What is reasonable gun control...

This is a discussion on What is reasonable gun control... within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by ANGLICO You know I love you long time.... :-) BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ = Wrong. 1) Progressive Left (call them what you want = the ...

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 119
Like Tree182Likes

Thread: What is reasonable gun control...

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array mprp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by ANGLICO View Post
    You know I love you long time.... :-)

    BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ = Wrong.

    1) Progressive Left (call them what you want = the 60's hippies running our Federal Govt right now) will not punish criminals.
    2) One Strike would hurt more Law Abiding Citizens who run against ignorant gun laws than professional criminals.
    ANGLICO? You buzzed me? I can't believe you just buzzed me!

    Leaving out the part that it would actually happen, which do you think would help more given the fact that I'm sure the agenda is to lessen violent crime instead of just wanting to see how many rights or devices they can take away? At least that's supposed to be the meat and potatoes of the theory right? Take away guns and crime will be no more? Call me weird but I'd rather it get tougher on criminals than on us. I think we've suffered enough through gun legislation. Maybe it's time for violent criminals to take the slap in the face for once.
    Vietnam Vets, WELCOME HOME

    Crossman 760 BB/Pellet, Daisy Red Ryder, Crossman Wrist Rocket, 14 Steak Knives, 3 Fillet Knives, Rolling Pin-14", Various Hunting Knives, 2 Baseball Bats, 3 Big Dogs and a big American Flag flying in the yard. I have no firearms; Try the next house.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Ex Member Array 1911247's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    MAINE
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by ANGLICO View Post
    You know I love you long time.... :-)

    BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ = Wrong.

    1) Progressive Left (call them what you want = the 60's hippies running our Federal Govt right now) will not punish criminals.
    2) One Strike would hurt more Law Abiding Citizens who run against ignorant gun laws than professional criminals.
    I believe the one strike would work. on a singular basis...........

    if a firearm is used in a VIOLENT CRIME. A.E. assault, robbery , murder, car jacking...........remember the key word. Violent. Than it should be one strike only. You mess up that bad....you deserve the punishment. But only violent crimes.

    If you get angry and punch your mailbox *felony destruction of federal property* and you have a gun.......dont think its a one strike issue.

    If you commit fraud......and have a gun on you when you do it........not one strike issue.

    get the drift?>

    I believe if you use a gun to harm others. No more chances.

    That will seriously play a mind game on the criminals out there. it really would. Kind of like the 3 strike deal....felons on their second strike are far less apt to commit another felony out of fear of life imprisonment. If we make firearms related violent offenses one strike.....it will deter them from using a firearm.

  4. #18
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,058
    The president made a speech, recently, in which he said, "that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily... [T]hese steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common sense."
    It seems that the information age is pushing us to a statistical slippery slope. A lot of the OP's ideas for "reasonable gun control" were not effectively available to the founders, though criminal violence and insanity were part of their world. One may reasonably ask if our record-storage abilities have finally caught up to our portable weapons capabilities. But the common-sense question is whether gun control reduces crime.
    I ask two questions: 1) How would government "check someone's criminal record" or do anything before someone "can check out a gun seller"? And, 2) Isn't this calling for snooping the internet activity of identified criminals remembering Holmes was not an identified criminal? I believe that politicians capitalize on tragedy to draw our attention away from the real crimes of abuse and neglect of the Constitution.
    Oh, and the president went on to say, "And I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -— that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage."
    It is most reasonable to bear arms to repel force with force when the intervention of society on behalf of the honest citizen may be too late to prevent an injury. Bearing arms for most in CA means unloaded in a locked container. I think that we're losing track of the goal of the founders and the facts before us.
    baren likes this.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  5. #19
    Ex Member Array 1911247's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    MAINE
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    The president made a speech, recently, in which he said, "that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily... [T]hese steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common sense."
    It seems that the information age is pushing us to a statistical slippery slope. A lot of the OP's ideas for "reasonable gun control" were not effectively available to the founders, though criminal violence and insanity were part of their world. One may reasonably ask if our record-storage abilities have finally caught up to our portable weapons capabilities. But the common-sense question is whether gun control reduces crime.
    I believe that politicians capitalize on tragedy to draw our attention away from the real crimes of abuse and neglect of the Constitution.
    Oh, and the president went on to say, "And I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -— that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage."
    It is most reasonable to bear arms to repel force with force when the intervention of society on behalf of the honest citizen may be too late to prevent an injury. I think that we're losing track of the goal of the founders and the facts before us.
    I think to have a real effect on the mentally ill getting guns. We first must address those who are mentally ill. The CO shooters own mother said she had fears that he was unstable for years, but she did nothing about it.

