In general, what kind of gun law do we want?

[mikeyp]

On the contrary, you act more like Obama who doesn't know/doesn't want to negotiate. Or even trying to make it work. Look what damage has he cost?

Yeah, not like gun owners have "negotiated" in the past The gun owners lose ground, the antis take rights away. That's the libtard "negotiation"

 

[NEVER SURRENDER]

Could not. That's why I asked that question in the first thread. I am a gun owner, I hate MA gun law a lot. I think in reality, we need a certain form of gun law, just want to know what it should be in most of gun owners mind.

WTF!! Where do you think the horrible MA gun laws started?? Someone ,somewhere, said gee, I think we need some laws on this.

 

[CrackPot]

Gun laws are pre-crime. We dont want you to murder, so we make laws against owning guns because the laws against not murdering were not enough to stop you.

THAT is liberal logic.

1. The outcome is illegal.
2. The outcome still happens.
3. Make up more laws.
4. Go back to 2

You wonder why we have so many laws and everything is illegal?

 

[OhNoNotaGun]

- - - Updated - - -



Where in the Constitution, that is your license, does it say anything about an age?

Also, what the **** is this allowing shit?

So it would be OK for a 3-5 year old to walk into a gun shop and buy a Glock? That's all I'm getting at. There is a reasonable age of acquisition, IMO.

Yeah, yeah, I know the lot of you started firing when you were still in the womb, etc. That's fine, not against that.

But a 3 year old with a Glock - that's actually a pretty funny scene in my head.

 

[JayMcB]

Yeah, not like gun owners have "negotiated" in the past The gun owners lose ground, the antis take rights away. That's the libtard "negotiation"

You just defined Jim Wallace's grandstanding after the 'win' on the most recent pass through Beacon Hill

 

[Timber]

A good law won't stop ANY truly dangerous person. If a ****ing law can stop them, how dangerous are they really?

And to add to that... what law ever worked for the not so dangerous without the threat of whatever the current weaponry was at the time, and dudes willing to use those weapons to enforce those laws?

People who want to negotiate about taking away your guns incrementally, or wholesale, are only in a position to force you into a position to consider negotiating because they have lots of dudes with guns backing them up.

 

[knfmn]

You just defined Jim Wallace's grandstanding after the 'win' on the most recent pass through Beacon Hill

Uh-oh. But, but, but...GOAL is the best thing ever. They would never negotiate rights away....

 

[warwickben]

You mean besides the three that have posted in this thread in the last ten minutes?

ETA: We need to let these "out yourself" threads runs for a while every so often.

It helps sort out the freedom haters among us.

Made my night reading that .

 

[Nation On Fire]

As far as "what law we can live with"....apparently all of them in MA anyway. We pay tax stamps on sbrs, don't own suppressors, pin our stocks and muzzle brakes, register our builds on fA10's, pay double for old magazines, and accept that we need a license to exercise a RIGHT. It's actually pathetic.

As for how it should be- no law. Murder is illegal. Assault is illegal. Robbery is illegal. What tools these crimes as committed with is irrelevant. It's why we don't talk about hammer crime or gasoline crime.

What makes more sense is to stop locking people up for minor infractions to make room for murders, rapists, child molesters. Not the other way around. Focus on education and a strong economy. Of course none of that is going to happen for very specific reasons that is beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[mke0039]

I am strongly against, firearm roster list, or mag ban...silly stuff. But I do think a criminal background or mental medical history check is necessary.

This...for crissake

 

[GlockJock]

This, all day. It is a good reminder that some gun owners are willing to roll over and sell the rest of us out.

Which, if you think about it, is one of the scariest realities of the time we live in: That a GUN OWNER, any gun owner, is willing to consider giving up ANY right, especially after what we've seen under the tyrant scumbag in the White House, and especially after what we've seen here in Massachusetts over the course of the last 20-plus years of liberal pukes trying to advance their pansy-ass agenda on legal, LAW ABIDING US citizens.

The fact that anyone joins this forum under the guise of being a "gun owner", and proceeds to ask the rest of us "Excuse me, guys and gals, but how much more will you accept? How much more KY can we apply to your already scorched 2nd Amendment rectum?"..

Tha fact that someone like the OP actually joins this forum, and then asks (apparently) in sincerity "How much more shredding of the basic rights of your land are you and your fellow bitter-clingers willing to ACCEPT??" is probably, if you really REALLY stop and think about it, proof that the 2nd Amendment truly is doomed. Hopefully not in MY lifetime, and I pray not in my kids' either, but I honestly believe my grandchildren are going to be defenseless, just the way all the sheep at Starbucks and all the other pansy Anti's want us to be. The country is f*cking doomed if a gun owner actually thinks, feels and believes what the OP thinks and believes. Jesus, I can't believe some of the stuff I hear coming from some peoples mouths. And a from GUN OWNERS' mouth?

