How free do you want to be poll

[JVaughn]

This poll is to determine how much freedom THR members feel is conveyed with the 2A. I figured a simple 1 thru 5 scale would be best.

1 - Prohibition No Guns allowed, period. Confiscate them all!

2 - Strict control No semi-auto, no high capacity mags, extensive background checks and waiting periods, registration of all gun owners in database. May issue permits only.

3 - Moderate control Background checks, "assault" weapons disallowed but "reasonable" semi-auto allowed with mag restrictions. Shall issue CCW permits.

4 - Limited control Background checks at time of purchase, no mag restrictions, no registration, no CCW permit required.

5 - No control No background check, no permits, no questions asked. (Note: purchase and possession will still be limited to adults)

Thanks for playing.

 

[buck460XVR]

5 - No control No background check, no permits, no questions asked. (Note: purchase and possession will still be limited to adults)

How does one determine that the purchaser is an adult without asking a question or looking at some form of ID?

Felon's and those with severe diminished mental capabilities or mental disease should not have weapons.......period.

 

[Robert]

Felon's

All felons or just violent offenders? And keep in mind that someone, felon or not, that wants a firearm will get one.

Shall not be infringed seems pretty clear to me.

 

[NG VI]

Not all felonies are created equal, and neither are all felons. Personally I feel that a full lifetime ban on the use or possession of arms should be on a limited case by case basis. I think a ban on ownership during the time the person is a part of the department of corrections is to be expected, and I could see having people further restricted until they comply with some reasonable set of goals.

I think if somebody can show that they are truly a productive member of society at some point after their corrections process, it would be wrong to prevent them from having the same civil rights as everybody else. Lord knows there isn't really a way to stop people from acquiring weapons or hurting others if they want to, so the blanket lifetime prohibitions are mainly feel-good laws. If a judge feels that a certain person can be a safe member of society but needs to be specifically prohibited, I believe that the court system should have to provide a bulletproof argument for it.

Somebody who has a lifelong record of violent crimes and aggressive property crimes is an easy depiction of someone who should be prohibited, while there are literally hundreds of felony crimes that are no reflection on the long-term character of the person.

 

[The-Reaver]

If the government took over tomorrow would you pass a rifle to a felon that proved he/she was on your side?

I would

 

[o Unforgiven o]

If the government took over tomorrow would you pass a rifle to a felon that proved he/she was on your side?

I would

The government took over years ago.

 

[Bobson]

All felons or just violent offenders? And keep in mind that someone, felon or not, that wants a firearm will get one.

Shall not be infringed seems pretty clear to me.

We have these things called amendments to the Constitution; they're necessary because we realize America's founding fathers were not infallible, omniscient Gods.

"Shall not be infringed upon (no ifs, ands, or buts)" is something only a fool would support. There are people who should never be in the presence of a firearm, except when one is pointed in their direction.

You're right in that people will generally find a way to get what they want, but that doesn't mean we ought to make it easier for them.

 

[xfyrfiter]

There are different types of felony, as there are different types of felon. Needs to be determined on a case by case base, iow violent felons should not only be banned but punished to the full extent. White collar crimes, and non violent, should be allowed after their crime is payed for.

 

[firesky101]

No NFA, No GCA, No AWB, but.... a background check makes sense. Lots of reasons you would not give a gun to someone. No citizenship, violent felon, etc...

 

[MuleRyder]

I voted 4 "Limited Control" except that I think there should be CCW permits. Some people are just plain too dangerous or not responsible enough to be carrying in public. I can't believe some of you voted "No Control" Are you serious?

 

[Tcruse]

I agree with many of the other posters that people that have done past bad acts should have some case by case appeal based on current standing. Maybe some time limit on past problems of say 5 years?
Another issues that the government should not be able to track inquires or keep a list of known gun owners. No exceptions on the tracking. If the record exists it can be used for bad things if it falls into the wrong hands.
Receipts keep at the local reseller is ok, but a court order should be needed to get the information and then only for one specific gun.

 

[303tom]

If the government took over tomorrow would you pass a rifle to a felon that proved he/she was on your side?

I would

YES ......................

 

[Tcruse]

I voted 4 "Limited Control" except that I think there should be CCW permits. Some people are just plain too dangerous or not responsible enough to be carrying in public. I can't believe some of you voted "No Control" Are you serious?

Mandating gun handling and safety training should be required of all students. Start in about the 7th grade there should be both classroom and range requirements. It could be part of the public health teaching. Also, it should be part of the citizenship requirement for new citizens.
There probably should be lots of discussion about open carry with out permit and CCW with permit.

 

[buck460XVR]

All felons or just violent offenders? And keep in mind that someone, felon or not, that wants a firearm will get one.

Shall not be infringed seems pretty clear to me.

There is already a process for felons to allow them to have their gun rights reestablished. Pretty simple and straightforward. This post was not about the obtaining firearms illegally, but by legal methods. Saying that guns should be handed out to everybody because they could obtain them illegally is like saying morphine and other prescription drugs should be available over the counter to anyone that has the money to buy them......because they too can be obtained illegally. There's a big difference between a law abiding citizen and the gangsta that stole a gun to rob you at gunpoint.

