What law(s) would gun owners like to see in place?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What laws would I like to see in place? What part of shall not be infringed is complicated?

I'm in the NO gun laws and restrictions category I suppose, along with the get rid of the stupid restrictions we already have.

As to bomb making equipment in one's apartment, if I knew the people living next to me were busy making bombs, I'd be moving. The odds in favor of an explosion go too far in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...
As far as that goes, I frankly would be more worried about someone cooking up meth or some other drug than most explosives.

I'd much rather be able to go to the hardware store and buy a roll of det cord and blow out some pine trees than have to rent a bulldozer. But det cord is ultra dangerous you say? Sure I suppose for a mad man, but so is heavy equipment.(google kill dozer if you don't believe me)

I dunno, I mean we do live in a society that is slowly over time coming to accept the gun restrictions that are in place and to some it is becoming the norm. We have more laws and restrictions on the books governing our everyday life than ever before. Some of them may actually be good, a lot of them are not. But to be honest a lot of lawmakers would be out of a job if it wasn't for the creation and changing of laws.

I really like the 10 ton dumptruck analogy, but to be honest its probably gonna be cheaper and easier to get the wife to agree to than the Ferrari. Just think of all the honey-do's ya could get done.
 
There should be no laws against guns.

Only ACTIONS involving a gun that harm others should be illegal.
 
Actually, I do understand what you guys are saying, but that's not really an answer to what I'm asking. Owen, in response #22 came the closest...

"The "general population" is clueless about firearms. They only know what they see on TV and in the movies. This is the problem with democracy, 51% of your ill informed neighbors can cancel out your well educated vote and as a result, laws are set to the mentality of the least common denominator of voter."


If one side wants to paint things black, and the other side wants to paint things white, I figure we ought to find a shade of gray that's acceptable to everyone, even if it's not what either side really prefers.

That "general population" isn't being given a choice right now. They'll continue to follow what they're being told, as the "gun nuts" (their term) don't seem to be offering any alternative.

My thoughts were that we ought to come up with something that's somewhat acceptable to everyone. Yeah, the "general population" is totally clueless, so let's give them something that seems to address the issues from both sides.



'N003k' made an interesting comparison to high performance cars, but the last time I looked, cars available for sale in the USA had zillions of specifications they need to meet to make them "legal", including a huge list of "safety" items.


There are a huge number of gun enthusiasts who complain about the stupid and unfair gun laws in the USA. The answer I'm reading here, is that none of these laws should exist. I think we'd accomplish more, if we set up our own list of suggested gun laws, and try to get them adopted by the various governments.

That's just my personal opinion, and I've got no desire to argue with anyone about it.... but I love discussing things like this.

(Personally, I'm all for law abiding citizens being able to go just about anywhere with a gun, either on their person, or in a gun case. I think it's ludicrous that people who now can legally carry guns can't take guns with them on Greyhound bus lines, even in checked baggage. At the same time, I find it equally silly for private individuals to own more than "ordinary" guns of the type that an individual might find useful - machine guns, bombs, explosives, and so on need to be restricted for the public safety, at least in highly populated areas. At the same time I'm sick and tired of hearing political groups fighting over issues that shouldn't even be issues.)
 
"My thoughts were that we ought to come up with something that's somewhat acceptable to everyone. Yeah, the "general population" is totally clueless, so let's give them something that seems to address the issues from both sides."
​

"General population is clueless" does not logically lead to "Give them something, make them happy."

I prefer:

"General population is clueless" Therefore "Educate them and relieve their ignorance."
 
Why is it "silly" for private citizens to own anything besides "ordinary" guns, whatever that means? The idea behind the 2nd amendment is that the people should have the capability of removing a tyrannical government should the need arise again. It's hard to do that with "ordinary" guns. I think that we have been slowly moving toward the way it should be in recent years, but we've still got a long ways to go. You may notice that even the couple responses here that were lists of "laws" were more things to get rid of than things to add. Those are the changes we need. Removal of restrictions, not new laws.
 
Bearcreek, the last thing I would be asking for is "new laws". What's needed is less laws, and less restrictions. I'll agree on that.

