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.
Is there anyone else here who is a gun owner and thinks our gun control laws are ridiculously lax?
The laws are not ridiculously lax.
They are merely ridiculous.
If anything has become obvious in the last 50+ years, it is that so-called "gun control" laws do not work.
They fail, every time, to produce the results predicted by their advocates.
Whey someone declares a "gun free zone", that area often becomes a haven for people who want to rob, assault, or kill others. It's a place they can go to do their deeds while being sure no innocent man can shoot back.
When some legislature restricts what gun(s) people can own, it turns out that only law-abiding citizens obey them - and the law-abiding citizens weren't the problem. Lawbreakers simply find other ways to get guns, and often wind up being the only ones still armed, with the law-abiding at their mercy.
"Gun control" laws are more accurately called "victim disarmament laws".
And those, by their nature, are completely ridiculous.
When the Constitution was adopted and the Bill of Rights later ratified, the people who adopted them included a command that since an armed and disciplined population was necessary, government could have NO SAY in who could or couldn't own and carry a gun.
And now for the last 50+ years, people trying to use govt to restrict people's guns have proven to us why: Because using govt to control weapons simply cannot succeed, and produces results worse than govt keeping its hands off. Govt is far better off punishing illegal USAGE of weapons, than inventing "illegal ownership and carrying of weapons".
The people who wrote and ratified those documents knew that every attempt by govt to restrict people's ownership of weapons, left the population in overall worse condition than having no such govt restrictions at all. It didn't leave the society perfect - criminals would always unjustly harm people. But govt restricting law-abiding people's ownership, would inevitably result in MORE oppression and harm to those people - whether by the criminals or by govt itself - than letting everyone decided for himself if he should own and carry.
People who think "gun control" laws work, have simply not looked up the results of those laws. If they had, they would stop pushing those laws, for the good of society.
I have always had guns, rifles, shotguns, and pistols. What I can not understand is why anyone, outside law enforcement, needs assault type weapons with large capacity magazines. Those are made to do one thing, inflict a large number of injuries in a short period of time.
I know the NRA guys will say it is their right, but I can not own an operational cannon, so why should I be able to buy one of these ?
While I don't think there should be any restriction on standard capacity magazines for modern sporting rifles (100 rounds or fewer), I can agree that that there is at least room to question the necessity for high-capacity mags, i.e., >100 rounds.
Not sure I can support any ban on such hardware, however, based merely on what someone else has decided that I might or might not "need."
I couldn't believe they got rid of the law keeping documentedly mentally ill people from buying guns. That, to me is the ultimate in common sense gun control laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by don1945
What I can not understand is why anyone, outside law enforcement, needs assault type weapons with large capacity magazines.
The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment were students of history and government. They spent decades studying many governments and many philosophies of armed citizens vs. citizens restricted from bearing arms. And they concluded that if govt were given the slightest authority to restrict its subjects from owning and carrying weapons such as guns, that government would invariably expand its authority, placing more and more restrictions upon its subjects "for their own good".
And they realized that those restrictions would do little more than disarm the law-abiding people who were not the ones causing problems. The criminals and despots who WERE causing the problems, would remain relatively unaffected, since they rarely obeyed such restrictions while everybody else did.
So the wrote a Constitution for the newly-formed country, with an explicit command flatly forbidding any government in it from restricting people's ownership and carrying of guns. They even provided a reason: Because an armed, disciplined population of ordinary citizens was necessary for freedom and security.
Today (and for many decades now), legislative do-gooders who haven't studied the history of such restrictions, keep assuming they know better than the legislators who instituted that flat ban on govt trying to control guns. And then they consistently prove themselves wrong, by making such "gun control" laws anyway... which merely enable the criminals and despots to do what they wanted without resistance from the law-abiding citizens.
Haven't we had enough? Isn't it time we gave back the rights of the law-abiding, to defend themselves and to sufficiently intimidate criminals that the criminals no longer even try to victimize us, knowing they are likely to get resisted, injured, or even killed?
Even if most law-abiding people don't bother carrying, it's likely that some of the people in a crowd would. And the criminals would know it. I suggest that this would result in far fewer (though not zero) crimes even being attempted.
And that would be a far better result than the "gun controllers" have ever achieved.
Is there anyone else here who is a gun owner and thinks our gun control laws are ridiculously lax?
The laws are not ridiculously lax.
They are merely ridiculous.
If anything has become obvious in the last 50+ years, it is that so-called "gun control" laws do not work.
They fail, every time, to produce the results predicted by their advocates.
Whey someone declares a "gun free zone", that area often becomes a haven for people who want to rob, assault, or kill others. It's a place they can go to do their deeds while being sure no innocent man can shoot back.
When some legislature restricts what gun(s) people can own, it turns out that only law-abiding citizens obey them - and the law-abiding citizens weren't the problem. Lawbreakers simply find other ways to get guns, and often wind up being the only ones still armed, with the law-abiding at their mercy.
"Gun control" laws are more accurately called "victim disarmament laws".
And those, by their nature, are completely ridiculous.
