What gun control measures do you support?

[Soybomb]

Regarding cost and hassle--my quals are a 60 round day fire, 40 round night fire, I can be in and out of this part in 30 mins. I don't know about you, but burning 100 rounds during a session at the range is not uncommon for me. As far as the initial course, I'm not losing any sleep by requiring a person to have rudimentary knowlege about the safe use of that deadly weapon he wants to carry around me.

Who is paying for the initial training class? Who is paying for the person that gives your qualifications? Who is paying for the people involved with processing all this additional paperwork for permits? Why do I have to give up my saturday to sit through some perfunctory class? I guess its a "to each his own thing" but I do think its a pretty serious matter to make it harder for people to exercise their right to self defense.

As far as "the point" of these restrictions/etc: right now many states functionally do NOT allow carry. If the mindset is to improve or expand the application of RKBA to states like CA and NJ, not just defend it in places like TX, then we need to create proposals that will address the concerns of these populations.
In my opinion, showing that the agenda is one of careful and responsible gun use is far more productive to the cause than advocating giving full auto AKs to every prisoner upon release. We will always lose to the hard core antis, but our stance and the policies we advocate can either win over moderates through responsibility or will alienate them into believing that we are all just a bunch of gun nuts.

Man I didn't know you could pack so many tons of hyperbole in such a small space. Why do we have to give away freedom or make carry harder? Why can't education be an option? Is it really that much worse to say "what you're worried about doesn't happen, here is a mountain of evidence to look at." If you're willing to base concealed carry restrictions around imaged concerns instead of real events...I don't even see a reason to campaign for it. You might as well just go along with the shootouts over parking spaces at that point.

 

[CliffH]

The philosophy of "lock 'em up forever" crowd ignores the fact that, according to the precedents in our legal system, you can't lock someone away for life for a lesser crime--violent felony though it may be. Their argument is that, if an 18 y/o commits a crime not worthy of a life sentence, we should still apply an indeterminate sentence of "until he's safe to return to society".

That's not the way I've read the posts concerning this. My stance is that, if the person has served his entire sentence in jail/prison he should have all of his rights reinstated upon release.

None of this "early release for good behavior", "early release due to over-crowding", etc. Serve the entire sentence. If the sentence involves probation after release from prison, so be it - all rights are restored after successfully completion of his probation.

An argument could be made that denying a felon the right to bear arms could be sentencing them to a potential death sentence after release from prison.

I have a couple of problems with required training.

Who's going to pay for the ongoing "training" and the necessary ammo? Me? Why? So I can prove to *someone* that I can handle a firearm without shooting myself in the foot?

As has already been stated: check the safety records of those states that do not require training of any sort for open carry.

Are the "training" classes going to be scheduled around my schedule? I've got more important things to do most days.

I'm not looking to appease or negotiate with the anti-gun rights folks. I want to be able to exercise my rights without interference from them or anyone else.

 

[308win]

Who's going to pay for the ongoing "training" and the necessary ammo? Me? Why? So I can prove to *someone* that I can handle a firearm without shooting myself in the foot?

There were people in my CCW class whom if I encounter when out and about, I will be someplace else as soon as possible. Granted, the training wasn't in depth (12 hours) but it was enough to convince me that there are people I don't want to be around if there is a chance they are armed.

Learning to correctly, safely, and in an ideal world, responsibly handle a firearm is not an unreasonable burden nor is it an unreasonable expectation.

If you shoot yourself in the foot that is too bad; if you shoot me in the foot that is unacceptable behavior and you will be hearing from the nastiest personal injury lawyer I can engage.

 

[MJRW]

...Have some 'splaining to do.

No, really, I'm genuinely curious to see the why, and the amount of misinformation, behind these votes.

Those who'd like to dictate purchase ages are getting askew glances, too.

Well, actually, I don't have some 'splaining to do. A question was asked, I answered.

