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.
you do realize that fully automatic weapons have been illegal for about 80 years right?
but you are right, its all a matter of where to draw the line. it may be worth noting, that school shootings like newtown and "assault rifles" generally make up a very small % of overall murders. also maybe worth noting, the virginia tech shooting was done with handguns, not an "assault rifle."
logically, i think if you are banning anything thats currently available, its magazine capacity. which id set to 30 as a compromise position. other than that, i think its a matter of background checks, registration, more carry permits, more training and harsher penalties for crimes.
Yes, I realize that. And gun owners seem to have been able to fully accept that limitation without their rights being outrageously violated.
And yes, there is no cure-all. Capacity, firepower, and all of the other items you mention need to be considered together.
Yes, I realize that. And gun owners seem to have been able to fully accept that limitation without their rights being outrageously violated.
And yes, there is no cure-all. Capacity, firepower, and all of the other items you mention need to be considered together.
i think it probably will and should boil down to local laws for things like capacity. it should probably be even more local because the reality is that the problem in america is our sewer cities, not good suburban and rural folk who like to drink budweisers and shoot their guns while riding an ATV. but then comes the complaint of virginia guns finding their way into new york. so thats going to have to be dealt with with registering, background checks, gun show loophole issues and stiffer penalties for violating the laws. i dont think the federal government should be pushing these laws on states where the residents overwhelmingly dont want them.
i was reading an article recently where the author was pointing out some anomalies in some states regarding gun laws. like vermont and maryland both have less strict gun laws but marylands crime is much worse. well, maybe that can be explained by BALTIMORE. then maybe its not such a shocking anomaly.
i think it probably will and should boil down to local laws for things like capacity. it should probably be even more local because the reality is that the problem in america is our sewer cities, not good suburban and rural folk who like to drink budweisers and shoot their guns while riding an ATV. but then comes the complaint of virginia guns finding their way into new york. so thats going to have to be dealt with with registering, background checks, gun show loophole issues and stiffer penalties for violating the laws. i dont think the federal government should be pushing these laws on states where the residents overwhelmingly dont want them.
i was reading an article recently where the author was pointing out some anomalies in some states regarding gun laws. like vermont and maryland both have less strict gun laws but marylands crime is much worse. well, maybe that can be explained by BALTIMORE. then maybe its not such a shocking anomaly.
I agree completely with the part that I bolded above. And I think the real focus has to be on hand guns, because that's where most of the crime/deaths come from. The magazine capacity, etc. for rifles should still be addressed, but it is just a small part of the issue.
As to local/national laws, I think your idea would have to be even more local than the State, but the problem is that guns are so portable. To me, the basis of gun ownership rights lies in the 2nd amendment of the constitution -- a national document -- so it follows more logically that gun laws should be more uniform across the country.
I agree completely with the part that I bolded above. And I think the real focus has to be on hand guns, because that's where most of the crime/deaths come from. The magazine capacity, etc. for rifles should still be addressed, but it is just a small part of the issue.
As to local/national laws, I think your idea would have to be even more local than the State, but the problem is that guns are so portable. To me, the basis of gun ownership rights lies in the 2nd amendment of the constitution -- a national document -- so it follows more logically that gun laws should be more uniform across the country.
i understand the logic, but the country isnt uniform. part of why i brought it up isnt only that i think states should be able to choose for themselves but also that you are not going to be able to pass the legislation at a federal level. so states who dont want stricter gun control laws impact other states and vice versa. its convenient to be a democrat in nj and think everyone is like you, but thats not true. there are a lot of people around the country (majorities in many states) that dont want these laws. i understand that here, im the resident right wing nut (i think im a moderate) but in many places in the country im a liberal compared to the locals. i know people who live in nyc may think how scary it would be if the local nuts had a gun but thats not how i think as a resident of holmdel. im happy for my fellow residents to be armed.
guns are portable but by having more control over who buys guns and ability to trace them in the future, you will have less guns turning up in the hands of bad guys in other states.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 01-30-2013 at 01:31 PM..
guns are portable but by having more control over who buys guns and ability to trace them in the future, you will have less guns turning up in the hands of bad guys in other states.
Well, not that we all seem to be on relatively the same page, lol.