What I find puzzling, is nobody here is willing to to suggest what the laws ought to be. What I think people feel we're asking for is "no laws".

I think that's the problem in a nutshell. I think the NRA should publish a list of the laws we think we should end up with, rather than say or imply we want to get rid of all the laws and regulations completely.




Both sides of any issue insist they need to educate the other side. That will never change - people are people.

Rather than saying what we don't want, why not say what we do want? (Assuming we were able to agree amongst ourselves what it really is that we DO want.)



Also, regarding "The idea behind the 2nd amendment is that the people should have the capability of removing a tyrannical government should the need arise again.", that may be your interpretation, but the words simply state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". There are lots of ways to interpret that simple statement. It's far more likely that they were thinking in terms of the population owning and being able to use a gun such as they used back then, not a "Gattling gun", a cannon, or anything similar that came along later.... Again, I think that it should be US who interpret that statement and try to create the laws of the land accordingly, not someone who is simply anti-gun to begin with. Once again though, nobody here seems to want to say what should or should not be legal - what I hear, is "everything" should be legalized.
 
Last edited:
Nothing that I want to improve about my life or this society can be accomplished with any new gun law.
 
Mike Meyers
Now that you have clarified in post 20.....

I guess I asked the wrong question.
- Yeah think?

Suppose the question instead was something along the lines of what gun laws would we propose that might be expected to be accepted by a majority of the country. If both sides compromise, is there something in the middle that everyone can accept.
- Not a chance!

(Yeah, a bazooka or BAR is unlikely to be used by anyone, as suggested up above, so why not move those kinds of weapons into the "banned" group? As to bomb making equipment in one's apartment, if I knew the people living next to me were busy making bombs, I'd be moving. The odds in favor of an explosion go too far in the wrong direction.
- "weapons into the "banned" group?" - NONE, I'd give my eye teeth for a BAR.

Back on topic, to be blunt, why don't we, and/or the NRA, propose gun laws that have a reasonable chance of being accepted? The "general population" has as much a right to feel safe, as we do, even though we each see a different way to achieve "safe". Even though we know better than those who have been taught to distrust guns, can't we propose something that we can all live with?)
- The "general population" has no comprehension of what makes them "Safe." As the saying goes: "When seconds count, the cop's are only minutes away."

As for laws I would like to see:
1. Repeal of Clinton's "Evil rifle" act.
2. Repeal of the 1968 GCA.
3. Repeal of the 1934 GCA.
4. No state or local entity may legislate firearms laws that are more restrictive than the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
 
mikemyers...It seems your heart is in the right place with this idea, but why do we need all these restrictions on guns? Better yet...why do we need ANY restrictions?

Its already proven that they don't accomplish their intended goal.

And the worst part is...when it comes to politicians and gun laws...if you give them an inch, they take a mile.
 
I think the NRA should publish a list of the laws we think we should end up with, rather than say or imply we want to get rid of all the laws and regulations completely.
Click to expand...

Absolutely a bad idea. If you think of the political process in terms of a business negotiation, both sides start with their "maximalist" positions, and they may (or may not) meet somewhere in the middle. The pro-gun side's maximal position is no restrictions whatever, and the antis want to absolutely ban all guns. It would be foolish, in a business negotiation, for either side to reveal its minimal acceptable demands before negotiations even begin.

But in the political process, unlike in a business negotiation, nothing is ever settled by being reduced to a binding contract. You give the anti-gunners something "reasonable," and they won't stop there. They'll always push for more restrictions. The best tactic, therefore, is to be as adamant as they are.

Besides which, the NRA (or any gun-rights organization) really isn't in a position to define "reasonable" gun restrictions. For example, if it agrees that machine guns should be banned or highly restricted, then it will be accused of "throwing the NFA community under the bus." (This is exactly what happened when the NRA agreed to the Hughes Amendment as the price for passing the FOPA back in '86.) They won't (hopefully) make the same mistake again.
 
