Gun Control Poll

[mp510]

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.
__________________

Basically, you should be able to purchase what you want, and not need to worry about it being tracked. I have problems with any rock solid age restrictions. I would say that 16 would be a good minimum for pistols and 14 or 15 for long guns unless a parent opts to let junior buy the piece. Also, any buyer should need to 'seem responsible' to the seller- that should deal with the douhases and gangstas. Instant checks shouldn't be necesary since I don't intend on banning many people. Only convicted Traitors and other violent felons (rape, murder,- that sort of thing) should be verbotten, and the way I see it, those creeps should either locked up or hanged so they shouldn't pose a problem.

 

[Mortech]

Dang it , my Cetme is my number one deer rifle . At my age I need quick shot follow up ability .

 

[p35bhp09]

Why should someone who is dishonorably discharged be banned from owning firearms? That is hands down one of the dumbest gun control laws we have on the books. I served four years in the Navy(honorably discharged) and probably a good quarter of the people I know who served have some form of discharge that is not honorable. More people have bad conduct, dishonorable, other than honorable discharges, etc for the dumbest reasons than most people realize. For some reason people feel safer knowing that some guy who violated one of a million dumb rules in the UCMJ can't own a firearm.

 

[Zen21Tao]

Age limit:
Under 18 requires parental consent, Over 18 own anything.

Criminality:
Non-violent/weapon related felons on parole must earn gun rights back.
Violent/weapons related felons lose gun rights for minumum 15years then rights must be earned back.

Instant checks:
Yes, check for criminality requirement

Waiting period:
No, background check clears you get to leave with weapon.

Banning a caliber;
No

Banning an effective range:
No

Banning magazine capacity:
No

Firearm Registration:
Absolutely NOT but serial numbers on guns ok for determining if weapon has criminal history and to return to owner in cases or robbery/burglery.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

I don't support or believe in any form of firearm regulation or gun control. Nothing, zero, zip.


There should be no regulation of sales, no regulation of transfer, ownership or manufacture. No restrictions on full auto, suppressors or barrel length.


There shouldn't even be background checks. Nothing. Absolutely nothing is acceptable.


All forms of gun control, even those which most THR folks accept don't actually work. Background checks are nothing more than a revenue generating tool of the Federal Government. If a thug wants to buy from a gunstore, who cares. If they are denied by the "system", they will buy on the street. But we are left with nothing but an extra tax, and extra form of government invasion into our privacy, and in some cases, totally law-abiding, perfectly innocent citizens are denied their right to conduct a transaction of legal goods because the "system" has their name confused.


Sounds radical, but that is what America once was over 100 years ago- in it's greatest days of liberty. Sure the thugs will buy full autos, but so will you and everyone else. Remember one thing folks, there are more good guys than bad guys. Opening up the playing field benefits only the law-abiding, not the criminals. They will be outgunned tremendously. Just like they were in the past.

 

[crazed_ss]

100 years ago- in it's greatest days of liberty

100 years ago were the greatest days of liberty?
You're joking right? I'm sure some citizens of darker persuasion would disagree with that statenent.

Anyway, background checks arent that bad. They pose a minimal inconvenience to law-abiding people and put a major roadblock up for criminals trying to buy a gun through legal channels.

 

[Diamondback6]

Gun control=hitting what you aim at. 'Nuff said.

Oh, you're talking statutes?

Okay:

Age limit:
Under 18 requires parental consent, Over 18 own anything.

Cool.

Criminality:
Non-violent/weapon related felons on parole must earn gun rights back.
Violent/weapons related felons lose gun rights for minumum 15years then rights must be earned back.

Agreed.

Instant checks:
Yes, check for criminality requirement

Acceptable.

Waiting period:
No, background check clears you get to leave with weapon.

Cool.

Banning a caliber;
No

Banning an effective range:
No

Banning magazine capacity:
No

Firearm Registration:
Absolutely NOT but serial numbers on guns ok for determining if weapon has criminal history and to return to owner in cases or robbery/burglery.