I'm not an absolutist when it comes to guns rights. I'm close, but not quite. I would really like a way to force competency upon people who wish to own or carry concealed. Or maybe make certain levels of stupidity a crime. I haven't come to a complete conclusion about what my recommended solution would be, but those answers fit best my general belief.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Then agian, what about a bar fight? life in prison? What about jaywalking? (yes, those are stawman arguments as well.)

I know you weren't addressing me, but I thought I'd add, I beleive to lose your RKBA you must have commited a serious crime. Not a bar fight, not copyright infringement, not going 1 MPH above the speed limit.

 

[CliffH]

Learning to correctly, safely, and in an ideal world, responsibly handle a firearm is not an unreasonable burden nor is it an unreasonable expectation.

Yep. And that's where personal responsibility comes in - not state mandated training.

Again, who pays for the training & ammo? And do I have to take a day (or more) off work to attend?

Here's a thought - take drivers ed training annually. Minimum of 12 hours required. You pay for the instructor, test administrator, gas & training area. And you have to take the test on two seperate days, one of 8 hours, the last 4 hours on the next day. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a God-given right.

FYI, the "shoot myself in the foot" statement was a reference to the cop who shot himself in the foot after claiming he was the only one in the room qualified to safely handle a firearm. Having everyone who desires to carry go through state and/or federally mandated firearms training that mimics LE's training may not have the desired effect.

Again, check out the stat's for those states that do not require training before allowing open or concealed carry. I have. You may be surprised - hopefully pleasantly surprised.

 

[Duke Junior]

Duke
"Jimbo,just re-read the 2nd Amendment over again.
Duke over and out,10-7.
Shall not be infringed.
Got it now?"
Jimbo:"Reread the whole constitution again. Put this in context. You also have the right to liberty, and life, but those can be stripped away with something else mentioned in the constitution. It's called "due process". I also urge you to look up "jury of peers".

Rereading the second without re-reading the rest is going to produce some flawed interpretation at best".

All well and good,Jimbo.
See Arfin's post #163.
I wish to remain in good standing.
Best wishes,Duke.

 

[Richbaker]

2-hand Weaver stance provides the best control. Just my opinion....

 

[ChrisVV]

No violent felons,

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Convicted violent felons only. But that's only because they are in prison. When they are released, they should regain all their rights. After all, are they not considered reformed and their debt to society repaid? If not, back to prison where they again lose their rights.

 

[brigadier]

If you support banning convicted felons from owning guns, you are either ignorant or a hypocrite.
By supporting that, you are saying that if you stray a little too close to a county jail building while looking for the right building (easy to do in a nearby county, who has the inmate workers in a small, simple looking building right next to the courts) then they should never be allowed to own a gun again.
Banning repete offenders for violent crimes like rape or violence makes more sense, though with the current registration system, I feel much more comfortable knowing which rapists are armed and with what, then having to gamble. Once you ban something completely, you forfeit control over it. As long as felons are allowed to buy and register guns, the police can much more easily keep an eye on what equipment to commit crimes they do and don't have and respond much more easily to the situation. Though I am strongly against registration because of the dangers it poses with governments, I can honestly admit that this is one of the few gun control measures that actually works.
FWIW, my brother ran in street gangs during the 1990s. At 12 years old, he had a Cobray SMG. As far as I know, it's still in circulation in the black market, though probably trashed by now.

 

[ctdonath]

I'm not losing any sleep by requiring a person to have rudimentary knowlege about the safe use of that deadly weapon he wants to carry around me.

What gives anyone the power to judge ME re: handgun use?
You may want to require evaluation - what are you going to do if I refuse to submit to your requirements? imprison me? do you see where this is going?
Why should I cooperate with you? by hindering my right to "keep and bear" arms (threatening punishment until I submit to your requirements), I count you among those facilitating my enemies (hindering my defense against them).

Guns are not a complex subject, really. Point-and-click interface, whoever it's pointing at when the trigger is pulled may die. Why must you hinder those who understand this obvious fact?