    My own sister has paranoid delusional schizophrenia. She was diagnosed with this at age 26! even though she showed massive signs of it at 15. And even to today, shes only medicated when she WANTS to be medicated. It took her smashing out the windshield of a cop car infront of the police station in broad daylight to be able to get her evaluated.

    Our country is massively at falut for our mental health systems, We let people fall through the cracks, thousands at a time. Someone has mental issues , oh well their problem. Thats the attitude that our country has put forth for years on years. Well now its our problem.

    We are not treating people for their illnesses, EVERYONE is labeled with depression, PTSD, OCD, bi-polar and thrown on whatever drug is the most popular. But noone is TREATED for the problem. And usually when someone is diagnosed, doctors can only put a 48 hour watch on them, and if that turns out that they are dangerous, in most states they can only be held for 14 days. then released onto the public.

    We as a country need to help people with mental illnesses . We need to be held accountable for our loved ones who are not stable. Doctors need more power to treat these people and get them the help they need.

    Guns are not the problem. Us allowing mentally defective peoples access to them by ignoring their problems in the first place is. If the CO shooters friends, family and doctors had heeded to the warning signs that they admited were present. This may not have happened.

    But again the government if they are going to do ANYTHING need to step on their game on the cause of the problem. There are criminals, and then there is the criminally insane. Criminals choose to do what they do. The criminally insane usually dont even know what they are doing, or dont understand that it is wrong. We can help them.......but we dont.

    And that is sad. Really really sad.

    We need a much better mental health strategy in this country. If we dont get one......this will keep happening. Over and over. gun control or no gun control.....it wont stop until we become more proactive and start working towards a solution to the problem. Which is more and more mentally unstable people being ignored , released from custody without a clear plan, and just falling through the gaping holes that exist in the current system.
    FLArmadillo likes this.

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Why is it when there is a problem/issue that needs a solution many times the government(federal,state,local) and various groups and people of power all they ever come up with is a reaction as a solution..........

    As to this post the answer lies in the 2nd amendment as written and not watered down through the years.

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    in·fringe verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
    verb (used with object)
    To commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

    BigStick, FLArmadillo and baren like this.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  7. #21
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,058
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911247 View Post
    I think to have a real effect on the mentally ill getting guns. We first must address those who are mentally ill. The CO shooters own mother said she had fears that he was unstable for years, but she did nothing about it.

    My own sister has paranoid delusional schizophrenia. She was diagnosed with this at age 26! even though she showed massive signs of it at 15. And even to today, shes only medicated when she WANTS to be medicated. It took her smashing out the windshield of a cop car infront of the police station in broad daylight to be able to get her evaluated.

    Our country is massively at falut for our mental health systems, We let people fall through the cracks, thousands at a time. Someone has mental issues , oh well their problem. Thats the attitude that our country has put forth for years on years. Well now its our problem.

    We are not treating people for their illnesses, EVERYONE is labeled with depression, PTSD, OCD, bi-polar and thrown on whatever drug is the most popular. But noone is TREATED for the problem. And usually when someone is diagnosed, doctors can only put a 48 hour watch on them, and if that turns out that they are dangerous, in most states they can only be held for 14 days. then released onto the public.

    We as a country need to help people with mental illnesses . We need to be held accountable for our loved ones who are not stable. Doctors need more power to treat these people and get them the help they need.

    Guns are not the problem. Us allowing mentally defective peoples access to them by ignoring their problems in the first place is. If the CO shooters friends, family and doctors had heeded to the warning signs that they admited were present. This may not have happened.

