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.
I have laid out some common sense gun laws. Democrats are far too happy for innocent people to die and for others to have their civil rights voided if their facist supporters are placated. Hopefully most of the country can not stomach another corrupt Clinton in the White House.
Requesting that the head of a household to carry a gun is mandated, allowing guns in high schools, concealed carry in cities, that is not rational.
Someone just post the 2nd ammendment on here. It says a right to form a militia not own guns privately and wander the streets with them. The ammendment is too vague to be used a conclusive statement on the exact legality of which and where guns can be used. At minimum the 2nd ammendment guarantees the right to form a private militia. And the other extreme it could be interpreted that private citizens can own any weapon they can afford to buy with no restrictions. Common sense dictates the reality should be somewhere in between those two extremes, but it should be up to states to decide exactly which works for them.
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.
seems quite clear to me. the first part recognizes that a militia in good working order is necessary to protect the states and the country. remember the founders really didnt want an expensive standing army. a navy on the other hand was included in the constitution as open and free shipping lanes were necessary for trade.
note however the comma separating the first and second halves of the amendment. it notes that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. that means that the individual person has the right to own AND CARRY a firearm.
sorry my friend but you need a serious education on the constitution and what the amendments mean.
If we are truly looking for common sense laws, I think there are places we can reach a common ground. This diatribe will be long so I ask that you indulge me a bit. From the onset and to adhere to full disclosure, i want to say that I am an avid gun owner and have been for nearly 40 years. However, some may be surprised about my views if they simply care to read and not jump to conclusions or, infer some conclusions that fit an agenda either way.
For the record, I fully believe in the right, privilege, thought of owning firearms for sport, hunting and of course defense. However, I do NOT believe that everyone should automatically have the right to own one. The reason? It's simple, when one owns a firearm they must consider the immense responsibility that inherently comes with that ownership. Improper use through ignorance, wanton disregard for public safety MUST be considered. Unlike the BMW commercial, it's NOT all about you. There is a lot of people out there and their safety is every bit as important as yours, isn't it?
Here goes....
1). All would be gun owners would have to pass some BASIC competency test before a CCW or ownership is granted. I'm not talking about discriminatory Tests or rhetoric so save the rants. I'm talking about a potential owner demonstrate to a LEO instructor that they know how to load, unload, manipulate a safety if so equipped and demonstrate a BASIC understanding of the weapon they intend to purchase. It could be snub nose, shotgun, AR-15, derringer, semi-auto of any caliber. Doesn't matter.
This test would include basic marksman skills at the 3, 5, 7, and perhaps 10 yard line at an indoor range. 5 shots fired at a self pace at each line so a total of 15-20 rounds would be expended. They would have to pass with a score of 70 percent or better of simply hitting the silhouette overall. Additionally, they would have to pass a written, multiple choice test of say 20-25 questions on the subjects of legal use of deadly force, concealed carry laws, transportation of firearms, etc. simple knowledge test that demonstrates the owner would have to have a modicum of knowledge of where, when, and how one can employ deadly force. passing score to be 80% or better. Fair enough. Questions are pretty basic. This test would be administered after a 2-3 hour class on the skills and laws. Makes a safer, more competent beginner.
After all, we don't let you drive a car without a license, why would we issue anyone the right to buy a POTENTIALLY deadly device without one? Common sense. Besides, have you seen some of the dangerous antics at a shooting range? Have you seen some of the a$$ clowns who go there and start shooting gangsta style (wonder nines tilted sideways)??? Do you really, really want THAT guy to own one without some testing???
Let's be honest, there are some people who should NEVER own a firearm. Some buy them, throw them in a drawer and the first time they see daylight is when they have to use it and THEN they get some practice ;usualy at some inocent neighbors expense) spraying their house or worse, apartment and start hitting anyone BUT the burglar? Think about it.....
Besides, if they don't pass, take another class and pass? NOT a big deal or burden. NOW, ONCE THEY PASS, THEY CAN BUY WHATEVER THEY WANT. PERIOD. NO RESTRICTIONS OR ANY OTHER LAWS OR REGULATIONS WOULD BE IMPOSED. Any legal firearm is allowed.
