Sound Good Gun Laws you would support?
- Thread starter Isaac-1
- Start date
- Status
“Common sense”, “reasonable”, and “sensible” are vague terms used by politicians to sway public opinion when enacting gun laws they favor. I do not espouse the suggestion of new guns laws as I believe it is a sign of weakness.
The devil is in the details. Let’s wait to see their list of “reasonable” laws. We will have plenty of time to endorse, reject, or possibly compromise at that time.
The devil is in the details. Let’s wait to see their list of “reasonable” laws. We will have plenty of time to endorse, reject, or possibly compromise at that time.
Isaac-1
Member
I understand compromise is nibbling away at our rights, what I am suggesting as noted in the first message are laws on gun control that will not infringe on our 2a rights, but can have that "feel good" effect for the public, I think we all think everyone handling a gun should know gun safety we are just afraid the antis will turn that into 100 hours per year of training required.... Personally I am against banning guns from people that are taking psycho active drugs, too many people are on them for minor problems. I could maybe support requiring a doctors note if they are on this class of drugs, because doctors are in a better position to know why this person is taking the drug and the potential side effects of the drug in question. Otherwise I might find myself not being allowed to own guns because some nurse gave me a pill to help me relax before going into major surgery when I was in the hospital.
22-rimfire
Member
Issac, I believe you don't understand... NO NEW LAWS!!!!! NO COMPROMISING. NO PROPOSALS.
Perfect.
Perfect.
Isaac-1
Member
22-rimfire : I do understand NO NEW LAWS!!!!! NO COMPROMISING. NO PROPOSALS. I just think it is a BAD move on our part at this point in time as the risk is not worth the low chance of reward, instead I think we should use their weapon of appealing to the public's emotions against them pass laws that do nothing to hurt our 2a right, maybe even a few that help, but ones the look like we are doing something, like the voluntary hotline mentioned above.
p.s. if I were selling a gun to someone I did not know, I would like a way to see if they are a known criminal, etc. as it is now options for the private seller are limited.
p.s. if I were selling a gun to someone I did not know, I would like a way to see if they are a known criminal, etc. as it is now options for the private seller are limited.
Isaac-1.... Here's what we know:
The laws Cuomo just passed and the ones the president laid out are NOT going to help curb or prevent things like Sandy Hook or Columbine from happening again Whatsoever.
So no matter what we "give" them, they will always want more. Because it's not the safety of our children that they want...It's our GUNS!
Always remember...they are lying thru their teeth when they say they want more gun control for the safety of American Citizens. What they really want is to disarm us.
The laws Cuomo just passed and the ones the president laid out are NOT going to help curb or prevent things like Sandy Hook or Columbine from happening again Whatsoever.
So no matter what we "give" them, they will always want more. Because it's not the safety of our children that they want...It's our GUNS!
Always remember...they are lying thru their teeth when they say they want more gun control for the safety of American Citizens. What they really want is to disarm us.
BCCL
Member
There is only one "gun law" I support.
"It is illegal to use a gun during the commission of a crime"
"It is illegal to use a gun during the commission of a crime"
22-rimfire
Member
It is most likely that it will take months to pass any new legislation. The legislators are not going to give up Christmas to vote on a gun control measure. The media can talk it up all they want to, but new legislation has to go through a process and that process takes time. Harry Reid (D-NV) has already said he does not intend to introduce the legislation to the Senate floor unless he has the votes already.
They do want to make it very difficult for honest people to own guns. That is where all of this is going. The most likely results are so called "universal" background checks, possible 10-round magazines limits, and mental health issue reporting by the states into the existing NICs database. The AWB issue is more difficult nationally. This is not the time to suggest agreeing to anything.
You already can do this by making the transfer through a FFL dealer. But you usually have to pay for it.
The President today in addition to his so called common sense proposals indicated that it is worth it if "one life is saved." No it is not worth it on a national basis. I believe in self reliance. How many deaths are there nationally due to auto accidents? If only one life is saved.... political bs. How many drownings are there per year? How many people die from golfing accidents?
They do want to make it very difficult for honest people to own guns. That is where all of this is going. The most likely results are so called "universal" background checks, possible 10-round magazines limits, and mental health issue reporting by the states into the existing NICs database. The AWB issue is more difficult nationally. This is not the time to suggest agreeing to anything.
You already can do this by making the transfer through a FFL dealer. But you usually have to pay for it.