All in full agreement. Now for my twist, as described in an unrelated thread on AmBack:

As part of every young man's draft registration (optional for young ladies), mandatory weapons training. Upon completion with a passing score, each shall be issued a voucher for a .GOV-purchased US-made full-auto of their choice and five spare mags, along with 1000 rounds of ammo, that they might be better-equipped to do their civic duty if and when necessary (and I'd like a Thompson with five C-drums with that, please... LOL)

 

[Vex]

As part of every young man's draft registration (optional for young ladies), mandatory weapons training. Upon completion with a passing score, each shall be issued a voucher for a .GOV-purchased US-made full-auto of their choice and five spare mags, along with 1000 rounds of ammo, that they might be better-equipped to do their civic duty if and when necessary (and I'd like a Thompson with five C-drums with that, please... LOL)

+1

 

[Ira Aten]

Crazed SS posted:

"I dont have a problem with background checks."


Bill of Rights Amendment version 2.5

"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 with the exception that all persons are subject to and must be required to pass, a background check to be conducted by unelected government bureaucrats within a federal agency to be formed for this purpose. Said background check will consist of an unlimited number and type of requirements subject to unilateral alterarion and change upon the decision of the directors of this agency, to be determined as the agency personnel's political stances shall dictate, with all decisions, or lack of decisions, of the agency to be held as final, and not subject in any manner to review or appeal"

 

[fletcher]

With respect to the forms you mention:

Age limit: I believe it should be 18 for any firearm.
Instant checks: I have absolutely no problem with this. I don't necessarily like it, but I believe it's the one reasonable regulation that prevents individuals with history of crime from obtaining one. Then again, if the individuals are that dangerous to society, then they should be in prison, but that's another subject.
Waiting period: For a first firearm, maybe. After that, definitely not.
Banning a caliber: I oppose this.
Banning an effective range: Also oppose this.
Banning magazine capacity: And this.

As for registration? Not under any circumstance, now, or ever.

 

[the pistolero]

No registration.
No waiting period.
No bans on calibers.
I can see the utility of a background check, though. If you take the measures to keep criminals from buying guns through legal channels, I think that strengthens the argument that manufacturers, distributors and dealers bear no responsibility for the crimes committed with guns -- not that the argument really needs to be strengthened, as it's just common sense, but I think the background check further indemnifies those in the supply chain from any kind of liability.

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.

Am I the only one who finds the above statements a little contradictory, considering the wording of the Second Amendment?

 

[AJAX22]

Anytime you criminalize the posession of an inanimate object instead of a criminal act, you infringe upon the civil liberties of the people. why restrict anything? if you're old enough to drive, youre old enough to shoot. if your not in jail anymore, then you've paid your debt and should be considered a full citizen, registration isn't necicary, people who want guns will just buy them elsewhere. Regulating the posessions of law abiding citizens in order to prevent criminal action is just a failed concept.

 

[ball3006]

The only gun control.....

I am concerned with is being able to hit the target I am shooting at......................there was none of this gun control foolishness when I bought my first gun from a hardware store at 12 years of age..........Didn't turn me into an instant criminal but a provider of meat for the table.......chris3

 

[Lindenberger]

Felons

In Maryland, if you're caught pissing behind a dumpster, you could get more than two years. If you did, in the eyes of the KGB (Ooops! Sorry. I meant BATF) you're a felon, and can't buy a handgun.

 

[bigdaddyb]

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

'Nuff said.

 

[Firethorn]

3) Non citizens cannot own firearms

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

That would have disqualified some very nice people very much on our side like our very own Oleg Volk and Kim duToit, among others.

Of course, they came here legally, and are not criminals.

p35bhp09, did you pay attention while you were in the Navy? I learned discharge types while still in basic(Air Force), and it's part of PME.

Honorable: You served your time within regs, and were discharged because you didn't reenlist, or for the conveinence of the government(they were downsizing the military).
Medical: Still Honorable of course, simply means that you no longer meet the health requirements to stay in. Generally this is coupled with 'disability'.
Administrative: Failing training, failed to meet military standards, too fat, etc... Still considered an honorable discharge
Bad Conduct: Not showing up for work on time, petty theft, fighting, etc... You're fired with cause. Generally coupled with an article 15, maybe even a court martial. Can also be known as 'other than honorable'. Does not ban you from owning a firearm.
Dishonorable Discharge: Requires a full court martial. Basically, it's part of the sentence for a felony conviction.