2). Background checks. No brainer. They would be required on all gun purchases and sales anywhere. While this challenges the legal rights of private sales, it seems logical that all folks would want this in the interest of safety. Yes, I know, criminals don't follow laws. I get it. However, ask any instructor or gun store owner or clerk whether or not they have caught idiots actually buying a gun and acknowledging they are a convicted felon. It will only catch the stupid but, it's a start.
3) license is good for five years and is UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED IN ALL STATES, PERIOD. no pre-emption laws allowed although in very crowded Burroughs one could consider limitations on cc CALIBERS in those areas. Specifically, NYC type cities where carrying 44 mags in public is NOT a good idea. Too much potential collateral damage. .38 or 9mm? Sure. While not perfect, worthy of a debate. At least a .380, fair enough?
4). No special taxes or tax laws associated with guns would be imposed. The 2nd ammendment would kick in once legally CERTIFIED. Period. Don't like the ammendment? Change it. If you can get the votes, have at it. Can't see that happening though.
5). Mandatory sentences and mandatory minimums apply unilaterally to all. No exceptions. Laws for misuse would be brutal. Same for illegal cc . Can't have it both ways. One must understand AND accept the penalties associated with misuse or negligent acts associated with said use.
6) accidental discharge is 3 months in jail. Accidental discharge with property damage, 6 months. Accidental discharge with injuries, 2 years, accidental discharge with death or severe injury to include but, not limited to, paralysis, loss of limb, blinding, hearing loss etc etc 5-20 years depending on record and circumstances, accidental loss of life, 30 years to life with no parole. Homicide gets life with no parole or death penalty to brconsumatred no later than five years from conviction.
7). No ownership for those adjudicated of diminished mental capacity.
8) no ownership for convicted felons
9) no ownership for those convicted of domestic abuse
10) no ownership for those not of US citizenship. Period. No exceptions
11) no ownership for those currently awaiting trial. Weapons are surrendered and cheerfully handed back if found innocent within 5 days.
As it relates to styles of weapons I want to point out a few things for those who think "assault rifles" are somehow more inherently deadly have no clue. One can merely buy a Ruger 10/22 .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle with 25 round magazines and be nearly on par as it relates to lethality. They are both semi-automatic and both rounds can kill equally as fast within 100 yards. I would humbly argue that for some the Ruger would be EASIER to deploy in that evil manner if so inclined. No recoil and very easy to master by the least able newbie.
Cost is less than half that of. AR-15 and are much easier to handle, a .22 round can kill as quickly as a .556/223 round and dead is well, dead. You aren't "more dead" by getting killed with the latter, are you? That's a red herring and gun opponents know it. Also, there is ample proof that guns owned and deployed by private citizens has stopped thousands of bad guys/gals if you only care to read. For those that would rather watch, check out YouTube and search such topics. Nuff' said.
The right to own firearms is a precious right and one I take very, very seriously and NOT for granted. I think if the laws already on the books were used as written we wouldn't be having this discussion and less mayhem would be in our presence. However, if we that own firearms do not come up with logical solutions we may lose that right in its entirety forever. Not out of some well intended safety measure but rather, by some unscrupulous politician pandering for votes. And we all know who SHE is......
In the end, owning guns does NOT necessarily make one more dangerous. With proper training and education, one can store, carry, and deploy said guns in the right situation with precision and safety. They afford the private citizen an opportunity to protect themselves when no one else can or is available at that time and THAT is a right endowed to all. Rich, poor, or in between.
If we are truly looking for common sense laws, I think there are places we can reach a common ground. This diatribe will be long so I ask that you indulge me a bit. From the onset and to adhere to full disclosure, i want to say that I am an avid gun owner and have been for nearly 40 years. However, some may be surprised about my views if they simply care to read and not jump to conclusions or, infer some conclusions that fit an agenda either way.
