Guns laws are good for us???

[twimc]

One of my pet peeves is the notion that any gun law is a bad gun law.

I for one believe in background checks, the loss of gun rights for violent offenders, and a few others. I will admit that we have many laws that go to far, and ones that are completely pointless, but this is not to say we should not have laws.
Why wont the gun community support laws that help? If we as a community supported reasonable laws, we would take a great deal of steam away from anti-gun movements. We would all so gain credibility when apposing laws that did more harm than good.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

 

[JMintzer]

I think that many (if not the majority) gun owners have no problem with reasonable restrictions in gun ownership...


Jamie

 

[zombiehunter]

i wouldn't call them reasonable restrictions, just common sense applications. felons shouldn't have many rights, at least not for a very long time. Sad truth is that too many are repeat offenders, you want the right back you can earn it.

 

[jaywade]

I think that gun laws that make sense are welcomed by law biding american's but law that deny bacis right to own a handgun (was so in dc, is in chi, and ny) do nothing but rob us a way to defend our homes and families from people who do not follow the laws of the land

 

[jonnyl]

I agree, I think the NRA was a big driver in getting the instant background check laws passed. But I think the term "common sense" gets used a lot when the statistics show otherwise.

 

[Half-cocked]

Our republic managed to survive for 150 years with virtually no federal gun laws whatsoever. It even managed to fight and reconcile after a civil war, without anywhere near the kinds of restrictions on gun ownership that exist today.

What's "reasonable" today, is characterized as a "loophole" tomorrow. It's never enough, for those who want to put an end to the right to own arms.

 

[jjboxman]

i wouldn't call them reasonable restrictions, just common sense applications. felons shouldn't have many rights, at least not for a very long time. Sad truth is that too many are repeat offenders, you want the right back you can earn it.

Since brady bill Pa has revoked CC permits due to felonies on records. The felonies happened years ago, Drag racing, now they need pardons from Govenor to get permits back. Remember that when you read about how many felons were prevented from getting guns.

 

[jjboxman]

Our republic managed to survive for 150 years with virtually no federal gun laws whatsoever. It even managed to fight and reconcile after a civil war, without anywhere near the kinds of restrictions on gun ownership that exist today.

What's "reasonable" today, is characterized as a "loophole" tomorrow. It's never enough, for those who want to put an end to the right to own arms.

+1

 

[hole punch]

i agree that felons should not be permitted to have guns. i disagree with what constitutes a felony these days. as an individualist i feel "you can only screw yourself". you may interpret that however you like.

oh, and gun control has it's roots in racism.

 

[novus collectus]

The antis and the legislators have been entrusted with making so called "reasonable" gun laws and what they did is they perverted them and used them as an excuse for unreasonable gun laws down the road because now they have a foothold. The slippery slope argument is not hypothetical, it has happened. For instance, look at the Brady law, the AW ban and the Lauttenburg amendment.
The Brady law was used to instill a three day waiting period and it almost became permanent and now they are trying to use the Brady law to make us have our family member get a background check before we give them a firearm as a gift.
The AW ban was born out of the gun laws starting from 1934, then 1968, then 1986 and then 1989. The last one, 1989 we can thank Bush 41 for and set the stage for one of the most ridiculous gun laws ever conceived and thrust upon us.
The Lauttenburg amendment is a perfect example of them getting their foot in the door for a new highly restrictive law that makes even more of us "prohibitted persons" who can never own a gun again. In the late 90s an amendment to the Brady law was passed making all people with domestic abuse convictions illegal to possess firearms all of a sudden no matter when they were convicted and no matter how small of a maximum sentence applied at the time. Now I do not want to see convicted wife beaters have guns, but the law was retroactive so someone who wanted to end a false charge against them for assault taking a plea bargain for a minor misdemeanor assault carrying less than 30 jails in jail in 1976 is suddenly treated the same as a felon who can no longer own their guns after the amendment passed and that is just plain wrong (thousands of police officers and US military suddenly became "prohibitted persons" after the Lauttenberg amendment became law and they lost their jobs or were kicked out of the military).

No, there are few new laws they can pass now that I will trust nor can I support. The word "reasonable" has been so perverted that it is really a code word for strict gun control.

By the way, background checks at the federal level for sales by FFLs makes sense when discussing the 2A as a civil right issue because an FFL is a license the federal government issues and they can make people who voluntarily get a license follow their rules. Background checks of citizens of the same state should not have anything to do with the feds (e.g. closing the so called "gun show" loophole is just a ruse and an attempt to regulate ALL private transfers).
In order for a civil right to be restricted or infringed there has to be good cause shown by the government there is a greater need for public safety and PROVE it will improve public safety over not doing anything at all.

In order to pass a new gun law it will now have to pass the Constitutional test. Yes, freedom of religion, speech and the press can be restricted in some forms when they endanger public safety (for instance ritual human sacrifice is allowed to be restricted and free speech to start a riot can be restriced), but all those restrictions have had to show a greater need for public safety and the public's rights not to be violated in order to be Constitutional.

