Gun Laws

[Hunter007]

5 minutes ago, Rob... said:

Background checks for voters? Haaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahah! Liberals would win every election! Think about that one for a minute! Not on board for that at all! 

Libs don't even  want voter id 

Let alone background checks for voters 

[ADK Native]

Just a few talking points:

• Many gun laws do not prevent gun violence.  The SAFE Act is a great example of useless legislation.
• People who are not allowed by law to purchase a firearm have tried and were refused at the background check.  Where are all the arrests of these people?  I understand they just get to walk away.
• I see the gun control media calling "assault weapons" now "military style weapons".  No they are NOT military style, they are military "looking" rifles.   
• Has anyone seen a documentary comparing today's youth with that of 50 years ago when did not have all these school shootings?   Might enlighten allot of people not severely brainwashed by the gun control advocacy.  Then again it would embarrass allot of people who have contributed and supported the degeneration of today youth with the majority of them unqualified for military service.
• Today's protest in Washington was massive, but it was all about more gun control.  I wonder how many of these people realize that more are dying form illegal drug use they firearm homicide.  Do they like dope more than guns?  

[DirtTime]

1 minute ago, Storm914 said:

Libs don't even  want voter id 

Let alone background checks for voters 

Well, like I said think about it for a minute. Look at some of the folks on the far right. Sorry, I don't think many are too stable. Anyone who thinks Alex Jones is a demigod is not right in the head. If Jones lost all his "Male Enhancement" sponsors he would just be another wack job keyboard pugilist.

Sorry if you don't agree with what I have to say, but the facts are, more snooping into the history of a person trying to by a gun isn't going to help stop these mass shootings, gun laws aren't the answer. When LEO have a way to stop this crap before it happens and they don't makes me sick to my stomach. The same way they have had terrorists in custody, let them go, only to feel the aftermath. Look at the situation for what it is. 

[Steve D]

7 hours ago, Storm914 said:

I am for good back ground checks

The only thing  background checks accomplish is keeping convicted felons, someone with a "shady" past, or a DWI from walking into a gun store and buying a gun.

It hasn't stopped any gang members or nut jobs from getting them and never will. We need to enforce the current laws on the books and stiffen the penalties for committing  a crime with a gun instead of allowing them to be plea bargained down to a lesser charge.  Enforce what we have instead of making new ones.

[Hunter007]

13 minutes ago, Steve D said:

The only thing  background checks accomplish is keeping convicted felons, someone with a "shady" past, or a DWI from walking into a gun store and buying a gun.

It hasn't stopped any gang members or nut jobs from getting them and never will. We need to enforce the current laws on the books and stiffen the penalties for committing  a crime with a gun instead of allowing them to be plea bargained down to a lesser charge.  Enforce what we have instead of making new ones.

I agree to all that but good back ground checks not a bad idea  . Let me put it to you this way if I have no criminal record I should be allowed to get what ever I want.  Seems like some places dont keep good records of these criminals. Like that kid in Florida cops at is house 40 times and nothing comes up .same with that nut job in Texas he was known for being crazy .

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by Storm914

[Steve D]

2 minutes ago, Storm914 said:

I agree to all that but good back ground checks not a bad idea  . 

Not arguing a bit....but I know a person that got a driving under the influence 25 years ago, has been clean every since and got turned down on a permit application recently. Yet anybody with a clean record and has a screw or two loose can buy a gun and wreak havoc because their record is clean.

 If the penalties were stiff enough they might be a little more hesitant.

[SteveB]

6 hours ago, Bowshotmuzzleloader said:

I don’t own handguns or assault style weapons but I think maybe it would be a good idea if purchasing assault style weapons requied a pistol permit to obtain may not be a bad way to go about it instead pf banning...

What defines an "assault style weapon"?

[Jeremy K]

17 minutes ago, Steve D said:

The only thing  background checks accomplish is keeping convicted felons, someone with a "shady" past, or a DWI from walking into a gun store and buying a gun.

It hasn't stopped any gang members or nut jobs from getting them and never will. We need to enforce the current laws on the books and stiffen the penalties for committing  a crime with a gun instead of allowing them to be plea bargained down to a lesser charge.  Enforce what we have instead of making new ones.

Or buying booze , why are people convicted of a DWI allowed to continue to buy booze . 

[Steve D]

4 minutes ago, SteveB said:

What defines an "assault style weapon"?

Other than Cuomo?

Common attributes used in legislative definitions of assault weapons include: Semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine. Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock, which reduces the overall length of the firearm. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

[turkeyfeathers]

I find it amazing Wrist Rocket slingshots are banned per the Safe Act. 

[Steve D]

5 minutes ago, Jeremy K said:

Or buying booze , why are people convicted of a DWI allowed to continue to buy booze

Or drive...because of PLEA deals...Read this: A Monroe County Judge

http://www.whec.com/news/judge-leticia-astacio-dwi-case-timeline-of-events/4507136/

[hunterman7956]

[Doc]

Remember, the original question was: "Should all weaponry be totally free from regulation? Where do you draw the line (if you do)?".