For the record, I fully believe in the right, privilege, thought of owning firearms for sport, hunting and of course defense. However, I do NOT believe that everyone should automatically have the right to own one. The reason? It's simple, when one owns a firearm they must consider the immense responsibility that inherently comes with that ownership. Improper use through ignorance, wanton disregard for public safety MUST be considered. Unlike the BMW commercial, it's NOT all about you. There is a lot of people out there and their safety is every bit as important as yours, isn't it?
Here goes....
1). All would be gun owners would have to pass some BASIC competency test before a CCW or ownership is granted. I'm not talking about discriminatory Tests or rhetoric so save the rants. I'm talking about a potential owner demonstrate to a LEO instructor that they know how to load, unload, manipulate a safety if so equipped and demonstrate a BASIC understanding of the weapon they intend to purchase. It could be snub nose, shotgun, AR-15, derringer, semi-auto of any caliber. Doesn't matter.
This test would include basic marksman skills at the 3, 5, 7, and perhaps 10 yard line at an indoor range. 5 shots fired at a self pace at each line so a total of 15-20 rounds would be expended. They would have to pass with a score of 70 percent or better of simply hitting the silhouette overall. Additionally, they would have to pass a written, multiple choice test of say 20-25 questions on the subjects of legal use of deadly force, concealed carry laws, transportation of firearms, etc. simple knowledge test that demonstrates the owner would have to have a modicum of knowledge of where, when, and how one can employ deadly force. passing score to be 80% or better. Fair enough. Questions are pretty basic. This test would be administered after a 2-3 hour class on the skills and laws. Makes a safer, more competent beginner.
After all, we don't let you drive a car without a license, why would we issue anyone the right to buy a POTENTIALLY deadly device without one? Common sense. Besides, have you seen some of the dangerous antics at a shooting range? Have you seen some of the a$$ clowns who go there and start shooting gangsta style (wonder nines tilted sideways)??? Do you really, really want THAT guy to own one without some testing???
Let's be honest, there are some people who should NEVER own a firearm. Some buy them, throw them in a drawer and the first time they see daylight is when they have to use it and THEN they get some practice ;usualy at some inocent neighbors expense) spraying their house or worse, apartment and start hitting anyone BUT the burglar? Think about it.....
Besides, if they don't pass, take another class and pass? NOT a big deal or burden. NOW, ONCE THEY PASS, THEY CAN BUY WHATEVER THEY WANT. PERIOD. NO RESTRICTIONS OR ANY OTHER LAWS OR REGULATIONS WOULD BE IMPOSED. Any legal firearm is allowed.
2). Background checks. No brainer. They would be required on all gun purchases and sales anywhere. While this challenges the legal rights of private sales, it seems logical that all folks would want this in the interest of safety. Yes, I know, criminals don't follow laws. I get it. However, ask any instructor or gun store owner or clerk whether or not they have caught idiots actually buying a gun and acknowledging they are a convicted felon. It will only catch the stupid but, it's a start.
3) license is good for five years and is UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED IN ALL STATES, PERIOD. no pre-emption laws allowed although in very crowded Burroughs one could consider limitations on cc CALIBERS in those areas. Specifically, NYC type cities where carrying 44 mags in public is NOT a good idea. Too much potential collateral damage. .38 or 9mm? Sure. While not perfect, worthy of a debate. At least a .380, fair enough?
4). No special taxes or tax laws associated with guns would be imposed. The 2nd ammendment would kick in once legally CERTIFIED. Period. Don't like the ammendment? Change it. If you can get the votes, have at it. Can't see that happening though.
5). Mandatory sentences and mandatory minimums apply unilaterally to all. No exceptions. Laws for misuse would be brutal. Same for illegal cc . Can't have it both ways. One must understand AND accept the penalties associated with misuse or negligent acts associated with said use.
6) accidental discharge is 3 months in jail. Accidental discharge with property damage, 6 months. Accidental discharge with injuries, 2 years, accidental discharge with death or severe injury to include but, not limited to, paralysis, loss of limb, blinding, hearing loss etc etc 5-20 years depending on record and circumstances, accidental loss of life, 30 years to life with no parole. Homicide gets life with no parole or death penalty to brconsumatred no later than five years from conviction.
