What is acceptable in the world of gun regulation?
Submitted by jrd3820 on Sat, 12/15/2012 - 02:11Ok, I do not own a gun, I know very little about guns and I really do not care if you own a gun. I understand stricter gun laws does not equal more safety. I agree that guns do not kill people, people kill people. That being aid, are there any restrictions or regulations people here deem acceptable?
Understand, I know very little about this world because I do not follow gun laws because guns really are not of much interest to me. So, from what I currently understand there is a "gun show loophole" that does not require a criminal background check. Do I understand this correctly? If so, is this something that people think could or should be changed?
Also, I am no huge fan of Obama, but has he really done much in the way of gun control? I ask because my more liberal friends complain that he has not done anything about gun control which makes them mad.
So, when you reply please remember I am not trying to take your guns or your rights to have them. I am trying to understand what the liberals are saying about this because I think this issue might be sticking around for a while after todays incident.
- Login to post comments
They can
take our guns, but...
http://imgur.com/UJBG5
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift
Obama signed law to carry concealed weapons in Nat'l Parks
in 2010.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02...
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/guns-national-parks-firearms-no...
I would accept these rules and regulation.
Jeff Cooper's four rules of gun safety:
1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.
As far as regulation, at some point during primary and secondary education, everyone should take firearms safety and marksmanship courses.
Though they may never personally be called to do so, it is the duty of every able bodied citizen to be prepared to defend the country from enemies, both foreign and domestic.
The US government is the
The US government is the largest arms dealer in the world. I am all for gun control as long as the government has to abide by the same restrictions.
Here's a gun regulation I could get behind
If a gun is too big to carry with both hands, you can not wear it on a gun belt unless you're wearing underwear.
I guess that's about it.
Quotes of wisdom
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, — who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.
George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778
T.Rogers
.
.
"What is acceptable in the world of gun regulation?"
Mandatory shooting of the first person that says I can't have one.
(Edit: Of course I'm kidding.. They should get a trial first!)
lol
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
Irony?
Not a laughing matter when it is right in front of you, but while it is distant, life can still be fun: the best we can make of it.
The "argument" against armed, productive, honest, credit worthy, people, includes those dictates that seem funny now.
These:
"Mandatory shooting of the first person that says I can't have one."
That IS what is is, when the false fronts are no longer working.
They mean to take everything, and armed victims make it tough for them.
Joe
I dunno
but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with everybody owning their own intercontinental ballistic missile topped with a multi-vector nuclear warhead.
Hidden Harvest: Long Term Food Storage Techniques For Rich And Poor is and inespensive ebook for beginners to advanced food storage preppers. Download one today!
Can you say ...
Mutually Assured Destruction ?
Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Thank You Fishy !!!
pussy
pussy
hahahaha
Totally just LOLed. :)
Ha
: )
November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul
Thanks Everyone
Thanks for your thoughts everyone! I had questions about gun control regulations because it is not something I follow, and simply googling this issue only gets you a bunch of dramatic and inflammatory rhetoric. Mostly I have had some very helpful and insightful responses, and just so everyone knows; even before this thread I never though more regulation was the answer. I know crimes are high in areas with strict gun control laws and I know that gun owners have the constitution behind them. I was trying to figure out what is meant by some of the rhetoric and I got my answers.
I wanted to let everyone know this was helpful because I know some people found my questions to be rather bothersome, but that is ok because those people can rest assured that over the past two days I got 2 very liberal friends to admit defeat in our conversation over gun control by using information that people here helped me with.
Education is the best response, knee jerk reactions (on either side) never help. Ever.
jrd is still here... kinda in a weird sort of way. She also just might be the happiest girl in the world because she got exactly what she wanted which was a perfect summer wandering playlist.
answer
You said you got your answers, and maybe you got this one below, but I paged down a bit and didn't see it, so it's easier to just post an answer.
