What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion?

[brentn]

day after day I always think about the same comment that I recieved MULTIPLE times in one of the threads I made about a new form of gun control.

"If you can buy a power drill, you should be able to buy a gun"

I just cannot for the life of me find this correct....
I mean we don't just let someone walk in and buy a helicopter, you need a licence, you need to prove that you KNOW what you are doing in order to use it. I really really think that gun safety should be MANDITORY and ENFORCED before a firearm is purchased. If theres one requirement that should be it.

I know that it is our rights to protect ourselves, our right to bear a means of self defence aka and 'arm' a firearm, a knife, a taser, anything to protect ourselves. But with just 5lbs of force you can kill a human being, including yourself, and I just can't see 'leeroy' from downtown just turned 21 walking in to buy a pistol because he saw it in a movie... He, most likely, will have no idea exactly how dangerous these tools are. He will have no idea that knowing whats beyond your target is important, and people here think that its ok for him to just go in and buy it without any knowledge.

If you want to protect the right to bear arms, then firearm safety should be mandatory before a purchase is allowed.

I think the biggest problem is who is to decide and how is it to be decided that said person knows firearm safety?

I personally think that we need to find a way, instead of arguing about what rules should be allowed and what rules should not. Theres gotta be something that we can come up with to make sure that firearm owners know proper firearm safety.
Maybe a course every year from kindergarden to grade 12 should be mandatory for our youth? If this were the case, firearm safety would become common knowledge among people and we wouldn't need to enforce any safety rules before the purchase of one?

 

[Gunnerpalace]

"The government however does have the ability to do so, and they do make a very cogent argument that guns originally designed for military use, which are only legal because the mechanism is reversibly modified for semi-auto operation, are "penile extensions" owned primarily for bragging rights and have no place in a civilized society. And you have to admit, the argument that an owner of such weapon has neither the need nor desire to brag, but does have the need and desire to outshoot anything he may encounter, sounds very hollow to modern society. They see images on the news of radical groups carrying weapons openly down the street and armed gangs holding citizens hostage, and equate those weapons with criminals. It is hard to argue that an AK-47 is necessary for home defense or hunting when your average hunting rifle or short 12-gauge does the same job without the paramilitary image."

That for some reason makes me want to buy an AK and a minigun


Now then you do know Democrats support the safety test,
And If .gov is administering it it would be a nightmare,
And I don't want to waste my time taking it EVERY time I want to buy,
Those and it wont stop morons, proof............look at the laws we have now.
it works a little but not enough.

 

[IA_farmboy]

The NCIS is good I would say keep that because it does work (they caught a sex offender a few weeks ago trying to buy)

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

What? You think that is over doing it? I think inconveniencing millions of people over the purchase of a means of defending oneself is a waste of time for everyone involved. Perhaps this sex offender had a change of heart, is going to counseling, and wants a tool for self defense from all the bigots in the neighborhood that thought it would be a good idea to pick on a former sex offender.

I don't think we should be disarming felons. Felons are people too and they should have their rights returned to them once they have shown themselves fit to be returned to the populace. Those rights include the right of self defense. I think that disarming felons is just asking for them to return to crime. If the ability to defend oneself has been removed legally then the only way to defend themselves is to break the law.

The NICS is broken and, IMHO, unconstitutional on many levels. There should not be an age limit to purchase a firearm. No ID checks, no background checks, no "bound books", nothing. A firearm is no more dangerous than gasoline, axes, knives, or steel toed boots. Coincidentally I am not required under any law to show ID to purchase gasoline, axes, or steel toed boots. Neither am I required to register such items with any agent of the government.

I can't think of any logical gun control law since any situation that could arise would be covered under other laws. Threatening others safety is against the law, whether a firearm is involved is meaningless. Murder is illegal, as is theft, and rape, the involvement of a firearm is irrelevant.

The government is probably within its powers to disarm people that enter controlled spaces like courthouses and prisons. However, should the government choose to disarm the people it has assumed the protection of those it has disarmed. If someone is injured or killed after the government disarmed that person then the government should compensate the victim and/or the victim's family.

