Reasonable Gun Control

[SIGguy229]

The problem I am having, and the reason I started this thread, is that I for example will not join the NRA. I think what we need is an open an honest discussion of gun rights and responsibilities.

Guns do not have rights. People do. Secondly, i think this forum provides for the open and honest discussion of gun laws. The problem is, the other side refuses to acknowledge facts and uses emotion and questionable statistics to make their point.

If you look at any right provided by the constitution, it is controlled by laws.

The U.S. Constitution does not provide rights. It guarentees rights and (is supposed to) limit government.

The 2nd. amendment should not be any different. As you have a right to carry, so I have a right to walk into Walmart without being afraid that a new rightful but untrained gun owner is practicing quick draws while enjoying his Nachos.

Brandishing a firearm as you have described is already against the law. So what's your deal?

If you think its a good idea for everybody to carry, wouldn't it be a good idea for everybody to understand gun safety?

I do not believe it is a good idea for everybody to carry. I believe everyone should have the choice to carry or not. Like any other tool (like a table saw), one should read the instructions. Someone who refuses to learn and follow the law and proper gun safety should suffer the consequences. There is nothing preventing me from buying an impact drill--should Home Depot provide me training, or should I read the instructions?

the US does have laws regulating birth control / abortion.

But do you have to go through mandatory training to make babies?

I agree on the politician. As far as the police officer (or someone else mentioned military) goes: Are you willing to go thorugh the same training and qualify once a year?

I think the training should be available to the public, but not required.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[SIGguy229]

fellons are for example denied the right to vote.

And?

There are some limits already established for driving. Why not take the same limit? Keeps things simple and the limits used for driving are well established.

OK.

or being of a certain age to vote?

See U.S. Constitution, 26th Amendment.

Rights are regularly regulated in order to avoid conflicts with the rights of others.

The problem is, the vocal minority determines what the majority should do. Your "right" to not have guns in schools (and other gun-free zones) infringes on my right to keep and bear arms in school. So here you have "reasonable" gun control, yet, shootings still happen in schools (and other gun-free zones). What about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? (see Declaration of Independence)

Do you vote for a politician, even if the particular person does not allow you to attend their rally armed?

Personal choice who I vote for. The question is, why should I trust the politician with my vote if he doesn't trust me to exercise ALL of my rights, but only the ones he/she agrees with?

[PaulJ]

Guns do not have rights. People do.

semantic isn't an argument. I call it gun control. You may call it concealed carry control.

Brandishing a firearm as you have described is already against the law. So what's your deal?

This was in response to the need for training.

I live in Florida, and do see Florida as a "model". But the emotional arguments made against gun control in this forum are used against gun owner ship. For example, the refusal to accept mandatory training will feed the fear mongering. Florida for example is quite open in accepting training provided by other states, armed forces and so on.

[PaulJ]

The problem is, the vocal minority determines what the majority should do.

In a "pro gun" state like Florida, only a few percent (I think it was 3%) bother to have a concealed carry permit. The number actually carrying is probably a lot smaller.

[Free American]

If you look at any right provided by the constitution,

The constitution does not provide rights, I have them with or without that document...it simply GUARANTEES that right.

I wish more people would understand this fact.

[SIGguy229]

semantic isn't an argument. I call it gun control. You may call it concealed carry control.

The intent is to control criminal behavior, yet, the only person who is impacted is the legal gun owner/purchaser. It is about control.

I live in Florida, and do see Florida as a "model". But the emotional arguments made against gun control in this forum are used against gun owner ship. For example, the refusal to accept mandatory training will feed the fear mongering. Florida for example is quite open in accepting training provided by other states, armed forces and so on.

You stand where you sit.

Try Vermont or Alaska--how many mass shootings have there been there? no permit, no training required.

Also, look at VA. The VA Tech incident could have been prevented had the school administration used all of the law available to them, versus using the Cliff notes. Also the University's policies (not state law) prohibited students, staff, and faculty from carrying a firearm, thereby making it a criminal empowerment zone (aka GFZ).

[Tubby45]

The constitution does not provide rights, I have them with or without that document...it simply GUARANTEES that right.

I wish more people would understand this fact.

The Constitution does not guarantee rights. It states which rights the government cannot violate. Rights are granted by the simple status of being a living human being. Rights are never guaranteed.

[hudsonvalley]

Gun Control means using both hands........okay, enough bumper sticker humor........RIGHTS are given by God...I have no problem with Government asking that those who wish to purchase are law abiding citizens of age. If you can join the army and haven't been to jail, own a gun. As far as knowledge of the firearm.....personal responsibility is something society has been lacking lately. I will guarantee that if you are at a range or club and point your gun at someone, people will definitely explain things to you. Either verbally or by doing the same.

[packinnova]

Sigguy has already responded much better than I could, but I would also ask this about your convicted felon statement:

What about them? If they're so dangerous as to fear allowing them to keep and potentially bear arms ...why then pray tell are they out on the street free to roam? Fix the root issues. Don't keep adding more insanity to the asylum.

It doesn't take much in this day and age to become a convicted felon...and have nothing to do with being dangerous or murderous or anything else of the sort...Folks like Martha Stewart being case in point. She sold her stocks based on insider info in order to avoid a loss. Not exactly a danger to society. Yet she is a "convicted felon" that now is denied her right to defend her own life.

[retsupt99]

No gun laws...

Only 'criminal control'...

Everyone get to own a gun...do something stupid with it...you pay the price...a heavy price...

Gun laws only effect honest people...making more of them (gun laws) has no effect on the criminal...

Do I think gun owners should take pistol SD courses? Yes!
But why should gun owners be FORCED to train?...you don't force criminals to train...the individual makes the choice, not another law stating so...

I do not fear law-abiding gun owners, whether they train or not...

I do fear criminals...whether THEY train or not...

Stay armed...take a pistol SD course...stay safe!

[Arisin Wind]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, may be reasonably infringed upon."

Not.

[TheGreatGonzo]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms...

Arisin Wind,
Forgive me for clipping your statement in your post, but I only wanted to address the actual wording, not your tounge-in-cheek addition ...

So, what does "well regulated" mean?
Gonzo

[BAC]

Laws that do not prevent me, as a U.S. citizen, from keeping and bearing arms as per my constitutionally-recognized right, are reasonable. Examples of which would include:

• Congress outlining minimum training requirements, provided they aren't prohibitive and are publicly funded.
  
  • States with more intensive training requirements (there will be some) would still be reasonable, provided they covered the difference and their requirements were not prohibitive.
• Congress including annual requalifications (see "well-regulated" comment above), provided they aren't prohibitive and are publicly funded if state-sponsored and not privately-sponsored.
  
  • States with more intensive requalifications (there will be some) would still be reasonable, provided they covered the difference and the requalifications were not prohitibive.

I'm sure there are other examples that I can't bring to mind right now, but you get the idea. If it's not prohibitive of one's right to keep and bear arms, it's not unconstitutional. Much of what exists is prohibitive, either directly or indirectly, some of it even accidentally (meant not to be but turned out to be).


-B

[DPro.40]

Reasonable gun control is 9 out of 10 on the X ring at 25 yards. What's called reasonable usually involves a back door to stealing just a bit more of our rights. Enforce the current laws on the books.

[BAC]

Enforce the current laws on the books.

I disagree. Most of the current laws on the books are unconstitutional. Why would we want to enforce these?


-B