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 yet to read a cogent reply why it's necessary to punish & restrict law-abiding citizens for excercising their constitutional right.
Kindly dispense with the emotional reesponses.
Because its not a punishment to regulate things. Its not a punishment to demand that if you own a car you have to have insurance on it. It protects society as a whole.
Regulation in the form of back ground checks and restrictions on how many guns you can buy at anyone time are a safe guard for society. Why would you need to buy more than 10 guns in a month if you law abiding? You want to take it to absurd extremes, so there is maybe one 100th of one percent of the population that would have the money and desire to buy more than ten guns a month the rest are straw purchasers selling them on the black market and you want to worry about that small small OCD maybe even non existent person over the rest of society.
In every state I lived in I could walk into a store and buy a gun, in Fla. I have to wait unless I have a Fla. CCW. for three days. I think that is a silly law and at min. should be disregarded if you are on record as buying a gun with in at least one year prior. I am not for stupid gun laws. but the people here who say no law or regulation at all are not thinking clearly and only thinking viscerally.
I think not selling to some people is a good idea, its a gun law that you can not sell to people not here legally. So you who want no laws would sell to illegals. If you don't beleive that then you do believe in some gun laws.
The idea falls flat on its face when you say keep people locked up who should not own guns, Lets for arguments sake say we have a law that if you commit a crime or are mentaly unstable you are locked up for life. Its would be a stupid law but lets say its law. You are locked up for life. Many of the poeple are locked up for life or until they pose no threat, but they all would have been able to do the crimes until caught. It would not have stopped many who were under the radar until that second they started shooting up the school yard. So that argument is not the end all way of keeping society safe while balancing our right to have a gun.
Why would you need to buy more than 10 guns in a month if you law abiding?
What difference does it make? One person can only yield, at most, two weapons at once, and in order to be even remotely effective doing so would require a LOT of specialized training. If I have evil intent on my mind, I can kill just as many with one weapon as I can with 100. Some people are collectors. Some like variety because they like variety.
While I have no beef with background checks, limiting the number you can own does nothing to increase safety, and thus has no reason to be a restriction.
Quote:
In every state I lived in I could walk into a store and buy a gun, in Fla. I have to wait unless I have a Fla. CCW. for three days. I think that is a silly law and at min. should be disregarded if you are on record as buying a gun with in at least one year prior. I am not for stupid gun laws. but the people here who say no law or regulation at all are not thinking clearly and only thinking viscerally.
That only applies to handguns, long guns do not have a waiting period except for Hillsborough County. You can also avoid it by trading in a gun, or, as you noted, having a valid CCW.
While I believe the government has, in fact, kept records of purchases, they are not supposed to HAVE them, so if the government were obeying the law (and they're not), the record you noted shouldn't exist. But I understand your logic.
What difference does it make? One person can only yield, at most, two weapons at once, and in order to be even remotely effective doing so would require a LOT of specialized training. If I have evil intent on my mind, I can kill just as many with one weapon as I can with 100. Some people are collectors. Some like variety because they like variety.
While I have no beef with background checks, limiting the number you can own does nothing to increase safety, and thus has no reason to be a restriction.
That only applies to handguns, long guns do not have a waiting period except for Hillsborough County. You can also avoid it by trading in a gun, or, as you noted, having a valid CCW.
While I believe the government has, in fact, kept records of purchases, they are not supposed to HAVE them, so if the government were obeying the law (and they're not), the record you noted shouldn't exist. But I understand your logic.
Except in the case of "Fast & Furious." Seems they couldn't track those down.
Fast was a problem not because of ATF but because the NRA helped pass laws that blocked them from stoping the guns. You make the rain then cry about it.
The NRA didn't "help pass laws that blocked them from stopping the guns". When you're going to attack something, please try to have your facts accurate, rather than simply parrotting what someone else says. ATF lost control of F&F (if they ever HAD control), then lied about what had happened.
Tens of thousands of gun laws......and little has changed. Let's try something different - let's actually ENFORCE the laws already on the books!
I did not say the NRA passed laws, they helped pass laws taking away the power of the ATF, in that they lobbied for what the NRA wanted. The NRA is an entity that Republicans will not go against.
When Reagan was for the Brady bill the NRA was not.
Second, I am not for gun control in general, but I am not for no regulation. Those that say they oppose any regulation do not understand the constitution. No right we have is absolute. Not one.
The Second amendment is no different. I can not threaten to kill someone under free speech. I also have to live under sensible gun laws. I cant sell a gun to a known felon, or a 9 yo on a school play ground. That is just sensible gun regulation. I totally agree with the SCOTUS that its an individual right and that the well regulated militia is just an example not the only use for the SA.
But I also think not allowing guns into schools is a good thing. Not allowing people who are predisposed to violence is a good thing. Its a fine line between keeping society safe or safer and not trampling on the individual right. Its not easy and it as a pendulum swings back and forth. Now States have to work within the SCOUTS decision that its a right for an individual to own arms. They can not just do the easy thing and just ban your right to own a gun. Now comes the harder part to draw lines, when is a law or regulation infringing and when is it regulation? These are the laws that will be fought by the NRA and other over the coming years.
