Guns laws are good for us???

[Norton]

.

 

[Jaybeez]

Anyone disagreed with this: seems reasonable...?

◦Close the private-sale loophole. [Update: This does not mean banning private sales, but rather requiring private sellers to verify the purchaser’s eligibility to own a firearm, as FFLs must now do.] No, my property my rights. If a woman can have complete control over her womb and its contents, i can have complete control over my personal possession too.
◦Aggressively trace crime guns back to their last lawful transfer. No, this would require a national registry, and is the the goal of confiscationists. Give them this, and then they can concentrate on the next step.
◦Increase the penalties for gun trafficking.No, increase the penalty for crime. We dont require penalties for illegal car trafficing because omeone breaks the law and drives drunk.
◦Allow concealed carry by anyone who passes a gun-safety course, and require every state to recognize concealed-carry permits from other states.
No, States have rights, you cannot trash any parts of the constitution. Tests and couses are an infingement.
It's from a book I picked up - When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Kleinman)

Stop. Please. You need to understand the subject material before you start making suggestions.


Where is that PDF file of gun control in a few easy steps? The one written by the ban propenents that shows how they plan to achieve their ultimate goal through incrementalism?

 

[alucard0822]

I never suggested we give another inch. We already have too many stupid gun laws!

My initial premiss was that reasonable gun laws are not necessarily a bad thing.

For example:

I have no problem with background checks. Just make them instant.

Remove the 30 day wait between purchases in MD (hell, it's easy enough to get around legally), it makes no sense!

Remove the restriction on non-violent felons from owning guns.

If I had my way, we'd strike 95% of the laws we have, write a few reasonable laws and call it a day...


Jamie

I guess I fall into the "purist" category, none have ever been shown to reduce crime, and in many cases have increased it due to the lack of an armed populace as a detterent. From a practical standpoint, every single one of the over 20,000 gun laws on the books is redundant in some way shape and form(armed robbery, assault, murder etc are already illegal), and just about all of them are victimless crimes of possesion, "constructive intent" and so forth, save for a couple that contribute aggrivating circumstances to another crime. Basically "gun crimes" have served as a crutch in order to beef up sentences that otherwise are reduced in some cases to the point of negligence, they infringe on constitutionally protected rights of everyone, cost a fortune to enforce amongst law abiding citizens as criminals continue to break them, and in many cases can land an honest person in prison based on some minute technicality.

 

[Jaybeez]

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=14228&highlight=confiscation

Found it. All those considering being "reasonable" need to read the entire pdf file in this link.

 

[Boondock Saint]

Anyone disagreed with this: seems reasonable...?

◦Close the private-sale loophole. [Update: This does not mean banning private sales, but rather requiring private sellers to verify the purchaser’s eligibility to own a firearm, as FFLs must now do.]
◦Aggressively trace crime guns back to their last lawful transfer.
◦Increase the penalties for gun trafficking.
◦Allow concealed carry by anyone who passes a gun-safety course, and require every state to recognize concealed-carry permits from other states.

It's from a book I picked up - When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Kleinman)

1. There is no private sale loophole.
2. We already trace guns used in crimes.
3. Increasing the penalties does nothing unless they are enforced.
4. Nope. Anything other than the right to keep and bear arms without infringement is unacceptable.

 

[xd40c]

Anyone disagreed with this: seems reasonable...?

◦Close the private-sale loophole. [Update: This does not mean banning private sales, but rather requiring private sellers to verify the purchaser’s eligibility to own a firearm, as FFLs must now do.]
◦Aggressively trace crime guns back to their last lawful transfer.
◦Increase the penalties for gun trafficking.
◦Allow concealed carry by anyone who passes a gun-safety course, and require every state to recognize concealed-carry permits from other states.

It's from a book I picked up - When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Kleinman)

I don't see how any of this lessens or prevents crime.

It first infinges on my rights over my personal proptery.
It traces guns after the fact and relies on a registry, which is supposed to be illegal.
Describe "Gun Trafficking".
The last one I'm OK with.

 

[GNLaFrance]

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." ~ Winston Churchill

I'm speaking to those of you who believe that if we accept a few "reasonable" gun control laws, the antis will be happy and leave us alone. That is epic self-delusion. Read a book. History shows how wrong you are. Every restriction of the right to keep and bear arms has been followed by even louder demands for even more restrictions. There is no instance where it hasn't happened.

 

[pcfixer]

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?

