Good and Bad

[shootingthebreeze]

Per some urging of fellow member (which I do thank for input) I decided to start my thread titled Good and Bad.
Most if not all members here are against any form of firearm control. Which is understandable due to the language of the Second Amendment.
However, times have changed since the Founding Fathers laid the foundations to the US Constitution. For one, they could not envision the changes in our society and the evolution of firearms that we have today. Nor could they envision the complex issues of mental health and random shootings we are experiencing today including gang violence.
Today, we are experiencing a wave of firearm bills at state level never seen before due to inaction at the Federal level. A few, to me good, and bad as an example, the NH bill which cites that anyone buying a firearm from another friend or relative should have a background check. I say this bill is good in that it seals a loophole with firearm sales. Anyone buying a new firearm is subjected to a background check; why should a person buying a firearm privately be exempt? Another, bad, which I had read about was re-registering firearms to include a fee for re-registration. To me, that is not necessary at all, that registration should be a one time only thing period.
The lack of will to enact sane firearm controls at the Federal level without endangering the Second Amendment is causing a tsunami of bills and laws at state level and these bills are increasing almost at a weekly level. Some will be bad, some will be in the right direction in denying firearms to the wrong people.
My argument is that because of this inaction at the Federal level we will have soon a quilt like pattern of firearm laws at state level, some good some bad due to the lack of will to have experts hammer out changes to firearm controls at the national level.
Resistance to change will cause states to enact firearm laws which in the long run will erode the Second Amendment because good and bad bills will be passed. We are seeing this today.
If we want to keep our rights to bear arms then we also need some flexibility relating to firearm control. I'm not a legislator or a lawyer I'm an RN. Security of firearms needs to be tightened to prevent children from getting killed every year. Denying firearms to those who should not have them needs to be addressed. One firearm death is one too many.
In the subject of self defense I have no problems with that. But our world today is much different than the one when the US Constitution was hammered out. Being flexible to that fact can only strengthen the Second Amendment, not weaken it.
A lot here just cannot believe that a firearm owner like myself would welcome some changes to firearm laws. A few of my friends, also firearm owners feel the same way. We are a very small minority because the majority is scope locked on the right to bear arms versus being flexible to change at the national level. But by being this way, the back door to the states is wide open to a flood of good and bad bills which have already started to flood.
And the flood is getting deeper.

 

[ngnrd]

You can surrender your rights if you want. Do not surrender mine.

 

[chris in va]

Denying firearms to those who should not have them needs to be addressed.

Who is to decide what person is 'sane' enough to own a firearm? What threshold would you accept? If you take antidepressants, does that disqualify you? How about past alcohol abuse? If you see a therapist on a regular basis, you can't defend yourself?

NH bill which cites that anyone buying a firearm from another friend or relative should have a background check.

While it seems good on paper, an in-state sale has been the norm for a very long time with very few problems. I'll admit, sometimes selling to a stranger can be a bit unnerving but I always ask to see their DL and CWP. Dragging your dad down to the gun store for a NICS check is a bit of a stretch.

As for the history change, the guns of the 1700's would equate to a modern sporting rifle of today. They were cutting edge and fully modern for their time. Also understand there were very few people populating what we now call the US. Human interaction outside the major population centers was much less common. Now we are jammed in here like sardines, good, bad and ugly.

My argument is that because of this inaction at the Federal level we will have soon a quilt like pattern of firearm laws at state level, some good some bad due to the lack of will to have experts hammer out changes to firearm controls at the national level.

Good. States need to regulate their own firearm laws, not the Federal government. Arizona fully endorses open carry. Other states do not. Would you have .gov forcing all states to pick one or the other? I think you don't understand the reason we have individual states and not one giant country.

As a final thought, understand something. If you let .gov enact one or two laws on a federal level, they will not stop there.

 

[TennJed]

The lack of will to enact sane firearm controls at the Federal level without endangering the Second Amendment is causing a tsunami of bills and laws at state level and these bills are increasing almost at a weekly level. Some will be bad, some will be in the right direction in denying firearms to the wrong people.
.

This is where I disagree. The tsunami of bills and laws is not due to the lack of electing firearm controls, it is due to a lack of understanding on how violence and crime works. On how guns themselves work. No amount of new laws will stop the tsunami. They will keep coming, because the people writing them do not understand enough on the subject

 

[Drail]

Wow. Some people just don't get it. I'm with ngnrd. Feel free surrender your rights. If they want mine they may come and take them. There are some things I am willing to compromise on. The entire Bill of Rights ain't one of them.

