Gun Control Poll

[Vex]

Pretty simple, what forms? Some people support some gun control. Others are completely opposed. I thought this would be interesting.

Possible choices? Age limit. Instant checks. Waiting period. Banning a caliber. Banning an effective range. Banning magazine capacity.

This was originally supposed to have a poll, but the way this board is setup, you can't post a poll unless it's within 20 minutes of having the thread posted.... and unfortunately I was too busy trying to organize the choices. Oops.

 

[crazed_ss]

I dont have a problem with background checks.

 

[Handgun Midas]

I don't have a problem at all with any of the forms of gun control you have listed... if we all started over tommorrow and nobody had any guns yet.

I feel that in reality these measures only control the gun ownership of law-abiding citizens. Those set on causing harm with a firearm rarely seem to having trouble obtaining one, no matter the state.

Although, not being able to go into a Wal-Mart and buy 100rd drum clips for repeating rifles is probably a good thing no matter what.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

I wouldn't object to registration if the people pushing for it weren't confiscators-- and if twice as many Americans owned guns as currently do. If confiscation is impossible, registration doesn't hurt law-abiding citizens.

Beyond that... I don't think purchasing a weapon should require anything more than displaying ID which proves you're a legal adult. It's funny how distorted some peoples' definition of the word "infringed" has become-- because they wouldn't tolerate nearly as much scrutiny of their right to print news or cast a ballot.

Newspapers and ballots are deadlier weapons than any firearm.

 

[2nd_amendment]

vote age

I say if you are old enough to vote, your old enough to purchase and carry..We want our kids to vote at 18..we want them in the military at 18..we may even want them to fight in a war at 18..but we dont trust them with guns.
It scares me to think about 18 year olds with guns, but not nearly as much as it scares me that these drug boys at 15-25 have guns and shoot people every day in america.
GUN CONTROL:
If you are the law abiding..you get a gun if you want one. (period)

 

[deolexrex]

We already have the only gun law we need...it's called the second amendment! Why should we restrict the age? My son is 15, he'll well trained, a better shot than I am, I can think of no one that I would rather have watch my back. Why can't he buy the gun of his choice? (with the money he's earned)

Where we live he can't even buy 22 ammo...he can drive a car but no 22 ammo...give me a break!

 

[mbs357]

The age limits should all be the same for everything.
If a person is old enough to drive a car he or she should be old enough to carry a concealed handgun.
The ages all need to be 16, 18, 21, whatever.

 

[BIGJACK]

The second amendment is the law!

What is the point of registration if not to set up a possible future confiscation?

I can't imagine why a person would want to have some of these assault weapons and I question that their 2nd amendment rights allows them to own one. I recently got out of a hunting club because one of the members insisted on hunting with a dam automatic assault weapon. I think he was a Viet Nam Vet wantabe, sog walking around with that thing pointing in all directions, including at me. Had to get out to keep from taking it away from him and throwing it in the river. He was eventually rail roaded out of the club and I haven; heard of him since. Hope he is in Iraq dodging bullets and learning what that thing is really for.

 

[Erebus]

I agree violent felons don't deserve to own firearms. Their crimes demonstrate that.

Just as there is an age limit for driving a car there needs to be an age limit for posessing a gun. I don't have a problem with a 12 or younger year old owning a gun under his/her parents authority. I think the parents are to make the decision if that child deserves to own a gun. But ultimately they are responsible for it until he is 18.

Once someone is old enough to draft they should be old enough to drink a draft. If we can trust them in a war with a machine gun, why can't we trust them in town with a pistol?

No one should be by design in a position that they would be at a disadvantage to an attacker. If it's so easy to illegally get a fully automatic weapon to invade my home why is it illegal to get one to defend it?

 

[deolexrex]

"I can't imagine why a person would want to have some of these assault weapons and I question that their 2nd amendment rights allows them to own one. I recently got out of a hunting club because one of the members insisted on hunting with a dam automatic assault weapon."​

You...are...kidding...right?

 

[Erebus]

sog walking around with that thing pointing in all directions, including at me.

The above scares me more than what's below.

one of the members insisted on hunting with a dam automatic assault weapon

If animals were all he was pointing it at I would say he's doing it because he can, even if it is a ridiculous idea. But if he is carelessly pointing it all over the place including at people well that's just plain dangerous and a tragedy waiting to happen. SOmeone needs to sit him down and have a real talk with him. If that don't work stay clear of him before said tragedy occurs.

He was eventually rail roaded out of the club

Don't most gun clubs have rules and procedures in place regarding careless behavior? Shouldn't some official of the club been able to officially warn him and eventually throw him out of the club if the behavior continued? What do you mean by "rail roaded out of the club"?

 

[Igloodude]

Age limit for purchasing guns: Check.

Instant criminal background checks: Check.

Banning murder/attempted murder/assault with a deadly weapon: Check.

 

[jerkyman45]

I say that if you can drive a car, you can own a gun. No caliber/ magazine restrictions. In my opinion, the process should be similar to getting an automobile license. Take a few hours of classes and do some shooting with an instructor, then get a license. no registration, no restrictions. Background check is ok, I don't want a convicted murderer/rapist/ whatever buying a gun, but then again i seriously doubt a murderer/rapist/whatever would go through the legal hoops to get himself a gun.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Anytime you give up ANYTHING to the Gun Grabbers, they will ask for more.