At present, face-to-face same-state sales are completely legal with no government oversight. It's correct that there is no background check associated with such sales. This is probably what people are referring to as a "loophole." It's not just at gun shows, but such sales happen in many contexts and are completely legal. If one buys a firearm at a gun show from a licensed dealer, however, there is a background check (and all the other usual infringements) just as if it is purchased in a store.
The same-state part is not really a law but a BATFE "guideline" which is enforced, more or less, like a law. The BATFE could probably change their guidelines overnight and change this situation. On the other hand, that might interfere with their elicit trafficking of arms to drug dealers and such---I don't know.
Farmer, Thanks
for your answers. That is how I have finally come to understand this so called "loophole." When I googled I got a lot of crazy propaganda so the information given by some here has been quite helpful.
jrd is still here... kinda in a weird sort of way. She also just might be the happiest girl in the world because she got exactly what she wanted which was a perfect summer wandering playlist.
I hate to say it but,
something is going to happen, and Republicans in the house will probably give Obama the votes he needs to pass it.
Things don't happen in one shot, usually (Obamacare is an exception).
First, get ready for limits on clip/mag sizes.(Easier to vote for than a ban on a type of gun.)
Second, maybe a couple years later, ban on certain high caliber ammo. Intended to ban guns of .40 .50 caliber.
Third, might take some time but it will come, ban on "Assault" weapons, including all semi-automatic, weapons and most handguns.
So that leaves the people with small caliber, pump, lever, or bolt action rifles and revolvers to defend themselves from oppressors with. I don't suspect a shotgun ban would get anywhere.
Perhaps a better question
You realize your question is basically....
Would you be willing to forfeit some freedom, and if so which freedoms can we have first?
This is akin to a negotiator saying "can you do better than that" without even discussing WHY someone should do better than that.
If there is an honest logical reason to give up some sort of freedom as it pertains to weapons, then the burden is on the person seeking to remove such freedom to first lay out sound logic as to WHY we should be happy to sacrifice our liberty. And then allow everyone else involved to "shoot holes" in their logic. Only then can you open up debate on whether or not impose some law or other (which I really think would require a constitutional amendment, because the constitution is pretty clear on this one).
What I'm saying here is... there is no liberty (weapon related or otherwise) which a free people should be asked "which liberties should it be OK for me to take from you". Instead, a free people should recognize the need to give them too you.
The constitution itself is basically an outline of what the people and the states were willing to give to the federal government of their own sovereignty. Any power they assume above and beyond that was taken, not given, and is unjust. If we wish to give them more power, it must come from US recognizing the need, not THEM taking it.
So, a better question than the one you presented might be... is there any argument worth considering about any aspect of gun control that would actually improve people's lives as a result, enough so that you would be willing to give your liberty away? Good luck with that.
brent.larsen
So, I see where you are coming from, and maybe I did not word this correctly.
My question was; what is this gun show loophole the left always yells about? What has Obama done in the way of gun control because I hear vastly different stories there from both sides of the aisle? Is it already illegal for the clinically insane to own a gun? If not, should it be? Yes, I could have googled for those answers, but somehow I think I would not have gotten reasonable information because it seems like both sides are inflammatory in this debate. This is not about giving up some freedom for other freedoms, I never looked at it as that, I am asking are there any current gun laws you do agree with, are there any you think could be helpful? As a gun owner or enthusiast you know way more about this than I do. I am all for the decriminalization of marijuana, but I know there will have to be some regulation surrounding it, but I know about that culture more than I know about the gun world.
jrd is still here... kinda in a weird sort of way. She also just might be the happiest girl in the world because she got exactly what she wanted which was a perfect summer wandering playlist.
Same Boat
I know only a little about the gun world as well. I've shot my share of 22 rounds, and the occasional 12 gauge, and I've been on firing ranges for fun a couple of times. I even got to shoot manually loaded black powder / ball riffles at scout camp 20 years ago. But I've never owned my own gun, or purchased ammo, or any of that kind of thing, its not in my nature.
But I do like knowing that, after having a Ron Paul thing in my front yard for a few months last year, that my neighbors probably think I do. And I liked the guy down the road with the Gary Johnson sign right before the election, because I bet the whole neighborhood assumes we are both locked and loaded.