 

[PabloJ]

Irresponsible gun owners are another nail in coffin of ALL gun owners.

 

[gym]

Wrong, you don't negotiate your rights. That would be the beginning of the end. It would be like someone telling you where you could live and what church you can go to. It's no ones business. Listen to someone who has been watching the climate change since I was a boy. there are so many people who are pro gun now, that guns and shooting has become like Bowling was in the 60's. it can't go backwards anymore, they can try to slow it down, but people want their guns, and they won't take no for an answer.
Set aside all the noise and in a few years there will be a federal interstate carry permit.
It just makes sense, with budget cuts and LEOs starting to climb on board now, everyone who wants a gun will have one.
Ten years ago I never would have said that , and 45 years ago when I started carrying, no one even spoke about guns. They would have been shunned by most of their neighbors. Now my female neighbors all pack a pistol, even the Catholic school marm 2 houses down. we are not going back anymore, look at the amount of new weapons coming out, even what the ATF has allowed to pass as legal, that never would have happened years ago.
The same way kids don't take the family car and go to the bar, is the same way they will not touch the guns that their parents own, that starts at home with a strong family unit, has nothing to do with the guns.

 

[tyeo098]

Its that time of the month again when one of these threads pops up.

Like the others said, feel free to not exercise your rights. They are there whether you use them or not.
Don't say you speak for others though.

 

[.338-06]

My argument is that because of this inaction at the Federal level we will have soon a quilt like pattern of firearm laws at state level, some good some bad due to the lack of will to have experts hammer out changes to firearm controls at the national level.


We already have this. Where I live we can own machine guns and such if we jump through the Federal hoops. And what is this registration thing you speak of? People think the laws of the state they live in are the norm and are the same everywhere. They are not.

 

[Mike J]

Gun control laws do nothing to stop crime. The reason politicians push for gun control is 2 fold one so they can appear to be doing something, two because it gives .gov more control. I should not surrender my rights so someone else can feel safe. Firearms owners in this country have already lost enough. It is my opinion that we should in fact be repealing the gun laws already on the books. GCA of 1968 would be a good place to start.

As far as the states having a patchwork of laws. That is how it is now & how I hope it stays. The less say so the federal government has in our firearms rights the better off we are.

 

[TJ AK-74]

Originally Posted by shootingthebreeze Words in bold are my responses.

