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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd be interested in hearing the names of these people who are pushing the abolition of gun ownership.

You tell us that they are public figures, so you shouldn't have any trouble at all finding examples of them advocating for this.

You know, to bring things from that other fellow's Boogeyman territory into the real world.

You know, as opposed to "i saw some grimy guy on tv 10 years ago."

Never forget, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
 
What I don't understand, is that since it's 2011 and we have all these zillions of federal, state, and local laws regarding guns (and many other things) why anyone here should think it's any more likely to abolish ALL of them, than to expect a blizzard in Miami this year. Ain't gonna happen.

We're people that have banded together to form a country, and in many ways, individual rights to do various things have been replaced by rights for what is best for the group. Heck, try to build a 500 story skyscraper in the middle of a suburban neighborhood, and see how far you get. All this is just silly nonsense.

The real question is what we CAN do, rather than too focus on what's impossible.

I tried to ask in this thread, what rules WE can suggest, since the only side now suggesting rules is from those opposed. My thought is it's better to act, than to re-act. Anyone reading through the previous 100+ responses will quickly learn that we don't want ANY gun laws.

We would do better, if gun owners, and the NRA, and as many politicians as we could get on our side, could present a sensible set of gun laws, and maybe we can start getting things changed in that direction.


For example, I would love to have a compulsory course in high-school regarding firearms, teaching what they are, how they work, how to be safe around them, and so on. I believe in Israel, this is required. Maybe we can't make it compulsory, but we should start by offering it in as many schools as possible. Teaching people to be responsible around guns, and how to deal with them safely, might not have an immediate benefit, but as those students grow up, they won't be so ignorant about firearms.

(That's just one example - there are MANY.)
 
I tried to ask in this thread, what rules WE can suggest, since the only side now suggesting rules is from those opposed.
Click to expand...

It makes no sense for us to suggest gun control laws when we are opposed to gun control laws. It would be like asking a burglar what he would like to steal from us first. The only proper suggestion we can really make is to repeal particularly ridiculous gun laws and then work on the less bothersome ones later.


You are operating on the flawed assumption that more laws are needed. This is not the case.
 
This seems a good moment to recall the deep reasons, the fundamental context, that must inform any responsible deliberations on the question of an armed citizenry.

It seems to me that the principal danger of efforts to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns by private citizens is the moral disarmament rather than physical that accompanies it. If we accept the view that the people can not be trusted with the material objects necessary to defend their liberty, we will surely accept as well the view that the people can not be trusted with liberty itself. Why should a man who can't be trusted to refrain from murder be trusted with the much more difficult and morally subtle task of choosing his leaders responsibly?
 
Unfortunately, history reminds us that one's liberty isn't always obtained and defended by serving legal papers on thugs,tyrants and despots.
 
I think the following sums up what I see most people saying here:

"It makes no sense for us to suggest gun control laws when we are opposed to gun control laws."


That's about as realistic as wishing for all the rules and regulations relating to building and flying an airplane to vanish..... or the rules and regulations pertaining to motor vehicles.

I guess "wishing" is fine, but trying to make it happen is as realistic as trying to change the weather in Alaska to be like the weather in Hawaii, or vice versa.



There's no way we can accomplish that, so why not spend out time and effort on making the (necessary) rules and regulations better for us?
 
Mike, theres a pretty big difference. There's already TONS of laws on the books, many of which serve no purpose AT ALL.

Maybe, just maybe some of us will eventually say, "Alright, this is a good balance, we're good with what's on the books now." But what you're asking us to do is in all ways a fairly bad idea.

If you look at it as a negotiation, we're talking about giving up our minimum terms we'd agree to off the bat. Would you do that when trying to sell something?

On top of that, anything we suggest not already on the books, might be something that they like and add on top of it in ADDITION to whats already there.

Maybe some day we'll be content with the laws that are LEFT, but, lets not suggest more to add or where to stop until we're firmly in control of the discussion. We've only just started regaining ground, and theres no guarantee it'll continue in that direction yet.
 
since it's 2011 and we have all these zillions of federal, state, and local laws regarding guns (and many other things) why anyone here should think it's any more likely to abolish ALL of them, than to expect a blizzard in Miami this year.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that anyone here thinks it is likely to have all the laws abolished. But you did ask what we would like to see in place. Complete removal of all the (gun) laws is what some of us "would like to see in place".
 
"It makes no sense for us to suggest gun control laws when we are opposed to gun control laws."
Click to expand...