Mother of God, save the USA.
Please.

 

[xtry51]

if there is no limit, a normal person can own an RPG...I can think a few reasons that I would not be alive because of a few crazy people.

None. And yes you should be able to buy an RPG.

 

[xtry51]

I'm so disappointed his rep rating isn't red yet.

 

[M60]

I think what IvIax meant to say was: If there were no existing gun laws and we were about to get some, if you were allowed input, what laws would you be ok with .


IvIax, is this what you meant to say?

 

[xtry51]

I think what IvIax meant to say was: If there were no existing gun laws and we were about to get some, if you were allowed input, what laws would you be ok with .

Answer is still none.

 

[browncoat]

Gun laws are pre-crime. We dont want you to murder, so we make laws against owning guns because the laws against not murdering were not enough to stop you.

THAT is liberal logic.

1. The outcome is illegal.
2. The outcome still happens.
3. Make up more laws.
4. Go back to 2

You wonder why we have so many laws and everything is illegal?

/thread. QFT. I was going to post the same thing in a less eloquent way. You can't have pre-crime laws without having too much government involvement and too many laws.

 

[mke0039]

Which, if you think about it, is one of the scariest realities of the time we live in: That a GUN OWNER, any gun owner, is willing to consider giving up ANY right, especially after what we've seen under the tyrant scumbag in the White House, and especially after what we've seen here in Massachusetts over the course of the last 20-plus years of liberal pukes trying to advance their pansy-ass agenda on legal, LAW ABIDING US citizens.

The fact that anyone joins this forum under the guise of being a "gun owner", and proceeds to ask the rest of us "Excuse me, guys and gals, but how much more will you accept? How much more KY can we apply to your already scorched 2nd Amendment rectum?"..

Tha fact that someone like the OP actually joins this forum, and then asks (apparently) in sincerity "How much more shredding of the basic rights of your land are you and your fellow bitter-clingers willing to ACCEPT??" is probably, if you really REALLY stop and think about it, proof that the 2nd Amendment truly is doomed. Hopefully not in MY lifetime, and I pray not in my kids' either, but I honestly believe my grandchildren are going to be defenseless, just the way all the sheep at Starbucks and all the other pansy Anti's want us to be. The country is f*cking doomed if a gun owner actually thinks, feels and believes what the OP thinks and believes. Jesus, I can't believe some of the stuff I hear coming from some peoples mouths. And a from GUN OWNERS' mouth?

Mother of God, save the USA.
Please.

Surely you don't mean not to put ANY law between the Adam Lanzas, Jared Loughners, James Holmes, or any batshit crazy de jour and firearms?

You want to see 2A go the way of 18A? Make it easy for the crazy's to kill rooms full of kids, movie theaters full of...whatever....and God forbid...politicians.

Of course we need good laws regarding guns!

Is that really rocket science?

The OP asked for our opinion on what laws would actually work and be enforceable, a very fair question and one ESPECIALLY relevant to the folks on this forum.

 

[browncoat]

Answer is still none.

This. I think maybe IvIax meant to say "I'm about to put my foot in my mouth and say something really dumb. This is an out myself thread"

- - - Updated - - -

Surely you don't mean not to put ANY law between the Adam Lanzas, Jared Loughners, James Holmes, or any batshit crazy de jour and firearms?

You want to see 2A go the way of 18A? Make it easy for the crazy's to kill rooms full of kids, movie theaters full of...whatever....and God forbid...politicians.

Of course we need good laws regarding guns!

Is that really rocket science?

The OP asked for our opinion on what laws would actually work and be enforceable, a very fair question and one ESPECIALLY relevant to the folks on this forum.

Out of one side of your mouth you acknowledge that gun laws haven't prevented any of those things. Out the other side, you seem to think that it is not the gun free zones that attract shootings. Do you carry concealed? Do you want to protect yourself at all, or do you leave that to our government, who can take care of us just fine, decide who should own guns, and keep us safe?