    But again the government if they are going to do ANYTHING need to step on their game on the cause of the problem. There are criminals, and then there is the criminally insane. Criminals choose to do what they do. The criminally insane usually dont even know what they are doing, or dont understand that it is wrong. We can help them.......but we dont.

    And that is sad. Really really sad.

    We need a much better mental health strategy in this country. If we dont get one......this will keep happening. Over and over. gun control or no gun control.....it wont stop until we become more proactive and start working towards a solution to the problem. Which is more and more mentally unstable people being ignored , released from custody without a clear plan, and just falling through the gaping holes that exist in the current system.
    Loughner's dad also had signs of his son's violent mental instability.
    I'm signed up for a Mental Health First Aid training course to help to recognize problems and to direct individuals to the proper responder.
    It's not a government course. In fact, your analysis of the state of mental health care may be spot on, and it is those closest to potentially violent victims of mental disease to recognize and to respond appropriately. The era of big-government management of mental health, mental disability, and addiction ended with Reagan's reforms, I think, for the better. But government has no business managing mental, or any other kind of, health, if the empirical record of state mental hospitals is an indication. And this isn't the forum to discuss volumes of details and anecdotes, but I agree that identification of the problem individual is key.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  8. #22
    Ex Member Array 1911247's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    MAINE
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Loughner's dad also had signs of his son's violent mental instability.
    I'm signed up for a Mental Health First Aid training course to help to recognize problems and to direct individuals to the proper responder.
    It's not a government course. In fact, your analysis of the state of mental health care may be spot on, and it is those closest to potentially violent victims of mental disease to recognize and to respond appropriately. The era of big-government management of mental health, mental disability, and addiction ended with Reagan's reforms, I think, for the better. But government has no business managing mental, or any other kind of, health, if the empirical record of state mental hospitals is an indication. And this isn't the forum to discuss volumes of details and anecdotes.
    Very much agreed on all parts. My point was.......we cant keep ignoring it. And something needs to be done. gun control will solve nothing if the originating problem still exists.

  9. #23
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,058
    Another thing I want to point out about the OP's ideas is that there is no provision for national preemption. In other words this "reasonable gun control" is a new baseline usurping 2A, and under this, states still have the illegitimate power to go above an beyond in regulating. So what does this really accomplish?
    I heard the OP say that "It's just food for thought". But if it's not a plan of action and it doesn't have any chance of becoming a force of law
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  10. #24
    Member Array 82d DIVARTY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    50
    You do realize that 3.d would include every pistol from a .380 up right. I don't like the idea of having to jump through all those hoops for nearly every pistol out there. Not to mention all those fees, what other rights should we as law abiding unrestricted people have to pay to exercise?

  11. #25
    Ex Member Array 1911247's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    MAINE
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by 82d DIVARTY View Post
    You do realize that 3.d would include every pistol from a .380 up right. I don't like the idea of having to jump through all those hoops for nearly every pistol out there. Not to mention all those fees, what other rights should we as law abiding unrestricted people have to pay to exercise?
    and this is where the debate gets tricky. We want to keep our rights. We want to keep our money. We dont want to have to go to hell and back just to own a gun............but at the same time we dont want things like the CO shooting to happen. We want to stay safe. We dont want innocents hurt by crazed criminals. So the question both sides need to ask is. Where is the winning point on both sides. How do we keep our rights as we like them, but at the same time keep our streets safe.

    That my friend is the million dollar question, and one that i dont believe will have an answer to any time soon.

  12. #26
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,704
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911247 View Post
    and this is where the debate gets tricky. We want to keep our rights. We want to keep our money. We dont want to have to go to hell and back just to own a gun............but at the same time we dont want things like the CO shooting to happen. We want to stay safe. We dont want innocents hurt by crazed criminals. So the question both sides need to ask is. Where is the winning point on both sides. How do we keep our rights as we like them, but at the same time keep our streets safe.

    That my friend is the million dollar question, and one that i dont believe will have an answer to any time soon.
    Aside from inconsistencies (3.d, as pointed out above), these "controls" would not stop a lunatic with a clean record from collecting several guns and lots of ammo. Once again, a series of laws that are administratively expensive to administer, easy to legally circumvent the intent, and accomplish nothing.

  13. #27
    Member Array lordofwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    306
    How about NO!