I don't think that "destructive devices" (as the law books call them) should even be regulated. Someone wants to own a fully functional main battle tank then let them. If someone feels that their life and property is so valuable that they need a 105 mm cannon to fend off thieves and murderers then the government should not stand in their way.

The Founding Fathers knew that people would not be willing to give up their personally owned battleships. Young men were encouraged to carry their muskets with them and to practice their marksmanship regularly. I don't think that any thing has changed that we should be prevented from continuing to carry firearms daily or having our own battleships.

Gun control is not "fail safe". If the gun control fails it arms the criminal and disarms the honest. It creates "disarmed victim zones" so that criminals can run about unhindered to do their damage. I laugh to myself whenever I see a sign that reads, "No firearms allowed within" as I see it as reading, "fish in a barrel". A person intent on doing harm to others do not care about how many laws were broken in the process. All gun control is a waste of time and money. Normally I wouldn't care how people spend their time and money but when gun control comes up I see my own taxes being spent on something that I see no benefit from.

 

[pete f]

I would say that 18 to buy, no felony(but with right to petition at 5 or 10 years) , no mental commitment for treatment within the last 5 years. No drug convictions within 5 years. NO DWI within 5 years. No guns for SERIOUS domestic assault. The guy who calls his wife a C*** in public is not a threat. IMHO> the guy who slams a few punches into her is... big difference.

Sounds harsh on some of it, but if you can not be trusted to operate a vehicle sober, I believe you can not be trusted to own a gun for a while. Same with drug convictions.

The commitment part of the mental health could be tweaked a bit, that is, an overnight stay for Psych/ depression eval would not count.

I want felon's NOT to have guns, not only to prevent a return to criminal behavior for those who do, but also as a deterrent. Losing the right to hunt and own guns is a power deterrent for a lot of people to just walk away when the wife's having a spasm over their TV watching.

Other wise, I am not too concerned about who has what.

I do like the idea of a mandatory safe gun handling type class, like what most kids have to do now to get a hunting license. However, i am unsure of how to make it work without being predatory, (make it mandatory in schools like health and drivers ed?) then every one is on the same page and they at least have a basic understanding of the 4 rules type of thing

(IA farmboy; actually in most states, its against federal law for someone under the age of 18 to buy gasoline, paint, and several other combustables, solvents, and other aromatics as part of the "huffing" restrictions, the only exclusion being gasoline dispensed directly into a car)

 

[IA_farmboy]

day after day I always think about the same comment that I recieved MULTIPLE times in one of the threads I made about a new form of gun control.

"If you can buy a power drill, you should be able to buy a gun"

I just cannot for the life of me find this correct....
I mean we don't just let someone walk in and buy a helicopter, you need a licence, you need to prove that you KNOW what you are doing in order to use it. I really really think that gun safety should be MANDITORY and ENFORCED before a firearm is purchased. If theres one requirement that should be it.

I disagree, respectfully. One does not need a license to OWN an helicopter. One does need a license to OPERATE a helicopter. The reasoning is because the flyable airspace is a shared resource that under our social contract, called a government, we have determined that controlling who flies where is in the best interest of everyone's safety.

Likewise, I am not required to have an operator's license to purchase an automobile. I can collect all the automobiles I wish and not be concerned about licenses or insurance. If I choose to operate an automobile on a public road I should be certain the vehicle is safe, insured, and operated by a properly tested and healthy driver. That is because once that vehicle is on a public road it can affect the safety of many others.

I think the same should be true for firearms. There should be no restraints on the purchase of a firearm. Firearms, like helicopters and automobiles, are collected, purchased for the sole purpose of owning them. In fact I imagine more people collect firearms than helicopters or automobiles.

If you want to argue that one must have a license to carry a weapon outside of their own property then feel free to try to convince me. That is one thing I just might agree with. What I don't agree with is restricting the purchase or ownership. The actual operation of that firearm is another argument.

If one wants to learn to play the guitar the first step is usually to purchase a guitar. If one wants to learn to properly handle a firearm the first step is usually to purchase a firearm. How do you expect a person to qualify to purchase a firearm without first handling one? Obviously one can borrow or rent one but you are still putting a firearm in the control of a person that has yet to qualify. It's a catch-22.

