Guns laws are good for us???

[TurboHeloDriver]

The truth is, there are NO reasonable gun laws or "restrictions". Those who are affected by the "restrictions" as you call them, felons for example, don't care about them. Does anyone think a "restriction" or gun law of any kind will keep a felon from obtaining a gun if he wants one bad enough? Laws of any kind only impact or affect those who respect the law enough to obey it. The old adage is very true, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns...like in MD!

 

[xd40c]

You'll never get the uber-anti's to give up the waiting periods they have won. There is no going backward with that crowd. By the same reasoning, you'll never get them to give up background checks for instant checks, ain't gonna happen.

To them the only reasonable gun law is one which totally and completely bans all guns for civilian use. Anything short of this is just another loop hole allowing private ownership of guns. So when you agree to "reasonable" gun laws with an anti, be sure you know what you are agreeing to.

 

[Grampaw]

What is the purpose of "serving time", is it not a punishment and a way paying your debt to society?

If a felon is deeemed safe enough to be released back into society, amoung our wives and children, then they should be afforded all the rights and privilages as any other free citizen. If they arent "safe", then they should still be rotting behind bars.


And while you guys are still stuck in the good guys vs bad guys mentality, who gets to make the definition?

This is the wisest post yet on this topic. It is also exactly what the founders of our country believed in,and tried to pass on to us. It is disgusting how much liberty otherwise good people are willing to give up just so the libertards won't think we are too extreme.

 

[rrrrrrkevin]

Who said anything about giving up anything?

Jeeze, this "cold dead hands" BS does get tiresome...

We can have rational laws regarding gun ownership. Hell, we already have them with fully auto, right?

While I agree that the 'antis' will try to take more and more, reasonable gun laws are not a problem. Does anyone really have an issue with the background check? How 'bout we make it better and make it 'instant'?


Jamie

Are you serious? Have fun with that man I think you should be able to stop in a hardware store and pick up a gun no different than buying a soda at a 7-11. Infact I think you are onto something, you should go through a background check when you buy a gun, as far as my gun purchases you can mind your own god damn buisness. Its really sad when someone is such a sheep they want someone to control them.

 

[rrrrrrkevin]

We can have rational laws regarding gun ownership. Hell, we already have them with fully auto, right?

No these laws are not rational and you are an idiot if you think so.

 

[stove250]

The problem is with the anti gun people.

Anti gun people dream of a world without guns. *poof* guns are gone...

Anti gun people become anti knife people. *poof* knives are gone.....

Anti knife people become anti sticks people. *poof* sticks are gone....

Anti sticks people become anti stone people. *poof* stones are gone...

^^^^^^This is the dreamland fairy tale world they dream of^^^^^^



I dream of a world where the "Anti" people realize that the guns/knives/sticks/stones are inanimate objects incapable of committing danger by themselves. Unfortunately the "Anti" people are making the most progress on this battle of dreams currently.





I would personally like to see much harsher punishment for crimes such as:

1. Armed Robbery
2. Burglary (breaking into another mans house)
3. Murder
4. Malicious Rape
5. Child Molestation

By harsher, I mean execution for first time offenses of this nature. I also would like to see lethal injection done away with, the victim did not have any mercy/compassion or last meal bestowed upon them so why not Hang or Drown the offender on an empty stomach. It is cheaper and would send a message to people thinking of doing any of these crimes that you will die when caught and it will certainly be painful as hell. I am not a believer of "send them to jail for the rest of their life." I do not want my taxes paying to support them when schools and the community could benefit from my tax dollars. These "hardcore" criminals also deter the rehabilitation of non-violent offenders during time spent behind bars simply because they have nothing to lose if they are doing life.

About the main topic and gun laws... I agree with an unbiased proficiency test similar to a drivers license test, you pass, you get the endorsement to buy guns clean and simple. Show your ID at any gun store or show and purchase as much as you want.

 

[zoostation]

Gun laws to prevent criminal acts with guns are inherently illogical.

There was a time when it was just felons who couldn't own firearms.

Then it was felons and the adjudicated severely mentally ill.

Then it was felons and the adjudicated severely mentally ill and those convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse.

Then it was felons and the adjudicated severely mentally ill and those convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse and those convicted of any misedemeanor that carries a potential sentence of more than one year.

