolls, either. They aren't horrible people (that I'm aware of), aren't Manchurian Candidates in the gun rights movement, etc.

(emphasis mine)

I have to disagree with this one. Maybe not a brainwashed plant, but certainly wolves in sheep's clothing who use their background/accreditation as a means to dilute our cause. Take this article for example:

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-owner-case-gun-control-094500740--politics.html

The author keeps trying to make it seem like he's one of us because he owns a gun, was in the military, and is a firearms instructor.

Before half the country decides that I am a crazy liberal and stops reading here, let me note that I am a security professional, and a 12 year veteran of the Navy where I served as a weapons system technician, base police officer, and firearms instructor. I am proud gun owner.

Yet this is a sample of what he thinks 'reasonable' and 'common sense' control is:

Background checks and mental health evaluations for all gun owners, on a five year verification cycle, would be a great first step.

Requiring licenses and negligent discharge insurance would be part of common sense reform.

We should consider putting a cap on the number of firearms purchased for personal use.

At the very least, misdemeanors such as DUIs, drug charges, and white collar crimes should be added to the list of crimes that preclude offenders from owning firearms.

This guy is a snake in the grass and we should be vigilant against people like this.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This guy is a snake in the grass and we should be vigilant against people like this.

If you read his CV, he is a longtime Clinton supporter and left-wing political activist. It isn't exactly a shock he would support gun control. It is also a great example of why I am always wary of the "I'm a liberal but I like guns" line.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

If you read his CV, he is a longtime Clinton supporter and left-wing political activist. It isn't exactly a shock he would support gun control.

Very true, but a snake in the grass is still a snake in the grass regardless of path that got him there.
Anyone who claims to support gun ownership and spouts off nonsense like that needs to be called out so the general population sees them for what they are.

 

[NoirFan]

This is where lack of understand in the laws really shines through. Stuff like RPGs, shoulder fired armaments, grenade launchers, artillery and mortars all fall under the NFA as Destructive Devices.

You don't think people should have access to them, but support repealing the law that heavily regulates them.

My mistake, I thought NFA was just about full auto, barrel length and silencers.

My larger point is that the absolutists claim that the right of private citizens to bear arms equivalent to military issue shall not be infringed. That includes weapons like Stingers, LAWs and RPGs. Unlike in the often-cited nuclear bomb example, these shoulder fired weapons are cheap enough that the average American could afford one if the market was "uninfringed". That is where I have to break with the absolutists. A society where any man-portable weapon is available for private unregulated sale is not a society I want to live in.

If people are so enamored with free access to small arms they should get out of my country and move to the Horn of Africa. A real fountain of freedom, that place.

 

[Midwest]

Anyone who claims to support gun ownership and spouts off nonsense like that needs to be called out so the general population sees them for what they are.

Like this?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=752064&p=9473464#post9473464

"If stricter gun laws are not enacted, the Second Amendment itself will be in danger eventually. Ignoring gun sense in America will eventually weaken the Second Amendment."


.

 

[Ed Ames]

..weapons like Stingers, LAWs and RPGs. Unlike in the often-cited nuclear bomb example, these shoulder fired weapons are cheap enough that the average American could afford one if the market was "uninfringed".

Let's think this through.

RPG lauchers weigh around 17lbs. Each round of ammo weighs 5lbs. Add the fact that the ammo would cost a minimum of $100 per round and you aren't going to see widespread use even where legal.

Of course, using such a thing against humans or property is already highly illegal so making an RPG harder to own doesn't change the odds it will be used against humans or property.

The only thing the NFA does is raise the price of an RPG from $100 to $300. $300 per round is still within reach of just about everyone. People just don't want to spend that much per round.

If people are so enamored with free access to small arms they should get out of my country and move to the Horn of Africa.

Why should I move when I have reason, logic, and the US constitution on my side?

 

[silicosys4]

Yea...an ND with an RPG explosive warhead. That wouldn't be any more dangerous for the people around you, would it.

Or a closet of RPG rounds in a house fire,

Totally logical.

 

[Ed Ames]

RPGs are perfectly legal to own under current federal law (as long as you pay the taxes, as people do) and I have never heard a news item about an ND or house fire. That sounds like a straw man.

The only thing repealing the NFA destructive device laws would do is lower the price from too expensive to use, down to too expensive to use. I other words, nothing.

