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

[N003k]

Alright, lets all agree on one point, should be simple...and should help this move forward.

All laws should serve a distinct and useful purpose to the citizens of the US.
(Safer, Healthier, better quality of life maybe, etc.) No law should be passed therefore unless it provides a distinct benefit to the people.

Can you agree to that Mike?

 

[Danb1215]

Remember, we will have laws. We have always had laws. The history of humanity is filled with laws. Those laws exist for many reasons.

These statements are pretty far off base. In terms of the "history of humanity" as you put it, laws and governance for that matter are fairly recent developments.

 

[yinyangdc]

In regard to compromising our rights away (if you really wanted to):
The antis compromise by settling for some of what they want, with the opportunity to come back and get more later.

The pros give up some of what they had with the opportunity to lose more later.

If both sides agree that firearms can be restricted, then there can be compromise, such as what, and how much.

If one side says restrict (or even eliminate) and the other side says no restrictions, there can be no compromise, only abdication of principle.

 

[mikemyers]

NOO3K, I agree - "...laws should serve a distinct and useful purpose..."

Danb1215, I disagree - even back in feudal times, there were laws, as to what people could or could not do, etc. Back then, get the lord or kind upset, and you might find yourself in a dungeon for the rest of your life - or worse.

yinyangdc, not only do I agree with what you wrote, those last two lines are exactly the reason I started this thread. Like it or not, we all share this country, and we need to find a workable compromise that both sides can live with.

 

[N003k]

Alright Mike, then would you consider making someone FEEL safer, without actually making them safer in any way to be a distinct and useful purpose?

 

[Danb1215]

NOO3K, I agree - "...laws should serve a distinct and useful purpose..."

Danb1215, I disagree - even back in feudal times, there were laws, as to what people could or could not do, etc. Back then, get the lord or kind upset, and you might find yourself in a dungeon for the rest of your life - or worse.

yinyangdc, not only do I agree with what you wrote, those last two lines are exactly the reason I started this thread. Like it or not, we all share this country, and we need to find a workable compromise that both sides can live with.

"Feudal times" were between ~500-1500 years ago. Humans have existed for a minimum of 100,000 years.Nothing I said previously was subjective or an opinion.

Humans have existed for X years.
Governments and legal systems have existed for Y years.
x > 10y

 

[azmjs]

In regard to compromising our rights away (if you really wanted to):
The antis compromise by settling for some of what they want, with the opportunity to come back and get more later.

The pros give up some of what they had with the opportunity to lose more later.

If both sides agree that firearms can be restricted, then there can be compromise, such as what, and how much.

If one side says restrict (or even eliminate) and the other side says no restrictions, there can be no compromise, only abdication of principle.

There's no "side" that says there can be no restrictions on firearms.

There's a vocal minority, but their opinion doesn't count for anything.

 

[mikemyers]

danb1215, I'm not sure why you feel that way. Even if you go back to before humans were even human, and were still apes, they had their form of "laws" (things that they had to conform to if they were to be a member of their "pack". If you mean written laws and so on, I agree with you.

NOO3K, personally, yes, I would, but my definition of a "distinct and useful purpose" might not be accepted by others. Real safety is more important than feeling safe, but both are important.

Azmjs, you wrote "There's a vocal minority, but their opinion doesn't count for anything" but look what happened in this thread. I'm certainly not "anti-gun", but when I suggested the idea of the NRA and the gun enthusiasts proposing gun laws (rather than the anti crowd), look what the responses were here. I think that vocal minority is a big part of what's scaring the general population. Heck, someone is going to oversee and regulate firearms, and my idea was that "we" should be the ones to suggest how this could be done, and work with the "other side" rather than always being at the opposite extremes.




I think this thread has gone as far as it's going to. I was just thinking that maybe we could change things so we were more involved in directing our own destiny, rather than fighting over it.

 

[azmjs]

And I wish you the best of luck!

 

[sig220mw]

The other side's ultimate goal is not regulation but abolishment. For now regulation is just a way to get there. Good grief, all you have to do is look at what has been done in other countries where the pro gun people went along for a while thinking that the antis would be satisfied. Your suggestion is a fool's errand. They wouldn't even let us sit at the table and if they did they would scoff at any reasonable suggestions we had and try to roll right on over us. They are not reasonable people. They know nothing about firearms. Theirs is a true phobia when it comes to firearms and those that own them. The person that can handle a firearm with skill is so frightening and inegalitarian to them that he just can't be allowed to continue.