If the government took over tomorrow would you pass a rifle to a felon that proved he/she was on your side?

I would

Good for you that you would trust the guy that killed his mother for $25 to buy that last rock of meth to stand by you, as opposed to the government that has never in the last 235 years shown any desire to enslave the general populace. As if after you turned your back he wouldn't shoot you for the clothes on your back. As if in the scenario you give, you would have a rifle and ammo to pass to some one? Get real.

The OP was about the buying of guns legally within the confines of the world as we know it. No other scenario is given or implied.

 

[Water-Man]

Just reading the percentage of people on this forum that voted No Control is reason enough to take everything you read with a grain of salt.

It's also good ammunition for the gun control people who might happen to read this Thread.

W-M

 

[csa77]

I believe my second amendment is a right and not a privilege to be governed by any authority.

if that means felons ,murderers and such can own guns then so be it. criminals don't follow the law to begin with. gun laws only affect people willing to abide by them.

I vote number 5

 

[mgmorden]

Good for you that you would trust the guy that killed his mother for $25 to buy that last rock of meth to stand by you,

Not every felon is some guy that "killed his mother for $25 in drug money". Heck Martha Stewart is a felon for selling off stocks because she knew the value was gonna fall the next day.

Life isn't a black and white "good guy" and "bad guy" scenario where we can easily label everyone. No, I have no issue with withholding firearms from people who have previously committed violent crimes - however, to universally deny them to something as obscure as "felons" is a bit naive IMHO.

 

[Robert]

but that doesn't mean we ought to make it easier for them.

The point is that anti firearm laws only effect those of us who bother to follow the law in the first place. Murder is illegal, just like a felon owning a firearm, but it still happens everday. So why place more restrictions on something that is already vastly over regulated? The question posed was how do we FEEL, as in our opinion, about the subject. I'd rather have everyone armed than freedom be denied to one law abiding citizen. An armed society is a polite society.

And who decides who is and who is not to have a firearm? The government? Remember these are the same folks that have called anyone with military service, a faith in God or an interest in firearms a potential terrorist.

The OP was about the buying of guns legally within the confines of the world as we know it.

Then what are we talking about, as almost every class of undesirable person, felons and the like, can not legally buy firearms...

 

[Vern Humphrey]

How does one determine that the purchaser is an adult without asking a question or looking at some form of ID?

Felon's and those with severe diminished mental capabilities or mental disease should not have weapons.......period.

One doesn't.

When I was a lad, I bought a Spanish M1916 Mauser through the mail, at age 16. I bought a .357 through the mail a few years later.

And you know what? Our homicide rate in those days was only about half what it is now!

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

If someone cannot be trusted with a firearm due to criminal violence, why are they not sill in prison?

If someone has been released from prison due to them no longer posing a threat, why are they denied their rights?

 

[Badlander]

5 - No control No background check, no permits, no questions asked. (Note: purchase and possession will still be limited to adults)

I voted for #5 except for the limited to adults part.

No I would not give A gun to the guy that killed his mom for $25. worth of crack. In my perfect world he would be DEAD therefore not A consideration.

 

[whetrock]

I voted 5 I feel personally that the 2nd amendment like all other rights included in our bill of rights are in no shape form or fashion intended to be regulated in any way. I don't recall who said it originally but we must remember liberty isn't certified safe and I for one would rather have to much than too little of it. Also Ragner Dannesklold I got a kick out of your user name Atlas Shrugged is an awesome book that should be IMO be on everyones short list of books to read.

 

[Art Eatman]

It pays to have done some reading in things like the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers--as well as the writings of Jefferson and Adams.

FWIW, it was taken for granted by Jefferson and others that the right to bear arms would be denied to the insane and "...people of ill repute". I'm assuming the latter to be what we today would describe as violent felons--and possibly even those with long arrest records for violence (maybe).

At any rate, there would need to be some sort of ID system to determine the insane and the felonious. NICS? I don't know.

Note that the Preamble to the BOR gives the purpose of the grouping as a defense against abuse of power by the State. It says nothing about hunting or self-defense, although those were taken for granted by the writers. Strictly speaking, then, for all that Heller added self-defense, the government can control the access and bearing of weapons to some extent. The issue then is "how much control". Me, I'm a bug about utility; if it's not efficacious, it's a waste of time. As Tamara has phrased it, "Ignorance is no excuse for a law."

Which I guess is where we are with this thread: How much control?

 

[bikerdoc]

How about the original gun law, shall not be infringed.

 

[Bobson]

If someone cannot be trusted with a firearm due to criminal violence, why are they not sill in prison?

If someone has been released from prison due to them no longer posing a threat, why are they denied their rights?

Too many scumbags, not enough space. That may sound like a cold joke, but it's the honest truth.

"Bad people" walk among us because we don't want to continue to pay the bill it would cost to keep them segregated for life, and because we don't have the testicular fortitude to eliminate them entirely.

That's the root of this issue, whether we like it or not. Rather than arguing semantics, we'd be better served by discussing this.

How about the original gun law, shall not be infringed.

I already addressed that. "Shall not be infringed" was a mistake, and that's why we have amendments to the Constitution. America's founding fathers were not infallible, omniscient Gods. They were men, and in wording the second amendment, they erred.