Just a little venting...

[Doc]

Ok, it's been 4 pages since I requested that people try to give a complete list what new gun-laws they believe would provide the silver bullet to violent crime and mass killings. I thought it was a reasonable request so we could see exactly what the scope is of the new gun control measures being proposed. Apparently only one of these gun control advocates really has any idea of what they are actually proposing and that one only had a couple of ideas that most likely lack any real practicality. That includes the original author of this post that gave such an impassioned speech about how new gun laws were the only answer. My only conclusion has to be that all these people who have all of a sudden become gun control advocates are simply jumping aboard the gun control bandwagon even though they haven't got one single notion what it is that they are calling for. I'm not too sure how they can have any credibility when they don't even know what they are for.

Well anyway, I tried to start a reasonable discussion, but there really doesn't seem to be any desire or ability to do that. It's pretty hard to have a discussion when nobody has defined what the discussion is really about. So, I guess these threads will simply remain a bunch of ranting about how an evil looking firearm should be banned. I guess that's what the whole thing boils down to. A modern sporting rifle has been deemed to look too much like an assault weapon and should therefore be outlawed. My gosh that really does sound absolutely ridiculous when you think about it.....lol.

[Sogaard]

Doc,

I stayed away from this post on purpose because I wanted to see where it would go on its own. I never once claimed to have all the answers. Why would I take the time to post actual ideas when most of the active posters would respond as eloquently as our good friend Grouse? Lets dissect my post and see what we can extrapolate from it.

I live in NYC, where gun registration and 5 round max magazines are already the norm, and I'm OK with that.... I don't think a fifty round drum is a necessity to have fun at the gun range.

Gun registration and no more high capacity magazines/drums. Though as I said later on, I want a clear definition of what "high capacity" is. Personally, I think NYS 10 round limit if a pretty good compromise, although if it went to 5, like NYC has, I really can't say it would bother me.

I think private sales at gun shows with no background checks are ridiculous.

This loophole needs to be closed.

I believe fully automatic weapons should not be in the hands of private citizens.

Self explanatory?

On top of that, I like Steve's idea of a Federal Gun Card that takes a little more than a 10 minute check to acquire. I'm for including some sort of mental health check before a person can drive into their local Walmart and walk out with a firearm and a couple boxes of ammo. How about a written test on gun safety that must be passed? Maybe even throw in a drug test? For a pistol CC, there should be all of the above, plus a skill test that needs to be renewed. I'm for a forced delay (10, 15, 30 days?) between gun purchases. I think it should be mandatory to own a gun safe/locker if you own firearms, to cut down on theft.

No law can be passed that will completely eliminate the possibility of another catastrophe like this from happening. However, I do feel that changes can be made to lessen the likelihood.

Reread the above before listing all the scenarios you can think of where none of this will help. It will save someone else the trouble of thinking up just as many scenarios where it would.

I wrote my original post because despite my best efforts, I've been bombarded with images and stories of the Newtown tragedy and I used this forum as an outlet. Believe me, I wasn't looking to convert anyone. I thought my post was fairly even-keeled, though I guess the center is still way off to the left of the average poster in these parts.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Sogaard

[irish_redneck]

Some of your ideas are ok in theory, but go completely against the purpose of the second amendment. You're giving the control as to whether or not you can be armed , to the group that the second amendment was instituted to protect you against. In effect becoming subjects rather than citizens.

[Sogaard]

Impossible to do when your other man is a moron. You're as pro-gun as you think you need to be to satisfy yourself. The hell with everyone else. When they start to take away what you want, I'll be laughing.

There are way too many morons on this forum for me. You can all fugg off as far as I'm concerned. I'm not wasting any more of my time on this site. You can all commiserate after the bloodletting is over.

If nothing else, at least one good thing came out of this thread! Its a Christmas Miracle!

[virgil]

Irish, by your interpretation of the 2A, it seems like you're implying that there should be no restrictions on any weapons whatsoever. Is that what you're saying- that the general public should be allowed access to the same weaponry that the government has?

[irish_redneck]

That's how it was at the time it was enacted, and that was its intention, so yes. You can't stop an oppressive government with a slingshot.\

edit : s/ it's/its

Edited December 20, 2012 by irish_redneck

[irish_redneck]

The training part of the 2a should be upheld though, which is the direct meaning of "well regulated" at the time.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Gun registration and no more high capacity magazines/drums. Though as I said later on, I want a clear definition of what "high capacity" is. Personally, I think NYS 10 round limit if a pretty good compromise, although if it went to 5, like NYC has, I really can't say it would bother me.

