What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion?

[K3]

I have no problem with safety training being available. I even think it should be encouraged. It's the 'mandatory' BS that bugs me. I'm getting sick and tired of people mandating things for others. What the hell happened to liberty and freedom? It ain't supposed to be easy or safe. Oh, and two incomes, an SUV, and kids in soccer isn't freedom. Comfort maybe.

 

[Beatnik]

How would you feel if there were people out there that felt that it was ok to shoot you because you: insulted them, cut them off on the road, gave them a dirty look, etc.
There are plenty of people that think it would be ok to do so, that is until they've been taught otherwise.

Here's the thing - There are people out there called "criminals" who already do this, and we need guns to defend ourselves from them. It's a well worn argument, but I see it needs to be made again: passing laws restricting Harry Homeowner from buying a gun isn't going to do squat to stop this behavior.

What about my daughter? She just turned 1, she lives in a house of guns, and she's going to know the ins and outs of as many guns as I can show her in the next 20 years - including the stuff you're actively dismissing, like cleaning and disassembly.

So, under your system, when she turns 21 she's not going to be able to buy a gun without taking an extra class?

I'm going to stick with freedom.

First I'd like to point out that I don't need to take any classes to go out and buy a car, boat, tractor, sledge hammer, pick axe, nail gun, razor knife, plasma cutter, etc.

We're actually making the same arguments again at this point. I, like everyone else, respectfully disagree with the position that the government needs to protect us from ourselves. I'm glad I'm not alone.

 

[hnk45acp]

So, under your system, when she turns 21 she's not going to be able to buy a gun without taking an extra class?

She goes to store proves she knows how to safely handle a firearm ie: 4 rules, familiarity with local use of force laws as she will probably be carrying and out the door she goes w/ gun in hand. That's all I want. If she knows the basics no need to take a class. Perhaps I should have phrased it that people should know these things whether via a class or parental guidence.

First I'd like to point out that I don't need to take any classes to go out and buy a car, boat, tractor, sledge hammer, pick axe, nail gun, razor knife, plasma cutter, etc.

I'm not talking about buying, I'm talking about operating. Sure I could buy a boat but without knowledge of maritime laws I'd just be endangering myself and others.

 

[poor_richard]

And who decides if it is an infringment, what constitues an infringment and whether the law is valid or invalid?

frankie may come along and tell me I'm wrong on this, but I would say that if one's liberty has been taken, or property confiscated, then that would represent an infringement. If they aren't infringements, then I guess there are no such thing as infringements.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

frankie may come along and tell me I'm wrong on this, but I would say that if one's liberty has been taken, or property confiscated, then that would represent an infringement.

You left out the important part, "...without due process of law."

Add that qualifier in, and I would fully agree with you, in my opinion.

Look at what happened in New Orleans after Katrina. The police confiscated guns with not even a semblence of due process of law. That was a clear infringement of several of the civil rights of the people thus victimized, including their 2A rights.

And how do I know their rights were violated? Do I have some pipeline to revealed truth?

Nope. Far from it. I know because the agrieved parties went to court and convinced a judge to rule in their favor.

You see, it's not my opinion that counts, it's his.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

2) No restrictions on open carry at the State level.

Well, since airlines are regulated by the feds, your proposal would allow rules that would prevent Al Qaeda suicide death squads from boarding airliners armed with MP-5's.

But with no state restrictions, how would you prevent people attending bitterly contested divorce and child custody proceedings from carrying MP-5's into the courtroom with them? Or do you have some trick layout for the much-needed bulletproof glass partitions that would allow for a trial to take place without everyone present wondering what the heck the world had come to?

 

[IA_farmboy]

OK (I just woke-up)

"It works so great for firearms then let's use it for buying bread, milk, and eggs."

There is one problem when was the last time you heard on the news someone get robbed at milk point or killed with bread, eg don't do the crime if you cant do the time all should have the chance to get their rights back except the repeat offenders which in an ideal world would get life or the needle, however the law seems to want to go after weed users more so.

The way I see it the guy was caught because someone was checking his name against a list, the purchase of the firearm (again IMHO) was irrelevant. If the goal of the background checks is to catch felons at large then we should be doing background checks for the purchase of any item.

I don't think that lists are the right answer to stop criminals. A list of names is too easy to foil, is bound to contain errors (false positives), and inconveniences the many at great cost with little real benefit.