When the Constitution was adopted and the Bill of Rights later ratified, the people who adopted them included a command that since an armed and disciplined population was necessary, government could have NO SAY in who could or couldn't own and carry a gun.
And now for the last 50+ years, people trying to use govt to restrict people's guns have proven to us why: Because using govt to control weapons simply cannot succeed, and produces results worse than govt keeping its hands off. Govt is far better off punishing illegal USAGE of weapons, than inventing "illegal ownership and carrying of weapons".
The people who wrote and ratified those documents knew that every attempt by govt to restrict people's ownership of weapons, left the population in overall worse condition than having no such govt restrictions at all. It didn't leave the society perfect - criminals would always unjustly harm people. But govt restricting law-abiding people's ownership, would inevitably result in MORE oppression and harm to those people - whether by the criminals or by govt itself - than letting everyone decided for himself if he should own and carry.
People who think "gun control" laws work, have simply not looked up the results of those laws. If they had, they would stop pushing those laws, for the good of society.
Try it for a change. It's hard to make a strong argument, but there are signs that it's there. California made it more difficult, but it worked in the short term with far lower homicide rates. The Northeast Atlantic states and their cities also did so and it paid dividends overall. Chicago had strong gun control laws within the city, but much more lax right outside where they had no jurisdiction (and why I want a federal law) and they got screwed. On a national level, Australia, Canada, and the Uk, perhaps our closest nations in terms of culture, had a few terrible incidents early on and made drastic changes and now our homicide rates are ridiculously high in comparison. Let me ask you something simple--are you a law-abiding citizen? Would you be able to own firearms if there were strong mental health and criminal checks for firearms and ammunition? If so, then you'd own guns and where the hell would your points of worry get them from? Canada doesn't have them because they get most thing outside of registered sport guns from the US. Mexico gets the vast majority of its arms from us. What's the factory for illegal gun owners to get theirs if everyone in the US knows where their gun is and how to actually shoot it? Don't give me bull crap in your explanation because I know it's not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment were students of history and government. They spent decades studying many governments and many philosophies of armed citizens vs. citizens restricted from bearing arms. And they concluded that if govt were given the slightest authority to restrict its subjects from owning and carrying weapons such as guns, that government would invariably expand its authority, placing more and more restrictions upon its subjects "for their own good".
And they realized that those restrictions would do little more than disarm the law-abiding people who were not the ones causing problems. The criminals and despots who WERE causing the problems, would remain relatively unaffected, since they rarely obeyed such restrictions while everybody else did.
So the wrote a Constitution for the newly-formed country, with an explicit command flatly forbidding any government in it from restricting people's ownership and carrying of guns. They even provided a reason: Because an armed, disciplined population of ordinary citizens was necessary for freedom and security.
Today (and for many decades now), legislative do-gooders who haven't studied the history of such restrictions, keep assuming they know better than the legislators who instituted that flat ban on govt trying to control guns. And then they consistently prove themselves wrong, by making such "gun control" laws anyway... which merely enable the criminals and despots to do what they wanted without resistance from the law-abiding citizens.
Haven't we had enough? Isn't it time we gave back the rights of the law-abiding, to defend themselves and to sufficiently intimidate criminals that the criminals no longer even try to victimize us, knowing they are likely to get resisted, injured, or even killed?
Even if most law-abiding people don't bother carrying, it's likely that some of the people in a crowd would. And the criminals would know it. I suggest that this would result in far fewer (though not zero) crimes even being attempted.
And that would be a far better result than the "gun controllers" have ever achieved.
Yea, I get this--an oppressive government with arms greater than you well necessarily take over whatever you do. This is a separate issue. I'm not here to fight the feds or whatever you think is the equivalent is of King George. If I am, I'm fighting for the US militia to defend our independence. That sure as hell isn't what our gun control laws are, because I do not want to expend my resources on fighting some nebulous urban crime--I am much more willing to restrict any kind of urban crime element from owning guns in the first place which makes a lot more sense to me. When the British come knocking for you, let me know. I love America, but my stupid lack of imagination doesn't see that forthcoming and instead I see a broken gun policy that favors the criminal element of our cities and in the cartels past our southern borders who get the vast majority of guns from us. Screw that. I don't want to arm them anymore--the guns are for me and our nation to defend ourselves. We need laws against allowing for that exchange of firearms and firearms for criminals here. Make a goddamn checkup system. I'm going to come out of it just fine. They and the people they rely on to get arms, will not. That's the rubric, so why the hell are we getting in the way of that?
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-26-2017 at 11:49 PM..
I have no idea what you mean by being outgunned because of what you call lax gun laws.
Oh really? Did I say Brazil? You think we get our guns from Brazil instead of the other way around? Brazil that great manufacturing giant of the south who obviously provides our guns somehow? What's the last manufacturer you heard of? Feijoida e Pato?
I have always had guns, rifles, shotguns, and pistols. What I can not understand is why anyone, outside law enforcement, needs assault type weapons with large capacity magazines. Those are made to do one thing, inflict a large number of injuries in a short period of time.
I know the NRA guys will say it is their right, but I can not own an operational cannon, so why should I be able to buy one of these ?
