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.
Why wouldn't they? Gun control people want gun regulation. That doesn't mean that people wouldn't still own guns.
I like car regulation too, but I still own a car. I like building regulations, but I still live and work in buildings. I like environmental regulations, but I still breathe the air.
It's all about being sensible and reasonable and thoughtful and responsible about real life in the real world in human communities and families …
Hand grenades are arms. (The 2nd Amendment discusses arms, not firearms specifically). Moreover, hand grenades (of a form) were around at the time the 2nd amendment was drafted.
So, lets step outside the "normalcy" of a gun-owning culture and insert ourselves into the hand grenade-owning culture. How d'ya feel about that? Some of you feel a bit uncomfortable, no doubt. Might think there should be common sense controls on hand grenades, and just who gets their hands on hand grenades, especially private sales. Hand grenade fairs. Walmart selling hand grenades
Hmm. Bit uneasy huh. Sorts makes you think about deadly weapons (designed as deadly weapons at that) being so freely available. Might make you start thinking perhaps the "well-organized militia" part needs to be considered and not disregarded. Arguing against people owning hand grenades, boxes of 'em, is a violation of the divine 2nd Amendment.
But how does one define it, determine it? It is quite easy after an incident to play hindsight on the shooter, but how do we determine it and determine it correctly, accurately before the fact?
Face it, given the correctly found head shrinker, all of us could probably be classified with one disorder or another. People might say, for example, that since I consider in meeting people of how the situation came about, wonder what interest the person has in meeting me, that I am paranoid and anti-social.........never mind that when I did counter intelligence in the Navy, I was trained to think like that.
Who do we give such power to, to decide who gets guns and who doesn't? Finally, for those we do give that power to, can we really trust them to use it correctly (there's that darn paranoia again).
You know that anyone with a medical marijuana card can't own a firearm?
(1) Mental health status exam at time of application to purchase any gun and/or ammo …
I just don't see the good in this. I mean, you're going to a mental health person who is totally unfamiliar with you.. How are they going to diagnose or ID problems? Not like you're going to walk in there and say "i'm getting a gun to shoot some place up". And I just noticed the ammo part.. So, I've got to get a mental health check to buy a box of .22's for target practice?
Quote:
(2) Minimum ninety day waiting period to take possession of any gun and/or ammo …
Too long. Even on handguns. Rifles/shotguns should have a minimal waiting period.. 3 days, tops. Handguns I can see being longer, but not 90 days. And, just noticed the ammo part. 90 days to buy a box of ammo? Not a prayer.
Quote:
(3) Mental health status exam again when possession is made …
Ok, well, you going to have a psychiatrist at every gun store?
Quote:
(4) NO private sales or gifts of any guns and/or ammo without the above process, including within families and/or at gun shows …
(5) Mandatory safety training …
Ok with that, with the exception of disagreeing with the 'above process'.. Legislating making things so difficult that they can't be accomplished will get thrown out of court. I absolutely agree with safety training, though.. If you're buying your 15th gun.. Is there a point?
Quote:
(6) ALL guns kept unloaded, trigger locked, in gun safe, with ammo kept under lock and key separately …
Then you're eliminating having a gun for defense. "Excuse me mr home invader.. let me unlock this safe, get the gun, unlock the trigger, open another safe, get the ammo, load the gun and then shoot you"
Put the responsibility on the owner. They can keep it secured or not as they see fit, however, if their gun is stolen, taken by their kid, used in a crime.. They get charged and their gun rights are taken away.
Quote:
(7) Maximum five shot capacity magazine …
Personally, I have little to no use for more than 5 shots.. But.. I've got a 9-shot revolver. So, that's now banned? Thought you weren't banning guns.
Quote:
(8) VERY severe legal penalties for any abuse of firearm rights/privileges, including negligence …
Yeah.. The most severe is taking away the gun rights, but.. Yes, I think jail time should be on the table (though not mandatory) if someone has their guns used in a crime.
Quote:
Those would be a good start, IMHO …
As a legal experienced safety trained private gun owner, I would be willing to abide by all of the above ..
Saying that it's a start means you don't think it goes far enough.
So how is that gun banning, that's assault rifle banning. Assault rifles aren't coterminous with guns, they are just one type, of many types, of guns.
Let me draw a Venn diagram for you where you can see the assault rifles are just a small circle within the bigger circle of guns.
jeeze louise.
Lets try an analogy - a pit bull ban isn't a "dog ban". Its a pit bull ban. Plenty of people can still have dogs. Geddit?
LOL this is a delusional argument. That banning an entire category of guns is not a "gun ban." So if "assault rifles" are a type of gun, by your own admission, and they are banned, how is that not a "gun ban"?? You seem to be asserting that as long as there is one gun available to be purchased/used, then no guns have been banned. Okayyyy...