7). No ownership for those adjudicated of diminished mental capacity.
8) no ownership for convicted felons
9) no ownership for those convicted of domestic abuse
10) no ownership for those not of US citizenship. Period. No exceptions
11) no ownership for those currently awaiting trial. Weapons are surrendered and cheerfully handed back if found innocent within 5 days.
As it relates to styles of weapons I want to point out a few things for those who think "assault rifles" are somehow more inherently deadly have no clue. One can merely buy a Ruger 10/22 .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle with 25 round magazines and be nearly on par as it relates to lethality. They are both semi-automatic and both rounds can kill equally as fast within 100 yards. I would humbly argue that for some the Ruger would be EASIER to deploy in that evil manner if so inclined. No recoil and very easy to master by the least able newbie.
Cost is less than half that of. AR-15 and are much easier to handle, a .22 round can kill as quickly as a .556/223 round and dead is well, dead. You aren't "more dead" by getting killed with the latter, are you? That's a red herring and gun opponents know it. Also, there is ample proof that guns owned and deployed by private citizens has stopped thousands of bad guys/gals if you only care to read. For those that would rather watch, check out YouTube and search such topics. Nuff' said.
The right to own firearms is a precious right and one I take very, very seriously and NOT for granted. I think if the laws already on the books were used as written we wouldn't be having this discussion and less mayhem would be in our presence. However, if we that own firearms do not come up with logical solutions we may lose that right in its entirety forever. Not out of some well intended safety measure but rather, by some unscrupulous politician pandering for votes. And we all know who SHE is......
In the end, owning guns does NOT necessarily make one more dangerous. With proper training and education, one can store, carry, and deploy said guns in the right situation with precision and safety. They afford the private citizen an opportunity to protect themselves when no one else can or is available at that time and THAT is a right endowed to all. Rich, poor, or in between.
I can live with that. So can you.
Texas CHL requirements already exceeds what you are looking for... Several other states do as well.
I agree with 5-11. I'm not terribly sure an AD should warrant jail time if theee are no injuries. That seems a bit harsh.
Njbiodude, you really need to quit. As mentioned, you started out with a complete lie, and you have repeatedly tossed out exaggerated stats as fact. Your reading comprehension seems a little lacking as well, especially considering the wording has been explained in this thread several times. Yes, I read all 30 pages.
While i respect the intent of the OP, this is nearly an impossible conversation to have without emotion. It is even more difficult when you have people lying outright only to try to make their point. This is one major hurdle in coming to any consensus on gun control, with or without "common sense." I do have to wonder who gets to determine what common sense is in this case.
Texas CHL requirements already exceeds what you are looking for... Several other states do as well.
I believe the requirements for a NC CCW are beyond Mr. Longstreet's suggestion as well.
Also, I am fairly certain that most states, while they may allow carry in a bar, have a prohibition on consumption while carrying. We all know guns and booze don't mix well. Most people who legally carry are more than happy to not drink. As a bonus, they can be the DD.
note however the comma separating the first and second halves of the amendment. it notes that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. that means that the individual person has the right to own AND CARRY a firearm.
sorry my friend but you need a serious education on the constitution and what the amendments mean.
When was the Constitution written and signed? Do you seriously think that the wording applies to this century?
A person has the right to own and carry a firearm. Does a person have the right to kill at will? That includes trigger happy police officers. Why can't police officers shoot people running away, in the legs?? Why are some police officers shooting people in the back? What happened before cameras? Too much to comprehend.
Law enforcement, here in Colorado Springs, on that horrific black Friday; saved so many lives and took bullets from the shooter; one policeman was shot in the face. There are good and bad on both sides of the law.
Something has to give. I admire how Australia turned in all the assault guns. Might not be the complete answer; but it is a start. Commas are killing people?
Mandatory gun ownership? LOL. Thats like selling heroin at CVS and assuming less people will do it. I think the war on drugs is terribly run but thats a ridiculous thought. Guns everywhere=more angry people shooting each other.
