Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here on C-D we all come from various backgrounds, we have different politics, and some of us are capable of compromise so here I propose us to be 'congressmen' in a sense and propose what we would and wouldn't change about gun-ownership in our nation. If you believe there should be no restrictions state why, if you believe there should be no guns state why or whatever else you think.
So what exactly would you change to gun-ownership laws in regards to nationwide laws not your state laws?
Maybe if we all make a few reasonable proposals in regards to gun-ownership, one of us could compose a package named "Responsible Gun-Ownership/Militia Act". What do you thinks? I'm tired of all of us complaining what this or that politican is doing without actually attempting to contact them and state what's on your mind; they can't always propose what's best for us.
We should get rid of the hughes amendment. We should also remove restrictions on barrel and oal length for shotguns and rifles. Also sound suppresses should not be regulated, why the government forbids people to protect their hearing is beyond me. We also need national reciprocity for CCW.
I would not have a problem with universal background checks if the following happend
1. No information is given to the Feds about the specific gun.
2. All information is destroyed by the Feds once the person is deemed to have passed the background check.
3. This process is free
4. The gun shops who do this process are compensated by the Feds.
5. FFL licenses are issued to individual gun owners (like in the past) so they do not have to go through background checks for every gun they purchase. Getting an FFL requires a more complete background check and having your fingure prints taken, as an FYI.
We should get rid of the hughes amendment. We should also remove restrictions on barrel and oal length for shotguns and rifles. Also sound suppresses should not be regulated, why the government forbids people to protect their hearing is beyond me. We also need national reciprocity for CCW.
I would not have a problem with universal background checks if the following happend
1. No information is given to the Feds about the specific gun.
2. All information is destroyed by the Feds once the person is deemed to have passed the background check.
3. This process is free
4. The gun shops who do this process are compensated by the Feds.
5. FFL licenses are issued to individual gun owners (like in the past) so they do not have to go through background checks for every gun they purchase. Getting an FFL requires a more complete background check and having your fingure prints taken, as an FYI.
Hughes amendment: Full-auto weapons are so ridiculously inefficient that even the military doesn't really use them any more (they use 3-round bursts for most troops). That being said, if that lunatic had decided to shoot up Sandy Hook with a full-auto AR-15 there would probably be several kids still breathing because most of his bullets would have gone into the ceiling. Still, unless you think civilians should be allowed to own any military weapon, you've got to draw a line somewhere. I agree with the line where it is currently located: auto = military, semiauto = civilian.
Restrictions on shoulder-fired gun length dating from the 1930's are ridiculous. Their goal was to prevent gangsters from being able to easily hide high-powered weapons, but legal 9mm handguns with a 30-round mag or a Desert Eagle chambered in .50 AE make those restrictions look assinine.
I agree with the silencer legality. But liberals will NEVER allow unregulated silencers because they want neighbors to be as annoyed as possible when people are shooting at a gun range.
I agree with national CCW reciprocity, but your typical RWNJ will never agree to a national database of gun owners. Personally, I understand that there's no way I can keep the government from knowing I am a gun owner (I have a hunting license and a handgun carry permit), but they have no business knowing which guns or how many guns.
UBGC:
1 & 2: Yes
3 & 4: No. If the government pays for the checks that means that taxpayers are paying for the checks. I have purchased 2 handguns in 2 years (both from dealers) and paid a total of $20 in BGC fees. I would have no problem paying that same amount for a private sale. But I know people who buy and trade multiple guns on a monthly basis. I have NO intention of allowing them to force ME as a taxpayer to pay for their background checks. That being said...
5: Yes, sort of. There should be multiple tiers; a FFL to serve as a commercial dealer, and something else other than a FFL to serve as a long term proof of background check. Also allow other proof of background checks such as a valid handgun carry permit.
Here on C-D we all come from various backgrounds, we have different politics, and some of us are capable of compromise so here I propose us to be 'congressmen' in a sense and propose what we would and wouldn't change about gun-ownership in our nation. If you believe there should be no restrictions state why, if you believe there should be no guns state why or whatever else you think.
So what exactly would you change to gun-ownership laws in regards to nationwide laws not your state laws?
Maybe if we all make a few reasonable proposals in regards to gun-ownership, one of us could compose a package named "Responsible Gun-Ownership/Militia Act". What do you thinks? I'm tired of all of us complaining what this or that politican is doing without actually attempting to contact them and state what's on your mind; they can't always propose what's best for us.
there are 11,000 laws on the books right now. We dont need more. We have proven that gun laws do not slow the rate of gun related crime.
so how about we do something innovative and study the actual cause and attack that?
Now adding MY wishlist:
- Hunter Safety classes are required before you are allowed to get a hunting license in some states. As the second amendment does say "well regulated" (meaning "well trained"), I see no problem with requiring a gun safety class (including both a shooting portion and a Legal portion) before you are allowed to purchase a gun. One class per lifetime. But the 2A also says "shall not be infringed", so as long as you pass that class and aren't otherwise restricted (felon, insane, wife beater, etc.), there can be no restrictions on things like high-capacity magazines or so-called "assault weapons".
- The Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) should be strengthened to allow the legal interstate transport of any weapon. As long as it's legal at both the origination and destination, and as long as you don't mess with it while traveling, the crossover states cannot stop you. This especially applies to New York and with air travel stopovers.
Hughes amendment: Full-auto weapons are so ridiculously inefficient that even the military doesn't really use them any more (they use 3-round bursts for most troops). That being said, if that lunatic had decided to shoot up Sandy Hook with a full-auto AR-15 there would probably be several kids still breathing because most of his bullets would have gone into the ceiling. Still, unless you think civilians should be allowed to own any military weapon, you've got to draw a line somewhere. I agree with the line where it is currently located: auto = military, semiauto = civilian.