A semi-automatic rifle can be called an 'assault rifle' these days by some - and this little old lady objects to that. The only 22 I can still handle (due to age mostly) is one that is sized for a young teenager and which is semi-automatic and has a magazine (though I don't need a 30 shot mag - 5 is fine). It is definitely not the same as an AK-47 but both are usually still classified as 'semi-automatics' from my understanding. If I had to reload every shot, and only could get one shot off without having to perform some often difficult gyrations, there would be no point in me having one any more. And honestly I own a fair bit of ammo but right now, no rifle to put it in .. so why would anyone need to know about how much ammo I have since I can't even use it? But, then again, I would use mine for hunting mostly - though it is nice to know that it could also be used for self-defense at home if need be.
The problem as I see it with too many regulations (the constitution not withstanding - because I also don't mind training courses, background checks and being sure that anyone with a known violent history or some forms of mental illness is carefully investigated or barred from owning one .. though they can and still will if they really want one get it on the black market I am sure) is that they are often a slippery slope. It is not so much a gun owner problem as a politician problem in my view. I also don't like the idea of a registry for all guns - the background checks should suffice - the other is way too invasive and justifies more 'government' more than anything useful). Give the government an inch and 100 percent of the time eventually it will take more than a mile. And the criminals will still have their guns no matter what.
A semi-automatic rifle can be called an 'assault rifle' these days by some - and this little old lady objects to that. The only 22 I can still handle (due to age mostly) is one that is sized for a young teenager and which is semi-automatic and has a magazine (though I don't need a 30 shot mag - 5 is fine). It is definitely not the same as an AK-47 but both are usually still classified as 'semi-automatics' from my understanding. If I had to reload every shot, and only could get one shot off without having to perform some often difficult gyrations, there would be no point in me having one any more. And honestly I own a fair bit of ammo but right now, no rifle to put it in .. so why would anyone need to know about how much ammo I have since I can't even use it? But, then again, I would use mine for hunting mostly - though it is nice to know that it could also be used for self-defense at home if need be.
The problem as I see it with too many regulations (the constitution not withstanding - because I also don't mind training courses, background checks and being sure that anyone with a known violent history or some forms of mental illness is carefully investigated or barred from owning one .. though they can and still will if they really want one get it on the black market I am sure) is that they are often a slippery slope. It is not so much a gun owner problem as a politician problem in my view. I also don't like the idea of a registry for all guns - the background checks should suffice - the other is way too invasive and justifies more 'government' more than anything useful). Give the government an inch and 100 percent of the time eventually it will take more than a mile. And the criminals will still have their guns no matter what.
Overall, that's a crock. California had some pretty strict gun laws while I was there, and I did not agree with all of that, but since I was cleared as a law-abiding citizen, I ran into pretty much no problems for myself and my family. I moved out of there for various reasons, mostly because I thought it was planned by idiots who thought choking in traffic and smog was hilarious, but gun laws weren't it.
The black market will be there, but when you put the regulations in place, the black market becomes a hard place to break into. The government is not a single monolithic force and it never has been. It's why we have these ridiculously wide-ranging laws for gun control.
I am not against gun ownership at all, but what I'm seeing is a ridiculous proliferation of such. Restrict the access of it. The vast majority of people I've known from NYPD and several law agencies elsewhere is idiots and miscreants who should never had firearms in the first place and are stupid kids who can not have put in the effort to get guns in the first place if it weren't so stupidly simple. Making it hard for dum dums to get guns make a world of difference to me. What happens when these dum dums don't have a steady supply of firearms from elsewhere that makes it easy and what they have is trackpable? What happens when the vast majority of gun owners are those registered and qualified law-abiding citizens? ********** arms race--why do we not want to win it?
I couldn't believe they got rid of the law keeping documentedly mentally ill people from buying guns. That, to me is the ultimate in common sense gun control laws.
They didn't. People "adjudicated mentally incompetent" (aka documentedly mentally ill) ARE still prevented from buying guns. Don't believe the fake news-MOST of the MSM lied about this.
Obama wrote an EO that made it impossible for anyone on Social Security that had requested help in financial matters from purchasing or owning guns. THAT was what was gotten rid of. An EO that stripped civil rights from people, with no hearing or appeals process.
Do a little research-otherwise you end up looking as ignorant as a Rachel Maddow or some other MSM talking head.
They didn't. People "adjudicated mentally incompetent" (aka documentedly mentally ill) ARE still prevented from buying guns. Don't believe the fake news-MOST of the MSM lied about this.
Obama wrote an EO that made it impossible for anyone on Social Security that had requested help in financial matters from purchasing or owning guns. THAT was what was gotten rid of. An EO that stripped civil rights from people, with no hearing or appeals process.
Do a little research-otherwise you end up looking as ignorant as a Rachel Maddow or some other MSM talking head.
Wrong. It was for people on Medicare the are so mentally disabled that they require someone else to manage their affairs with social security for them. If you are on disability for schizophrenia or serious mental illness so serious that you can't manage your own affairs you don't need to be able to go buy a gun. ( It had nothing to do with financial assistance.)
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.