Mike, here's what Thomas Jefferson said concerning interpreting the Constitution. "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson
I've attached a pdf with some quotes by a few of the founders regarding the reason for the people's right to bear arms. Control of government is not the only reason for the 2nd amendment, but it was a very large part of it. I agree, it's going to be very difficult to get some of the population to accept responsibility for their freedom and security but that should be the ultimate goal, not compromise. Now, there are steps to be taken on our way back to that, like CCW permits, legalizing open carry, constitutional carry, legalizing high cap mags, opening the MG registry, removing the tax stamp and registration on "NFA" items etc, etc. Some of these things have been done in some states and some haven't. The point is, yes there are rungs to the ladder, but, ultimately, lets not be content with stopping halfway up.
 

Attachments

  • Purpose of 2nd A.pdf
    77.7 KB · Views: 5
I'm a little confused. Twiki357 mentions a
1. Repeal of Clinton's "Evil rifle" act.
Click to expand...
I thought that expired in 2004. There is still a Bush I era import ban that can make wanting to modify an imported firearm legally interesting. What exactly is that law?
 
Unlike others here, I do not want only the second amendment. These are my two:

1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
2. The right of political office holders, in favor of gun control prior to the ratification of this amendment, to keep and bear arms shall be infringed.

That way, they won't have to worry about the scary guns hurting them, since they will be bound by law to stay away from guns.
Payback's a [censored], ain't it.
 
mikemyers said:
There are a huge number of gun enthusiasts who complain about the stupid and unfair gun laws in the USA. The answer I'm reading here, is that none of these laws should exist. I think we'd accomplish more, if we set up our own list of suggested gun laws, and try to get them adopted by the various governments.
Click to expand...

Here is my list of suggested gun laws:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution - and it has already been adopted!​
 
Back on topic, to be blunt, why don't we, and/or the NRA, propose gun laws that have a reasonable chance of being accepted? The "general population" has as much a right to feel safe, as we do, even though we each see a different way to achieve "safe". Even though we know better than those who have been taught to distrust guns, can't we propose something that we can all live with?)
Click to expand...

Broken premise. There is no right to "feel safe". There is an acknowledged right to keep and bear arms. Why exactly should I have to "live" with what others want me to live with when what I have or do has nothing to do with them?????
 
Gun Laws

1. No guns for prisoners in jail. Restore gun rights when sentence is served.

2. Teach age appropriate gun safety in Elementary School. Care and Cleaning of Guns, The 2nd Amendment, Responsible Everyday Carry, Marksmanship in later grades. Provide every High School graduate with a .22 handgun and rifle at graduation.

3. Guess I'm tapped out. There might be something else but I don't know what.

Not a gun law but how about "No large amounts of high explosives or artillery ammo in residential areas." Safe storage and all that.
 
mikemyers said:
Bearcreek, the last thing I would be asking for is "new laws". What's needed is less laws, and less restrictions. I'll agree on that.

What I find puzzling, is nobody here is willing to to suggest what the laws ought to be. What I think people feel we're asking for is "no laws".

I think that's the problem in a nutshell. I think the NRA should publish a list of the laws we think we should end up with, rather than say or imply we want to get rid of all the laws and regulations completely.




Both sides of any issue insist they need to educate the other side. That will never change - people are people.

Rather than saying what we don't want, why not say what we do want? (Assuming we were able to agree amongst ourselves what it really is that we DO want.)



Also, regarding "The idea behind the 2nd amendment is that the people should have the capability of removing a tyrannical government should the need arise again.", that may be your interpretation, but the words simply state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". There are lots of ways to interpret that simple statement. It's far more likely that they were thinking in terms of the population owning and being able to use a gun such as they used back then, not a "Gattling gun", a cannon, or anything similar that came along later.... Again, I think that it should be US who interpret that statement and try to create the laws of the land accordingly, not someone who is simply anti-gun to begin with. Once again though, nobody here seems to want to say what should or should not be legal - what I hear, is "everything" should be legalized.
Click to expand...
Recognize these words?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html
 
How about this -- "Every adult U.S. citizen (other than a convicted felon) will, upon application, be issued, free of charge, a standard select-fire military rifle or equivalent weapon and a basic supply of ammunition, state or local laws to the contrary notwithstanding. Those accepting such an issuance undertake to maintain such weapon in good repair, and to become proficient in its use."

Something like the Swiss militia system, but more broadly applied.

I suppose the firearms industry might not like this, since it might mean lost sales to them.
 
