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.
This thread is not worth trying to clean up, so if it doesn't get on track and stay there, I'll close it and leave it closed. I suggest you re-read the OP to see what it is about, before you post. I am tired of cleaning up messes. I realize that it is a very large topic to try and stay on track, but all I can do is ask you to try.
Last edited by ElkHunter; 12-16-2012 at 06:38 PM..
I have read all of the threads on this topic, as for me I can see both side of the problem. I live in a state that has less restrictive gun laws, and I am glad of that, so a few more restrictions would not be that big of a deal. But on the other hand why should I be inconvenienced because other states have problems with violence and gun control problems.
I do enjoy target practice, reloading and owning and shooting a firearm overall.
From a gun control perspective I am in favor of the Following:
NICS background check.
Not allowing guns in the hands of convicted criminals and mentally ill people.
I believe with proper certification that my carry conceal permit should be allowed in all 50 states.
I am in favor of allowing private sale of firearms, but they must go through a licensed FFL dealer to complete the sale, at least that way a NICS background check can be performed.
I do not object to not bringing in my firearm in to a courthouse, and I am in favor of not bringing my firearm in to the Whitehouse, but as far as any other location, I should be allowed to carry.
And as a law abiding citizen and with proper training and certification, I should be allowed to own any weapon that the police or military can own and use with the exception of Nukes or biological weapons.
Rigby.....nicely thought out. My only exception is the NICS, primarily on Constitutional issues. We can't be the line on someone with criminal intent - if you look, you'll see that many of those committing crimes w/guns do so with guns they either steal, get from others - or purchase w/a NICS background anyway.
TexasRedneck
You are quite correct, when intent to kill is there someone will find a way, whatever that way is, bomb, knife, sword or gun. I was just speaking of the working gun rights. I know as well as you that the criminal element did not buy their guns from a gun store legally in the first place. I will not stop much of the gun traffic, but it could be a good start.
will not stop much of the gun traffic, but it could be a good start.
Sorry....but THAT I'll take exception to. Denying one person their right because of what someone else MIGHT do is headed down a dangerous path....one that we've already done too much of (look at what the Patriot Act, etc. has become). This is a good example of where good, old-fashioned profiling comes into play. I've had folks approach me to buy guns that I've declined, even though they were fully prepared to pay my asking price - simply because of the way they approached the sale ("How much? Fine - I'll take it") - no questions that a normally cautious buyer would ask. Those types of things will never be caught by any 4473 - so other than to perhaps stop a felon, that's about all they do.
The trouble is, the gun lobby has convinced many, if not most, gun owners that ANY regulation, however mild, opens the door to total bans and even confiscations. I am not aware of any politician who has ever recommended seizing privately owned firearms en masse. It's a non-issue. But the NRA treats it as if it were a real scenario, and a lot of people have bought into it.
The trouble is not with the gun lobby, it's with anti-gun organizations and politicians who seem to think gun control or banning guns will reduce or eliminate violent crimes.
Gun confiscation can and will happen, it can start out as a "Gun control measure", but they'll end up confiscating your weapons. If you think it won't happen in the United States, well think again. It did happen in England in the mid 1990s, where everyone who owned a handgun was forced to turn it in. How did it start? With gun registration and licensing - Gun owners were required to register handguns and shotguns, and I believe hunting rifles then it progressed to a complete ban and confiscation of handguns. You probably remember the news stories in the 1990s that showed British citizens standing in line to turn in their handguns and were disgusted with their government because of that ill-conceived scheme that was thought to reduce crime, where in fact, it didn't make a difference.
Taking guns away just gives more power to the criminals....easier for them to outnumber/overpower you! We don't have the daylight home invasion problem Canada has because criminals never know what they might face!
When I lived in Aurora CO the houses on either side of me were robbed during the day mine untouched....the neighbor on one side was a liberal wannabe politition woman and an old couple on the other....my roommate and I both armed uniformed guards...go figure.
I consider myself pretty pro-gun, but I would be willing to accept some gun control, based on certain factors. Here are some of my points/thoughts on the subject.