My dad found it odd when I told him I had to provide my own truck to qualify for a Class A driver license. He thought the DMV would have them for people to use. I then explained the issues of liability, maintenance and other costs that the DMV would have to take on if it provided a vehicle. It became clear that it would be best for a person to have to provide their own. The same would be true for a firearm. I doubt any license authority wants to take on the costs of providing firearms for people to use to get a license.

If you want to have licenses to carry a firearm in public then I could possibly be convinced to agree. Requiring a license to purchase a firearm is something I don't think I will ever agree to.

 

[poor_richard]

Who gets to decide which laws are unconstitutional?

A more fitting question for such an argument is, “how much can we infringe?” Let’s face it, if a person’s gun is taken, and they are thrown in jail for keeping and bearing arms, then that is an infringement. Property has been confiscated, and liberty has been taken. Again, that is an infringement. We really don’t need a judge to tell us this. The only complications come where people think that the USC allows “reasonable restrictions”. Unfortunately, I don’t remember reading about any such restrictions in the Constitution.

Not only that, but your proposed "law" would be unconstitutional itself. Lawmakers have authority under the constitution to pass any laws they please. They cannot be prosecuted for anything they say in debate, nor for any legislative act that they are a party to.

Any law? You mean they aren’t bound by the Constitution that is the law of the land, and that they swore an oath to uphold and defend?

All I’m proposing is a means of enforcement. A minimum sentencing for the violation of oath and law. The Constitution is the fabric of our country. Without the Constitution, this is not the United States of America, it is just another country. I know some may think I’m nutty, but an attack on the Constitution is an attack on America. This is actually reinforced by the oath that every federal employee takes. We swear an oath to the Constitution. If they are not beholden to the Constitution, then the Constitution is worthless, and we are just another country (and most certainly not one of laws), not the America that is structured in the USC.

Note that Article 1 sets forth impeachment procedures, so you can't just pull them out of your hat.

Actually, I was thinking that charges of treason be brought up after impeachment. Impeachment is allowed by the Constitution, and the members of Congress can be tried for acts of treason while in office. Violating an oath to the Constitution should be considered treason. Unfortunately, too many people cheer when the Constitution is shredded.

That is of course if you could point out just who would be the ones determining if something was unconstitutional if the courts were not up to it (as in the case of judges upholding "unconstitutional laws").

Are there not means to impeach judges, and Congressmen?

We’ve come to a point in our country where we are “too far gone”. I think that this is really what your problem is with my idea. All I suggested is that we put in place minimum sentencing. There is already a law that states that an agent of the government who violates a person’s rights under color of law is in fact in violation of the law. Furthermore, the Constitution is the law of the land. I’m just suggesting that it be enforced, and proposing a means. My proposal isn’t a problem, what’s a problem is that things have gone too far.

When the USSC said that the “militia use” was a requirement of the 2nd Amendment, someone should have been removed from office. When the USSC said that being arrested for making political speech within a certain time period of an election wasn’t a violation of free speech, someone should have been removed from office. When they said it was okay to take your property to throw up a strip mall, someone should have been removed from office. When the government said it was okay to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely without due process, someone should have been removed from office. Instead, America just stood by and shrugged its collective shoulders hoping they wouldn’t be next.

It seems to me that while putting the 2A on some kind of altar, you are perfectly willing to shred the rest of the Constitution (or are unaware of it).

I think you might have read a little too much into my idea (although I've been wrong before). I’m not suggesting that we get a Grand Jury or prosecutor to indict a judge or congressman. There are a means of impeachment. Any party convicted of impeachment “shall be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law”.

 

[brentn]

farmboy, thanks for not chewing me out

I didn't mean licencing, I mean some way of ensuring that the said owner is safe. Although I did post a licencing idea before, I am convinced that it was a bad idea..
Your ownership ideals are very agreeable, but buying a firearm is alot different than buying a guitar. If you don't know how to play, and you buy a guitar, then chances are your going to play a pretty ****ty melody. When you buy a firearm and know nothing about them chances are your going to have an accident. A crappy melody isn't going to hurt anyone, crappy firearm knowledge defenitly can.