 

[azmjs]

The other side's ultimate goal is not regulation but abolishment. For now regulation is just a way to get there. Good grief, all you have to do is look at what has been done in other countries where the pro gun people went along for a while thinking that the antis would be satisfied. Your suggestion is a fool's errand. They wouldn't even let us sit at the table and if they did they would scoff at any reasonable suggestions we had and try to roll right on over us. They are not reasonable people. They know nothing about firearms. Theirs is a true phobia when it comes to firearms and those that own them. The person that can handle a firearm with skill is so frightening and inegalitarian to them that he just can't be allowed to continue.

The size and influence of the faction that seriously wants to abolish gun ownership is as small as, and possibly smaller than, the fringe that believes there should be no gun regulations of any kind.

 

[N003k]

Mike, probably my last input, though no promises haha.

You agree all laws should have a useful and distinct purpose, and that real safety is the main issue. I'm not quite sure how you can justify that laws that only make one feel safe are good still however, as all that would be required then is for enough people to be uncomfortable with something for a law to be passed. I recall shortly after 9/11 a radio station doing a poll section asking listeners if Muslims should be required to wear an identifying piece of clothing and should be tracked, and a disgusting majority thought they should. Fortunatly, whether or not that would make a majority 'feel' safe or not, there was no chance of it happening due to individual rights.

By the same token, theres no reason to believe, until proven otherwise, that a gun control law serves any purpose other than to be a feel good law. They've had plenty of opportunity to prove it helps, but it seems that there isn't any correlation between 'strong' gun laws (IE being highly restrictive), and lower crime. With no real purpose, or benefit, why should we accept laws? Especially ones that could debatably (I say debatably because I know a few people here WILL debate the point) infringe upon the second amendment.

Here are the ONLY restrictions I feel are justified:
Illegal to shoot someone, unless in self defense. (Same as any OTHER weapon.)
Illegal to threaten with a firearm. (Same as using any other object.)
Illegal to use a firearm to cause unauthorized damage to anothers property. (Same as using anything else to cause damage to others properties.)

I think you'll find everyone here supports outlawing the bad ACTS used with firearms. However they're already covered under non-firearm specific laws. We just argue that there is NO point whatsoever to forbid or outlaw possession of a tool, because it might make others feel more comfortable, which can only serve to be a detriment to our 'side' in the long run. The less normal something becomes, the more fringe it becomes. We should strive to make guns a part of normal life, in positive ways. Encourage people to get to the range, encourage carry and ownership. Not hide away and hope they don't pass laws against firearms. If the majority start to support firearms, then no laws will be passed against them, lest a tyrannical government happens to come to power anyways. The problem is getting through to those that DON'T currently support, or are adamantly against firearms. Conceding to allow more laws won't get us there anymore than flying a gadsden flag and threatening revolution will.

 

[Mike OTDP]

OK, I'll play.

I want a national preemptive act. No state or local government may make or enforce a law pertaining to the purchase or posession of arms or ammunition. Violation considered Rebellion Against the United States (USC, Title 18, Section 2383), and punishable as such.

Right now, the U.S. is a crazywork quilt of state and local legislation. Cross a line, and you go from law-abiding citizen to felon. For any other felony, this isn't the case - murder is murder and theft is theft everywhere. But not for firearms. It's time for one unified law, backed up with serious prison time for state and local officials who don't get the message.

 

[azmjs]

OK, I'll play.

I want a national preemptive act. No state or local government may make or enforce a law pertaining to the purchase or posession of arms or ammunition. Violation considered Rebellion Against the United States (USC, Title 18, Section 2383), and punishable as such.

Right now, the U.S. is a crazywork quilt of state and local legislation. Cross a line, and you go from law-abiding citizen to felon. For any other felony, this isn't the case - murder is murder and theft is theft everywhere. But not for firearms. It's time for one unified law, backed up with serious prison time for state and local officials who don't get the message.

Why not give a serious answer?

"rebellion against the united states"

Come on.

 

[Owen Sparks]

There should be no laws against things. Crime is an ACTION, not a thing. For example,
having a crowbar in your vehicle is not the same as using it to break into your neighbors house. Having a box of matches does not mean that you are an arsonist. Why is having a pistol any different? The burden of proof should be on your accuser (the police) to PROVE that you have criminal intent with whatever tool is in your posession be it a pistol, a crow bar or a box of matches.

Read my signature line below v

 

[azmjs]

What about things like smallpox, mustard gas artillery, radioactive dirty bombs, sarin gas, ricin, etc?

