S
scipio337
Guest
I’ve noticed the sweeping laws in CO and CT haven’t been getting much attention in the forum.
- Status
S
Sporkbeard
Guest
Criminal do not nbeed background checks of any kind to get a gun. So he while is entitled to his opinion… is well… wrong… imo.
F
Frank_Drebin
Guest
To anyone who supports more regulations, what makes you think they will be enforced?
I remember living in Oklahoma when I was stationed at Tinker AFB and seeing felons with access to firearms get arrested repeatedly. The current laws are not enforced.
Does any sane person believe that we are suddenyl going to start enforcing new laws on top of the old ones we don’t enforce? Someone please explain it to me.
I remember living in Oklahoma when I was stationed at Tinker AFB and seeing felons with access to firearms get arrested repeatedly. The current laws are not enforced.
Does any sane person believe that we are suddenyl going to start enforcing new laws on top of the old ones we don’t enforce? Someone please explain it to me.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I am also fully in support of sensible steps on gun control. I am as conservative as they come but I do not believe in unlimited gun rights.
F
Frank_Drebin
Guest
And who is going to enforce new restrictions when they do not enforce the old ones?
M
Momfroggy
Guest
I have been following this thread with interest and some sadness. I am a shooting sports instructor, instructing over 100 youth every year in the safe handling of firearms. Because these youth understand the consequences and destructive capability of a variety of firearms, are exposed to them, and are taught to use their skills positively for their own enjoyment, none of them has ever committed a crime using a firearm in the many years I’ve been teaching. I don’t believe this is a unique situation. Because of the selfish action of a comparative minority of people with criminal or unhealthy minds (and most of these threads have left out the great capacity for cooperation with Satan in every human heart that is far from Christ), those of us who use our firearms in a responsible fashion are, indeed, being demonized, as the above quote proves. The laws which are in place are beyond adequate, if enforced (there’s the problem), to prevent the majority of people who shouldn’t have access to firearms from obtaining them. As many have stated, criminals, however, tend to disregard the law. Adoption of New York’s law would remove most of the firearms we use in our program, because they would be considered “high capacity” (10-15 rounds/mag) and many are “assault style”. These firearms are actually safer for the young people to use, as they are a better fit for them, lighter, and remove excess muzzle movement, especially when reloading. Many of the competitive target games we use to teach accuracy require 10 or more round capability. Beyond that, I hunt to feed my family, and have had to use firearms to destroy more than one sick raccoon on my property which has threatened my children. Firearms are a part of American heritage, and have been historically more prevalent than today. Societal, familial, and spiritual breakdown - not guns - are to blame for the atrocities we see. By the way, I am also pro-life, spending more than four hours every week counseling and praying outside of clinics, so those who have made the allegation that gun ownership is not compatible with being pro-life are incorrect. Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God - and carry a big stick!
J
josh987654321
Guest
Me too
I just think, when it comes to guns, why not treat it like we do cars? I mean cars arn’t designed to kill yet we enforce speed limits for them to help keep people safe, so in the exact same way why would people not put appropriate limitations on something desgined to kill?
People don’t have to go overboard on it, just treat it in a similar way they do cars.
So just implement speed limits per say for guns, e.g. ban assault rifles, concealed hand guns and automatic weapons from the streets, so people cannot get there hands on those kinds of weapons at home.
Semi automatic weapons is all people would ever need to take home.
Want to drive faster than the speed limit, go to a race track.
Want to use an assualt rifle or other automatic weapons, go to a registered shooting range, where you can collect and use your gun there and leave it at that location when finnished.
Want to drive on public roads, register your vehicle.
Want to take guns home, register them.
And in the same way, you can’t register a dangerous vehicle to be used on public roads.
In the same way, they should make it so that you cannot register assualt rifles, concealed hand guns or automatic weapons to be on the streets, e.g. taken home.
If you say “we have the right to bear arms” you must realise that, that attitude was back when people had muskets, they only had semi automatic rifles, that kind of weapon should be fine to take home, however technology is always getting better and now days there are guns that are just far too dangerous for just anybody to be able to get their hands on, previous generations didn’t have to worry too much about massacre’s as the weapon technology simply wasnt there.
It’s illogical to think that people need the latest weapons incase they need to over throw the government, because I mean hay, if you follow that kind of thinking than you will also need to get your hands on a neuclear weapon, because the government has those, so you are already out matched lol.
It’s just common sense, people don’t need such dangerous weapons, if they want to use them, than it should be controled use like using a race car on a race track, not having a race car in your garage for you to use on public roads.
So if you have the idea in your head that you need these weapons to overthrow the government, than you will also need to get your hands on neuclear weapon’s so you can match them, otherwise your plan is useless
These dangerous weapons are already bad being so readily available, just imagine how they will be when weapon technology gets better? why would you not put appropriate limitations on them, I mean we didn’t need speed limits when we just had horse and carts, but now that we have fast cars we do need them.
Anyway, that’s just my opinion, as Im in Australia and I think we have fantastic gun control laws, however the only shame to it is that they went a tad overboard with it I think, there are no shooting ranges where we can use assualt rifles and things, they put a complete ban on them, which they didn’t have to do, because people just need to keep them off the streets, so people cannot take them home, they don’t have to ban them altogether, they just really need to keep them off the streets and out of homes I think.
Thank you for reading
Josh
S
scipio337
Guest
You do realize that a majority of the cannon used by the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, and a good number of ships, were privately owned, right?Me too
Semi automatic weapons is all people would ever need to take home.
…Josh
I’m not sure what kind of misinformation is out there, but the average American can’t just walk off the streets and purchase a fully automatic weapon. The “assualt rifles” people are attempting to ban are simply box-fed, semi auto weapons.
