What gun control would you actually support?

[Sibb]

In a fair world, that wasn't full of political parties that wanted to control every facet of my live to conform to their ideas of right\wrong, I've be for registration at the FFL level and the instant back ground check. It's not gun control exactly, but it's enough to keep felons from walking into a store and buying a gun, and allows the police to track anyone supplying guns to criminals.

But I don't live in a fair world and can't trust the state\gov to protect my rights, so there you are.

 

[bill o]

So I ask you: what, if any, gun regulation do you support in order to keep them out of the hands of bad guys (people seem to generally agree this is a legitimate aim)?

This reminds me of when I got pulled over by a NH statie. He stares me down and asks "What is the emergency that caused you to speed back there?" Of course it's a trick because it begs the question of whether I was speeding (I wasn't, honest!) Addressing the existence of an emergency implies guilt.

The OP is pulling the same trick here, begging the question of whether laws keep common objects away from criminals. So, zbrod, your question as posed is stupid. If I were to address anything about the "which gun regulations..." part of the question, it would imply that I agreed with the premise that they keep stuff away from bad guys. Now stop trolling.

 

[n1zfg]

All right, I gave up scanning this trainwreck of a thread at page 19, so this may have been touched upon.

I define good gun control as one of a couple things:
Being able to hit the target.
Being able to handling the recoil enough to keep the gun in your hand and in a safe direction after firing.

Good gun control legislation?
Require training in the proper handling of arms for everyone.

As for those people who lack the mental capacity or moral fiber to safely and judiciously handle firearms? They are out there. And my argument regarding them is that they shouldn't be allowed to wander at large without responsible adult supervision, much less prohibited from carrying.

And one more thing....IBTL!

 

[pdm]

Credentialed, not educated.

 

[bullseye]

The only gun control I am in favor of is to insure a safety course/handling instruction has been completed prior to purchase of your first firearm, more of a hands on how to use properly course. Aside from that, bring on pre 34. There exists a machine gun control act that is unwritten, the shooting of a continuous firing weapon is limited to ones ability to feed such weapon(s).

 

[bill o]

The only gun control I am in favor of is to insure a safety course/handling instruction has been completed prior to purchase of your first firearm, more of a hands on how to use properly course.

Read Kimmie1911's post above to see where government mandated firearms training gets us.

 

[josh2600]

+1

 

[AppleSeeds]

Did the OP ever answer his own question? I wonder what he thinks?

 

[Boghog1]

Probably been said already but my vote is "None" should be just like the 1st

 

[joeendris]

'bout the only thing I can come up with, is holding straw buyers accountable, and charged accordingly.

 

[drgrant]

In a fair world, that wasn't full of political parties that wanted to control every facet of my live to conform to their ideas of right\wrong, I've be for registration at the FFL level and the instant back ground check. It's not gun control exactly, but it's enough to keep felons from walking into a store and buying a gun, and allows the police to track anyone supplying guns to criminals.

It most certainly is gun control. Even if you believe in the "prohibited person" BS, the fact that "clean" people are falsely denied or delayed is appalling. On NES alone, we get a few people a month here saying they got delayed. If we only represent a tiny fraction of the buyers of firearms, then an awful lot of people are being given the finger by the government every day. Not to mention, the way NICS is currently set up, anyone with malicious intent can bypass it pretty readily by producing false identification and lying on the 4473. The whole thing is a joke, really. It will not stop anyone actually intent on breaking laws. (Whoa hoa! we call those people criminals, right? ) I'll put my devils advocate hat on here for 5 seconds- there are ways you could improve the system significantly in terms of this, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to improve it without stomping all over peoples civil and privacy rights in the process- methods which should be deemed unconstitutional. Outside of all that, it's pretty easy to argue that the government should not be in the business of deciding whether or not you get to exercise a right.

Registration is universally bad because even if you had a "good" government now, do you think that information is magically going to disappear if there ever was a political sea change? Yeah, that's just great... give the bad people a ready made list of all the people they have to "purge" who could put up any resistance to their regime.

-Mike

 

[zbrod]

Did the OP ever answer his own question? I wonder what he thinks?

People seem to care very little what I think, seeing as I've stated many times I don't support gun control measures in general, especially the ones in Mass. Or, they interpret my attempt to figure out my beliefs, and my wavering on things such as C4 and tanks, as a full blown endorsement of taking away their guns and imprisoning them in FEMA camps. Really I'm surprised no one has accused me of raping their mother by proxy because I have reservations about private citizens owning atomic bombs.

 

[bill o]

Really I'm surprised no one has accused me of raping their mother by proxy because I have reservations about private citizens owning atomic bombs.[/COLOR]

Great to have you on the forum.