Then it was felons and the adjudicated severely mentally ill and those convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse and those convicted of any misedemeanor that carries a potential sentence of more than one year, and those accused of misdemeanor domestic abuse on a long-term protective order.

Then it was felons and the adjudicated severely mentally ill and those convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse and those accused of misedemeanor domestic abuse on a long-term protective order and those accused of domestic abuse on a temporary protective order where the accused doesn't even get a chance to appear. (which, by the way, the judges mostly seem to be ignoring the new law and simply ordering guns seized on most all temporary protective orders, whether there was a threat of gun violence or not as the law requires)

Okay, are the reasonable restrictions folks seeing a pattern here yet?

Whose next? Maybe anybody who ever saw a shrink in the last 10 years? Maybe people with bad credit (don't laugh, I can easily picture some gun-grabber saying "well we wouldn't trust them with a credit card, why should we trust them with a gun!") Maybe people who have had too many car accidents, after all, if they have car accidents it is reasonable to assume they'll have gun accidents, right? Maybe anyone who can't afford a huge licensing fee or a required liability insurance policy to own a gun. It could be a lot of things. But the idea is for them to keep chipping away at the numbers of lawful gun owners.

 

[novus collectus]

Who said anything about giving up anything?

Jeeze, this "cold dead hands" BS does get tiresome...

We can have rational laws regarding gun ownership. Hell, we already have them with fully auto, right?

Uh....NO, the full auto law is ridiculous and based on 1930s gangster movies and fiction.
Sure, the idea of the full auto tax law seemed rational on the surface, but really, what did it accomplish if anything? It only restricted and severely taxed the law abiding who never committed a crime with such a gun and did nothing to stop the criminals who made their own or bought illegal ones without paying the tax and used them in crimes.
The full auto restriction was preposterous in practice when one looks at it rationally.

While I agree that the 'antis' will try to take more and more, reasonable gun laws are not a problem. Does anyone really have an issue with the background check?

Yes, I have a major problem with Maryland making me get a background check on my brother before I sell him a handgun or a "regulated" long gun. I KNOW my brother is not a criminal, so why does the state have to demand our private transaction be recorded and my brother treated as a potential criminal?
A civil right has to be justified to be restricted or infringed BEFORE it is and not after. If the result of the restriction has been proven to serve no ultimate practical purpose for public safety when weighed against the denial or hinderance of the practice of a civil right, then it is unjust and unconstitutional.

 

[Brychan]

Gun control laws should be equal with the same laws on buying a hammer, screwdriver or even a car, just about anyone with the money can buy a 1/2 ton machine that can go over 90 mph and can kill several people at a time, now to legally drive it you must pass a fairly simple test and be 16 y/o, but a 5 y/o with the cash can buy it. There are no common sense gun laws. There are only common sense laws on your actions with the tool. Hammer a nail and your good, bash someones head in then you pay for your crime.

 

[BondJamesBond]

**"Get an "firearms endorsement" on you drivers license kinda like having a motorcycle endorsement. Written test and a basic qualification with a pistol. You may bring one or one will be supplied. Score the minimum and you're good to go. Basically, something that everyone can get that's acceptable in all states for open or CCW. No need to have a car to get a DL. Same with the pistol permit. "**

WHAT!?!?!

You want me to get a driver's license in order to exercise my civil rights? What happens if my license is suspended? Who sets "the minimum" score? Who decides the "qualification" to exercise my rights? Do you also want poll taxes and literacy standards to vote? Maryland does not want you to have any guns, they just have not figured out how to do it yet. Don't give them any more tools.


Good Grief, having to get a drivers license to exercise my rights is about as crazy as having to buy health insurance as a condition of citizenship. OOPS!

 

[BondJamesBond]

We should have a waiting period to buy liquor because you might get drunk and hurt someone you are mad at. When you stop of for a drink, they should not only look at your ID, they should run your record. Might as well do a credit check while they are at it, just to make sure you don't habitually skip out on bar tabs. Also better check you medical records for any drug interaction with alcohol. That makes sense, right? It would just be "regulating interstate commerce." We should also have a waiting period to buy a car, because you might be mad at someone and want to run them over. Come to think of it, you DO have to certify that you are not a habitual dunkard to buy a gun, but not to buy liquor?!? Is there a background check when you buy a car to see if you have any DUI's? Why not? That makes sense. You probably should have to show your barbeque permit to buy matches, just to make sure you are not going to burn someone's house down. But wait a minute! Grilling meat leads to cancer and heart disease, so it must be stopped anyway. yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

[hole punch]

There IS one gun law I can totally and 100% agree with:

The Second Amendment.