I'm just saying that safety should be manditory before buying a pistol. I also was saying that there should be firearms safety practiced in school every year for children. They should all understand what a firearm can do, how it can help us, and why its important to understand firearms safety. If we start there and its taught 1 week every year from grade school to graduation I thinnk people in general will have a very good knowledge of what firearms safety is. We would have very few accidents, and a very good understanding of firearms.
This is what should be enforced, education of firearms safety through all schools. no?

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

If someone feels that their life and property is so valuable that they need a 105 mm cannon to fend off thieves and murderers then the government should not stand in their way.

I think that anyone who "..feels their life and property is so valuable that they need a 105 mm cannon to fend off thieves and murderers.." is insane.

But maybe it's just me.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

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.

"I think that anyone who "..feels their life and property is so valuable that they need a 105 mm cannon to fend off thieves and murderers.." is insane."

Why does everyone forget that during the revolutionary war citizens had to loan artillery to the government hence the 1776 argument,

brentn, sorry for not getting your idea Yes, I think we should have a mandatory gun safety class in schools that would definitely put a dent in the accidental injuries...........Well as long as that DEA agent isn't teaching it

 

[joab]

7. Any private business open to the public which restricts or prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons on its premises must provide weapons lockers with removable keys at each entrance to every facility, and will be civilly liable for any harm that comes to any person disarmed on the premises who might conceivably have been able to prevent the harm by use of the weapon.

I can't agree with infringing on one right to support another

I could agree with posting signs informing the public that guns were not allowed, thereby giving people the informed option of going into a gun free zone or not
But I cannot support any government dictate to the owner of private property as to what his personal views should be on any subject

IA_farmboy
Tell us more about what you think reasonable licensing would be
I think I know where you are going and I love to hear this argument from someone who can present it well

 

[chemist308]

Reasonable gun laws...okay I'll bite...
Existing reasonable gun law:
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Okay, it's not a law. It's a section in my state's constitution. Seems pretty clearly worded to me though...

Proposed reasonable gun law:
* No one who legally owns a firearm shall be required to have a permit to carry a firearm openly or concealed.

Yep, that sounds pretty reasonable to me...

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I think that anyone who "..feels their life and property is so valuable that they need a 105 mm cannon to fend off thieves and murderers.." is insane.

Well, when you've got Ali Babba and his Fourty Thieves, or Pancho Villa and his bandits storming your castle or ranch, the 105 looks pretty good. It's also effective against those tanks that the likes of Janet Reno like to employ when storming your compound... Oooo, that made bile rise in my throat. Imagine Hillery wins and appoints Janet el Reno as Atorney General.......

Woody

 

[Drysdale]

Vermont has them right.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Who gets to decide which laws are unconstitutional?

In the realm of arms, no one need decide. It's already been determined in the Constitution. Any law that infringes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is unconstitutional. All that is left is for Congress and the several state legislatures to repeal any on the books, refrain from writing more, and for the Court to refuse to prosecute anyone charged with violating any unconstitutional law remaining on the books.

Woody

 

[K3]

In the realm of arms, no one need decide. It's already been determined in the Constitution. Any law that infringes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is unconstitutional. All that is left is for Congress and the several state legislatures to repeal any on the books, refrain from writing more, and for the Court to refuse to prosecute anyone charged with violating any unconstitutional law remaining on the books.

Woody

Hell hasn't even started to cool yet.

 

[hnk45acp]

sheesh people.
guns are not butter, milk, bread or helicopters.
Anyone who believes that is as naive as a Brady Buncher who thinks getting rid of guns is possible.

Sure you can own a helicopter but can you fly it by stepping into it.
probably not. A gun is pretty easy to figure out. I still stand by mandatory safety classes. If you think you know how to operate a gun, then fine, pass a test. Just like you do to drive a car.
A before you go into the privilage vs. right arguement, all I'm saying is safe operation of a handgun is everyone's right. Just as you wouldn't want some drunk 16 yr old driving on your road.