 

[GlockJock]

What makes more sense is to stop locking people up for minor infractions to make room for murders, rapists, child molesters. Not the other way around. /QUOTE]

But that involves risky work, like going into rough neighborhoods with badges and warrants. And maybe getting shot at by FELONS with ILLEGAL GUNS....Why risk doing that when you can harass otherwise law abiding citizens, sit in your cruiser in the bushes reading the paper, sipping coffee to wake you up after that GRUELING detail you "worked" last night outside the clubs on Lansdowne Street or at Faneuil Hall, as you're now groggy sitting there on "patrol", surfing the net on your smartphone, then see a hottie driving past you 10 miles over the speed limit, run her plate, which pops up her license picture for you and DAMN! That hot little honey driving her newly-leased Lexus is single, actually lives just a few towns over from you and, now that you have her pulled over and have a nice, up-close look at her rack, you learn that she's a hairstylist and would LOVE to have you in her chair and...

Huh? You actually want me to drop THAT gig and actually go into some hellhole like the Franklin Hill Ave projects looking for gang-bangin'-drug-dealin' armed felons who want to shoot cops (and anyone else who stands in their way??)......You actually want me to do THAT instead of harassing law-abiding, legal gun owners? You want me to do that dangerous work instead of doing the hairstylist??

 

[browncoat]

Just one more thing - criminals don't wake up in the morning and think "Geez, this law is getting in my way, I should just be a peaceable person"

 

[Waher]

Funny how the states obsessed with the strictest gun control are absolutely against voter ID.

 

[RoterTeufel]

223 years ago, people don't have RPG or anti tank weapons.

223 years ago, the musket ball was quite devastating. It could and did go through several people. If it hit bone, instead of passing through soft tissue, amputation was certain, if death was not.

Cannons could take out an entire company. http://revolutionarywarantiques.com/Revolutionary-War-Cannons


Just sayin'

 

[browncoat]

223 years ago, the musket ball was quite devastating. It could and did go through several people. If it hit bone, instead of passing through soft tissue, amputation was certain, if death was not.

Cannons could take out an entire company. http://revolutionarywarantiques.com/Revolutionary-War-Cannons

Right? I'd much rather get shot with a 9mm or 223 today than with a musket or cannon in the 1700s. Modern medicine makes crazy things survivable - you could get hit in an extremity and easily die of infection then.

 

[massBRS]

I want a constitutional amendment that protects my rights from being infringed! ...some day

 

[mke0039]

This. I think maybe IvIax meant to say "I'm about to put my foot in my mouth and say something really dumb. This is an out myself thread"

- - - Updated - - -



Out of one side of your mouth you acknowledge that gun laws haven't prevented any of those things. Out the other side, you seem to think that it is not the gun free zones that attract shootings. Do you carry concealed? Do you want to protect yourself at all, or do you leave that to our government, who can take care of us just fine, decide who should own guns, and keep us safe?

Who was the batshit crazy that shot up the Virginia Tech campus...killing I forget how many.

That dude was diagnosed as batshit, yet he still legally bought his Glock.

How crazy is that?

If we don't pitch in to help stop that bullshit, we are cutting our own throats, and if we actively INHIBIT efforts to stop that bullshit the blowback will be nasty.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

We also didn't have ARs or Glocks or anything semi-auto. That whole "223 years ago we didn't have X" bullshit comes straight out of the gun grabber manual, chapter one.

WTF dude.

We also did not have radio, TV, printing presses, laser printers, or the internet but nobody argues that the 1st amendment rights do not apply to those because the founding fathers did not know of them.

 

[browncoat]

Who was the batshit crazy that shot up the Virginia Tech campus...killing I forget how many.

That dude was diagnosed as batshit, yet he still legally bought his Glock.

How crazy is that?

If we don't pitch in to help stop that bullshit, we are cutting our own throats, and if we actively INHIBIT efforts to stop that bullshit the blowback will be nasty.

Diagnosed as batshit means the same to me as "found guilty of future crimes", I just don't want to give government that power over anyone. Judge people on their crimes, not their potential. Do you have more than just one hunting gun? You don't need to have more, you are probably a threat that should be disarmed.

 

[wolfenkraft]

I want a constitutional amendment that protects my rights from being infringed! ...some day

This.

 

[xtry51]

Who was the batshit crazy that shot up the Virginia Tech campus...killing I forget how many.

That dude was diagnosed as batshit, yet he still legally bought his Glock.

How crazy is that?

If we don't pitch in to help stop that bullshit, we are cutting our own throats, and if we actively INHIBIT efforts to stop that bullshit the blowback will be nasty.

No we're not. What's causing shit like that is gun free target rich environments.

Do police stations ever have mass shootings? NOPE. Know why? Everyone is carrying a gun.

 

[Squire]

We also didn't have phones to wiretap, bu the 4th Amendment was equally flexible to technology.