If you want an example look at the california gold rush. Everyone had guns and the murder rate in some areas was 10x higher than current day detroit.
Now look at gun restrictive cities (do not include chicago as its surrounded by illinois which is very gun friendly) like NYC and San Jose (both democrat by the way) and then compare per capita gun deaths to New Orleans, Atlanta or Detroit.
As I said keeping a registered gun in your residence if you've never attmepted suicide, have no diagnosed mental illness, no DUIs or public intoxication on record is reasonable. Beyond that youre tempting fate and angry/drunk/crazy people will cause harm with them. And the second ammendment does NOT give people to take guns in public outside of a private militia
If we are truly looking for common sense laws, I think there are places we can reach a common ground. This diatribe will be long so I ask that you indulge me a bit. From the onset and to adhere to full disclosure, i want to say that I am an avid gun owner and have been for nearly 40 years. However, some may be surprised about my views if they simply care to read and not jump to conclusions or, infer some conclusions that fit an agenda either way.
For the record, I fully believe in the right, privilege, thought of owning firearms for sport, hunting and of course defense. However, I do NOT believe that everyone should automatically have the right to own one. The reason? It's simple, when one owns a firearm they must consider the immense responsibility that inherently comes with that ownership. Improper use through ignorance, wanton disregard for public safety MUST be considered. Unlike the BMW commercial, it's NOT all about you. There is a lot of people out there and their safety is every bit as important as yours, isn't it?
Here goes....
1). All would be gun owners would have to pass some BASIC competency test before a CCW or ownership is granted. I'm not talking about discriminatory Tests or rhetoric so save the rants. I'm talking about a potential owner demonstrate to a LEO instructor that they know how to load, unload, manipulate a safety if so equipped and demonstrate a BASIC understanding of the weapon they intend to purchase. It could be snub nose, shotgun, AR-15, derringer, semi-auto of any caliber. Doesn't matter.
This test would include basic marksman skills at the 3, 5, 7, and perhaps 10 yard line at an indoor range. 5 shots fired at a self pace at each line so a total of 15-20 rounds would be expended. They would have to pass with a score of 70 percent or better of simply hitting the silhouette overall. Additionally, they would have to pass a written, multiple choice test of say 20-25 questions on the subjects of legal use of deadly force, concealed carry laws, transportation of firearms, etc. simple knowledge test that demonstrates the owner would have to have a modicum of knowledge of where, when, and how one can employ deadly force. passing score to be 80% or better. Fair enough. Questions are pretty basic. This test would be administered after a 2-3 hour class on the skills and laws. Makes a safer, more competent beginner.
After all, we don't let you drive a car without a license, why would we issue anyone the right to buy a POTENTIALLY deadly device without one? Common sense. Besides, have you seen some of the dangerous antics at a shooting range? Have you seen some of the a$$ clowns who go there and start shooting gangsta style (wonder nines tilted sideways)??? Do you really, really want THAT guy to own one without some testing???
Let's be honest, there are some people who should NEVER own a firearm. Some buy them, throw them in a drawer and the first time they see daylight is when they have to use it and THEN they get some practice ;usualy at some inocent neighbors expense) spraying their house or worse, apartment and start hitting anyone BUT the burglar? Think about it.....
Besides, if they don't pass, take another class and pass? NOT a big deal or burden. NOW, ONCE THEY PASS, THEY CAN BUY WHATEVER THEY WANT. PERIOD. NO RESTRICTIONS OR ANY OTHER LAWS OR REGULATIONS WOULD BE IMPOSED. Any legal firearm is allowed.
2). Background checks. No brainer. They would be required on all gun purchases and sales anywhere. While this challenges the legal rights of private sales, it seems logical that all folks would want this in the interest of safety. Yes, I know, criminals don't follow laws. I get it. However, ask any instructor or gun store owner or clerk whether or not they have caught idiots actually buying a gun and acknowledging they are a convicted felon. It will only catch the stupid but, it's a start.