    Does NO work for you???

    I am not willing any longer to even have the "reasonable gun control" issue thrown at me and discussed any longer. There IS NO reasonable gun control that will guarantee your safety. We are not guaranteed safety. We are promised the goal of Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. Nothing more, nothing less.

    All those that would want us to discuss reasonable gun control really mean, "Let's discuss how we can get our foot in the door of banning all of your guns."

    Don't believe it? Look at the history. Registration only.....well, then registration and banning some models.....well, registration and banning of more models and you have to keep them disassembled and locked up.......well, never mind, turn them all in.....uhm, we have your registration papers, where are those guns........ok, we are coming into your house for those registered guns.....fine, you are going to jail because you did not turn in those guns.

    Guys, this whole post is a red herring to make it seem that a "reasonable person" will be willing to discuss giving up something that nature and nature's God have bestowed upon them.

    Tell you what, original poster, let's have a reasonable discussion about making you and your children volunteer government servitude.....ok, let's change that to involuntary government servitude.....well, how bout slavery.......screw it, turn yourself in to the interment camp and slave city.....never mind, we have enough slaves, just queue up at the gas chambers.......

    No, I will NOT discuss reasonable gun control with you.

    And have a nice day.

    (Well, I always like to have at least one nice thing to say)

    Fortune Favors the Bold!

  14. #28
    Ex Member Array 1911247's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    MAINE
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by lordofwyr View Post
    How about NO!

    Does NO work for you???

    I am not willing any longer to even have the "reasonable gun control" issue thrown at me and discussed any longer. There IS NO reasonable gun control that will guarantee your safety. We are not guaranteed safety. We are promised the goal of Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. Nothing more, nothing less.

    All those that would want us to discuss reasonable gun control really mean, "Let's discuss how we can get our foot in the door of banning all of your guns."

    Don't believe it? Look at the history. Registration only.....well, then registration and banning some models.....well, registration and banning of more models and you have to keep them disassembled and locked up.......well, never mind, turn them all in.....uhm, we have your registration papers, where are those guns........ok, we are coming into your house for those registered guns.....fine, you are going to jail because you did not turn in those guns.

    Guys, this whole post is a red herring to make it seem that a "reasonable person" will be willing to discuss giving up something that nature and nature's God have bestowed upon them.

    Tell you what, original poster, let's have a reasonable discussion about making you and your children volunteer government servitude.....ok, let's change that to involuntary government servitude.....well, how bout slavery.......screw it, turn yourself in to the interment camp and slave city.....never mind, we have enough slaves, just queue up at the gas chambers.......

    No, I will NOT discuss reasonable gun control with you.

    And have a nice day.

    (Well, I always like to have at least one nice thing to say)

    haha. There has to be SOME form of reasonable gun control dont ya think?

    heres a scenario. whooop no more gun control. Every felon, every mentally unstable person, every single person who is not an american, children, rapists, murders , psychopaths, gang bangers, can ALL run down the local FFL and buy fully automatic M60's and SAW's and AK's and run wild in the street shooting everyone they please because there are is no longer gun control, ergo no more gun laws at all. Free reign of terror every day at your local daycare............doesnt sound fun does it?

    Some form of gun control IS needed. Just a question on when enough is enough.

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,408
    What is reasonable gun control...
    Holding with both hands.
    phreddy, msgt/ret and BurgerBoy like this.

  16. #30
    Ex Member Array 1911247's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    MAINE
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by wmhawth View Post
    Holding with both hands.

    i always thought it was the ability to double tap 2" groups at 25 yards with one hand, whilst eating a taco with the other............i've been doing it wrong!

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

legitimate restrictions on gun ownership
,
powered by mybb activity pages
,

powered by mybb brown vs board of education

,
powered by mybb business for sale california
,
powered by mybb california business for sale
,

powered by mybb california code

,

powered by mybb florida child support enforcement

,
powered by mybb funny things to think
,
powered by mybb ga child support
,
powered by mybb iowa child support
,
powered by mybb list of funny things to do in a car
,
powered by mybb state laws for child support
,
powered by mybb state of oregon
,
powered by mybb study astronomy
,

powered by mybb verb

Click on a term to search for related topics.