Restrictions on shoulder-fired gun length dating from the 1930's are ridiculous. Their goal was to prevent gangsters from being able to easily hide high-powered weapons, but legal 9mm handguns with a 30-round mag or a Desert Eagle chambered in .50 AE make those restrictions look assinine.
I agree with the silencer legality. But liberals will NEVER allow unregulated silencers because they want neighbors to be as annoyed as possible when people are shooting at a gun range.
I agree with national CCW reciprocity, but your typical RWNJ will never agree to a national database of gun owners. Personally, I understand that there's no way I can keep the government from knowing I am a gun owner (I have a hunting license and a handgun carry permit), but they have no business knowing which guns or how many guns.
UBGC:
1 & 2: Yes
3 & 4: No. If the government pays for the checks that means that taxpayers are paying for the checks. I have purchased 2 handguns in 2 years (both from dealers) and paid a total of $20 in BGC fees. I would have no problem paying that same amount for a private sale. But I know people who buy and trade multiple guns on a monthly basis. I have NO intention of allowing them to force ME as a taxpayer to pay for their background checks. That being said...
5: Yes, sort of. There should be multiple tiers; a FFL to serve as a commercial dealer, and something else other than a FFL to serve as a long term proof of background check. Also allow other proof of background checks such as a valid handgun carry permit.
Getting rid of the Hughes amendment would allow newer full auto rifles to be sold just like older full auto rifles. If someone wanted a full auto rifles they would still have to go through the process outlined in the NFA. All getting rid of the hughes amendment does is reduce the price of a full auto rifle. An ar15 costs about 1k now new, a 30 year old m16 that has 95% of the same parts as the ar15 costs over 15k because supply is limited.
If the people deem it of such importance to everyone to have to pass a background check then they need to pay for it.
We should get rid of the hughes amendment. We should also remove restrictions on barrel and oal length for shotguns and rifles. Also sound suppresses should not be regulated, why the government forbids people to protect their hearing is beyond me. We also need national reciprocity for CCW.
I would not have a problem with universal background checks if the following happend
1. No information is given to the Feds about the specific gun.
2. All information is destroyed by the Feds once the person is deemed to have passed the background check.
3. This process is free
4. The gun shops who do this process are compensated by the Feds.
5. FFL licenses are issued to individual gun owners (like in the past) so they do not have to go through background checks for every gun they purchase. Getting an FFL requires a more complete background check and having your fingure prints taken, as an FYI.
Pretty much what he said.
Maybe add an endorsement to a drivers license or ID for those who volunteer that states they have passed a criminal background check for private sales. I dont have to, but I always sell/trade with those who have a carry permit.
I believe that we should adhere to the United States Constitution as it stands, and that any "infringement" of the right to keep and bear arms requires a constitutional amendment in order for such action to be legal. The reason for this is simple ... there can be no law and order when the government can break the law any time it chooses. You cannot rationalize excuses for violations of the law, particularly when all public officials swear an oath to protect and defend that constitution! The constitution doesn't allow violations of it, simply because someone thinks there is a good reason to do it ... and the oath to that constitution doesn't offer that flexibility either. If one portion of the law can be violated, NONE OF IT is safe, which means, none of our rights and protections are safe either.
My philosophy is to outlaw concealed carry for anyone other than undercover law enforcement personnel, because the law says "keep and bear", not "hide and conceal". There is a valuable element to a show of force with open carry, which can dissuade a criminal act BEFORE the act is committed and harm caused. Just ask yourself a very common sense question .... would a criminal likely rob a convenience store if he saw 5 armed customers inside the store at the checkout counter, and two more armed customers pumping gas outside? Or would he prefer to go somewhere where there is no one carrying a gun other than himself?
Additionally, it was always the tradition throughout history that honorable men carried their firearms in plain sight, and only criminals and scoundrels concealed such weapons in order to surprise unwitting victims. This would make law enforcement safer also ... as the law abiding citizen would be required to carry any firearm openly, and as such, be easily identified as armed. Anyone deliberately concealing such firearms could be considered suspect criminals, and dealt with accordingly.
The practical side is even more common sense ... due to the criteria regarding concealed carry which requires one to have the firearm totally concealed, with no visual evidence of it's presence on the person. This makes the firearm less accessible in the case of an unexpected confrontation with a criminal, who will likely already have his weapon at the ready, and will most likely shoot and kill you, as you fumble around trying to access your weapon which is securely tucked away and out of sight. The fact is, concealed carry is a backward thinking, disastrous and counterproductive concept, and a very predictable liability in situations like this, which is far more likely to be the scenario one might face.
We've allowed simple English to be so distorted that somehow some people have been convinced that "Shall Not Be Infringed" now means "Can infringe if the reason sounds good". Simple logic has become so twisted, that we have made law abiding citizens the constant target for gun grabbing criminals and their naive supporters, and their never ending list of idiotic laws that not only violate the constitution, but make criminals safer, and citizens less safe. The very common sense, simple fact that criminals will just ignore any new laws, just as they now do with existing laws, seems to escape these morons. How can any rational, thinking person not understand the very simple, direct relationship between criminals and their willingness to ignore laws? It's beyond dense, and enters the realm of box of rocks stupid.
None of this should be difficult to understand ... especially those on the left who constantly claim to be the most educated and intelligent group, when the reality seems to be quite consistently the exact opposite. Somehow, they believe that criminals will magically decide to abide the new laws. Why? Shear idiocy is the only answer.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 04-10-2013 at 11:45 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