For the life of me, Mike, I can't understand what you don't understand about the foregoing. The only example you've given of a "good" gun law is some kind of mandatory instruction. That makes no mores sense (and perhaps less sense) than mandatory auto mechanics instruction.

The case has been made loud and clear that gun laws do NOT prevent violent crime or accidental deaths. What laws are you looking for from people who sincerely believe that gun laws are worse than useless?
 
Hey Mike,
Try phrasing your question like this...

"If ALL gun laws were immediately repealed, and we're starting from a clean slate, what laws would the members consider reasonable?"

The problem with your original premise is, we're already overloaded with "gun" laws, and you see the responses as unreasonable.:(

Good luck with it!

p
 
Gee, I don't know what to say....

Hey Mike,
Try phrasing your question like this... "If ALL gun laws were immediately repealed, and we're starting from a clean slate, what laws would the members consider reasonable?".............The problem with your original premise is, we're already overloaded with "gun" laws, and you see the responses as unreasonable.


In an ideal world, I agree with what people are asking for up above, getting rid of all the stupid and senseless regulations we're now stuck with. I guess I also agree that it would be foolish for us to suggest even MORE rules and regulations.


I guess that my own viewpoint is to accept that we are stuck with the past, and that our only option is to try to make things better. All the old laws aren't ging to be repealed, allowing us to start from a clean slate. The only place we can start from is what we've got now.


I think you guys are mis-understanding what I'm asking.... Yes, I would like to come up with a list of the laws we feel we can live with, but that doesn't simply mean adding to the existing laws - it includes changing the laws that are most objectionable to us.


Hey, right now, anyone from "outside" reading this discussion would walk away with the feeling that "our side" wants to abolish all the laws. (They'd probably be right about this.) It's too much to expect that they would ever give this serious consideration.

On the other hand, if we proposed something that will be seen as more sensible to everyone, we'd have a better chance of getting enough people on our side to make it happen.

I think.

....but I'm a nobody. All of us together are just a bunch of enthusiasts on a gun forum. We can say whatever we want, and it will have no effect on anything. BUT, if the NRA and others with more power start pushing for something that the whole country can accept, maybe we'll get somewhere, and even if we're still stuck with a lot of crappy laws and regulations, maybe they'll be less crappy than they otherwise would be....... plus, we'd then be taken more seriously by the general population?
 
mike,

Compromise got us where we are now, and more compromise will not make anything better, especially when there was never any room for compromise to begin with. "Shall not be infringed" is about as tight a place to be as you can get.

Woody
 
I tried to ask in this thread, what rules WE can suggest, since the only side now suggesting rules is from those opposed.
Click to expand...
Fine. This comes from an idea brought up by another thread:

LE agencies may not destroy firearms once they are no longer needed as evidence. If an owner can not be found (e.g. stolen gun returned to rightful owner) then the PD must auction off the gun the same way it does vehicles, office furniture, etc.
 
as a libertarian my general rule is, I don't believe in laws that limit freedoms. I want everyone to live their life the way they choose and not be told how to do it.

If I had to have a law , Id want one the prevents any law from limiting the rights of people to live their life the way the choose
 
ConstitutionCowboy said:
mike,

Compromise got us where we are now, and more compromise will not make anything better, especially when there was never any room for compromise to begin with. "Shall not be infringed" is about as tight a place to be as you can get.

Woody
Click to expand...

Not fundamentally dissimilar from the position of "a well regulated militia! It's about as tight as you can be! Only the Army can have guns!"

"WHAT PART OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA DONT YOU UNDARSTEND!???"

:rolleyes:


ETA: And please, if you're going to bring up Heller, spare me. Don't talk to me about DC versus Heller, I'm a Constituion Ranger. Supreme court aint got no say. Aint no where in the Constitutoin says the Supreme Court got a right to be wrong.
 
Last edited:
csa77 said:
as a libertarian my general rule is, I don't believe in laws that limit freedoms. I want everyone to live their life the way they choose and not be told how to do it.

If I had to have a law , Id want one the prevents any law from limiting the rights of people to live their life the way the choose
Click to expand...

They call that one "the law of the Jungle."

Its enacted by overthrowing the government and returning to a state of perfect freedom of action where there is no authority.
 
azmjs said:
]Not fundamentally dissimilar from the position of "a well regulated militia! It's about as tight as you can be! Only the Army can have guns!"
Click to expand...

It's about English grammar. The 'militia' clause is not operative. The 'shall not be infringed' clause is.

Woody
 
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