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.
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.
A) List the make / model of cars that have been explicitly banned for sale in the US.
B) You are trying to play semantics by saying that a "car ban" means that all cars have been banned.
Is the Gubmint going to compensate for these illegals bans? Most people are paying over a grand for one of these.
Of course not. They'll also say they're not "taking anyone's guns" and technically they're right. They're just making possession illegal, and if/when they catch you with one, you're going to jail. And since nobody can use those guns anymore, they have zero market value, therefore you don't need to be compensated for it when they do take them (after you're in jail). This is the end game they have in mind. No door-to-door confiscations. They have demonstrated that they are willing to play the LONG game.
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 … ???
I've discussed them, fairly well in depth in other topics. In brief..
Gun ownership responsibility is what it boils down to. If you can't be a responsible gun owner, your rights to own guns will be taken away.
What does responsibility mean? If your kid unlocks your gun safe, has access to the guns, etc, and takes them and shoots up his school.. You will be charged, it will be a felony, you will lose your gun rights.
If you keep your gun insecure at your home and it is stolen.. you're on the hook (to an extent) with what is done with that gun. I can make an exception here in the case that your gun safe, where the guns are stored, is stolen. If they steal the whole damn safe.. Well, more damn power to them. You're not responsible in that event.
You have a concealed carry permit and have to leave it in your car because you're going in a bank or whatever.. better have a gun safe in your car.
If you own a gun safe, you know there is no "breaking into them". They're damn secure.
The issue with my plan here.. Is that enforcement seems to require registration.. Which I am not in favor of.
Now.. In addition to all of that. I am in favor of gun rights being able to be restored to those who lose them. Certainly not automatically, but they should have the chance. Technically, that's the law right now, but the ATF has been directed that they are to spend no money on investigating whether gun rights should be restored. So, anyone who is convicted of a felony, loses gun rights forever. I disagree. After a set timeframe, someone should be able to petition to have their gun rights restored. Perhaps that's limited to rifles and not handguns.. I'm flexible on that.. but I find zero reason that someone convicted of moonshining in 1940 cannot own a gun today. I am of the same mind on voting rights. Being convicted of a felony should never remove your right to vote once you have completed your sentence.
I've discussed them, fairly well in depth in other topics. In brief..
Gun ownership responsibility is what it boils down to. If you can't be a responsible gun owner, your rights to own guns will be taken away.
What does responsibility mean? If your kid unlocks your gun safe, has access to the guns, etc, and takes them and shoots up his school.. You will be charged, it will be a felony, you will lose your gun rights.
If you keep your gun insecure at your home and it is stolen.. you're on the hook (to an extent) with what is done with that gun. I can make an exception here in the case that your gun safe, where the guns are stored, is stolen. If they steal the whole damn safe.. Well, more damn power to them. You're not responsible in that event.
You have a concealed carry permit and have to leave it in your car because you're going in a bank or whatever.. better have a gun safe in your car.
If you own a gun safe, you know there is no "breaking into them". They're damn secure.
The issue with my plan here.. Is that enforcement seems to require registration.. Which I am not in favor of.
Now.. In addition to all of that. I am in favor of gun rights being able to be restored to those who lose them. Certainly not automatically, but they should have the chance. Technically, that's the law right now, but the ATF has been directed that they are to spend no money on investigating whether gun rights should be restored. So, anyone who is convicted of a felony, loses gun rights forever. I disagree. After a set timeframe, someone should be able to petition to have their gun rights restored. Perhaps that's limited to rifles and not handguns.. I'm flexible on that.. but I find zero reason that someone convicted of moonshining in 1940 cannot own a gun today. I am of the same mind on voting rights. Being convicted of a felony should never remove your right to vote once you have completed your sentence.
I guess there is some *kind* of sense to locking the barn door AFTER the horse has gotten out … but ...
Real safes, like in jewelry stores, with a TL-15 or -30 rating are very expensive and heavy, and even they are only rated to withstand electrical or mechanical tools for 15 or 30 minutes respectively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labonte18
Being convicted of a felony should never remove your right to vote once you have completed your sentence.
There is interesting history behind this. The US justice system is based on English Common Law, wherein felonies were reserved for very serious crimes and the punishments were either death or loss of property (which, since only landowning males were enfranchised, essentially meant a loss of most civil privileges). Basically, there was no need to "regain" rights because you committed a particularly heinous crime and you were either dead or despised by the whole community.
Now that felonies are basically anything punishable by more than 1 year in prison, and people are rarely executed anymore, a much wider array of crimes subjects you to automatic (and usually permanent) loss of civil rights.
I guess there is some *kind* of sense to locking the barn door AFTER the horse has gotten out … but ...