3) license is good for five years and is UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED IN ALL STATES, PERIOD. no pre-emption laws allowed although in very crowded Burroughs one could consider limitations on cc CALIBERS in those areas. Specifically, NYC type cities where carrying 44 mags in public is NOT a good idea. Too much potential collateral damage. .38 or 9mm? Sure. While not perfect, worthy of a debate. At least a .380, fair enough?
4). No special taxes or tax laws associated with guns would be imposed. The 2nd ammendment would kick in once legally CERTIFIED. Period. Don't like the ammendment? Change it. If you can get the votes, have at it. Can't see that happening though.
5). Mandatory sentences and mandatory minimums apply unilaterally to all. No exceptions. Laws for misuse would be brutal. Same for illegal cc . Can't have it both ways. One must understand AND accept the penalties associated with misuse or negligent acts associated with said use.
6) accidental discharge is 3 months in jail. Accidental discharge with property damage, 6 months. Accidental discharge with injuries, 2 years, accidental discharge with death or severe injury to include but, not limited to, paralysis, loss of limb, blinding, hearing loss etc etc 5-20 years depending on record and circumstances, accidental loss of life, 30 years to life with no parole. Homicide gets life with no parole or death penalty to brconsumatred no later than five years from conviction.
7). No ownership for those adjudicated of diminished mental capacity.
8) no ownership for convicted felons
9) no ownership for those convicted of domestic abuse
10) no ownership for those not of US citizenship. Period. No exceptions
11) no ownership for those currently awaiting trial. Weapons are surrendered and cheerfully handed back if found innocent within 5 days.
As it relates to styles of weapons I want to point out a few things for those who think "assault rifles" are somehow more inherently deadly have no clue. One can merely buy a Ruger 10/22 .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle with 25 round magazines and be nearly on par as it relates to lethality. They are both semi-automatic and both rounds can kill equally as fast within 100 yards. I would humbly argue that for some the Ruger would be EASIER to deploy in that evil manner if so inclined. No recoil and very easy to master by the least able newbie.
Cost is less than half that of. AR-15 and are much easier to handle, a .22 round can kill as quickly as a .556/223 round and dead is well, dead. You aren't "more dead" by getting killed with the latter, are you? That's a red herring and gun opponents know it. Also, there is ample proof that guns owned and deployed by private citizens has stopped thousands of bad guys/gals if you only care to read. For those that would rather watch, check out YouTube and search such topics. Nuff' said.
The right to own firearms is a precious right and one I take very, very seriously and NOT for granted. I think if the laws already on the books were used as written we wouldn't be having this discussion and less mayhem would be in our presence. However, if we that own firearms do not come up with logical solutions we may lose that right in its entirety forever. Not out of some well intended safety measure but rather, by some unscrupulous politician pandering for votes. And we all know who SHE is......
In the end, owning guns does NOT necessarily make one more dangerous. With proper training and education, one can store, carry, and deploy said guns in the right situation with precision and safety. They afford the private citizen an opportunity to protect themselves when no one else can or is available at that time and THAT is a right endowed to all. Rich, poor, or in between.
I can live with that. So can you.
No I can't live with that. You don't register a right.
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.
seems quite clear to me. the first part recognizes that a militia in good working order is necessary to protect the states and the country. remember the founders really didnt want an expensive standing army. a navy on the other hand was included in the constitution as open and free shipping lanes were necessary for trade.
note however the comma separating the first and second halves of the amendment. it notes that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. that means that the individual person has the right to own AND CARRY a firearm.
sorry my friend but you need a serious education on the constitution and what the amendments mean.
Thats a pretty dubious assumption there with the comma. I bet if you asked 20 judges the exact meaning you'd get multiple responses.
Even if it does mean the right to privately own guns (debatable) the government has already stated the bill of rights can be limited in the case it can lead to the harm of others. For example you cant yell fire in a crowded theater or release troop movement to the enemies under the first ammendment. Likewise using that logic, you could argue carrying a firearm causes danger in cerrtain states/cities/locations and thus is illegal.
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.