 

[Ignition Override]

We already have at least 20,000 or so laws controlling guns. Even if it Were only a few hundred regs and laws...apparently more laws will control access by criminals or the psychotic, and therefore reduce crime?

Why are so many states not allocating enough funds to enable their job of entering required data into websites which concern huge numbers of people who have been adjudicated for serious psychiatric conditions?

The only reasonable approach to "gun control" (the deceptive implication is "crime control")-as a first step-will be to abolish the ATF, with its bizarre, illogical and random interpretations, by way of random/arbitrary regulations, and allow states to enforce their own laws.

 

[Robert]

Please cite one instance of a ND with a RPG.

 

[silicosys4]

https://www.google.com/#q=rpg+accident

You think rpg's aren't discharged accidentally or negligently when they are in common use? Given the low frequency of RPG ownership by civilians in this country and the cost of entry, I'd imagine you aren't going to see the same amount if accidents, if any, as you would if they were easily available, affordable, and in common use.

Not too hard to find evidence of improper RPG use that resulting in accidental deaths, however. When a lot of people use things, they have accidents with them. An accident or malfunction at the range with a firearm doesn't usually involve a huge explosion that kills everyone within a 20 foot radius.
Given the frequency of nd with firearms, and the umm....nature of rpg's, I'm ok with rpg's being on the NFA list and being prohibitively expensive.

Guess I'm next on the pillory, lol

 

[Ed Ames]

Those aren't exactly relevant to this discussion.

RPGs are currently legal in the US for civilian ownership. The NFA adds a $200 tax stamp per grenade because they are legally "destructive devices", but they are no more illegal than silencers. In other words, the price of ammo is roughly tripled by taxes. To me (and, I suspect, most people) the difference between $100/rd and $300/rd doesn't much matter. If I was going to own them an extra $200 wouldn't stop me, and as it is $100 is more than I would pay.

The fact that your examples are videos of jihadis and the like, in other words insurgents with surplus or homemade weapons, shows it isn't a real problem.

 

[silicosys4]

I don't see it that way, Ed. I see a bunch of people who don't know what they are doing, with easy access to rpg's, using them and having accidents. Besides, are you saying that there is a current manufacturer in America that is making rpg's? I think any here would have to be surplus...and if people will jury rig a homemade grenade launcher under their ar-15, what makes you think people won't do something homemade with an RPG?

Would being an American who doesn't know what they are doing with easy access to rpg's make a person safer because they are american, handling an RPG improperly in America? Would it make them safer to their neighbors? I don't think it would. A mistake is a mistake, and we know people have them with firearms, so why would we assume rpg's would be any different here if people had the same access to them?

Like you said, they are legal in certain circumstances for certain people, and I'm ok with that.

 

[Ed Ames]

It is no different than cannons.

If you have the money you can buy a full size cannon. No paperwork involved. Drop 2.5lbs of black powder, a 12lb ball, and what is the knock down power of a 84000gr bullet traveling at 900fps? They are very common. Some THR members own them.

The fact that a cannon can easily cost $50 per shot fired, and that shooting them requires a LOT of space, keeps me and most others from owning them, so the actual harm is statistically zero.

Same with RPGs, taking the price from $100 to $300 per shot isn't making people safer. The fear of them is irrational.

 

[silicosys4]

It is no different than cannons.

If you have the money you can buy a full size cannon. No paperwork involved. The fear of them (rpg's) is irrational.

Cannons are not man portable, rocket propelled, and do not contain a shaped charge of modern high explosives. Apples to oranges.

Can you even get a modern explosive shell if you own a cannon? I do not think you can, and if you can its certainly with a stamp.
so yea....blackpowder in an iron cannon ball is a poor analogy

But you did just confirm that people love to tinker here. I see no reason that people wouldn't tinker with their rpg's as well.

Oh yea....myth busters accidentally sent a cannonball through someone's house not too long ago. Cannons have accidents too.

As for people's fears being irrational....here, maybe where there effectively are none. Go somewhere where they are in use.

 

[Ed Ames]

Sure you can get (or make) explosive shells. They are perfectly legal if you pay the tax. Most people don't because the difference between explosive and non explosive isn't enough to justify the price and headache.

Rocket propelled is irrelevant.

As for portability, a 17lb rpg launcher isn't something people are going to carry around for the fun of it. A cannon can be hitched behind a car easily.

You seem to be missing the fact that the items you are afraid of are currently legally available.

There are legal destructive device dealerships around the US today.