 

[chinalfr]

People seem to care very little what I think, seeing as I've stated many times I don't support gun control measures in general, especially the ones in Mass. Or, they interpret my attempt to figure out my beliefs, and my wavering on things such as C4 and tanks, as a full blown endorsement of taking away their guns and imprisoning them in FEMA camps. Really I'm surprised no one has accused me of raping their mother by proxy because I have reservations about private citizens owning atomic bombs.[/COLOR]

Seriously?

 

[Dija]

People seem to care very little what I think

Not true, I'm interested in hearing what you think. What gun control do you support? It your own question, you should answer.

 

[mark056]

All we have to do is go back to the movie "Red Dawn", to the scene where the Cuban Commander tells his troops to go to the gunshops and get the 4473 forms.
Do you think that the Director John Milius (not sure of spelling) put that there by accident?

John Milius is one of the few pro-2A directors in Hollywood. Red Dawn is a wonderful Cold War fantasy and one of my favorite all time 50 movies.

Based on what I have read, my understanding is that when the British faced the threat of invasion by the Germans in 1940, they very hurriedly tried to destroy their gun registration lists, lest the Germans find out who amongst the populace would be armed, so the Milius scene may have actually been borrowed from a real historical event.

 

[cekim]

People seem to care very little what I think, seeing as I've stated many times I don't support gun control measures in general, especially the ones in Mass. Or, they interpret my attempt to figure out my beliefs, and my wavering on things such as C4 and tanks, as a full blown endorsement of taking away their guns and imprisoning them in FEMA camps. Really I'm surprised no one has accused me of raping their mother by proxy because I have reservations about private citizens owning atomic bombs.[/COLOR]

No, I said you killed 10's of millions of people by proxy by listening to your "inner socialist."

As I said, if you are indeed trying to figure this out rather than just trolling, then I applaud your attempt to re-write the programming in your head evident by they way you ask these questions.

I do care what people think if they are going to vote to enact laws that infringe no my right to keep and bear arms. You think you have not said anything about what you believe but you are sorely mistaken. The mere fact that you can ask "what gun control would you support?" at this point in history speaks volumes as what we need to talk about after 30 years of failed "experimentation" with gun laws is which ones we get rid of first?

That's the problem. Even asking "what laws would be ok?" when we are drowning in laws that are absurd infringements already makes it pretty clear that your inclination is to accept some or all of what we have and add some more.

The lesson from history is clear - governments that enact gun control laws follow it with abuse of their people ranging from oppression to mass murder. We don't need to drive one inch further down that road, we need to start backing up.

For every single "good" that you can name in a "gun control" law, there are one ore more "very bad" consequences of it demonstrated throughout history - not just of the world, but of this nation as well.

How about that - you name a gun control idea you like and we'll find you the example of how it has been used to harm innocent people?

 

[MichaelJR]

No gun control.
Full "stand your ground" statue.

These two things will end up "weeding out" the criminals so-to-speak. If everytime a crime occured, and the reaction of on-lookers was to put the dude on ice with select-fire pdw toys, the populaton of criminals would dwindle, quickly. Problem solved.

 

[Rob]

Direct your attention to my avatar.

 

[william_munny]

People seem to care very little what I think, seeing as I've stated many times I don't support gun control measures in general, especially the ones in Mass. Or, they interpret my attempt to figure out my beliefs, and my wavering on things such as C4 and tanks, as a full blown endorsement of taking away their guns and imprisoning them in FEMA camps. Really I'm surprised no one has accused me of raping their mother by proxy because I have reservations about private citizens owning atomic bombs.

While some people here make no effort to resist using personal attacks, there are some people here who are giving legitimate and decent responses, even if some of them tend to get a bit heated in this debate. And can you really blame them? I mean, this is a GUN forum. We get trolls all the time who have no goal other than to see how many lulz they can rack up, and not everyone is convinced you're not one of them.

Personally, I'd like to believe you're not actually one of them. I'd like to believe that you really are interested to hear what people have to say. You've received some really good responses here, and you're inevitably going to receive some hurtful ones too. The point is, this isn't Stormfront, nor are all of us are a bunch of toothless "dey took errr jobs!" hicks, so don't get too distracted by the bad. Try and stay focused on having an intelligent discussion.

I think most people here will argue that even governments shouldn't be trusted with the ability to use biological and atomic weapons, but as long as other governments have them, they're a necessary evil to keep the balance of power in our favor on a global scale. Combine this with our stance on the 2A, and it's a real shit pickle that none of us truly know how to contend with, but we're also not willing to "draw the line" there.

And if you're still getting hung up on things like machine guns, C-4, tanks, missiles, etc. - then it means you're either not listening, or you are in fact trolling. The intentions of our founding fathers have been explained pretty thoroughly. Either you agree with them, or you think that things needs to be different in this modern world - in which case, we really are at an impasse. Doesn't mean you have to leave, but you're not going to change anyone's mind either.