The President today in addition to his so called common sense proposals indicated that it is worth it if "one life is saved." No it is not worth it on a national basis. I believe in self reliance. How many deaths are there nationally due to auto accidents? If only one life is saved.... political bs. How many drownings are there per year? How many people die from golfing accidents?
Last edited:
Change that to deadly weapon and I agree, BCCL.
Isaac-1, the problem is incrementalism. New York is a perfect example. The anti agenda is to ban guns completely. Every time we give in just to "compromise" pushes us closer to their goal. Feinstein's bill, for example, is absolutely attrocious. She admits it's just one step on the way to confiscation. So what happens if a ban that only includes parts of what she suggests goes through? Next time we lose more.
What we need are laws that address the problem of violence, which completely disregard the tools being used. This would do more to fix violence (including "gun violence") and less to restrict my rights. Win/win.
Isaac-1, the problem is incrementalism. New York is a perfect example. The anti agenda is to ban guns completely. Every time we give in just to "compromise" pushes us closer to their goal. Feinstein's bill, for example, is absolutely attrocious. She admits it's just one step on the way to confiscation. So what happens if a ban that only includes parts of what she suggests goes through? Next time we lose more.
What we need are laws that address the problem of violence, which completely disregard the tools being used. This would do more to fix violence (including "gun violence") and less to restrict my rights. Win/win.
HorseSoldier
Member
While I am comfortable with the training courses some states like TX and UT require for concealed carry, and hunter safety requirements in some places to hunt, I don't think any restriction on what a citizen can purchase to keep in their home or on their property is a reasonable requirement.
lloveless
Member
We already Have 20,000 + gun laws. We don't need anymore stinking gun laws! What we need is prosecutors to charge and prosecute those who break the laws and start with Eric Holder et al.
ll
ll
Your use of the term compromise is a misnomer. For it to be a compromise, we have to be given something in return. What you are suggesting is capitulation.
This issue has been discussed numerous times on THR. Very few want to “compromise” their 2A rights. The few that do may not know what they are asking for.
If the focus of this debate was on something other than compromising the 2A, as Biden was tasked to do, then it may open more minds for dialogue.
This issue has been discussed numerous times on THR. Very few want to “compromise” their 2A rights. The few that do may not know what they are asking for.
If the focus of this debate was on something other than compromising the 2A, as Biden was tasked to do, then it may open more minds for dialogue.
AZ
Member
If you take a theoretical approach to the question the 2nd Amendment is all the 'gun laws' we need in a constitutional republic.
If you take a behavioral approach, not a single gun law has proven affective, so again, no additional laws needed.
I used to advocate background checks and mandatory training until I learned the shooter in Norway followed all the required steps to legally possess his firearms. What good did that do?
If you take a behavioral approach, not a single gun law has proven affective, so again, no additional laws needed.
I used to advocate background checks and mandatory training until I learned the shooter in Norway followed all the required steps to legally possess his firearms. What good did that do?
"What we need are laws that address the problem of violence, which completely disregard the tools being used. This would do more to fix violence (including "gun violence") and less to restrict my rights. Win/win."
Skribs.... That has got to be the BEST wording I've heard yet. Very well said. Thank you for posting it.
Skribs.... That has got to be the BEST wording I've heard yet. Very well said. Thank you for posting it.
Phatty
Member
Isaac,
In case you haven't seen the overwhelming coverage on the news in the last month related to gun control, the focus is not on the safe handling of guns. The general public right now could care less about laws intended to stop a person from accidentally shooting themselves in the foot. The "problem" that is being discussed is criminal violence with guns. I can confidently guarantee that a law requiring the viewing of a one-hour gun safety video will not prevent a single, intentional criminal act.
If you want to pass a law just to say you passed a law (which is repugnant in and of itself), at least come up with a law that has a rational connection with the decrease of criminal violence.
You also seem to be ignorant of the progressive, anti-gun's playbook. One of the reasons why they push to have a new gun law (such as an AWB) enacted even though they admit it will not be effective is because they are trying to condition the general public to the idea of passing gun laws. It is especially important for them to train the general public that each new act of violence should be followed with a new, more restrictive gun law. So, to the gun grabbers, even the most pointless, ineffective gun law (such as what you proposed) would be a victory, because it moves the needle in their direction. They are very patient.
The burden on those of us who support the 2A, is to resist the filing of any new gun law because we do not want to put forth the impression to the general public that the proper response to a tragedy is to enact new gun laws. The next tragedy (and there will always be a next tragedy) will then result in a public response that a new, even more restrictive law is necessary because the last law did not solve the problem.