That's why a dishonorable discharge bans you from owning a gun, because it's basically a felony conviction.

As for gun control, well, no purchasing if you're under 18, and hold the parent responsable for what the kid does with the gun they gave him. Not touching a gun can be part of parole requirements. Beyond that, I don't see much need. Of course, commiting a crime with one is a severly punishable offense.

 

[CB1961]

Having some rules is always a good starting point. I don't think more rules, never ending, is a solution to serious social problems. Background check I am ok with, some limits on types of weapons... rocket launchers, 20mm cannons. There once was a country where people had rifles and shotguns and some handguns and they went hunting and plinking and target shooting and it was just another part of everyday life and we didn't have to think about it too much except when we were doing it. I was hoping I still lived there.

 

[Zrex]

Anyone not in prison should be able to own a firearm. If a released criminal can not be trusted to own a gun, then they should not be out of prison.

I have known 12 year old kids with more maturity than a lot of 25 year olds. I have also seen 12 year old kids outshoot their parents. Why have an artificial age limit?

Background checks? I don't think so. Once again, if you can be trusted to leave prison.....

 

[BFWE]

Getting a little bit worried:

Whoo... I was getting a bit worried there.

I'm with AJAX22, ball3006, bigdaddyb, etc. No gun control is acceptable. I'm sure everyone here remembers that George Washington called firearms in the hands of the general population -- "liberty teeth".

There is one acceptable form of gun control I would support. This would be the Swiss canton pattern (which our Founders copied) in which the US Federal government makes sure it ARMS the people. If the US government would mail me an M-16A1 (or better yet an M-14) along with a few hundred rounds of ammunition per year and then demand that I keep it in my home and be able to use it effectively... I would support them.

Does anyone think that is a possibility?

 

[coat4gun]

Gun ownership is a Right, not a privilege

Woa... I am amazed (and slightly sickened, and actually a bit peeved) at how many in here actually think that any gun control is actually ok. I would expect that from the likes of the Brady Bunch... but not from THR.

Gun ownership is a Right, not a privilege. Asking permission to own, carry (keep and bear) any form of Arm turns the Right into a Privilege.

All and any who are not in prison have the right to own Any Arm they deem necessary to Protect themselves and their loved ones. They have the Right and Responsibility to do so.

No one has the Authority to remove that Right. That Right is documented in the US Constitution, as well as many State Constitutions, therefore Gun Control of any kind is Unconstitutional.

 

[Vex]

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here, for a bit....

All and any who are not in prison have the right to own Any Arm they deem necessary to Protect themselves and their loved ones. They have the Right and Responsibility to do so.

So why should we take this "Right" away from people in prison? It could easily be argued that while in prison, people need protection from other prisoners or severe beatings by prison guards, too.

Kinda extreme question, I know, but why draw the line?

 

[NineseveN]

Check out these classic threads for some insight (and polls).


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=181730

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=197414

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=177725

 

[Yakko]

Instant checks. Only! That only to verify that you aren't a criminal or insane, firearm information should not need to be included in the call.

Don't ban anything, once you start it is a slippery slope - look at the mess we are in now.

 

[Jeff]

age limits

Do I want a 5 yr old carrying a .45 on him because his daddy thought it would be a good idea? I mean, after all, many 5 yr olds are more mature than many 12 yr olds.

Of course not.

 

[Phetro]

No restrictions whatsoever. I have yet to find one authorized in the Second Amendment--which, by the way, makes no reference to Congress making a law: thus indicating that it applies to all states as well.

While some may think restrictions are acceptable, as they are conditioned to think, these restrictions cannot be reconciled with justice. Even convicted felons, once released, are considered to have paid their debts to society and allowed to join it once again as citizens. Their rights should be restored in a similar fashion. And if they commit crimes again, again they should be punished.

I do find it amusing that many of people say "laws don't keep criminals from getting guns," and then, in an impossible display of irony, parody themselves with the gem "convicted felons shouldn't have guns."