 

[Dench]

And if you're still getting hung up on things like machine guns, C-4, tanks, missiles, etc. - then it means you're either not listening, or you are in fact trolling.

After briefly looking through this thread, this is what I dont get. C4? Tanks? Missiles? Not exactly under the scope of the 2A as written. The way I interpret it is small arms are a right. Cannons also. Any weapon back when it was written and its current relatives, essentially.

 

[pdm]

After briefly looking through this thread, this is what I dont get. C4? Tanks? Missiles? Not exactly under the scope of the 2A as written. The way I interpret it is small arms are a right. Cannons also. Any weapon back when it was written and its current relatives, essentially.

Man, I could do some serious damage to pumpkins if I could own an RPG.

 

[william_munny]

After briefly looking through this thread, this is what I dont get. C4? Tanks? Missiles? Not exactly under the scope of the 2A as written. The way I interpret it is small arms are a right. Cannons also. Any weapon back when it was written and its current relatives, essentially.

I see it more as a way to keep the people on the same playing field as their government. I truly believe this was the original intention, as it was written by people who just overthrew their government, and wanted the citizens of their new nation to be able to do the same, if necessary. This just isn't possible if you start saying some things fall outside the scope of the 2A. It wasn't simply saying that we have the right to defend ourselves, it was saying that we are our own army, and we need to be able to outfit ourselves accordingly.

 

[In God We Trust]

I don't feel like reading through 30 pages of posts, so I apologize if this has been asked and answered. Does anyone here think that a private citizen should be able to go to the gun shop and buy a nuclear warhead because the .gov has them? Do you think the founding fathers would want the people to have weapons of mass destruction?

I don't think anyone should have them including (especially) governments, but the cat is out of the bag already. If we the people had unrestriced access to nukes, this world would have ended while Einstein was still above ground. I'm just curious what the feelings are about it. I know it is an extreme example and not really a good parallel to a gun control debate.

 

[cekim]

After briefly looking through this thread, this is what I dont get. C4? Tanks? Missiles? Not exactly under the scope of the 2A as written. The way I interpret it is small arms are a right. Cannons also. Any weapon back when it was written and its current relatives, essentially.

Where do you see the word "small arms?" Since when is a Cannon a "small arm?"

Seriously?

Also the "weapons back when it was written","they could not have envisioned" nonsense is just that. They viewed the weapons of war in that day every bit as horrible as we view our weapons today...

As I've said, "arms" is meant to provide the broader citizenry the ability to protect themselves against any threat including that of a tyrannical government. See Libya...

Here's a fun thing for people to think about on this topic. Go and look at how many people were getting killed during that era wars... Then compare that to the total size of the population of the nations at war or indeed the population of the earth at the time. Now do the same for modern wars?

Wars were just as horrible back then if not more so. Infection and poor medical care meant people died slow agonizing deaths from even relatively trivial wounds. They also died in very large numbers.

The only difference is how many civilians were killed - which matters not to me - people are people. Civilians are fighting the wars of their governments too - producing the goods/money to fight the wars and electing the politicians that start them.

 

[highlander]

Should we be forced to take the same safety course that the FBI agent"who was the only one qualified to handle a firearm" and then shoot himself in the leg or was it foot? That scene right there makes me want to disarm all federal agencies,there too stupid to have guns. Just like Ralphie and his BB gun "you'll shoot your eye out,kid"

 

[cekim]

I agree that it is a "Cold War Fantasy" , but at the same time it shows where records of some kind of registration can be found. Any recording or tracking of sales is "Registration". Remember the Goons from ATF can seize those records or make copies at any time, for any reason. They have no issues with breaking the law all the way up to DOJ and the AG

There is also the matter that it is not just what an "invading force" does with these records, but even your own government.

So, there you are in the LTC, microstamp serial number database and a number comes back from a shell with one number obscured. They take a guess that its a 5 not a 2 and boom, your LTC is pulled and you now have the burden of proof to show that you are suitable at a minimum and are facing criminal charges at a maximum.

Computers are not perfect, but they assumption that they are and the faith in "what it says right there on the paper" destroy the presumption of innocence and turn a database error into your imprisonment. Unacceptable.

 

[P-14]

After briefly looking through this thread, this is what I dont get. C4? Tanks? Missiles? Not exactly under the scope of the 2A as written. The way I interpret it is small arms are a right. Cannons also. Any weapon back when it was written and its current relatives, essentially.

I disagree, Dench.

Definition of arms here:

arms
n 1: weapons considered collectively [syn: weaponry, implements
of war, weapons system, munition]

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't see any specification or limitation on "Arms" in the 2A. The definition of "arms" in this context hasn't changed over time. They have always been implements of war. C4, atomic bombs, or musket balls all fit the definition of "Arms."

 

[Boghog1]

I should be able to buy whatever I can afford with the money I earned.

 

[mass]

I would support one gun per month legislation.