On top of that, I like Steve's idea of a Federal Gun Card that takes a little more than a 10 minute check to acquire. I'm for including some sort of mental health check before a person can drive into their local Walmart and walk out with a firearm and a couple boxes of ammo. How about a written test on gun safety that must be passed? Maybe even throw in a drug test? For a pistol CC, there should be all of the above, plus a skill test that needs to be renewed. I'm for a forced delay (10, 15, 30 days?) between gun purchases. I think it should be mandatory to own a gun safe/locker if you own firearms, to cut down on theft.

In terms of round limits. This restriction would take the ability to own amny 22 caliber rim fires as well as manyt lever actions. would you restrict new purchases only or have a forced turn in of non compliant magazines?

I also wouldn't be opposed to a federal check but would like it INSTEAD any state or local requirements.

If you wan't a written test are we to do it in English or have it in multiple languages? (Just wondering if we would be implementing other written knowledge test for other activities like voting)

I 100% agree with the drug testing but would anyone hae an issue that is may be unfair to the lower income and less fortunate. That agrument seems to be used for things like voter registration cards so I assume it woud be viewed by the same concerned citizens in the same light.

Who bares the cost for the drug testing?

Skills test for CC- What level of skill is needed to obtain in your mind? Are we talking about taking like a basic NRA pistol safety course or are you speaking of a marksmanship test? Most personal protection actions are taken at almost arms length. No much marksmanship is required there. and again, Who is responsible for paying for the test/class and renewal?

Safes and lockers. Are you proposing a rule similar to Austrailas law? of are you meaning when not in use? If a person has a shotgun for home protection how do you envison this to work?

[Sogaard]

Some of your ideas are ok in theory, but go completely against the purpose of the second amendment. You're giving the control as to whether or not you can be armed , to the group that the second amendment was instituted to protect you against. In effect becoming subjects rather than citizens.

You are completely right, I want some people to not be able to exercise their 2nd amendment right.

Of course, that list of people includes felons, drug addicts, mentally unstable individuals, and people who have no idea how to use a gun properly.

I love how people think that owning a gun or two with 30 round magazines is going to protect you if the "government" comes a-knocking. Didn't work out so well for the Branch Davidians. (Google, you'll get it).

[irish_redneck]

You're perfectly correct, we've already let the powers that be strip our rights to protection below an acceptable level, letting them strip them further is not the answer.

I agree that felons should be looked at more closely, but again, you're providing an avenue for the governement to sidestep the rules.

Drug Addicts, again would have to look at this closely and define which drugs etc, because caffiene is technically a drug etc.

Mental instability, would have to come up with guidelines for impartial public non govenmental testing of this.

No Idea how to use? That's where the well regulated (training) comes in to play.

[irish_redneck]

RE: Waco , We're not talking about a small group of people over throwing the governement or ceceding, we're talking about the ability for national revolution.

I'm sure the English took out numerous small groups before the nation got their act together.

[josephmrtn]

In terms of round limits. This restriction would take the ability to own amny 22 caliber rim fires as well as manyt lever actions. would you restrict new purchases only or have a forced turn in of non compliant magazines?

I also wouldn't be opposed to a federal check but would like it INSTEAD any state or local requirements.

If you wan't a written test are we to do it in English or have it in multiple languages? (Just wondering if we would be implementing other written knowledge test for other activities like voting)

I 100% agree with the drug testing but would anyone hae an issue that is may be unfair to the lower income and less fortunate. That agrument seems to be used for things like voter registration cards so I assume it woud be viewed by the same concerned citizens in the same light.

Who bares the cost for the drug testing?

Skills test for CC- What level of skill is needed to obtain in your mind? Are we talking about taking like a basic NRA pistol safety course or are you speaking of a marksmanship test? Most personal protection actions are taken at almost arms length. No much marksmanship is required there. and again, Who is responsible for paying for the test/class and renewal?