Per some urging of fellow member (which I do thank for input) I decided to start my thread titled Good and Bad.
Most if not all members here are against any form of firearm control. That's how it should be...Which is understandable due to the language of the Second Amendment.
However, times have changed since the Founding Fathers laid the foundations to the US Constitution. For one, they could not envision the changes in our society and the evolution of firearms that we have today. Nor could they envision the complex issues of mental health and random shootings we are experiencing today including gang violence. Right, they couldn't imagine gang violence... no gangs of native American indians ever attacked anyone back then...
Today, we are experiencing a wave of firearm bills at state level never seen before due to inaction at the Federal level. A few, to me good (seriously?), and bad as an example, the NH bill which cites that anyone buying a firearm from another friend or relative should have a background check. I say this bill is good in that it seals a loophole with firearm sales. OMG, that is such a great idea! Of course a convicted felon who wants to buy a gun to kill someone with (which is already illegal) is gonna be stopped by this, because we all know that these types of people would never steal a gun right? Anyone buying a new firearm is subjected to a background check; why should a person buying a firearm privately be exempt? Because they shouldn't need a background check for a new gun either... Another, bad, which I had read about was re-registering firearms to include a fee for re-registration. To me, that is not necessary at all, that registration should be a one time only thing period. Here's a better idea: DON"T REQUIRE REGISTRATION IN THE FIRST PLACE! Ever think of that???
The lack of will to enact sane firearm controls Huh? We don't have ENOUGH federal gun laws already???at the Federal level without endangering the Second Amendment is causing a tsunami of bills and laws at state level and these bills are increasing almost at a weekly level. Some will be bad, some will be in the right direction in denying firearms to the wrong people. The wrong people are already denied.
My argument is that because of this inaction at the Federal level we will have soon a quilt like pattern of firearm laws at state level, (Agree up to this point) some good some bad due to the lack of will to have experts hammer out changes to firearm controls at the national level. More like brains, not "lack of will".
Resistance to change will cause states to enact firearm laws which in the long run will erode the Second Amendment because good and bad bills will be passed. Oh no, if we don't give up our rights NOW, we Might need to give some up later? How about not giving any up and taking some of the lost rights back? We are seeing this today. Where?If we want to keep our rights to bear arms then we also need some flexibility relating to firearm control. FalseI'm not a legislator or a lawyer I'm an RN. What does that have to do with this or anything? I don't care what you do for a living as long as you don't advocate to restrict my rights...Security of firearms needs to be tightened to prevent children from getting killed every year. Or kids need to learn proper use of guns, i.e not shooting themselves or other kids with them.Denying firearms to those who should not have them needs to be addressed. Already been addressed.One firearm death is one too many. Yeah, and 1 of any other kind of death is 1 too many. What are you gonna do about it? Outlaw dying???
In the subject of self defense I have no problems with that. Agree there.But our world today is much different than the one when the US Constitution was hammered out. Yeah, so?Being flexible to that fact can only strengthen the Second Amendment, not weaken it. Right, gotta weaken the 2nd Amendment to strengthen it...?
A lot here just cannot believe that a firearm owner like myself would welcome some changes to firearm laws. I can believe it, I just think it's insane... (BTW,does that mean you should be a "prohibited person" because I may think that you could be insane? Or should some bureaucrat decide?)A few of my friends, also firearm owners feel the same way. We are a very small minority because the majority is scope locked on the right to bear arms versus being flexible to change at the national level. But by being this way, the back door to the states is wide open to a flood of good and bad bills which have already started to flood.
And the flood is getting deeper. Your friends can "feel" however they want to. If instead they would actually use logic instead of feelings, maybe they would see how pathetic these added restrictions would be...

 

[horsemen61]

You want your rights controlled I believe Great Britain to be the place for you as for me I am going to fight this legislation as long as I can still breathe

 

[HammsBeer]

If you don't think there's enough laws on guns, feel free to move to an even more restrictive state like CA or NY and sacrifice more of your freedom.

But don't speak for the rest of us, we are fighting back these waves of errosive bills and laws against our constitutionally protected rights, and retoric like your's does us no good.

 

[Twiki357]

No, universal background checks are not good. If for no other reason, it can not be totally enforced without registration of all firearms… A predecessor to confiscation.

Federal firearm legislation will have no effect on preventing a patchwork of state laws unless it preempted and abolished all state laws, which would be totally unconstitutional, not that very many legislators pay any attention to the Constitution any more. If you want some examples, just look at the ridiculous restrictions in California, New York and Illinois compared to Arizona, Texas and Florida, to mention just a few.

“But our world today is much different than the one when the US Constitution was hammered out.” Is it really? From what I’m seeing, the risk to our freedom may be a little different, but is just as great today as it was then.

You may be willing to give away your Constitutional rights. That’s your right to do so. But, I AM NOT willing to willingly forfeit the few rights that our self-absorbed legislators have not yet taken from me!

 

[horsemen61]

Bet this one gets locked

 

[JRH6856]

Reasonable gun control is a 6" group at 50 yards with a handgun.

Read my sig line

 

[captain awesome]

Shooting the breeze,
If we allow any more gun laws soon you won't be shooting anything. Not even the breeze.

murder was around back when our founding fathers created the constitution. So was senseless violence. It has always been and always will be. If you think of the huge number of people that live in this country, and then look at how many of the tradjedys like Sandy Hook we have, there AREN'T that many. They are a very minor problem. Heart disease and cancer are much worse problems. Outlaw those. It makes just as much sense as gun laws. If you outlaw it, it can't happen right?

 

[Skribs]

I take offense to the idea that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it used to. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to give us a tool to use to stand up against the government in the event that our government (including military and federal police agencies) against us. If you think that does not apply in today's world, look at places torn by civil war across the pond. People can still stand up to the government.

Regarding "today's world", would you agree that because we didn't have the Internet back in 1789, the Internet should not be covered under the 1st Amendment provisions for Free Speech? Would you agree that religions created after the Bill of Rights was signed should not be covered under Freedom of Religion? These rights are not based on 18th century technology, but rather built on what should be fundamentally human rights.

