A "common Sense" Idea For Reform By A Pro Gunner (FBI, radical)
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.
The problem you anti-gunners have is this..............
One of the reasons some 2A advocates are so unwilling to even cosider a compromise is because..... ok, lets say for instance you get your assault weapons ban and making a limit to the number of bullets a magazine can hold. Ok, that is now law. So what happens when some nut job takes a gun, not an assault weapon but a tradtional style gun, loas up a bunch of ten round clips, goes into a school and starts shooting? What then? Will you again expect us to sit down and make another compromise and if so, what would it be? Limiting to five rounds a mag? Banning all semi-auto's? Ok, play the scenerio out again.
When would it end? Would there ever be a point where we all agreed that no more ligislation should be considered? Before you know it, we will have completely compromised our second amendment rights away. It's a legit concern and one that you all should adress.
I don't think we need to sacrifice our constitutional rights at the behest of anyone. I don't see anyone stepping up to forfeit their right to free speech, so let's leave the second Amendment alone.
Well i for one would consider a slight modification in the 2nd, so long as the same happens to the 1st
The first thing that must happen is All media Shall use no more than parchment paper and quill pens, doing all the writing by hand.
All Digital media, tv and radio shall be banned, to include telephone and cell phone.
ALL printing presses be the old hand driven type with lead type.
ALL news reports must take place standing on a soap box out side in the weather to what ever people happen to be present.
That's just a part of my when..... i could go on, but I know that will Never Happen, and more than the 2nd will go away...
What the Left don't know, is there is ORDER to these Rights..... The 1st is backed up by the 2nd...... Loose the 2nd and there will be NO 1st anyway, Comrades
Wrong. the 4473 form only covers the initial purchase of the firearm. Is a new 4473 form filled out and submitted should I decide to sell a gun to somone? No. Is another background check performed on the guy that I'm selling the gun to? No. That is where the 4473 fails.
Yes, and beyond that it is up to the original owner. Have you ever sold a gun? What did you ask for, or did you just sell the gun? I will NEVER sell/trade/buy a gun with out the other person having a CCW permit....
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
As you say, laws only keep honest people honest, so making it mandatory for legal owners to keep all but one firearm in a safe will keep them from making a careless mistake and leaving their firearm out for soeone to get hold of it that shouldn't have.
You mean CRIMINAL would break into your house, do you think a safe will save your guns? A lock only keeps an honest man honest....period...
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
The criminal might not care but these laws would keep the criminal from having access to guns, don't you get that? It will keep law abiding gun owners from feeding the black market through private and undocumented sales.
Evidently you think criminals care?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
No, not exactly. If the gun doesn't have a serial # it could be issued an ID#
So, it would be a custom gun.....and no matter what you call it, an ID# or a SN....it is still tracked....
If that didn't always lead to government confiscation it might be a good idea, but across history it always has. The first step to taking them away is for everyone to tell the government what they have. Australia, England, Germany...first step to confiscation is always registration, there isn't any reason to trust that the US government won't as well, especially when that's the unspoken goal of one parties national leaders.
That wouldn't solve anything. If people today aren't securing their firearms with the mentally ill in the home yet another law isn't going to make them do it.
So you're advocating taking rights away from someone who has broken no laws, and is no risk themselves based on someone else?
And which laws would you model the new laws after? Chicago which banned them, (and didn't solve a single problem), or Washington (state) where anyone not a felon can buy a gun and get a carry permit without taking any classes? Or maybe Alaska or Vermont where anyone can carry a gun without any kind of government permission/permit? How about we adopt Idahos laws where law abiding citizens can own and shoot full auto weapons? I suspect you would go for the Chicago model.
Isn't it funny how 'reasonable compromise' from one side always means losing rights for the other. Exactly where is the compromise? For there to be a compromise BOTH sides need to gain something. I see gun owners gaining absolutely nothing in your suggestions.
I wouldn't recommend "modeling" it after any of the laws currently on the books necessarily. It would have to be something legislators from all fifty states, along with experts, would have to sit down and work out.
What are you not getting? It doesn't matter if criminals care or not. If they have a harer time getting guns, more of them won't have them. A registry of legal owners along with a required background check for all private sales, would "help" keep criminals from gaining access to guns through the private market
What are you not getting? It doesn't matter if criminals care or not. If they have a harer time getting guns, more of them won't have them. A registry of legal owners along with a required background check for all private sales, would "help" keep criminals from gaining access to guns through the private market
History has proven all gun registry leads to all gun confiscation.
I am sure you can register your guns somewhere if you want to. i never will.
There is many 4473 forms I have filled out to buy new guns, and anytime i sell one I get ID in a legal face to face sale.
The why is if that gun is stolen and used in a crime the cops are going to come ask me about it, and i am going to show proof I sold it and to whom........
If in a face to face sale I don't get ID I don't sell the gun. The only way after that point is going thru a FFL Dealer and then the buyer pays that fee, not me.
Most guns I sell do go through a FFL dealer......... And most guns I sell FTF are too people i have known 20 years or more.
Most of the whiners don't know what a 4473 IS. I know how that works because i used to sell guns in a gun store. I have personally called NICS thousands of times.
I wouldn't recommend "modeling" it after any of the laws currently on the books necessarily. It would have to be something legislators from all fifty states, along with experts, would have to sit down and work out.
So if laws are on the books.....and they don't work, makes you think more laws will work or even be enforced?
What are you not getting? It doesn't matter if criminals care or not. If they have a harer time getting guns, more of them won't have them. A registry of legal owners along with a required background check for all private sales, would "help" keep criminals from gaining access to guns through the private market
What don't you get about criminals not caring about laws.....Why should I or you restrict ourselves when a criminal will not?
The problem you anti-gunners have is this..............
One of the reasons some 2A advocates are so unwilling to even cosider a compromise is because..... ok, lets say for instance you get your assault weapons ban and making a limit to the number of bullets a magazine can hold. Ok, that is now law. So what happens when some nut job takes a gun, not an assault weapon but a tradtional style gun, loas up a bunch of ten round clips, goes into a school and starts shooting? What then? Will you again expect us to sit down and make another compromise and if so, what would it be? Limiting to five rounds a mag? Banning all semi-auto's? Ok, play the scenerio out again.
When would it end? Would there ever be a point where we all agreed that no more ligislation should be considered? Before you know it, we will have completely compromised our second amendment rights away. It's a legit concern and one that you all should adress.
That is always the argument, that the first step such as limiting magazines, registration, etc will be the end of the 2nd amendment, that is why it is so difficult to reach compromise. You came up with some good suggestions that have never been universally tried before, I don't agree with all but there needs to be come changes, no one is going to take away 3nd amendment.
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.