Safes and lockers. Are you proposing a rule similar to Austrailas law? of are you meaning when not in use? If a person has a shotgun for home protection how do you envison this to work?

i personaly can have my shotgun off the rack beside my bed, unlocked, and loaded in prob 15 sec... and im SURE i could do it faster if there was a burgler in the house..... even a simple gun lock or trigger lock could prevent things like this from happening, it would not help to steal the guns cause you couldnt shoot em anyway...

i really like ur idea of a fedral check instead of state and local, although i would add that ur cc should come with the fedral check and enable you to carry in any state and any building exept fedral or state gov. court houses ect....

[irish_redneck]

A gun lock can be removed with bolt cutters in 1 second

[josephmrtn]

not a trigger lock, like this:

Edited December 20, 2012 by josephmrtn

[irish_redneck]

If you're good enough to carry somewhere, you should be good enough to carry anywhere. All a "No weapons allowed" sign says is "hey criminal, we're sitting ducks in here"

[virgil]

RE: Waco , We're not talking about a small group of people over throwing the governement or ceceding, we're talking about the ability for national revolution.

But, you have posted that you want the citizenry to be armed to the teeth in case they decide that the government has become oppressive and needs to be resisted/attacked, right?

[josephmrtn]

RE: Waco , We're not talking about a small group of people over throwing the governement or ceceding, we're talking about the ability for national revolution.

But, you have posted that you want the citizenry to be armed to the teeth in case they decide that the government has become oppressive and needs to be resisted/attacked, right?

no i think he is saying that if the gov tries to force us to comply to rules that violate our God given rights or our personal belives we should have the power to say no and have them respect our desision. and if they dont possibly the 2nd american revolution would happen as people resist and the gov trys to force them, cause we are AMERICANS and we DONT like being told what to do, its in our blood and a brief study of american history will show that americans are a VERY free spirited people.... (in fact thats prob the only reason we still have guns at all...)

Edited December 20, 2012 by josephmrtn

[virgil]

no i think he is saying that if the gov tries to force us to comply to rules that violate our God given rights or our personal belives we should have the power to say no and have them respect our desision. and if they dont possibly the 2nd american revolution would happen as people resist and the gov trys to force them, cause we are AMERICANS and we DONT like being told what to do, its in our blood and a brief study of american history will show that americans are a VERY free spirited people.... (in fact thats prob the only reason we still have guns at all...)

OK, your first word in this response was 'no'. But, the rest of the entire post basically states that, yes, you believe that you should be able to take up arms against the government if at any point you don't like the rules/laws of the lands.

[josephmrtn]

what i meant was no we are not the ones that should start the fight so to speak but if the gov tries to oppress us like many communist govs have done we should have the means to DEFEND ourselves, we are not going to ATTACK the gov only we should be able to defend against such an attack...

there is a BIG diff between attacking someone and defending yourself from such an attack, that was my point.... no offence

Edited December 20, 2012 by josephmrtn

[virgil]

what i meant was no we are not the ones that should start the fight so to speak but if the gov tries to oppress us like many communist govs have done we should have the means to DEFEND ourselves, we are not going to ATTACK the gov only we should be able to defend against such an attack...

there is a BIG diff between attacking someone and defending yourself from such an attack, that was my point.... no offence

You're right. There is a big difference between self defense and an armed revolution. But, the earlier posts on this thread were defending 2A rights to accumulate arms in case the poster feels that the government has become 'oppressive'. Your statements in defending that post were that we should be armed for a potential revolution in case we disagree with the government.

[irish_redneck]

Not an individual going against the government, but an individual using their right to assembly and their right to freedom of speech , to then have the nation come together and use their right to bear arms.

[irish_redneck]

Actually Joe hit the nail on the head as to what I meant.

[irish_redneck]

Well in his first post.

If all other avenues are depleted, a revoltuion should be a feasible option.

[irish_redneck]

RE: Waco , We're not talking about a small group of people over throwing the governement or ceceding, we're talking about the ability for national revolution.

But, you have posted that you want the citizenry to be armed to the teeth in case they decide that the government has become oppressive and needs to be resisted/attacked, right?

I'm saying exactly what I said... that citizens should be armed to a point that national revolution is still a card in the deck. A lone gunman, or small group is simply a criminal act. A revolution or the right of a state to secede from the union is another matter entirely.

Which actually isn't even my idea, it's an idea the founding fathers came up with after being opressed by England.

Edited December 20, 2012 by irish_redneck

[irish_redneck]

not a trigger lock, like this:

are they drill proof? , just asking , I don't know the answer...