 

[BondJamesBond]

The problem is incrementalism. When we allowed the state to decide that one gun per 30 days was enough, we have given them permission to allow one gun per year. When we gave the government the authority to enforce a 7 day waiting period, we have given them permission to enforce a 30 day waiting period. If we let them enforce a 20 round magazine, we have given them permission to enforce a 2 round magazine.
When we allowed the state to allow judges to take firearms from accused offendors in a protective order, it was only a matter of time before the state would require judges to do this.
You have heard the saying that if you throw a frog into boiling water, it will jump out, but if you put it in cold water and bring it slowly to a boil, it will say in the water until it is cooked.

 

[Jaybeez]

Everyone has the God given right to self defense.

Our rights are not granted by our government, they are to be protected by it.

 

[zoostation]

Everyone has the God given right to self defense.

Our rights are not granted by our government, they are to be protected by it.

 

[13mogul]

I disagree with ANY law restricting my use of firearms. I cannot cite ONE gun law that has decreased crime or been a benefit rather than a burden on society.
As a law abiding citizen, I should be unrestricted in my freedom to own, carry, buy, sell, use and modify any firearm in whatever configuration they are available anywhere in the world.
And I will NOT compromise.

 

[Markp]

I think that many (if not the majority) gun owners have no problem with reasonable restrictions in gun ownership...


Jamie

Sorry, I do have problems with it. The restrictions are rarely reasonable and the results are often predictable. Any time you create gun free slaughter zones, you do nothing to enhance public safety.

Now if you were to say that you have no problem with harsh punishment for criminals who use guns in acts of violence and depriving others their right to peacefully pursue, life, liberty, or property... That I would agree with.

Restrictions on gun ownership do not prevent criminals from acquiring arms. On the other hand, severe penalties for committing unsanctioned violent acts of malice (both with and without firearms) against others resulting in harsh penalties (such as death or life in prison for murders), prevents recidivism and discourages these acts in the first place.

Mark

 

[twimc]

Sorry, I do have problems with it. The restrictions are rarely reasonable and the results are often predictable. Any time you create gun free slaughter zones, you do nothing to enhance public safety.

Now if you were to say that you have no problem with harsh punishment for criminals who use guns in acts of violence and depriving others their right to peacefully pursue, life, liberty, or property... That I would agree with.

Restrictions on gun ownership do not prevent criminals from acquiring arms. On the other hand, severe penalties for committing unsanctioned violent acts of malice (both with and without firearms) against others resulting in harsh penalties (such as death or life in prison for murders), prevents recidivism and discourages these acts in the first place.

Mark

Restrictions on gun ownership by this fragment of the population should be openly supported in principle, and debated on the severity and implementation of the restrictions. Instead, we as gun owners are widely perceived as being against all restrictions.

 

[pablo]

"Gun control is an ineffective tool in fighting crime and is counterproductive to that end because it leaves people vulnerable to criminals. Decades of gun control have done nothing to stop crime, save lives, or make our streets safer. People who use violence are not likely to feel constrained by gun-control laws." (As one theoretical criminal is purported to have said, “Laws is for the law-abiding, and we ain’t, so they don’t apply to us.”)
Future of Freedom Foundation 2002

 

[pablo]

oops - here's another interesting stat...and local!

Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

"TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL." Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, http://www.nra.org/

 

[novus collectus]

Restrictions on gun ownership by this fragment of the population should be openly supported in principle, and debated on the severity and implementation of the restrictions. Instead, we as gun owners are widely perceived as being against all restrictions.

The antis have proven over and over again they cannot be trusted, negotiated with nor given any consideration. The problem with a gun law proposed by a moderate is we know the antis will take it to an entirely new level.
No, the only thing we should support is greater enforcement for catching more criminals, not new laws. So we as a community support enforcing the laws already in place (well, at least the ones that seem to make sense) and that is all that we need to do.
I have debated the merits of proposed gun control laws every time they come up, but they never rise to the level of "reasonable". Allowing restrictions withlout justifying any known benefit or proof is wrong and I will not support any gun control law which does nothing proven fpr public safety and which will restrict lawful ownership/possession/acquisition of firearms and there has been no new gun control law proposed which can be justified up to this point.

 

[JMintzer]

Sorry, I do have problems with it. The restrictions are rarely reasonable and the results are often predictable. Any time you create gun free slaughter zones, you do nothing to enhance public safety.

Now if you were to say that you have no problem with harsh punishment for criminals who use guns in acts of violence and depriving others their right to peacefully pursue, life, liberty, or property... That I would agree with.

Restrictions on gun ownership do not prevent criminals from acquiring arms. On the other hand, severe penalties for committing unsanctioned violent acts of malice (both with and without firearms) against others resulting in harsh penalties (such as death or life in prison for murders), prevents recidivism and discourages these acts in the first place.

Mark

Those very same "harsh punishments" can only come if there are some 'restrictions'. A reasonable restriction is not allowing felons to own guns. You can't punish someone for owning a gun illegally if it's not illegal to own it in the first place!


Jamie