 

[AlexanderA]

What about things like smallpox, mustard gas artillery, radioactive dirty bombs, sarin gas, ricin, etc?

If someone is going to go to the trouble of making these things, the mere fact that they are illegal won't stop him. These are the tools of the terrorist (and usually the highly organized terrorist, at that). There are plenty of laws against terrorism. Outlawing the tools of the terrorist, in addition, is a redundancy.

 

[azmjs]

The classic refutation of all laws, " even if it's illegal, bad people will still do it"

 

[N003k]

Exactly Azmjs, so why not penalize, ya know, the negative actions that cause some type of damage, rather than the mere possession of something that is, inherently, not a risk.

 

[Owen Sparks]

What about things like smallpox, mustard gas artillery, radioactive dirty bombs, sarin gas, ricin, etc?

The difference between these things and firearms is that firearms have plenty of legitimate uses, the main one being self-defense which is legal everywhere. The problem with gun laws is that they assume that if you have a weapon that you are up to no good. Usually this is not the case but the law often treats every one like the lowest common denominator.

 

[bushmaster1313]

We have around 20,000 gun laws alone in this nation--no one can much demonstrate that any of them have ever reduced crime

Comrade, you much wrong. New Jersey laws passed by Glorious Legislature eliminate all violent crime in People's Socialist Paradise. Fairy Tale about Second Amendment protect right of individual against Perfect and Beautiful State vile lie perpertrated by running dog reactionary Tea Party.

 

[azmjs]

Exactly Azmjs, so why not penalize, ya know, the negative actions that cause some type of damage, rather than the mere possession of something that is, inherently, not a risk.

Laws serve two functions, to deter wrongdoing and to punish it.

If it was your family that got killed by the guy who was just exercising his supposed so-called right to buy a radiation bomb, or a sarin gas arsenal, perhaps you wouldn't be so unrealistic.

 

[azmjs]

The difference between these things and firearms is that firearms have plenty of legitimate uses, the main one being self-defense which is legal everywhere. The problem with gun laws is that they assume that if you have a weapon that you are up to no good. Usually this is not the case but the law often treats every one like the lowest common denominator.

Many firearms do have perfectly legitimate uses, and it has been rule unconstitutional to ban the ownership of firearms for the purpose of self defense, among other things.

However, it is not, and will not be found to be unconstitutional to place any restriction of any kind on the possession of any arms.

 

[TexasBill]

These statements are pretty far off base. In terms of the "history of humanity" as you put it, laws and governance for that matter are fairly recent developments.

Well, it's "fairly recent" only in terms of the entire history of the species, which stretches back some 2.6-3 million years to the separation of Homo from Pan. However, in terms of the history of humanity as we understand it, law goes way back.

The history of language, and larger groups coming together, requiring some code of coexistence, is much more recent. In fact, language, as we define it, is thought to be associated with the appearance of modern man less than 100,000 years ago. The cultivation of plants and animal husbandry, enabling the establishment of permanent settlements, began about 18,000 years ago; the first "major" city, Jericho, was founded about 8,000 years ago.

We know of legal codes dating back to the ancient Egyptians about 5,000 years ago and we have fragments of written laws governing criminal and civil conduct going back 4,000 years to the Code of Ur-Nammu, which predates the more extensive Code of Hammurabi by at least three centuries. The Code of Ur-Nammu includes some coverage of the illegal use of weapons (apparently "copper knives" were a problem back then).

 

[sig220mw]

zamjs....you seriously know how many want to abolish firearms ownership?

How do you equate bomb making and sarin gas with gun ownership. Those are the arguments the antis use. It's a non sequitur.

Are you one of them?

Many in favor of abolshment are in the US congress/senate. Some are on the US supreme court. Plus there are the 50 state houses and supreme courts. The media is loaded with them and they always have the last word. We have to always fight an uphill battle. If we give them anything they will smell blood in the water and really get motivated. We have to depend on the vote, letters to the editor and pro gun groups. Plus calling and writing congress.

They aren't even nearly honest. With the brady bill they sneaked in a back ground check for long arms that they forgot to mention until it was law. They had people believing that semi autos were machine guns.

When the tv networks go out to interview people about gun restrictions the pro restriction guys always look like your favorite uncle or your grandfather. But then we see the pro gun guy and he is unshaven, usually has grease or snot on his shirt and looks like he just came out from under a car.

The 2 examples I just gave I actually saw on television in Ft. Worth Texas back in the early 90s and Texas is a pro gun state. The media in no state in the union (that I know of) is on our side.

Yeah let's help them write some more laws to add to the thousands already on the books.