 

[ngnrd]

... States need to regulate their own firearm laws, not the Federal government. Arizona fully endorses open carry. Other states do not. Would you have .gov forcing all states to pick one or the other? I think you don't understand the reason we have individual states and not one giant country. ...[/B]

I agree with most of what you said. But, I have to disagree with this idea. States should independently regulate the right to keep and bear arms as much as they should independently regulate slavery, segregation, or religious freedom. The free and legal exercise of Constitutionally protected human rights should not depend on where you live.

 

[JRH6856]

Because the 14th amendment recognized the citizens of the several states as citizens of the United States, with certain rights, privileges, and immunities, the Bill of Rights—which originally protected both the states and their individual citizens for overreach and oppression by the national government—incorporates the Bill of Rights against the states and places the national government in the position of protector of individual rights against abuse by the state governments.

IOW, it should be the duty of the federal government to enforce the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the 2nd Amendment, and force the noncompliant states such as New York, California, Colorado, New Jersey, Maryland, etc. to honor that right to the fullest extent. The states should have no more authority to enact restrictive firearms laws than they do to to enact laws supporting slavery or segregation.

The vehicle for for this enforcemtn has been and still is the federal courts, not Congress or the Executive. And the courts are where we have won our most important recent battles. We need to stay focuses on the national scene because Congress and especially the President can alter the make up of the Supreme Court. SCOTUS is the key. If we lose that, we are in for a ride in a proverbial handbasket.

 

[BigBore44]

Come on guys. Don't be so hard on him. How about we all agree to give up all our guns for one year. Then the next year we'll petition .gov to give them back. That's reasonable.....right? I mean .gov has always been in the habit of giving power to the citizens. Not taking it away. You guys are just being mean. Now stop it or I'm gonna tell!!!

OP, I would very much like to respond to everything I read in your post. My problem is I don't believe I could do so without getting an (more like several) infractions. So I'm just gonna say this.....

IGNORANT. UTTERLY and COMPLETELY IGNORANT. Please do us and your friends a favor. Don't spend the money to move out of the country or to Cali, or NY. Instead, educate yourself on the facts of firearms registration in other countries and the effects thereof. Also research what the 2A was actually intended to do. Hint: It wasn't to give the government more power. So every infringement on the 2A (opposite of "shall not be infringed") is one step closer to a totalitarian government. There, I helped a little.

 

[chris in va]

Guys, no need to bash, he just needs a bit of education. Push people like this away and we're labeled...something not very nice.

 

[caribou]

When our Founding fathers drafted the Constitution, they knew full well of gangs, oprression, NO Police force, wildeness living and equality, all the things that add up to a Man not only doing for himself , unhinderd, but growing in every way when allowed to live free and with a solid backing of Law, hence our Right and duty to bear arms, as free citizens, and to remain free.

They knew very well what war and genocide were, and practised it.



They knew first hand and practised Slavery, so prehaps we cant imagine the stress's and mental tribulations of a society totally lacking in policing, basic medical care, basic food distribution, security in old age or freedom and equality or blind Justice.

This is a country, as patriots, we love it, and inthe same manner, no love ever need be wasted on Govornment.

We can change that every 2-4 years

 

[Sam1911]

However, times have changed since the Founding Fathers laid the foundations to the US Constitution. For one, they could not envision the changes in our society and the evolution of firearms that we have today. Nor could they envision the complex issues of mental health and random shootings we are experiencing today including gang violence.

Ahh, the fallacy of "extraordinary times." It is often hard for people to see beyond the few short years they themselves have been paying attention to the goings-on of the world and understand that a) there is really nothing new under the sun, and b) the founding fathers certainly DID write a governing document for the ages -- to stand in all times and under all conditions.

Because they understood history far better than you do. They were students on a level that is hard to adequately describe to most folks today. They were educated in history, philosophy, comparative government, civics, and the good and bad of mankind from a very young age and continued that constant study and exploration through the founding of our nation and beyond. These were men who founded universities and, not to put too fine a point on it, donated THE Library of Congress from their own private collections. Stop and think about that before you elevate yourself to imagine that you understand the world better than they.

So no, they didn't see an assault rifle. But they understood the harm -- and the good -- that free men with military weapons could do, and chose to write the 2nd Amendment.