There is legal precedence that an item that has a legal use cannot be restricted. There were companies that wanted the VCR to be made illegal since it could be used to make illegal copies of movies. A VCR also has a legal use of time shifting TV shows and copying home videos. Same with lock pick kits, while commonly used to break into homes they also can be used to rescue a child that was locked in a car. A gun can murder and it can be used to kill in defense. I don't see how, legally, one can remove an item from a person that has a legal use.

Changing topics...

At first I was unsure about having classes for CCW licenses. I now realize that any prior requirements to carrying a weapon is prone to abuse. Imagine a law that requires one to take a "safety" course before the purchase of a firearm and/or carry of a firearm. Now imagine an anti-gun sheriff, mayor, or such. All of the sudden they just can't seem to find a person qualified to offer the course, the firing range at the police academy seems to be busy and in need of repair before it is safe for the public to visit, there just doesn't seem to be enough interest to offer a course this month, or whatever excuse they can come up with.

Oh, and when/if they finally do offer the course they will do whatever they can to make it inconvenient and expensive for those that want to take the course. Then this "safety" course requires marksmanship above and beyond what is required of the officers on the street, because it is for your own "safety" that you be able to make a head shot from 50 yards with a snub nose .38. Then because of all the time needed for this course, in a government owned firing range from a well trained instructor, one must pay a fee of $500 to take the course. So, no, I don't think that any law requiring a firearm safety course is a good idea. Any such law is prone to abuse by those that wish to disarm us.

 

[ilbob]

none.

there is no need for any gun laws at all.

it is already illegal to murder, rob and rape, and anything else that might harm someone else.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

Kinda like I had to pay to take a hunter ed course to hunt on my own land. I didn't balk at it because the cost basically covered the cost of the course, but the idea was the same. Once again since I am the OP I'll clarify my views.

18+ to purchase or signed parental consent form
No violent criminals or mental cases
Crew served weapons setup similar to vol. FD (call it the local militia)
I'm ok with special circumstance gun free zones with armed security present (whitehouse, courtrooms,etc.)

 

[woad_yurt]

I think one should be an adult and pass a background check. There is a problem with guns going from good guys to bad guys. Every gun starts out legal. There should be a way to keep them that way. It's the ones that end up in criminal hands that cause the problems.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It's the ones that end up in criminal hands that cause the problems.

It's the criminal hands on the guns that cause the problems, not the guns! Keep the violent criminals locked up or executed and there is no need for what are really unreasonable gun laws.

Woody

 

[SWMAN]

1. Always check to see if the firearm is loaded.
2. Always point the firearm in a safe direction.
3. Only point the firearm at something you want to destroy.
4. Keep your finger off the trigger until your're ready to fire on the target.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

1. Always check to see if the firearm is loaded.
2. Always point the firearm in a safe direction.
3. Only point the firearm at something you want to destroy.
4. Keep your finger off the trigger until your're ready to fire on the target.

Boy, that felt good. But you left out a couple.

5) Allow Al Qaeda suicide death squads to freely purchase MP-5's, no background checks of course, and carry them aboard airliners.

6) Allow anyone to freely purchase MP-5's and carry them while attending bitterly contested divorce and child custody hearing.


After all, we wouldn't want to infringe anything, would we?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

5) Allow Al Qaeda suicide death squads to freely purchase MP-5's, no background checks of course, and carry them aboard airliners.

6) Allow anyone to freely purchase MP-5's and carry them while attending bitterly contested divorce and child custody hearing.

Why limit them to only MP-5s?

Woody

 

[legaleagle_45]

Owning guns is a RIGHT.

So is voting. Yet I do not believe it is a violation of that right to require voter registration.... Please do not confuse this statement as an indorsement of gun registration, because I do not think there is a legitimate reason to register guns. There is a legit reason to register voters. There is legit reasons to exclude minors from voting. There is legit reasons to exclude convicted felons from voting...

The point is, not every regulation is an infringment. One that does not unduly intrude or prevent the exercise of the right protected is legit.

 

[jeepmor]

Boy, that felt good. But you left out a couple.

5) Allow Al Qaeda suicide death squads to freely purchase MP-5's, no background checks of course, and carry them aboard airliners.

6) Allow anyone to freely purchase MP-5's and carry them while attending bitterly contested divorce and child custody hearing.

After all, we wouldn't want to infringe anything, would we?

Doesn't bother me a bit. This comes up all the time but you leave out that you yourself are also carrying an MP5 because now you are free to do so, as is every citizen also. This concept works damn good in Israel and is why your terrorist types have to resort to cowardice suicide bomber attacks. Becuase they know darn good and well that if they pull out a gun and start shooting innocent people, they will be stopped quickly and rightfully so.