 

[K3]

sheesh people.
guns are not butter, milk, bread or helicopters.
Anyone who believes that is as naive as a Brady Buncher who thinks getting rid of guns is possible.

Sure you can own a helicopter but can you fly it by stepping into it.
probably not. A gun is pretty easy to figure out. I still stand by mandatory safety classes. If you think you know how to operate a gun, then fine, pass a test. Just like you do to drive a car.
A before you go into the privilage vs. right arguement, all I'm saying is safe operation of a handgun is everyone's right. Just as you wouldn't want some drunk 16 yr old driving on your road.

Thankfully the framers did not share your sentiments. I see nothing in the USC about safety training.

Hell, people have to pass driving tests in order to get a license. How many car accidents are there? More than a few I'd wager.

 

[hnk45acp]

The thread is called:What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion? not what is expliciitly stated in the Constitution?

As some have said here, there are restrictions on free speech, assembly, voting as well as many "Rights" listed in the Constitution.
I personally believe that a person who knows how to safely use a gun will only further gun rights. Ask yourself what would happen if kids at 18 started owning guns without any knowledge of their potential dangers. My opinion is Knowledge does not equal Restriction. Sure there are accidents, some are just that, accidents.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Any law that infringes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is unconstitutional.

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

 

[K3]

The thread is called:What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion? not what is expliciitly stated in the Constitution?

So? It should be clear that I believe the only reasonable gun law is the 2nd Amendment. Laws regulating possession and ownership are infringements. You cannot convince me otherwise. How can they NOT be ingringements?

As some have said here, there are restrictions on free speech, assembly, voting as well as many "Rights" listed in the Constitution.
I personally believe that a person who knows how to safely use a gun will only further gun rights. Ask yourself what would happen if kids at 18 started owning guns without any knowledge of their potential dangers. My opinion is Knowledge ? Restriction

Again, what difference will your vaunted safety training make? I resubmit my car and driving test analogy.

So, you want the government to get even MORE involved the business of gun ownership? Thanks, but no.

 

[hnk45acp]

I don't think I could convince an absolutist such as yourself. As far as driving goes, just think how much worse it would be if they let people on the road without tests. Nearly blind elderly folks, drunk teens, Britney Spears, etc.

I know, i know, they are already on the road but one day you or someone you love might be at the range when some kid who is picking up his gun for the first time sweeps you or your loved one with his finger on the trigger and you might change your mind. I know that I won't but unfortunately it might take an accident to convince you.

 

[Fletchette]

I don't think I could convince an absolutist such as yourself. As far as driving goes, just think how much worse it would be if they let people on the road without tests. Nearly blind elderly folks, drunk teens, Britney Spears, etc.

Driving is not a Right.

 

[K3]

I don't think I could convince an absolutist such as yourself. As far as driving goes, just think how much worse it would be if they let people on the road without tests. Nearly blind elderly folks, drunk teens, Britney Spears, etc.

I know, i know, they are already on the road but one day you or someone you love might be at the range when some kid who is picking up his gun for the first time sweeps you or your loved one with his finger on the trigger and you might change your mind. I know that I won't but unfortunately it might take an accident to convince you.

You're right. I am an absolutist.

I have been on the receiving end of a ND. One of the guys on the lease brought his father for a weekend. He had a NICE .270 BAR. He thought it was unloaded. He was in the trailer. Boom! Through the trailer and within a few feet of his grandson and me. Later he leaned the rifle against a jeep. It fell over on the Swarovski scope.

I have been swept at the range numerous times by idgits.

I still don't believe in mandatory safety training. Life is full of risks. I will take risky and dangerous if it means less government meddling.

 

[hnk45acp]

yes I know. see my earlier post about privilage vs. right.
I'm not trying to compare the two in terms of their importance in the constitution, merely the knowledge required to safely operate tools in this case a car and a gun.

Life is full of risks. I will take risky and dangerous if it means less government meddling.

I respect that, I'm just not that willing to take on that much risk.

 

[Fletchette]

I respect that, I'm just not that willing to take on that much risk.

So, would you accept "reasonable" restrictions on religion? How much "risk" is there in letting people worship the "wrong" God (it angers the "right" God, don't ya know)?