I hear what your saying. What is your stance on the Maryland "Right to Keep and Bear Arms"? I understand criminal or felons loosing their rights as long as the rest of the population that are legal Americans rights are NOT infringed upon. Why should my credibility be questioned? Or better yet why are some of us labeled right wing extremists because of our desire to own, carry openly or concealed to defend ourselves?

 

[novus collectus]

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



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

BUt here is the problem, if the law does not prevent the criminal brothers from getting the guns anyway, then why make the rest of us endure the process? Why make us relinquish our privacy and endure a sometimes exhausting process just because a few criminals, which will still do the act, broke the law?
There has to be a balance when passing laws encroaching on a civil right and justifying the restriction on a civil right or requirement in order to practice the civil right or the invasion of privacy when excersising the civil right the bar is set a whole lot higher than "it is just a minor inconvenience".

 

[novus collectus]

Tell me, exactly, how these laws have helped with Full Auto... Hollywood Bank Robbers used a multiple full auto weapons, do you think for a moment that those were "legal" registered fully auto weapons. Registered NFA weapons are nearly never used in crime because they are too EXPENSIVE. Criminals, who cannot afford these weapons, simply modify existing weapons to full automatic. It is so cheap and easy to build fully automatic AK's and AR 15's that it's damn near silly. Criminals, who don't care about registering their guns then build and use them to commit crimes.

All these laws do is make it more expensive for someone like me to purchase a fully automatic weapon. I have to spend $3,000 to get a $300 Mac-10 that fires full auto, or $10,000 for an otherwise sub 1,000 AK that fires full auto. There is nothing other than the investment in cash preventing ANY of us from owning a fully automatic weapon if we can own a modern firearm of any kind.

Mark

Wait, if they made full auto from semi auto guns, then what is the next reasonable gun control law?.......ban all semi autos of course.
Before long we will be left with reasonable gun laws like they have in England where the only handguns allowed are cap and ball and you need a special license for semi auto shotguns.

 

[novus collectus]

Every revolution has its Jacobin, demanding idealogical purity. My opinion: Society demands a reasonable set of gun laws - and rightly so. We either become part of that solution (find one we as gun owners can live with) or we are part of the problem...

THe Supreme COurt has already said the 2A is an individual civil right that should be looked at in the same light as the First Amendment. I can live with any gun control law that meets the same bar of Constitutionality that restricts your right to express your religion and my right to free speech.
If the law does not pass the same test for restrictions/prohibitions on the practice of religion or free speech, then it should be repealed or never passed. I am an absolutist about our civil liberties and even though I am an atheist, I am a purist when it comes to defending people's right to practice religion and so I will fight against any infringement on our civil right to keep and bear arms just the same.

Don't tread on the Constitution. Anyone who treads on the Constitutional civil rights is part of the problem.

 

[pcfixer]

THe Supreme COurt has already said the 2A is an individual civil right that should be looked at in the same light as the First Amendment. I can live with any gun control law that meets the same bar of Constitutionality that restricts your right to express your religion and my right to free speech.
If the law does not pass the same test for restrictions/prohibitions on the practice of religion or free speech, then it should be repealed or never passed. I am an absolutist about our civil liberties and even though I am an atheist, I am a purist when it comes to defending people's right to practice religion and so I will fight against any infringement on our civil right to keep and bear arms just the same.

Don't tread on the Constitution. Anyone who treads on the Constitutional civil rights is part of the problem.

+1. Novus. It is too bad our President and Congress do not belive the same way you do. I'd even go with 60%!

 

[pablo]

Stop. Please. You need to understand the subject material before you start making suggestions.


Where is that PDF file of gun control in a few easy steps? The one written by the ban propenents that shows how they plan to achieve their ultimate goal through incrementalism?

Good article. Having just read it, I don't think Johnson is anti-gun law.

I get that confiscation has eventually followed gun registration in England, New York City, and Australia (slippery slope), although it’s impossible to be sure that registration helped cause confiscation in these very few cases.

Johnson looks at some of the practical complications that would confront gun control proponents even if Heller were not an obstacle (i.e. Americans own LOTS of guns). I agree with his statement that we need to adjust our gun control regulations and goals to that reality. So let's do that...

 

[Gunner71]

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"


Seems pretty clear to me. Its about personal responsibility. There will always be bad people, laws do not protect us. Allow us to use the methods available to us to take care of ourselves. If someone still succeeds in commiting say, murder, there are laws and punishments that cover that. This thought that all of these laws and infringements will some how protect us from ourselves and evil doers is pure bleeding heart liberal utopian fantasy. This has gone on for so long now that the camel is almost completely in the tent and we aren't pushing back hard enough to get him out. Its only cute until they shit on your bed!