America has more criminals locked up than any other society in the world. Even China who has over 3x our population. Now, part of this may be due to the fact that many of the Chinese criminals never make it to prison because they are quickly executed for their wrongs.

The fact of the matter is that society should be providing the overwhelming pressure and assurance of quick justice by virtue of the Israeli model. The antis would have you think that the streets would be red with blood from all those guns in society, but they never seem to mention Israel in the same breath because it contradicts their argument and wholly discounts it with facts as the hogwash that it is. Any arms control is about people control. Criminals don't follow laws, good citizens do. Our betters in places of power want us disarmed for their convenience of further insuring there won't be a rise up against their power, nothing more.

Just as Daley has armed guards, Feinstein has a CHL, and Rosie has armed bodyguards. All these people are hypocrites, unfortunately, they're the worst kind and only want to perpetuate their views of the world while simultaneously contradicting them at the same time. It's what politicians do.

 

[kludge]

If people think a law is unconstitutional, there are ways working within and through the system to challenge such a law.

If you can find a way to get "standing" without risking going to jail, or being fined, or having you right taken away for being a felon, or...

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Quote:
5) Allow Al Qaeda suicide death squads to freely purchase MP-5's, no background checks of course, and carry them aboard airliners.

6) Allow anyone to freely purchase MP-5's and carry them while attending bitterly contested divorce and child custody hearing.

Why limit them to only MP-5s?

Woody

Good point. Why indeed?

 

[k_dawg]

I believe the same limitations/restrictions/permits required for the 1st, 4th and 5th amendment should apply.

Do you need to obtain a permit or background check to enjoy the right of due process under the 4th?

Answer that, and you have my answer for the second.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Do you need to obtain a permit or background check to enjoy the right of due process under the 4th?

Due process is found in the 5th....

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Doesn't bother me a bit. This comes up all the time but you leave out that you yourself are also carrying an MP5 because now you are free to do so, as is every citizen also.

So you have no problem with full auto firefights erupting on airliners every time AQ can put a suicide op together. OK. Just so we understand where you're coming from.

Personally, I'd rather be able to kick back and get some sleep while I'm flying. But that's just me.

This concept works damn good in Israel and is why your terrorist types have to resort to cowardice suicide bomber attacks. Becuase they know darn good and well that if they pull out a gun and start shooting innocent people, they will be stopped quickly and rightfully so.

I don't know where you get your information from, but El Al Airlines does not allow passengers to board their flights armed with MP-5's. In fact, they have what is arguable the most rigorous passenger screening program in the world.

Isreal also requires a license before people are allowed to carry guns in public. You can be sure that the people who are issued such licenses are also screened pretty well too.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

If you can find a way to get "standing" without risking going to jail, or being fined, or having you right taken away for being a felon, or...

Nonsense. People and interest groups challenge the constitutionality of laws all the time.

Look at the Heller case for instance.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

The fact of the matter is that society should be providing the overwhelming pressure and assurance of quick justice by virtue of the Israeli model.

So I assume you favor a system of strict licensing and gun registration as the Isrealis have?

 

[Mannix]

So you have no problem with full auto firefights erupting on airliners every time AQ can put a suicide op together. OK. Just so we understand where you're coming from.

Personally, I'd rather be able to kick back and get some sleep while I'm flying. But that's just me.

Every time? Last I checked they pulled off one, and they did it with box cutters.

That argument doesn't hold water, and has been disproven in all 37 states where any law abiding citizen can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

 

[MakAttak]

I asked you not to take my statements into the realm of absurdity.
never have I said: you hate poor people, or any such nonsense.

Followed by:

If you don't think that people shoot each other over disagreements you only need to look at the "qustionable shooting" threads and the "so & so got shot" threads on THR.

My quote:

Honestly, I do not think there are lots of people who think it's ok to shoot people because of a disagreement. Just like I don't think there are lots of people who think it's ok to run me over with a car. People know if you kill or attack someone, you will be punished. People know it's NOT OK.

... now where did I say no one would think it's ok to shoot people because of disagreement?

As to the discussion:

I also am under no illusion that these will prevent people from killing others or having accidents.

This does not answer my question. Why guns? Simply because lawn mowers and chainsaws have other uses does not make them any less dangerous. Have you seen what a chainsaw can do? My dad has used a chain saw most of his life. He has a GIGANTIC scar on his arm from the over a hundred stitches he got when he messed up using it when I was very young.
Shouldn't we require people to take classes before selling them a chainsaw? Abuse and accident are just as likely there. Why only guns?