The issue is that some people in some states are incredibly resistant to universal checks and registries, which as you pointed out only work if it is done nationally. So, those folks need to give ground on those issues because it is something that effects people well beyond the borders of their individual state. Beyond that, leave the issue of types of guns allowed, capacities, carry rights, etc. up to the state governments. If Iowa wants to allow everyone to walk around with AR-15's with 100 round magazines, they can have at it. Similarly NJ can restrict who can own a BB gun if they want to. The only hard limit of course being no "bans" as they would violate the Second Amendment via way of the 14th.
The issue is that some people in some states are incredibly resistant to universal checks and registries, which as you pointed out only work if it is done nationally.
you think a person in virginia gives a crap if some gang members in nyc kill each other?
i just read an article about murders in chicago. almost 80% of victims had criminal records. 75% of the victims and criminals were black. 3 or 4% of the victims were white. some people dont think these sorts of crimes and laws should apply to them because they dont see themselves as a part of the group where most of this stuff happens.
you think a person in virginia gives a crap if some gang members in nyc kill each other?
i just read an article about murders in chicago. almost 80% of victims had criminal records. 75% of the victims and criminals were black. 3 or 4% of the victims were white. some people dont think these sorts of crimes and laws should apply to them because they dont see themselves as a part of the group where most of this stuff happens.
No, chances are people in Virginia don't really give a crap. However, is not the purpose of forming a Federal government, at least in part, to address issues that transcend individual state borders and settle grievances?
Take it away from guns for a minute. In the 1980's medical waste was washing up on the NJ shore in record numbers. It forced the closing of beaches and the state lost millions in tourism revenue. No one could figure out where the waste was coming from. Eventually it was tracked to the NYC Fresh Kill's Creek Landfill on Staten Island where insufficient systems were allowing medical waste as well as other trash to leave the fill, pollute the ocean and eventually end up in NJ. NJ eventually sued NYC in Federal Court and forced the city to pay $1 million in damages as well as pay for all the beach clean-up.
The fiasco led in 1988 to Congress passing the Medical Waste Tracking Act. This Act required the EPA to setup systems to track medical waste from cradle to grave. Under the auspices of the Federal Act and with EPA assistance, NJ and NY coordinated to setup a multi-agency program to provide better landfill standards as well as systems to trap any loose debris from leaving NY/NJ Harbor.
So, was it NY's problem that their landfill was leaking medical waste that was destroying NJ's beaches? No, it really didn't bother them at all. However, it was a major impact to NJ and was only solved through Federal Courts and actions to force everyone to take the matter seriously.
So would go my logic in the gun debate. If some states have lax laws that allow for the easy trafficking of firearms into other states where they invariably end up being used in crimes; then the burden should be on those states to change their laws if such a change would have a tangible impact, which it would. In that light, it could be argued that the Federal government has a duty to take action.
I don't know. I just don't believe there is any reasonable need to have semi-automatic military-style rifles out there with capacity to fire that many rounds so quickly.
Are you OK with regulations that ban fully-automatic firing? Assuming yes, then it's all a matter of degree.
And saving some lives is worth the change.
I know this punch line as "We've established that; now we're only haggling over the price".
If the choice is to object to regulations which ban fully-automatic weapons or to accept that there is no principled objection to gun laws, I object to the regulations.
I know this punch line as "We've established that; now we're only haggling over the price".
If the choice is to object to regulations which ban fully-automatic weapons or to accept that there is no principled objection to gun laws, I object to the regulations.
That's the biggest problem, gun owners who reject at any laws that make them responsible for their guns.
I really don't care how many guns any one person has or how many bullets they hold. But I want them to register those guns so that when they want to sell them to Billy Bob the nut Job they have to go through a registered dealer so a background check can be made.
As far as I'm concerned anybody who doesn't want to register their guns has something to hide. Either they want to sell guns for profit to non qualified buyers or they are just nut jobs afraid that Obama is coming for their guns.
Either way they don't belong having guns.
Even the NRA says that mental illness is the problem. So let's make sure they can't buy any gun show weapons.
Even the NRA says that mental illness is the problem. So let's make sure they can't buy any gun show weapons.
But what if you think like I do that people with the desire to own personal arsenals ARE unbalanced to begin with? Nothing in a background check that lists "wants his own Fort Bragg" is going to set off alarm bells.
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.