[Hunter007]

4 hours ago, Doc said:

Remember, the original question was: "Should all weaponry be totally free from regulation? Where do you draw the line (if you do)?".

As long as your not a criminal pass a back ground check learn the safe way to use the weapon you want to buy you should be allowed to buy anything you want  . 

 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Storm914 said:

As long as your not a criminal pass a back ground check learn the safe way to use the weapon you want to buy you should be allowed to buy anything you want  . 

 

Would that include bazookas and full auto rifles and mortars and such? No limits at all?

[52 farmer]

7 hours ago, Doc said:

Remember, the original question was: "Should all weaponry be totally free from regulation? Where do you draw the line (if you do)?".

All weaponry that was legal before the unsafe-act should be legal today.

[Hunter007]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

Would that include bazookas and full auto rifles and mortars and such? No limits at all?

Yes but I would make it more difficult then just a simple  background check for the big stuff such as a bazooka or a machine gun . Those I would reserve for the serious collector .

 

[Hunter007]

The price of freedom is sometimes some boneheads are going to abuse there freedom but that does not me the rest of the population  has to live in a giant police state .

Because every once in a while something bad happened because of it .

[airedale]

14 hours ago, hunterman7956 said:

Add this pile to the list! And most of these accidents are caused by young people but you will not see them marching on Washington to outlaw and ban those precious cell phones!

Every year in the U.S., almost a half million people are injured or killed in traffic accidents attributed to the combination of texting and driving. The statistics are shocking, especially in view of the fact that this danger could be completely avoided. With the latest statistics available as of 2018, in 2015, according to statistics compiled by the Department of Transportation, 3,477 people died and another 391,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes caused by drivers who were distracted because they were texting or using cell phones

[Nomad]

I would draw the line at sniper rifles , basically bolt action rifles with scopes and capable of accurately shooting a few hundred yards .

Nobody needs one of those ,plus I don’t own one so it’s ok. .

[Merlot]

Make a law requiring all individuals at 16 years of age to commit to either wanting to own a firearm OR commit to not being able to own a firearm ever. Those that initially commit to wanting to own firearm can opt out and turn in all weapons, but can never reverse course and want to own again.  Place info on all drivers licenses, credit card records, SS cards, give to authorities. 

If someone shows up to buy a weapon and no record exists on say a drivers license to own or not to own, then you probably have a fake License, held by an illegal alien or terrorist.  Just a wild thought.

 

[steve863]

56 minutes ago, Merlot said:

Make a law requiring all individuals at 16 years of age to commit to either wanting to own a firearm OR commit to not being able to own a firearm ever. Those that initially commit to wanting to own firearm can opt out and turn in all weapons, but can never reverse course and want to own again.  Place info on all drivers licenses, credit card records, SS cards, give to authorities. 

If someone shows up to buy a weapon and no record exists on say a drivers license to own or not to own, then you probably have a fake License, held by an illegal alien or terrorist.  Just a wild thought.

 

What??  This is wild.  Why should anyone be made to commit one way or another at 16??  Many may not know the first thing about guns at that age never mind about life in general.  How about those who decide they want a gun later in life?  Why should they be excluded for a decision they made at 16??

[philoshop]

Thousands of people have lied when filling out their 4473 forms for the NICS. That's supposed to be a federal offense. I think something like 40 or so have actually been penalized for it. Start there before bringing up any new laws.

[ADK Native]

7 hours ago, Stay at home Nomad said:

I would draw the line at sniper rifles , basically bolt action rifles with scopes and capable of accurately shooting a few hundred yards .

Nobody needs one of those ,plus I don’t own one so it’s ok. .

Check out page 16 at this site:

http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCTP 3-01E (Formerly MCWP 3-15.3).pdf?ver=2016-08-02-130206-573

So you would outlaw a bolt action rifle chambered for a .308 Winchester cartridge?

[Doc]

On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 8:29 AM, Doc said:

Should all weaponry be totally free from regulation? Where do you draw the line (if you do)?

I guess it's time to try to answer my own question. I asked the question not fully realizing just how difficult it really is to answer. But I'll try to have a go at it.

Yes, I do believe that lines have to be drawn somewhere. I don't want to see people messing around with tanks and bazookas and grenade launchers, personal package-nukes, etc.

But in terms of firearms, my line is drawn at full auto weapons and above based on some sort of destruction rating scale that currently only exists in my mind. By the way that includes bump stocks. It is a judgment call and does become a bit arbitrary but in my mind there is a level of destructive power that I no longer feel comfortable turning loose on the general society without some very extensive heavy-duty regulations. And no it is not a judgment based on cosmetics as many people are trying to use on the so-called assault rifles.

I think some sort of scale should be established that intelligently and logically rates the destructive power of anything that is classified as a "weapon". Perhaps that would put some logic into a subject that is now ruled by emotion. It would make such judgments a bit more logical because I think all sane people agree that there has to be a line drawn somewhere. We just seem to be having troubles determining where that line needs to be.