No, they didn't see a television or the internet. But they understood the harm -- and the good -- that free men with the ability to communicate to large numbers of people could do, and chose to write the 1st Amendment.

Today, we are experiencing a wave of firearm bills at state level never seen before due to inaction at the Federal level.

Baloney.

A few, to me good, and bad as an example, the NH bill which cites that anyone buying a firearm from another friend or relative should have a background check. I say this bill is good in that it seals a loophole with firearm sales. Anyone buying a new firearm is subjected to a background check; why should a person buying a firearm privately be exempt? Another, bad, which I had read about was re-registering firearms to include a fee for re-registration. To me, that is not necessary at all, that registration should be a one time only thing period.

So you are for universal background checks, AND are actually FOR registration of firearms?

Let me put this clearly: I am 100% opposed to these things in every way. It seems clear that you must have seen every argument against them and failed to understand their importance. If that's going to be your direction, I wish you failure in your efforts, and know that I'll fight you and those you support every single inch of the way. "May your chains set lightly..." as one of those old dead guys you know better than once said.

The lack of will to enact sane firearm controls at the Federal level without endangering the Second Amendment

Simply a self-refuting idea. The best way to stop endangering the 2nd Amendment is to repeal GCA'68, and then the NFA'34. That would get us back to 'sanity' because it would put an end to the "object control" distraction that blinds so many to the real problems and solutions of crime and danger in society.

... these bills are increasing almost at a weekly level. Some will be bad, some will be in the right direction in denying firearms to the wrong people.

Whoops. There it is again. A LAW that "denys" a firearm to someone who shouldn't have one. We don't usually pretend around here that someone who would HURT or KILL another human being (and what other reason would we have for denying someone a firearm?) will not commit a grave malum in se crime because they're stymied by a minor malum prohibidum crime?

"I won't steal a car, because to do so I'd have to steal a set of keys, and that's bad"...?

"I won't KILL someone because having a gun would be against the law..." Doesn't make sense, when you actually stop and think, does it?

My argument is that because of this inaction at the Federal level we will have soon a quilt like pattern of firearm laws at state level, some good some bad due to the lack of will to have experts hammer out changes to firearm controls at the national level.

We already have a quilt-like pattern of laws -- that's the whole federal system, don't you know? -- and the rather unsurprising fact is that the VAST majority of states have decided to have NOTHING to do with the silliness you're advocating.

You seem to be saying, "enact some bad laws, federally, or we'll end up with some bad laws in some states." That hardly makes sense, and isn't a strategy that's worth a plug nickle. Fight. That's the strategy. Fight here, fight there, fight everywhere, and make ... EVERY SINGLE INCH they take cost them dearly in political blood and tears. Just like 2013 saw after Newtown. Let them fight as hard as they can and dash their political capital on the rocks of our resolve and strength! Yeah, they'll make a little splash here or there (NY, CT, CO) but it will cost them their (political) life's blood to buy those tiny victories, and they'll inevitably lose some of that ground they bled for (again, see CO).

Resistance to change will cause states to enact firearm laws which in the long run will erode the Second Amendment because good and bad bills will be passed. We are seeing this today.

Horse pucky. Resistance to change NATIONALLY will be backed up by resistance to change in the STATES. That's what we're seeing now. Yeah, of course they'll TRY. That's only to be expected. And every time they FAIL, they crawl away weaker than before. Gun control is a losing proposition and its old guard is dying and retiring and fading away. They're spending the last gasps of life on fruitless attempts. It is a HAPPY thing to watch.

If we want to keep our rights to bear arms then we also need some flexibility relating to firearm control. I'm not a legislator or a lawyer I'm an RN. Security of firearms needs to be tightened to prevent children from getting killed every year.

The rates of gun accidents already the lowest ever continue to fall despite more guns being in private hands than at any point in the history of any nation. This is a red herring.

Denying firearms to those who should not have them needs to be addressed. One firearm death is one too many.

Oh, jeeez. The "one is to many" tripe? You never took a statistics class, did you?

A lot here just cannot believe that a firearm owner like myself would welcome some changes to firearm laws.

Oh, we can believe it. You or your pals used to say, "what honest man needs a handgun, or an AR-15?" And, "As long as they don't take my duck gun..." The friend of my enemy is WHO, again?

 

[Ks5shooter]

Shootinthebreeze