-I would be willing to accept a ban on semi-auto, magazine feed rifles so long as we get very tough on gun crime, especially for those who lie on federal firearms forms, etc.. I'm sick of seeing punks and thugs with numerous convictions constantly get five year sentences for lower level violent crime (no one gets shot, minor injuries sustained from a beating, etc.), then are released in two to three years. I want these vicious people locked up, not roaming around. In addition, I want an end to the corporate welfare for billionaires, specifically professional sports teams. Here in Indianapolis, the worse case example of how taxpayers get screwed for pro-sports, we have spent over $1,000,000,000 for a football stadium, and likely another $400,000,000+ for the original football stadium, a baseball stadium, and a basketball stadium. At the same time, we closed a few of our mental health facilities. There should also be fair and just compensation for everything people are told to turn in if there is no grandfathering. Owners should at least get what they paid, and for those who can't provide a receipt, there should be a fair pricing schedule. Most ARs are anywhere from $900-$1,500. In addition, folks should get compensation for accessories and such.
-If there is grandfathering of existing rifles, I wouldn't be opposed to mandatory safe storage laws. These rifles aren't what people carry around on their person for defense. People carry handguns for defense, they don't walk around with an AR or AK variant. If someone has $2,000 to spend on an AR-15, they have the $400 they need for a true, decent safe to lock it up in.
-For high capacity magazines, I wouldn't be overly upset with a limit on ten round mags. Again, a complete ban should come with fair compensation, with the turned in mags shipped to military bases for inspection/used as parts/etc.. I would also propose maybe an idea where one could get a high capacity magazine welded to their AR/AK variant rifle. This would make it usable, but extremely hard to reload. Wouldn't work for all semi-autos. Basically it would be a fixed magazine rifle that would hold thirty rounds.
-When it comes to handguns, I'm more protective of them. I believe 99% of self-defense needs can be met with handguns. I don't mind people owing many, don't really mind the "high capacity" magazines. However, I wouldn't feel less safe with only ten rounds vs fifteen rounds. I don't think there should be any restrictions on types of handguns. I don't think revolvers are any more safe than semi-autos.
-Outside of guns and what I already noted, we have to do something about other things as well. We need to stop this liberal lala fantasy that every "special ed" kid can be magically saved and turned into a normal, functioning member of society. I hear that K-12 schools get dinged when these kids don't do well on test....really? Have we become so overcome with this "save everyone" concept that we nail K-12 districts because they can't teach people who really can't be taught? I'm not saying every special ed kid is unteachable, is dangerous, etc., but we need to take these cases out of K-12, start some sort of state system, and constantly assess them for danger clues. Also we need to fortify schools. I'm not going to say teachers or admin need guns, though the best way to fight force is with equal force. I don't think it is crazy to seriously consider putting one or two lever action rifles in a school, sending employees who volunteer to training. There are ways to make this work. We have to train people to fight. It is clear LE can't stop this, can't be there when these things happen. Many of these crazy people kill themselves before or right as law enforcement is showing up. We have to instill a need to fight in school building employees. If they flat out refuse these changes, then cut sports, focus on education, and hire armed security with the sports budget. Let parents form their own sports teams outside of the schools if that is what it takes. When it comes down to it, schools are for education, not play time. We also need to look at safety by environmental design. Locked doors are fine, but is the glass next to the door shatter proof? What happens when the office worker buzzes the shooter into the building, gets shot, and now the person can access the rest of the school from the main office? Also, no more private party sales. Make all private sales go through an FFL.
Gun confiscation can and will happen, it can start out as a "Gun control measure", but they'll end up confiscating your weapons. If you think it won't happen in the United States, well think again. It did happen in England in the mid 1990s, where everyone who owned a handgun was forced to turn it in. How did it start? With gun registration and licensing - Gun owners were required to register handguns and shotguns, and I believe hunting rifles then it progressed to a complete ban and confiscation of handguns.
You bring up some valid fears, but I just don't see it. Gun sales are through the roof, and many of the new gun owners are buying handguns because they know the government can't protect them. The thing is, these gun owners don't understand the need for ARs/AKs. It is possible to have some controls and still have some guns. We don't allow mortars, RPGs, claymores, etc. for the most part. We don't allow people to make any sort of chemical or bio-hazard weapon. Yea, they took all the guns from England, big deal. They have been anti-gun for decades. They had to beg for weapons from US folks during WW2. There is a difference between a society rooted in guns, especially handguns, bolt/lever action guns, etc. and a country that really doesn't have a very strong history of weapons in private hands.
As much as is necessary to avert another Sandy Hook incident!
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.
