What would you consider resonable gun control?

a reply to: Snarl

I will make this very simple...If anyone breaks into my home I call
911 after I stop the person that broke in.

Don't see anything wrong with starting them young with the basics of gun safety so that if theres a gun on the table you get an adult to put it somewhere safe then move on to the law and constitution finally range days so you can learn about the most common firearms and how to make them safe and plink a few rounds down the range if you fancy it.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: FredT

I think you have to look at the fact that it is a Constitutional Right and ask "How many Constitutional Rights have tests, licenses, or restrictions in their free exercise thereof?" The answer to that is effectively "None, aside from the 2nd." I mean we have court rulings declaring it unconstitutional to require an ID to vote, because it is a Constitutional Right... see the issue?

So far the SCOTUS has allowed laws both Federal and State to get us to the current point. If you take a strict view then we should be allowed to own my aforementioned Vulcan 20MM cannon. But the constitution was menat to be adaptable to a point.

What Im striving here is for some sort of middle ground compromise that while each side would not be 100% happy with, they could live with it. Its like any good negotiation.

originally posted by: underwerks
Anything that allows me fully automatic weapons.

^^^^^^^
Ignorance...
With a $100 bump trigger assembly I can convert a semi-auto over to something that fires like an auto. Faster in some cases. All legal... The issue isn't people wanting military grade weapons. All gun owners want is sensible regulations. Regulations imposed by people who understand the inner workings of firearms and the industry.
Not people like...


It's beyond me why people on the left talk about things they have almost NO understanding in...
You don't see me posting on threads about interior design do you?

a reply to: FredT

But the constitution was menat to be adaptable to a point.

Absolutely it was, and is. But there is a process by which to implement that flexibility: amendment. There is no other legal method to update the Constitution than by the method outlined in Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

We have come to a place in history where we as a society have lost our way with respect to law. Want a drug legal? Don't bother changing the law, just ignore enforcement. Don't like a law? No need to revoke it, just get a judge to strike it down. Don't agree with the Constitution? It's too much work to change it, so just argue against it.

The problem with this is that the drug law can be enforced again on a whim; the struck down law can be reinstated on appeal; the Constitution still says what it once said. Imagine if Amendment XIII had not been written, but rather people just decided to not have slaves?

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

How easy would it be for one party to later get a lawyer to argue that the black vote should be prorated by 60%?

No. I will agree that as written, the 2nd Amendment is inappropriate for today's world. I just don't agree with, and will never agree with, trying to change its application outside the proper procedure.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: watchitburn
Any gun control is inherently unconstitutional and therefore unreasonable.

100% agreed.

Any ban, restriction, registration or background checks are unconstitutional period.

It's so simple to understand, it's sickening how the 2nd has been chipped away over time and it's should have never been touched.

Tough punishments and enforce the laws!

Reasonable gun control is no gun control. Humans are safest when anyone can carry any gun they want anywhere at any time. A geographical map of murder by county in the US confirms this as fact:

Article

“It is stunning how concentrated murders are in the U.S.,” John Lott, president of the CPRC said to Fox News. “And we show that even within these counties, with all these high rates, murders are very concentrated.”

“While many factors explain these concentrated murders, it is also striking that the counties with zero murders are the counties with by far the highest gun ownership rates,” Lott said.

Disarming the people creates masses of defenseless victims. This is a fact.

A criminal who wants to use a gun to kill lots of people is not deterred by gun laws, because he has no desire to obey the law. This is a fact.

People who advocate gun control are low IQ morons. This is a fact.

a reply to: FredT

unfortunately, the middle ground has already been made illegal. To get back there we need to reduce the laws on the books.

That is the stance that most gun advocates tend to take.

a reply to: FredT

No ban on automatic weapons. No problem with gun safety classes. Waiting periods are idiotic.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: FredT

No ban on automatic weapons. No problem with gun safety classes. Waiting periods are idiotic.

How do you know if someone is eligible to purchase a firearm? You have to have some sort of due diligence to make sure.....

Some of the best gun control I have ever seen...

Owning fully automatic weapons, made before 1986, is not banned by US law just heavily regulated and taxed. They are however banned by some states CA, DE, DC, HI, IL, MA, MN, NJ, RI, WA, WI.

a reply to: Benzer

Actually they are only taxed $250.00 dollars per banned item purchasing.

Say for instance you wanted an automatic with a suppressor.....That would be $500.00, $250.00 for the suppressor and $250.00 for the actual automatic weapon.

What keeps them out of everyones hands besides the ATF back ground check is the cost of the weapons. Due to supply and demand an automatic AR-15 goes anywhere from 8 grand and up.

originally posted by: TheRedneck






No. I will agree that as written, the 2nd Amendment is inappropriate for today's world. I just don't agree with, and will never agree with, trying to change its application outside the proper procedure.

TheRedneck

That the whole argument in a nutshell. The protocol is set for a reason, and should be adhered to. We're a nation built upon laws.. and the moment we decided we werent and could selectively enforce.. was the moment we started sliding down the slope.