'nuff said

 

[WeaponsCollector]

Why should I have to pay $10,000 dollars for a fully automatic AK-47 that costs $400 in semi-auto? Why should a guy who was growing a plant like marijuana be banned from owning guns for life? Victimless crimes should not be felonies but they are.
The ultimate goal of many who support gun control is to ban all civilian gun ownership.
Most will never admit it but it's true. Just look at the UN headquarters with that statue of the revolver that's badly in need of a hack saw. A large percentage of gun control supporters believe it's reasonable for only the police/government to have guns. What's considered reasonable to some is an infringement to others.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

PLEASE learn from Australia and England.
They both passed national gun licensing/registration because it was the "reasonable" and "common sense" thing to do. After all, some nutcases just used an evil gun to murder dozens of innocent and defenseless people. It only took a few months for all guns to be banned and confiscated in Australia and England, to protect the people, of course!

 

[rrrrrrkevin]

This thread is rediculous and useless and needs to be locked, I am sure I am not the only one who is irritated that some idiot is preaching gun control here of all places....

 

[Deapsee]

Hear, hear

ibid

 

[JMintzer]

No these laws are not rational and you are an idiot if you think so.

And people wonder why nothing can get done on Capitol Hill...

Nice attitude...

 

[JMintzer]

Uh....NO, the full auto law is ridiculous and based on 1930s gangster movies and fiction.
Sure, the idea of the full auto tax law seemed rational on the surface, but really, what did it accomplish if anything? It only restricted and severely taxed the law abiding who never committed a crime with such a gun and did nothing to stop the criminals who made their own or bought illegal ones without paying the tax and used them in crimes.
The full auto restriction was preposterous in practice when one looks at it rationally.

I'll just have to disagree with you on that...

Yes, I have a major problem with Maryland making me get a background check on my brother before I sell him a handgun or a "regulated" long gun. I KNOW my brother is not a criminal, so why does the state have to demand our private transaction be recorded and my brother treated as a potential criminal?
A civil right has to be justified to be restricted or infringed BEFORE it is and not after. If the result of the restriction has been proven to serve no ultimate practical purpose for public safety when weighed against the denial or hinderance of the practice of a civil right, then it is unjust and unconstitutional.

Okay, you know your brother is Kosher. But what about those who's brothers are crack dealers? Straw purchase anyone? I can buy a gun and just give it to my brother, regardless?

Sorry, but a simple background check is not the end of the world (IMHO).

If it is to you, that's fine. At least you didn't insult me...


Jamie

 

[JMintzer]

Why should I have to pay $10,000 dollars for a fully automatic AK-47 that costs $400 in semi-auto? Why should a guy who was growing a plant like marijuana be banned from owning guns for life? Victimless crimes should not be felonies but they are.

Agreed, 100%. Non-violent felons (and these people should not even be felons, imo) should not be barred form gun ownership. That's why I said reasonable restrictions. The 'all felons' is not reasonable, imo...

The ultimate goal of many who support gun control is to ban all civilian gun ownership.
Most will never admit it but it's true. Just look at the UN headquarters with that statue of the revolver that's badly in need of a hack saw. A large percentage of gun control supporters believe it's reasonable for only the police/government to have guns. What's considered reasonable to some is an infringement to others.

Yes, that's true. But that's not what I suggested in the least...


Jamie

 

[JMintzer]

We should have a waiting period to buy liquor because you might get drunk and hurt someone you are mad at. When you stop of for a drink, they should not only look at your ID, they should run your record. Might as well do a credit check while they are at it, just to make sure you don't habitually skip out on bar tabs. Also better check you medical records for any drug interaction with alcohol. That makes sense, right? It would just be "regulating interstate commerce." We should also have a waiting period to buy a car, because you might be mad at someone and want to run them over. Come to think of it, you DO have to certify that you are not a habitual dunkard to buy a gun, but not to buy liquor?!? Is there a background check when you buy a car to see if you have any DUI's? Why not? That makes sense. You probably should have to show your barbeque permit to buy matches, just to make sure you are not going to burn someone's house down. But wait a minute! Grilling meat leads to cancer and heart disease, so it must be stopped anyway. yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Straw man argument...