I also do not agree with the lefts "we don't need a hand gun or AK to hunt ducks." I understand the logic I just don't' agree with it. Duck hunting is not even the example given in the SA. And if you go off of the only example given, military type firearms are the ones we should have. Not only that but almost every gun we use today at one time was a military firearm from the bolt actions most all came from the German Peter Paul Mauser actions, to the BAR and other semi autos.
But the idea that no regulation is somehow a good thing is just crazy ass thinking. Its not reasonable just as banning all firearms is not reasonable.
This is akin to saying lets just ban all Hydrocodone or Oxy because some people abuse it or lets just make it available to anyone from a bubble gum machine. Both extremes are stupid and nonsensical.
It actually IS that simple - if you've committed a felony, you lose your gun rights. If you're mentally incompetent, you lose your gun rights. Otherwise, you have the right to Keep and Bear Arms. Period.
Let's look at one of the areas where gun-grabbers HAVE been successful....domestic violence. A person can go down, file a domestic violence COMPLAINT - and the guns of the partner are confiscated. There's not a legal finding of gun violence - just the ACCUSATION of the potential of such. That's is a travesty that is visited all too often on folks who would NEVER use a firearm against another human like that - yet simply the ACCUSATION is enough to deny them their rights.
Don't get me wrong - you bring a firearm into a situation where deadly force isn't justified, then yeah - take 'em. But, until then it's SO open to abuse it's not funny - and it happens all the time.
It actually IS that simple - if you've committed a felony, you lose your gun rights. If you're mentally incompetent, you lose your gun rights. Otherwise, you have the right to Keep and Bear Arms. Period.
Let's look at one of the areas where gun-grabbers HAVE been successful....domestic violence. A person can go down, file a domestic violence COMPLAINT - and the guns of the partner are confiscated. There's not a legal finding of gun violence - just the ACCUSATION of the potential of such. That's is a travesty that is visited all too often on folks who would NEVER use a firearm against another human like that - yet simply the ACCUSATION is enough to deny them their rights.
Don't get me wrong - you bring a firearm into a situation where deadly force isn't justified, then yeah - take 'em. But, until then it's SO open to abuse it's not funny - and it happens all the time.
Your first point is my point exactly, taking away the right to have a gun from a felon or mental patient is gun regulation. That is a gun law. One I agree with to some extent. I also think that if you have served your time you should be able to get your rights back at some point if you can prove yourself responsible. Your last point is true. Its not a gun issue to me though, as in many states just the woman accusing the male of violence is enough to get you thrown into jail and the burden is on you to prove different. This is not a simple thing, as many states want to err on the side of the most vulnerable. Just as with kids.
I see both sides of this, and most likely more times than not if there is an accusation its problem true. I think the way to limit this is to have stiff laws that if a woman or anyone accuses a person of domestic violence and its proven to be perjured, then you will spend a year in prison or more. I don't think this will cure the problem of false accusation but it could detour some.
I don't agree with gun control in its extreme forms. I do think some regulation is fine. I have to fill out a fed form and get a BG check, and I can still go home with a gun. That is no more infringing on my gun rights as saying I have to drive down to the store to buy a gun why not have someone bring it to me on my couch. A BG check is regulation not infringement.
I also think the NRA has shot itself in the foot the last few years with its extreme rants against the president. Wild accusations about he is coming to take away our guns. bla bal bal and not one expansion of gun laws and in fact Obama has expanded our gun rights by allowing CCW on Fed. parks. Crying wolf like Wayne L. of the NRA has done does more to discredit him than it does Obama.
There is no way Obama is going to pass any gun laws in the current configuration of the congress. In fact I don't think he is as concerned with gun laws as getting the economy back up and running which is where most Americans are.
As an FFL, I am still against the so-called gunshow loophole, since like many of you I've been to a few big gun shows and do, yup, I have and do see some "socially curious or interesting" characters wandering around with shopping carts loaded to the gunwales with ammo and handguns.
All done without a single check-up! But now, if I try to sell any of my stuff there, even if it's from my personal listed firearms collection, stuff I've owned even from Canada or before I had my first FFL in 1987, I have to, as an FFL, do a NICS check on any buyer, which pretty much restructs my biz there, since otherwise, they can just buy from a non-FFL civilian there! WTF, huh?
Anyhow, it's possible to set yourself up with all sorts of stuff at gunshows, absent any check, even of your citizenship!
But as to any other additional gun laws or restrictions? Would be pointless. Remember: it's already illegal to do any of the stuff that gets uneducated knee-jerk liberal people all excited about gun ownership: murder, armed theft, brandishing, even fully righteous and defensible self-protection use in your own home, or killing some rabid or livestock-killing predo-dog on your property: all of it, you can now reasonably expect a subsequent law suit!
Better perhaps to use pepper spray first, huh? Or will that now also bring on a civil lawsuit? ["My vision or lungs or sense of self-worth, your honor, has been besmirched by this vicious 15% Capsaicin spray "attack" by that co-ed I simply wanted to talk to (and fondle...) out in the University parking lot at 1:00am!! I mean, can you imagine?"]
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.