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: FredT

I think you have to look at the fact that it is a Constitutional Right and ask "How many Constitutional Rights have tests, licenses, or restrictions in their free exercise thereof?" The answer to that is effectively "None, aside from the 2nd." I mean we have court rulings declaring it unconstitutional to require an ID to vote, because it is a Constitutional Right... see the issue?

So far the SCOTUS has allowed laws both Federal and State to get us to the current point. If you take a strict view then we should be allowed to own my aforementioned Vulcan 20MM cannon. But the constitution was menat to be adaptable to a point.

What Im striving here is for some sort of middle ground compromise that while each side would not be 100% happy with, they could live with it. Its like any good negotiation.

RE: The SCOTUS... the SCOTUS also deemed slavery legal and then followed through with declaring Segregation to be legal for many years. They're not bastions of Constitutional Rights, nor are their rulings always logical or just. This is a large part of why I am taking an absolutionist position here in saying "Shall NOT be infringed"

But you can't negotiate Rights for a very logical reason: they were bestowed upon us by the Creator. The Constitution only served to place them in legal stone.

If we allow Rights to be negotiated and open the door for compromise, we've already lost the Right. Look at it this way, Party A owns a series of things and is perfectly within the existing laws, Party B wants them to not be allowed to own any of those things and demands a law change. If a compromise takes place, which party physically loses? While Party B may not see the full equivalence of what they wanted, Party A AND Party B lose their RIGHT at the point of compromise.

And yeah, I'd take the Vulcan in a heartbeat and, being entirely honest, I don't think it should be illegal. They're actually legal to own with a Class 3 license, a hell of a lot of searching to actually find one of the few weapons in private hands that's also for sale, and will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/4 to 1/2 a million dollars after the weapon price, transfer fees, and transfer taxes are accounted for... oh, and you won't actually receive the weapon until a year+ later thanks to all of the ATF reviews and approvals. In other words, infringement.

Let's be rational adults here, man. How many spree shooters, terrorists, and convicted felons have the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to buy these military grade weapons? If they had those resources, we'd already see those weapons in use in crimes in America, bought off the black market.

So no. No "negotiating" on the Second. I won't even consider voting for any politician who does so. Those of us who exercise our 2nd Amendment Rights have watched our pie get smaller, and smaller, and smaller, losing a slice each time the compromise word comes up. NO MORE. We will retain what pie we have left and, at the very least, those still wanting to take more of the pie can take solace in the fact that they can share our pie with us... because the beauty of Rights is that the same Rights extend to both parties. Just as I have the Right to purchase and own a rifle, those who want to steal that Right from me have the Right to go purchase and own one, too. Fair and square, even Steven all the way around.

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: FredT

No ban on automatic weapons. No problem with gun safety classes. Waiting periods are idiotic.

How do you know if someone is eligible to purchase a firearm? You have to have some sort of due diligence to make sure.....

"Are you an American Citizen?"
-Yes
"May I see your birth certificate and Driver's License?"
-Yes
*checking* "OK sir, what can we put in your hands today to assist you in exercising your Right as an American?"

a reply to: GuidedKill

According to The Firearm Owners Protection Act
"Machine guns that were lawfully possessed prior to May 19, 1986 may continue to be possessed and transferred provided they are registered in accordance with requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (“NFA”).26...
...Unregistered machine guns are contraband, and there is no way to register a previously unregistered machine gun.29"

So beyond the costs enumerated above the only way to obtain a machine gun is if it was registered by someone prior to May 19, 1986

smartgunlaws.org...

originally posted by: Wreckclues
a reply to: GuidedKill

According to The Firearm Owners Protection Act
"Machine guns that were lawfully possessed prior to May 19, 1986 may continue to be possessed and transferred provided they are registered in accordance with requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (“NFA”).26...
...Unregistered machine guns are contraband, and there is no way to register a previously unregistered machine gun.29"

So beyond the costs enumerated above the only way to obtain a machine gun is if it was registered by someone prior to May 19, 1986

smartgunlaws.org...

Yes.. The only legal machine guns are the ones that were on record prior to the ban. That's what I said in my earlier post...supply and demand. Only so many guns registered prior to the ban and only those can now legally be transferred so whoever owns those weapons change a premium. The cost over a brand new semi auto AR-15 as opposed to a brand new automatic AR-15 and peanuts....You just can't buy a new automatic AR-15 legally as a private c

originally posted by: FredT

1) Require basic education (like an NRA safety class) for all gun owners.

Let's apply that to guns and voting please.

Just strictly uphold laws regarding misuse of firearms.

Problems would rapidly decline as criminals serve mandatory sentences for use of firearms in commission of crimes.

If one looks up the issue you'll find State and Federal prosecutors offer "deals" to criminals so that they will plead on lessor crime with much shorter sentence.

This bumps prosecutors conviction record and temporarily removes criminal from street but has the effect of being revolving door as same perpetrators time after time commit felonies with firearms.

I say fix this issue, see how it works, before making even more laws.

Put responsibility where it belongs instead of burdening civil society with yet more regulation.

Our founders knew you can't trade absolute safety for freedom and wrote constitutional amendments accordingly.

Therefor if crazy/insane misuse firearm they need to be put down where they stand by a constitutionally armed citizenry.