In case you haven't seen the overwhelming coverage on the news in the last month related to gun control, the focus is not on the safe handling of guns. The general public right now could care less about laws intended to stop a person from accidentally shooting themselves in the foot. The "problem" that is being discussed is criminal violence with guns. I can confidently guarantee that a law requiring the viewing of a one-hour gun safety video will not prevent a single, intentional criminal act.
If you want to pass a law just to say you passed a law (which is repugnant in and of itself), at least come up with a law that has a rational connection with the decrease of criminal violence.
You also seem to be ignorant of the progressive, anti-gun's playbook. One of the reasons why they push to have a new gun law (such as an AWB) enacted even though they admit it will not be effective is because they are trying to condition the general public to the idea of passing gun laws. It is especially important for them to train the general public that each new act of violence should be followed with a new, more restrictive gun law. So, to the gun grabbers, even the most pointless, ineffective gun law (such as what you proposed) would be a victory, because it moves the needle in their direction. They are very patient.
The burden on those of us who support the 2A, is to resist the filing of any new gun law because we do not want to put forth the impression to the general public that the proper response to a tragedy is to enact new gun laws. The next tragedy (and there will always be a next tragedy) will then result in a public response that a new, even more restrictive law is necessary because the last law did not solve the problem.
InkEd
Member
What an idiotic notion. Guilty until proven innocent based on the OP's stance!
Isaac-1
Member
Personally I do not think any gun law does anything to prevent crime, at most it may change the weapon of choice, I don't think any of that I suggest would lower crime, I am just saying that these would not hurt our 2a rights and is something we could sell to the general public to make us look like we care. I am also aware of their playbook, and see this as an effort to use it against them,
ps. What guilty until proven innocent?
ps. What guilty until proven innocent?
armedaccountant
Member
Here is the gun law I support.
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.
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.
22-rimfire
Member
If the politicians propose regulations that would actually reduce crime short of firearm confiscation, I am all ears. But the fact is none of the proposed laws will have any appreciable impact on crime because you are dealing with criminals. The president mentioned that the NICs check system stopped the sale to 1.something million potential buyers... and 40% of all gun sales are done between individuals without the NICs check. I have not heard of any prosecutions for attempting to buy a firearm thorugh a dealer when you fail the NICs check. I would be willing to bet that these most of these checks that on the first pass they found an potential issue were later resolved. Nobody in their right mind who is a felon is going to buy a gun from a FFL dealer. They already know they can't.
Isaac, before you can buy a gun in a store, you have to prove your innocence. That is the background check process. Until you can prove your innocence, the store has to assume you are a prohibited person (thus guilty), as they cannot sell to you until you pass the check.
Skeeziks, thanks!
Skeeziks, thanks!
gbran
Member
Gun contrrol laws have a proven history of not working. It's high time we try criminal management solutions instead.
armedandsafe
Member
Any person not otherwise prohibited to own or possess arms has the right to own and/or possess any arms carried by any military personnel at the present time, or any arms carried by military personnel at any previous time. No laws infringing upon this right shall be enforced from this time henceforth.
Pops
Pops
gunsandreligion
Member
I have one I would want. "All attempts to alter, change, degrade, or in anyway modify the bill of rights/constitution shall hereby result in fines not less than one million dollars, and loss of citizenship."
Last edited:
Lucifer_Sam
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 177
Its not necessary the underlying problem, the pills themselves have side effects that cause things like homicidal behavior. And as far as I know they don't give you prosac to help you calm down before surgery, most of these meds take like 3 days to a week to take effect. They alter brain chemistry, and that's something not to be taken lightly, and they are a specific set of medicines, you dont get that kind of effect if you're on an opioid painkiller or something. All these spree shooters were on some type of medication, they're haven't been any recently that were just "insane" and not on meds, or coming off meds, as far as I'm aware.
Now, there are alternatives, like possibly identifying the times that these medications are most dangerous and having the shrink give ample warnings to the patient, and watch for signs of danger, voluntary gun storage for people who about to start a regimen of pills, better research by big pharma companies, lawsuits against big pharma by survivors and families to help motivate that research, increased awareness by others of the potential of these meds, etc. But I wouldn't be too bothered by restrictions for people on these drugs, if it came down to it. It would make alot more sense than some stupid AWB or anything like that.
Edit, decided too look up a little about Lanza and found this as an example
http://www.businessinsider.com/adam-lanza-taking-antipsychotic-fanapt-2012-12
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