LOL this is a delusional argument. That banning an entire category of guns is not a "gun ban." So if "assault rifles" are a type of gun, by your own admission, and they are banned, how is that not a "gun ban"?? You seem to be asserting that as long as there is one gun available to be purchased/used, then no guns have been banned. Okayyyy...
It makes sense to me. You can ban types of guns, but still be pro gun and it doesn't constitute a "gun ban". Certain cars have been banned for sale in the U.S.; doesn't mean the U.S. has a "car ban"; it means we have car regulations.
I just don't see the good in this. I mean, you're going to a mental health person who is totally unfamiliar with you.. How are they going to diagnose or ID problems? Not like you're going to walk in there and say "i'm getting a gun to shoot some place up". And I just noticed the ammo part.. So, I've got to get a mental health check to buy a box of .22's for target practice?
Too long. Even on handguns. Rifles/shotguns should have a minimal waiting period.. 3 days, tops. Handguns I can see being longer, but not 90 days. And, just noticed the ammo part. 90 days to buy a box of ammo? Not a prayer.
Ok, well, you going to have a psychiatrist at every gun store?
Ok with that, with the exception of disagreeing with the 'above process'.. Legislating making things so difficult that they can't be accomplished will get thrown out of court. I absolutely agree with safety training, though.. If you're buying your 15th gun.. Is there a point?
Then you're eliminating having a gun for defense. "Excuse me mr home invader.. let me unlock this safe, get the gun, unlock the trigger, open another safe, get the ammo, load the gun and then shoot you"
Put the responsibility on the owner. They can keep it secured or not as they see fit, however, if their gun is stolen, taken by their kid, used in a crime.. They get charged and their gun rights are taken away.
Personally, I have little to no use for more than 5 shots.. But.. I've got a 9-shot revolver. So, that's now banned? Thought you weren't banning guns.
Yeah.. The most severe is taking away the gun rights, but.. Yes, I think jail time should be on the table (though not mandatory) if someone has their guns used in a crime.
Saying that it's a start means you don't think it goes far enough.
No, I don't think that my (above) reasonable thoughts are the one and only sole answer to the problem of gun violence in America …
What alternatively would you propose … ??? Leave things as is … ??? Pass out more and more pistols and hope for the best … ???
Current MA law requires exactly that. Firearm stored unloaded and locked up, and ammo stored in original boxes, separate, and locked up.
Only legal way to possess a loaded firearm in your home is if it's directly on your person and in your direct control.
If they enter your home for some reason (fire, theft, medical) and fire a loaded firearm in a drawer, you can get charged for it and have your license yanked.
These are the laws that a lot of people elsewhere in the country want to avoid
Interesting.
Unless they are in my hand, I keep all our firearms in a safe, unloaded. I have a couple of loaded mags for each gun but I don't keep them in the gun.
Would that meet MA law? What I'm doing seems reasonable enough to me.
It's because the "most restrictive gun-control" people understand that while they may be safe gun owners, other people just aren't, and they know it's important to make sure guns stay in competent hands at all times.
In other words, they're elitists. Guns are so crazy dangerous that only the bestest and most trained people can have them.
If what you are saying were true, there would be "gun control" bills introduced that promote and support safe handling, safe storage, or competency with firearms. Instead all we get are things that aim to restrict the supply side of the equation. It's just like the inane "abstinence-only" sex education of the Bush Jr. years. What an embarrassment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffie
You could have every risk factor on the list and still be a responsible gun owner if you were willing to get it out of your house until you are sober, employed, etc. and no longer a danger to yourself and others.
I thought leftists were supposed to be compassionate towards the needs of those who have fallen on hard times. Now you say that unemployed people are so dangerous that we need to disarm them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffie
Have you SEEN the gun-control proposals on the table in the past 25 or so years? There are hardly any and they are mostly a joke. I think your gun collection is pretty safe.
You clearly have not been paying attention. 1994 is less than 25 years ago.
LOL this is a delusional argument. That banning an entire category of guns is not a "gun ban." So if "assault rifles" are a type of gun, by your own admission, and they are banned, how is that not a "gun ban"?? You seem to be asserting that as long as there is one gun available to be purchased/used, then no guns have been banned. Okayyyy...
But the lines are blurred as to what constitutes an "assault rifle". The last go round Di fi focused on AR style rifles when an old 740 is far more powerful and still a semi-auto rifle. There are millions of these old guns and the C and R guns can be had easily. Plus, millions of these old weapons don't have what we would call a serial number anyway.
Is the Gubmint going to compensate for these illegals bans? Most people are paying over a grand for one of these.
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.