You're not getting to 0. Even England and Australia don't have 0. And, what I'm going after is gun crime. I don't give a rats ass about people blowing their heads off in suicides. Well.. reading that again, that came out wrong.. But, I'm not interested at all in any gun legislation aimed at preventing suicides.
The threat of losing ones gun rights, obviously, is a very big deterrent. So, while you read it as reactive, it's actually proactive, because the responsible gun owners who are the ones that will prevent any of your gun control methods from coming into play, would make sure that they didn't lose their gun rights. Your common hunter, rather than having the guns in the closet where little Johnny Butthead could get to them, because Johnny is such a good boy who just gets his ass kicked at school every day, is going to secure those guns, because he doesn't want to lose his ability to hunt because of Johnny Jackass.
Real safes, like in jewelry stores, with a TL-15 or -30 rating are very expensive and heavy, and even they are only rated to withstand electrical or mechanical tools for 15 or 30 minutes respectively.
My idea would generate a whole new level of interest in quality gun safes.. Which should lead to improved designs and installation methods to hopefully prevent things of that nature.
Point taken.. But, it's an area that can be improved. It's not a deal killer.
Quote:
There is interesting history behind this. The US justice system is based on English Common Law, wherein felonies were reserved for very serious crimes and the punishments were either death or loss of property (which, since only landowning males were enfranchised, essentially meant a loss of most civil privileges). Basically, there was no need to "regain" rights because you committed a particularly heinous crime and you were either dead or despised by the whole community.
Now that felonies are basically anything punishable by more than 1 year in prison, and people are rarely executed anymore, a much wider array of crimes subjects you to automatic (and usually permanent) loss of civil rights.
Well, technically, there are only 2 states in the US that permanently disenfranchise felons. Virginia and Florida. MOST states, once you have completed any sentence (Including probation and parole) your voting rights are automatically restored. A few others, you have to petition to have them restored. And.. Most states, if you're convicted of any type of voter fraud, you might permanently lose the right to vote.. Maine is a weird one in that they allow incarcerated felons to vote. But.. Yeah, a discussion for a different topic.
You're not getting to 0. Even England and Australia don't have 0. And, what I'm going after is gun crime.
I don't give a rats ass about people blowing their heads off in suicides. Well.. reading that again, that came out wrong..
But, I'm not interested at all in any gun legislation aimed at preventing suicides.
The threat of losing ones gun rights, obviously, is a very big deterrent. So, while you read it as reactive, it's actually proactive, because the responsible gun owners who are the ones that will prevent any of your gun control methods from coming into play, would make sure that they didn't lose their gun rights. Your common hunter, rather than having the guns in the closet where little Johnny Butthead could get to them, because Johnny is such a good boy who just gets his ass kicked at school every day, is going to secure those guns, because he doesn't want to lose his ability to hunt because of Johnny Jackass.
My idea would generate a whole new level of interest in quality gun safes.. Which should lead to improved designs and installation methods to hopefully prevent things of that nature.
Point taken.. But, it's an area that can be improved. It's not a deal killer.
Well, technically, there are only 2 states in the US that permanently disenfranchise felons. Virginia and Florida. MOST states, once you have completed any sentence (Including probation and parole) your voting rights are automatically restored. A few others, you have to petition to have them restored. And.. Most states, if you're convicted of any type of voter fraud, you might permanently lose the right to vote.. Maine is a weird one in that they allow incarcerated felons to vote. But.. Yeah, a discussion for a different topic.
But … Do you give a mouse's butt about young children getting hold of daddy's pistol from the sock drawer or from under his pillow (kept handy to ward off home invaders) and accidentally blowing away a sibling or a playmate … ???
naaaaah …
(That could interfere with The Sacred Second, yes … ???)
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.
No, grenades are not arms. You really need to do better research before saying such things. Grenades are munitions, explosive devices, bombs and anything but arms. Do yourself a favor and do some more due diligence before posting such obvious nonsense.
Go to arms was not taken to mean pick grenades, there was and always has been a common understanding of what "arms" means when considering personal weapons and grenades are not nor ever have been included.
Furthermore, grenades have been classified as destructive devices, something else you can learn. Knowing a little about what you're talking about would help.
But … Do you give a mouse's butt about young children getting hold of daddy's pistol from the sock drawer or from under his pillow (kept handy to ward off home invaders) and accidentally blowing away a sibling or a playmate … ???
naaaaah …
(That could interfere with The Sacred Second, yes … ???)
Curious, since you brought it up, which Amendmwnts would you consider no sacred as you use the word? The one about freedom of the press, hiw about the amendmwnt used to legalize abortion? Which ones?
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.