 

[novus collectus]

And you are using circular logic as well. The everyone should be able to buy anything they want argument is being presented here.

Yes criminals will get guns. But there are those who argue (right on this thread), that there should be no restrictions at all in gun purchases.

If a criminal gets a gun, lock him up. Like I said, the laws are useless if they are not used.

I agree w/you that the waiting period is stupid. I already stated (in this very thread) that I suggest and immediate background check, w/no waiting period. I also agree that the 1/30 day limit is stupid. Neither of those laws are reasonable!

I have no problem with Federal Licensees sales requiring background checks of their customers because that is an agreement the licensee made with the feds to get the license and be an agent of the state. What I have an issue with is private sales and transfers requiring background checks.
Making my brother get a background check at all means the transfer is not immediate no matter how fast the background check is. It is an infringement on the practice of a civil right and regardless of if you or anyone else think it is not all that burdensome, you have to justify ANY infringement or restriction of a civil right and the bar is set at proving it will benefit public safety more than it will hurt public safety.

Wait, how will it hurt public safety by requiring a background check? Any delay on someone getting a gun for self defense when they feel the need for one if they are being stalked or threatened coud cost them their life. So one has to argue the lives saved will be more than the lives placed at risk in order to justify the law, but since the law is just designed to catch criminals after the act of violating an illegal transfer and using the gun to kill someone, it could be argued the feel good law did not protect that life. However the law abiding stalked woman who could not make it to a gun shop or police station the day on a weekend she was attacked in her own home cannot be given a gun or buy one from another private citizen may die.

Remember that woman in Indiana who got a handgun from a firend that day who was being stalked and she shot the attacker as he was strangling her in her own house? If there was another days delay in her getting the gun because she had to do it formally she would be the one dead instead.



No, so called common sense gun laws are never thought out fully and are too often justified by the argument that the restriction or requirement is really not all that bad. Well, that is how we got stuck with many of these silly laws we have now.

 

[pablo]

THe Supreme COurt has already said the 2A is an individual civil right that should be looked at in the same light as the First Amendment. I can live with any gun control law that meets the same bar of Constitutionality that restricts your right to express your religion and my right to free speech.
If the law does not pass the same test for restrictions/prohibitions on the practice of religion or free speech, then it should be repealed or never passed. I am an absolutist about our civil liberties and even though I am an atheist, I am a purist when it comes to defending people's right to practice religion and so I will fight against any infringement on our civil right to keep and bear arms just the same.

Don't tread on the Constitution. Anyone who treads on the Constitutional civil rights is part of the problem.

Well said. I concur!

 

[novus collectus]

Anyone disagreed with this: seems reasonable...?

◦Close the private-sale loophole. [Update: This does not mean banning private sales, but rather requiring private sellers to verify the purchaser’s eligibility to own a firearm, as FFLs must now do.]

No, it violates privacy, is a restriction on the practice of a civil right and can be burdensome with little justification, if any, in the name of public safety.

◦Aggressively trace crime guns back to their last lawful transfer.

Yes

◦Increase the penalties for gun trafficking.

Yes, but simple better enforcement of existing laws and getting convictions that stick are all that is needed.

◦Allow concealed carry by anyone who passes a gun-safety course, and require every state to recognize concealed-carry permits from other states.

Yes, but no license or gun safety course needed for open carry.

 

[BondJamesBond]

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

Nice attitude...

I can't speak for anyone else, but do you really WANT anything to get done on Capital Hill? The less they do, the better off we all are. They pass laws to enrich their power and because, as Ayn Rand said, you can't rule innocent men.

 

[Markp]

The "criminals use them, so the laws is useless" argument doesn't work. Since they've broken the law, they need to serve time.

If the courts won't put away criminals who use guns, the laws have no teeth.

But, I do think we're seeing changes in that. I see more and more people being given jail time for illegally using guns.

Making gun ownership criminal doesn't solve the problem of violence. Making certain classes of guns restricted or illegal doesn't prevent their proliferation. You want to solve the wrong problem.

Mark

 

[JMintzer]

Lets be clear, stick to the FACTS
NO gun law has ever prevented a crime.
NO gun law has ever prevented a fatal shooting, criminal OR accidental.
NO gun law has ever prevented a criminal from obtaining a firearm.
NO gun law has ever prevented a criminal from using said firearm in commission of a crime.

Straw man argument, once again...

Punishing and preventing crime has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with sentencing.

How can you punish or sentence someone to something if it's not illegal?

If guns are legal for everyone to own, how do you prosecute a bad guy for having a gun?