I can see how you can possibly make a case that people who have committed violent crimes should be restricted from owning weapons. I see room for discussion there. But honestly, I think the current number of gun restrictions is MORE than we need, not LESS. And the best question is ... which ones are pointless, and should be eliminated.
But I personally don't think that just because a particular gun can unload a lot of bullets quickly that it should be illegal. The second amendment ISNT about going hunting, its one of the checks and balances in the constitution, a separation of powers, so to speak. If the government ignores all of the other limits we placed on it, and attacks its own citizenry (it happens in other countries ... heck, it happened in this one under Lincoln). We, the people, are allowed to arm ourselves to protect our liberty. You protect liberty with serious weapons.
Nothing is Acceptable...
Government is absolutely prohibited from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
There should be swift and certain sanction for the actual commission of a 'bad-act' by an individual, whether that commission was accompanied by a tool (gun or other implement) or simply the 'bad-act' of an individual.
No categories, no groups, no prohibitions, no controls, no restrictions, no ex post facto, no 'pre-crime' aka prior restraint.....no infringement.
That is the law...that is Amendment II, despite the perversions, twisting and abrogations foisted by Congress, the Executive and the Judicial.
what's acceptable?
realizing my rights are not open to debate no matter your opinion or that of 51% of the mob.
"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul
Rocketman
Maybe not open to debate, but possibly open to questions? I know rhetoric when I hear it, unfortunately when it comes to gun I do not know much (really anything) about them, so when the left yells about gun show loopholes or assault weapons (I didn't know what the difference was between an assault weapon and any other weapon until I asked here), I have questions as to what those are and what that means. I come here to get those answers, not debate your right to own a gun.
jrd is still here... kinda in a weird sort of way. She also just might be the happiest girl in the world because she got exactly what she wanted which was a perfect summer wandering playlist.
that is my answer
i deserve to match those that claim authority over me rifle for rifle.
i will no more debate this fact than i will my right to say it.
"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul
You absolutely deserve that right
I would never say you do not. Even before I started this thread I never thought that. What I was wondering is what is the difference between the assault weapon and the non assault weapon? What is the gun show loophole that people talk about? When I googled about the gun show loophole I got obvious left wing propaganda so I thought people here might be (or ARE I suppose) more informed than I on these issues.
I did get some more information here than I did googling so I think this debate or these questions were helpful, because I was able to use that information this weekend when I was talking to some super liberal anti gun friends and show them how their arguments did not measure up.
jrd is still here... kinda in a weird sort of way. She also just might be the happiest girl in the world because she got exactly what she wanted which was a perfect summer wandering playlist.
why does it matter?
if you accept that we have the right to be as armed as our government, all the rest is just noise.
shall not be infringed.
are magazine capacity limits an infringement?
is limiting rifle selection an infringement?
either we have the right or we don't.
"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul
It matters
because when everyone is yelling things on both sides about gun show loop holes and assault weapons it is hard for someone like me (who does not know about guns or gun shows) to wade the truth from the fiction. I knew that here in this group I would find a lot of well informed and knowledgeable gun owners who could help me in my quest to understand this better. Simply googling only gets me propaganda.
jrd is still here... kinda in a weird sort of way. She also just might be the happiest girl in the world because she got exactly what she wanted which was a perfect summer wandering playlist.
you keep responding
as though i'm evading your question.
i'm not.
"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul
Gun Laws kill people just like drug laws kill people.
Now the war mongers want to use the emotions of tragedy to disarm all law abiding citizens and outlaw their ability to protect themselves, families and loved ones. If only one adult had been allowed to carry a handgun this could have possibly been averted.
You can't legislate morality or sanity. But disarming law abiding citizens and eliminating our constitutional rights to protect our homes and families from violent criminals and tyrannical politicians.
Compare the crime rates and gun laws of Illinois and Arizona.
"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A vote for liberty is always a vote for liberty.