Mandatory in every high-school:

- Starting from elementary school learn the entire constitution, including all American history our rights and obligations as citizens.
- Small arms training and defensive tactics is mandatory
- Training and preparation to assist local communities and state during natural disaster crisis
- Get them ready for ### nor of hours of mandatory service in military or social labor services.

This will build discipline, character and overall will provide society with better citizens and hopefully this will not leave too much free time to have them exposed to the poisons of TV, gaming and the internet.

Patton is not dead, he just warned all of us not long ago....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ

Another true leader like Edward R Murrow gave us plenty of warnings but we fell into the trap being complacent...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anNEJJYLU8M&playnext=1&list=PLB22ABF9E08CF11D9

From good-night good luck...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJcAyYc78f8&feature=related

Where are the true leaders today? We have celebrities only.
 
AlexanderA said:
How about this -- "Every adult U.S. citizen (other than a convicted felon) will, upon application, be issued, free of charge, a standard select-fire military rifle or equivalent weapon and a basic supply of ammunition, state or local laws to the contrary notwithstanding. Those accepting such an issuance undertake to maintain such weapon in good repair, and to become proficient in its use."

Something like the Swiss militia system, but more broadly applied.

I suppose the firearms industry might not like this, since it might mean lost sales to them.
Click to expand...
I like this idea except I think people should provide their own firearm. That's the way it was in the original militia system and I believe the way the founders intended it. Could be just a result of my distrust of government speaking. Perhaps, to start moving that way, there could be tax deductions or incentives for ammo and training.
 
Last edited:
Rather than saying what we don't want, why not say what we do want? (Assuming we were able to agree amongst ourselves what it really is that we DO want.)
Click to expand...


You have apparently decided to ask a question and then turn a deaf ear to the overwhelmingly consistent response. It should be clear to you and anyone else reading this thread that we DO know what we want: Strict enforcement of the Second Amendment and nothing more or less. It has been said over and over in this thread. It has also been made clear that the fears of others born of their own ignorance have absolutely no bearing on the question.

Are you going to continue to respond as though you can't comprehend what you are reading? It's as though you read a few responses and then reply, "No seriously guys...what gun control laws would you really like to see enacted in order to make the hoplophobes feel more comfortable?"
 
bearcreek wrote:

I like this idea except I think people should provide their own firearm. That's the way it was in the original militia system and I believe the way the founders intended it. Could be just a result of my distrust of government speaking. Perhaps, to start moving that way, there could be tax deductions or incentives for ammo and training.
Click to expand...

Yes, but with the prices of select-fire weapons (full automatics), even assuming the repeal of the Hughes Amendment or even of the NFA itself, what you are proposing is a militia skewed toward the wealthy. This is antidemocratic. For the poor to be able to defend themselves, even from a tyrannical government, the government (before it becomes a tyranny) should issue the weapons on a free and nondiscriminatory basis.

Remember, "gun control" started out as a way of disarming the poor, the blacks, and the underclass in general.
 
If the restrictions were taken away and the free market allowed to control costs I think full auto firearms would very quickly become affordable. I don't know specific numbers but the parts to convert a AR 15 to full auto can't be that expensive to produce in mass quantities. Besides that, those guns would be paid for by us anyway, one way or another. I'd just rather pay for it directly rather than through taxes. It'd probably be cheaper in the end. Nobody's ever accused the government of running things the most efficient way. :rolleyes:
 
If the restrictions were taken away and the free market allowed to control costs I think full auto firearms would very quickly become affordable.
Click to expand...

Of course they would. They used to be. The 1986 ban has artificially limited the availability of machine guns. Remove that ban, and prices fall back to normal levels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Any New Laws You Would Like To See?
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Zeke/PA
Z
L
  • Locked
A reasonable regulation? What could one be?
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
3K
TheBluesMan
T
D
  • Locked
More Gun Laws or Fewer Idiots?
Replies
4
Views
498
Black Knight
B
T
  • Locked
Indiana Gun Owners
Replies
0
Views
548
txgho1911
T
J
  • Locked
(CO) Court weighs city's ability to write local firearms laws
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
jimpeel
J
Back
Top