Thanis

I have always felt that most people are more 2A pro-regulation then anti-regulation.

Why I believe the only reason gun owners rights are protected at the current level is because the 2nd is a constitutional right not a privlage dictated by the majority.

Yes, it is CNN. But there are a lot of surveys that show the average is less pro-gun then the NRA

Gun control: Election Center 2008 - CNN.com

dthowell

actually you have no rights under the constitution! Constitution was designed to protect your god given ( or birth) rights. we are all born with right to carry. the 2A protects that right. That protection should only be taken away when we have done something to hurt ( not Protect) others. About more people being pro regulation to a extent your probably right. it is regulated now. we have to have a CHL or do a background check to buy. I think we are regulated enough. <-- that last part is opinionated.

__________________
So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!

Last line of "Rifle Creed" by Major General William H. Rupertus (USMC, Ret.)

HotGuns

That may be true where you are at up in the cold North, but it surely aint true around here.

We are already regulated enough.

How would more regulations do any good whatsoever?

Answer: they would'nt.

__________________
AR. CHL Instr.

To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.'
Dr. G. Brock Chisolm

Kerbouchard

If anybody could point to one fact that proves regulation has helped anything I would be inclined to reconsider my postion. As of yet, that has not happened.

It turns out, criminals, by definition, do not obey laws or regulations. If they did, they wouldn't be criminals.

__________________
Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.

http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

Who is John Galt?

Thanis

I don't want research to do a term paper. Further any study I might point out, most will just argue about the facts of the study. I'm not anti-gun, I'm understanding to the pro-regulation crowd. In some situation it is the right choice.

Don't just consider me anti-gun just because I'm semi-pro-regulation. You will find that I'm pro-university carry and airport pick-up / drop off. But I'm against CC carry "IN" airports and on a plane. I think there are some reasonable (common sense) regulatons.

I once told a friend of a friend (who was anti-gun) that I felt some reasonable regulation was needed for firearms. Immediately thought I was on board, and went on to talk how everyone who CC is a nut. I was CC at the time. I casually said I dis not consider that view to be reasonable, then let the conversation drop politely because I did not want to share with him I was armed.

So when you hear me say I'm pro-reasonable regulation, please consider, what I call reasonable is not the same as anti-gun. Should we let the anti-gun crowd own any phrase that starts with reasonable?

I don't think "reasonable regulation" is a bad word. I will not let the anti-gun people own that phrase.

Kerbouchard

Thanis, I didn't intend to assign you a research project.

I just want to know one case where a criminal or mass shooter walked up to a gun free zone, saw the sign, and turned around and left because guns weren't allowed there.

__________________
Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.

http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

Who is John Galt?

HotGuns

Consider this Thanis...

every single regulation that deals with firearms is considered "reasonable" by someone.

Sarah Brady harps that registration of all firearms is reasonable.

Joe Biden says that a reasonable person, does not need, evil black assault weapons, or anything that resembles them.

Bill Clinton told everyone that reasonable man didn't need any more than 10 rounds in his magazine.

Rudy Guiliani thinks that reasonable people don't need guns for self defense in his city, one of the highest ranking in violent crime in the nation.

Here is another example...
What is reasonable to you is not to me.

If you knew much about aircraft construction at all, you would understand that a bullet hole, or even several of them will not bring down a plane. In stead, you think that you reasonable regulation will keep weapons off of planes. Sure, thats true for people that obey the law, but someone that is dedicated and willing will always find a way to get around those restrictions so in effect all you have done is guaranteed that everyone in that plane is defenseless.



I don't think you are necessarily anti-gun, but it does appear that you argue the 'facts" as you know them from an anti-gun position and I am not the only one here that thinks that.
If your former posts are any indication of your thought process, I think that you have a lot of thinking to do on the issues.

Something else that concerns me. You worry too much about what the anti-gun crowd thinks. Me personally, I don't care what they think. They are so out of touch with reality that they aren't even reasonable enough for me to consider that anything they put out is "reasonable".

If the average person worried or cared about what they thought like you did, there wouldn't be a state in the union that had provisions for concealed weapons, every single gun would be registered for future confiscation, you could only buy one gun a month, your local police chief or mayor or even doctor would have to approve your purchase, you would have to undergo a mental evaluation, you might possibly have to store you arms in a locked vault at a gun club and any ammunition that could penetrate a vest would be illegal, and that would include most of them.

And if you think any in that last paragraph are "extreme" remember that every single one of them was proposed at one time or another as "reasonable regulation.

Get my drift ?

__________________
AR. CHL Instr.

To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.'
Dr. G. Brock Chisolm

farronwolf

There are some regulations that are reasonable in my opinion. For instance, convicted felons, mentally impaired, people with a history of family abuse. These things that are asked on the 4473, and checked during a NICS check have in fact kept some people from purchasing firearms that should not be purchasing them. I don't have a real problem with that.

The hard core criminal, or a person that is dead set on purchasing a firearm to prove a point to the nation or whatever is not going to let a NICS check or the questions on the 4473 stop them from purchasing, stealing, or doing whatever to obtain a firearm for their activities, that is a given.

The trouble IMO lies with our failure or inability to enforce the laws that some would consider reasonable, ie those few things stated above, and when someone is caught who is a convicted felon, or domestic abuser or whatever they simply get a slap on the wrist and are sent on their way. So no real punishment is given for a crime that many feel is a reasonable restriction. If your not going to strictly inforce laws that many feel are reasonable it doesn't make any sense to put more laws on the books that many don't feel are reasonable. Then all your really doing is taking away rights from those that are not intending on breaking the laws anyway.

It is no different than illegal drugs, illegal immigration, or anything else we try to legislate out of existance. You can't do it with laws.

__________________
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.

Thanis

I'm more comfortable with Kerbouchard and Hotgun's views then I would be with a lot of so called "liberals."

I can't agree that firearms should be unregulated. I do believe some regulations can be reasonable.

Just because a politician uses "reasonable" to suggest no one should be allowed to CC does not stop me from disagreeing with that point and then suggesting the reasonable regulation.

I also respect the anti-gun point of view, if the concern is real and not just hype. Often it is a matter of priorities and anti-gun just has their priorities mixed up.

With that said, I understand if you can't agree with me, and I respect, and even favor you views if give only two options.

We can agree on this.

HotGuns

The thing is the more you study up on their views, the more the hype,misrepresentation of fact and lies become evident.

As for priorities, for some it is exactly that. A priority for them to disarm me and take away my ability to defend myself. I do not respect that at all.

The country is full of people that used to be anti-gun and believe the whole Brady agenda, hook line and sinker, but had a life altering change of mind because of violence. All of a sudden they realized that all is not as it seems, and they took up guns for self defense.

I've heard the stories of many of them that came through CHL classes. They used to be anti, and realized the error of their ways.

__________________
AR. CHL Instr.

To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.'
Dr. G. Brock Chisolm