Don't ever think they will give up. Anytime a liberal asks you a question which begins with "can't we all agree" or "don't you agree" say NO!

I don't care if the premise is "the sky is blue". You cannot defeat these elitist scum with logic, or with truth.

Truth and logic have no place in their deluded worlds. The only thing they want is a feeling of superiority.

 

[Sistema1927]

If you are not locked up behind bars you should be allowed to possess a firearm.

End of story.

Age limits? Heck no. I was more mature at age 12 than many at age 50.

Criminal history? Nope. If you are too violent to have a gun, you should be locked up and not walking the streets.

Gun Control. It's not about guns, it's all about control.

 

[AndyC]

I wouldn't object to registration if the people pushing for it weren't confiscators

"If the people pushing for it weren't confiscators" - agreed. Because we all know that the anti's have admitted that registration is just a prelude to a total gun-ban, I reject registration as being something "reasonable".

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

What is the point of registration if not to set up a possible future confiscation?

Registries do allow you to track weapons which have been used in crimes, and to use that information to convict people who have used their weapons criminally.

And if that's what they were intended for, I'd support it.

I don't care if the premise is "the sky is blue". You cannot defeat these elitist scum with logic, or with truth.

Truth and logic have no place in their deluded worlds. The only thing they want is a feeling of superiority.

And how is it that you claim to be any better? Your words are the same as theirs.

There is a time for words and a time for bullets. As long as it is still time for words, our words must be truthful-- because lies and rhetoric only serve to hasten the arrival of the time for bullets.

 

[qlajlu]

The background check that we all go through to purchase a firearm is nothing more than a formality with a consequence if we fail to follow it. It is the same with gun-free zones and gun bans. They only affect the LEGAL, LAW ABIDING gun owner. I don't want a BG having a gun, but he does. NO BRAG, JUST FACT!

 

[SnP]

Lets ban all forms of gun control. Whether it be background checks or whatever, they all need to be banned.


Oh wait, it was already banned, two hundred years ago. Must have forgot.

 

[Mannlicher]

I am against all gun laws. Folks like us, that would never mis use a gun don't need another law to tell us to not do what we would not do in the first place.

Those that do misuse guns, by killing, robbing, etc, pay no attention to those laws anyway.

Gun laws always are a day late, and a dollar short, simply because criminals dont follow the laws.

 

[Maxwell]

I personaly have no trouble with background checks or registration, the problem is the people thinking this stuff up are never satisfied.
I just spent 5 months getting my one 9mm pistol legally registered after a laundry list of requirements were metm, and thats just for home defense... Now here in my local newspaper today is a woman screaming for more gun control because her son was shot while dealing drugs.

How much more do you need?
It started with fingerprints and background checks, its expanded to registration and ballistic finger printing, it wont stop even after their implanting rfid tags and taking DNA samples.

They'll just think up something new.

So at this point Im against all forms of limitation.
As much as they want some new check or balance, I want all of those restrictions gone. Hopefully if more gun owners were pushing for free and clear 2a rights, we would strike a more reasonable balance with the anti's trying to tighten the noose around our necks.

 

[steelsfx]

I agree violent felons don't deserve to own firearms. Their crimes demonstrate that.

This statement indicates you doubt the validity of the criminal aspect of the legal system. The proper role of this system is to protect the citizens of the country (residents of the states, cities, etc.) from criminals and their actions. In the instance you are speaking about, violent criminals.

Either these ex-cons are "reformed" and should be allowed all of the rights of any other person or they are not and should not be trusted to operate of their own accord in public.

Your position on felons owning guns obviously violates the rights of men who have served their time and are fit for reentrance to society. You should target your statements more towards the reformation of the legal and penal systems instead of being another pro-gun-ban voice.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by Sistema1927:
If you are not locked up behind bars you should be allowed to possess a firearm.

End of story.

Age limits? Heck no. I was more mature at age 12 than many at age 50.

Criminal history? Nope. If you are too violent to have a gun, you should be locked up and not walking the streets.

Gun Control. It's not about guns, it's all about control.

Exactly.

If you cannot be trusted to own a means to protect yourself or your family then why should anyone trust you to walk the streets?

 

[Sinsaba]

I think we should have the exact same controls on guns that we do on other hand tools. What are th laws on hammers? Screwdrivers? How about a saw? If one chooses, any of those could be a weapon.

 

[Euclidean]

My comprehensive gun control plan:

1) No one currently in jail can be in posession of a firearm.

2) No one currently in a mental instituition can own a firearm.

3) Non citizens cannot own firearms

4) Persons Dishonorably discharged from the armed forces cannot own firearms.

If any of these people are caught with a firearm, they will be arrested and tried in a court of law. Problem solved.

Actually we could just limit it to 1 and 2, as 3 and 4 are not enforceable and shouldn't really be on the books as such.

Anything else just lends itself to unconstituitional legislation or civil rights abuses.