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; "Reasonable" gun control is swift and severe punishment for those who violently and aggressively misuse them.
I started to say "for those who violate gun ...
July 28th, 2012 08:54 PM
"Reasonable" gun control is swift and severe punishment for those who violently and aggressively misuse them.
I started to say "for those who violate gun laws" but stopped, since I don't think "swift and severe punishment" is appropriate for statutory violations like a 1-week expired CCW permit or carrying a high-cap mag where they are banned.
Laws are for the law-abiding, and since we haven't figured out who the criminals are before they commit criminal acts, we simply can't go around banning this or restricting that because someone thinks that's a good idea. To wit:
- About 10 people die from drowning each day in this country, but no one is talking about banning swimming pools or 5-gallon pails (which are especially deadly for infants).
- 75,000 die in the US each year from the effects of alcohol, but we don't ban alcohol
- we slaughter over 30,000 Americans on our roads each year, but we don't ban automobiles or limit their horsepower, instead we use tax dollars to build more roads
Individual incidents such as the Aurora shooting are tragic, but the "there oughtta be a law" thinking is the greater insanity, in my mind.
NRA Endowment Member
NROI Chief Range Officer
July 31st, 2012 01:49 AM
People that are not anti gun do not always get it right (original posters ideas) and fat people do not necessarily know what is best either.
Originally Posted by sonnycrocket
Isn't Congress/state legislators/local legislators the supposed "experts" many of their rules are far from fair and just. Just saying......
"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."
July 31st, 2012 06:59 PM
Almost exactly my initial thought when I saw the thread title in the forum!
Originally Posted by Arborigine
July 31st, 2012 07:55 PM
Responsible Gun Control is the anti's asking telling you what you should be willing to give up wringing their hands...never do they compromise such as repricocity ever
Sent via Mental Power
July 31st, 2012 09:36 PM
We already have reasonable gun control; here is the wording: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
July 31st, 2012 10:09 PM
My only comment on this will be this: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Any gun control only works on the law-abiding citizen. criminals could give two hoots about any law. Criminals don't want an opponent, they want victims. With how the theater shooter acted when confronted by law enforcement, if ppl in the theater would have been able to return fire, he would have probably tucked tail and ran. jmo
Last edited by gasmitty; August 1st, 2012 at 02:55 AM.
You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, "I have lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along." . . . You must do the thing you think you cannot do. Eleanor Roosevelt
July 31st, 2012 10:38 PM
We already have reasonable gun control and then some. Instead of new laws how about we actually enforce the ones already on the books?
And considering the fact that in Houston the homicide rate is the lowest it has been in forty years, why does anyone think we need more laws of any kind?
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
July 31st, 2012 10:45 PM
If you're a felon for drugs or violent crime then no gun. Otherwise no restrictions.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus
July 31st, 2012 11:09 PM
What a backwards country when we have to fight to defend our founding documents, guiding principles, and basic rights of 800,000,000 people because of the actions of one lone psycho...and we have to do it again every couple of years after the next lone whacko nutjob story. I think they go after this because it is easy, and it takes the spotlight off of all the difficult things they can't fix or haven't done. The old "shine the light on this over here to divert everyone's attention off of this other stuff" routine.
Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.
July 31st, 2012 11:10 PM
I am not sure it would work on the large scale to stop it completely, but it might take a chunk out of the incidents of gun crime. Hell, anything is worth a try I guess. Just sending the incidents of gun violence down at all would be a improvement. Instead of gun incidents increasing like it does now.
Originally Posted by 1911247
A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
Susan B. Anthony
A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
August 2nd, 2012 06:53 AM
For those already ignoring murder/robbery penalties, I don't think "fear" will do it. Breaking the will of the populace in cities during WWII via bombing didn't work; being threatened with a free ticket to crime school hasn't changed tens of thousands of such criminals either.
Originally Posted by 1911247
I agree, though, that severe penalty for violent felony person crimes could work: one penalty, death. There aren't any remote islands left that would be a reasonable destination, and no islands big enough to handle the load. Crime School education isn't working. Permanent elimination will, at least on a perp-by-perp basis. Of course there's the side effects, though the reduced rate of recidivism for such violence is something I think we could all get used to. One additional thing: keep the fed fingers out of it, as it's unnecessary.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
August 2nd, 2012 07:04 AM
You know, and I'm just thinking out loud, if jail were really jail...
If it meant spending twenty three hours in your cell by yourself with one hour out for exercise and your only human contact was the guard who brought your meals and checked on you. If there was no radio or television. If there was no parole or time off for good behavior and you knew that you would have to serve every single minute of your sentence. If you just spent every day sitting there thinking about what you had done, then you might decide to try and stay out of trouble when you finally got out.
Don't know if that would work or not, but the current plan sure isn't working.
"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius
August 2nd, 2012 10:23 AM
Reasonable gun control
Be ware of the slippery slope! Once the politicans limit the amount of ammo you may possess, the capacity of your weapons's magazines, you are on the "slippery slope" to complete control: our founders knew that and when the red coats marched to seize their ammo supply, the Revolution was begun!. That"s like saying, I only want to put the head in"! (In the tent of course) And remember: President Jefferson said: America needs a revolution every twenty years, to remind the government that the People, not the government has the final control of the people!. And main purpose of the Second Amendment was created by our founders to throw out a tyrannical government, if the government became tyrannical>> NEVER FORGET THAT! Let's hope the current politicans in power remember that.... Cheers!
August 2nd, 2012 12:37 PM
I just happened upon this thread.
....What a load of crap. How about, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, and no. These restrictions are worthless. The money collected would be for what exactly? How about, no. Also, this would enact a full on federal registration of firearms. Again, no. that list.
All of these suggestions would do absolutely nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It would only enable unreasonable rules, restrictions, and taxes on lawful carriers. Why do liberals/anti's need to "feel good" about gun control? Do some research. Educate the public. Lawful gun owners are the least likely people in the population to commit a crime - especially a one involving a firearm. Cities with the strictest gun laws that prevent the population from defending themselves have the absolute worst crime rates - especially pertaining to murder. Look at Chicago.
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.