By what Constitutional delegation of power must I submit to you?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood?

 

[Stevie-Ray]

If you support banning convicted felons from owning guns, you are either ignorant or a hypocrite.
By supporting that, you are saying that if you stray a little too close to a county jail building while looking for the right building (easy to do in a nearby county, who has the inmate workers in a small, simple looking building right next to the courts) then they should never be allowed to own a gun again.

And if that's what you think, then you simply can't read. The choice is convicted VIOLENT felons. That's a mite different than the example you cited.

 

[jackdanson]

Convicted violent felons only. But that's only because they are in prison. When they are released, they should regain all their rights. After all, are they not considered reformed and their debt to society repaid? If not, back to prison where they again lose their rights.

I agree.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

When they are released, they should regain all their rights. After all, are they not considered reformed

No, they are not considered to be reformed. They have simply been out of circulation for awhile. The VAST majority of crime is committed by recidivist criminals.

 

[eflatminor]

I couldn't vote

The only restriction I would support pertains to children. If a state wants to pass laws restricting the freedom of children (currently defined as under 18), I wouldn't oppose it. ANY other restrictions, I'm against.

It's time for the government to stop meddling in the lives of adult citizens "for our own good".

 

[Phil DeGraves]

I think convicted felons should have their rights restored after they serve their sentence AND after they reimburse their victims.

How do you "reimburse" a murder victim or a rape victim?

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Nobody is saying you must sell to anyone.

If I am an employee of a gun store, I would in fact be REQUIRED to sell a gun to a violent felon under the "no restrictions" rule if he wanted to buy one or be sued for discrimination. And yes, there are some "felonies that aren't worth losing your rights over" but we are talking about VIOLENT felons.

 

[JohnBT]

"If you support banning convicted felons from owning guns, you are either ignorant or a hypocrite."

Actually it's because we're not smart like you.

I still say convicted felons need to do their time AND pay back their victim or victims. Doing their time might repay their debt to society, but it doesn't do a thing for the loss to the victims in terms of time, money, merchandise, medical bills/treatment, etc.

Why do so many worry about the poor old crooks and not the victims of the crimes?

John

 

[JohnBT]

"How do you "reimburse" a murder victim or a rape victim?"

I'm sure you can think of something if you try a little longer. I'll give you hint to get you started - pay for counseling for the victim or victim's family if the victim is dead. Cash is always a good way to say you are truly sorry.

Hint number two - pay or reimburse the funeral expenses. That's a novel thought, kill somebody and get stuck with the bill for the autopsy and the funeral.

John

 

[TAB]

"How do you "reimburse" a murder victim or a rape victim?"

I'm sure you can think of something if you try a little longer. I'll give you hint to get you started - pay for counseling for the victim or victim's family if the victim is dead. Cash is always a good way to say you are truly sorry.

Hint number two - pay or reimburse the funeral expenses. That's a novel thought, kill somebody and get stuck with the bill for the autopsy and the funeral.

John

ugh yeah, that will make them feel better.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"How do you "reimburse" a murder victim or a rape victim?"

You give up your rights, just like you took them from someone else. And that means that if you are allowed outside to see the light of day again, you have NO RIGHT OF PROTECTION, legal or otherwise, from predators or relatives of your previous victims.
And NO RIGHT to own a firearm.

If that were the case, more violent criminals would opt to remain in prison where they belong.

 

[Hoppy590]

none.

if your a convicted felon and a "danger to society" enough to be barred from owning a gun, why were you let out of prison?

also if you give them "convicted felon" they will take "misdemeanor" and "accused"

 

[Phil DeGraves]

if your a convicted felon and a "danger to society" enough to be barred from owning a gun, why were you let out of prison?

Who knows? But that doesn't change the fact that they do it.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

kill somebody and get stuck with the bill for the autopsy and the funeral.

And who is going to MAKE them pay?