F
Frank_Drebin
Guest
You gun control people act like there are no guns laws already on the books.Me too
I just think, when it comes to guns, why not treat it like we do cars? I mean cars arn’t designed to kill yet we enforce speed limits for them to help keep people safe, so in the exact same way why would people not put appropriate limitations on something desgined to kill?
People don’t have to go overboard on it, just treat it in a similar way they do cars.
So just implement speed limits per say for guns, e.g. ban assault rifles, concealed hand guns and automatic weapons from the streets, so people cannot get there hands on those kinds of weapons at home.
Semi automatic weapons is all people would ever need to take home.
Want to drive faster than the speed limit, go to a race track.
Want to use an assualt rifle or other automatic weapons, go to a registered shooting range, where you can collect and use your gun there and leave it at that location when finnished.
Want to drive on public roads, register your vehicle.
Want to take guns home, register them.
And in the same way, you can’t register a dangerous vehicle to be used on public roads.
In the same way, they should make it so that you cannot register assualt rifles, concealed hand guns or automatic weapons to be on the streets, e.g. taken home.
If you say “we have the right to bear arms” you must realise that, that attitude was back when people had muskets, they only had semi automatic rifles, that kind of weapon should be fine to take home, however technology is always getting better and now days there are guns that are just far too dangerous for just anybody to be able to get their hands on, previous generations didn’t have to worry too much about massacre’s as the weapon technology simply wasnt there.
It’s illogical to think that people need the latest weapons incase they need to over throw the government, because I mean hay, if you follow that kind of thinking than you will also need to get your hands on a neuclear weapon, because the government has those, so you are already out matched lol.
It’s just common sense, people don’t need such dangerous weapons, if they want to use them, than it should be controled use like using a race car on a race track, not having a race car in your garage for you to use on public roads.
So if you have the idea in your head that you need these weapons to overthrow the government, than you will also need to get your hands on neuclear weapon’s so you can match them, otherwise your plan is useless
These dangerous weapons are already bad being so readily available, just imagine how they will be when weapon technology gets better? why would you not put appropriate limitations on them, I mean we didn’t need speed limits when we just had horse and carts, but now that we have fast cars we do need them.
Anyway, that’s just my opinion, as Im in Australia and I think we have fantastic gun control laws, however the only shame to it is that they went a tad overboard with it I think, there are no shooting ranges where we can use assualt rifles and things, they put a complete ban on them, which they didn’t have to do, because people just need to keep them off the streets, so people cannot take them home, they don’t have to ban them altogether, they just really need to keep them off the streets and out of homes I think.
Thank you for reading
Josh
Your ideas of common sense laws are not novel or new.
AGAIN, what is the purpose of MORE additional laws to regulate the ownership and use of guns if no one is going to enforce them?
Until you solve the problem of enforcement, you’re wasting everyone;s time. I am sorry to be blunt, but the last thing we need in this country is more pointless laws on our already bloated books.
L
Least
Guest
Yes, some are pushing for a Kumbya NWO thing that ain’t gonna happen. They are mirroring the UN, and the President is pushing for the same thing in CO (yesterday, 4-03-13).
un.org/disarmament/ATT/
UN Gener
General and complete disarmamentun.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/L.58&referer=http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/&Lang=E
Let me bottom-line it AGAIN for ya. You give up your gun, and I will get you to give up everything else, including your belief in GOD.
That might sound terrible to you, but you’re ignoring the fact that that is how your proposal sounds to me, and you’re ignoring the entirety of previous human history that has imbued a good deal of the human population of the planet (but at Least me) with one unmistakeable fact that any peace that has ever been maintained in our existence has been so through strength, and the power of individuals to wage war when threatened.
I cannot expect that you will permit me time and opportunity to amass weapons that will restore my peace and I will not ask you for permission if I would care to incite the next CIVIL or WORLD WAR. You are an ignoramous if you think for a second I would allow you to believe otherwise, or the iverse, and you can #NaCl.
You may feel that GOD has put you out here to sew Peace, but I feel just as strongly that he put me here specifically to throw the B.S. flag.
J
josh987654321
Guest
Well just to give people the heads up, In Australia, they got us to register our weapons and that’s exactly how they collected them with the buy back program under Howard’s government, so if you really want to keep your weapons in the future, don’t register them.
Anyway, I don’t know what the gun control is in America, whether it’s sufficient or not, but if a criminal can get their hands on gun’s or a mass murderer can easily commit a massacre with the kind of weaponry available, than imho I think it needs to be hardened, the idea of needing them to overthrow the government is illogical, your watching too many apocolyptic movies, I mean you are already outmatched when the governemnt has weapons that are clearly unable to be purchased and used by the public, you think you can match them with the weapons you have when the army can use drones and things? you are already outmatched so you will not need them to overthrow the governemnt, but if you ever needed a gun you could very easily do just fine with a semi automatic, full automatic rifles with high capacity rounds are just too dangerous for just anyone to get their hands on, and I thought in America they had to do background checks on people before they bought a gun, but recently I found out that was only optional, I mean seriously? what are people thinking recklessly selling guns to people like that? mandatory background checks and requiring guns to be stored under lock and key would be an absolute minimum I would think.
Anyway that’s just my opinion.
Thank you for reading
Josh
Anyway, I don’t know what the gun control is in America, whether it’s sufficient or not, but if a criminal can get their hands on gun’s or a mass murderer can easily commit a massacre with the kind of weaponry available, than imho I think it needs to be hardened, the idea of needing them to overthrow the government is illogical, your watching too many apocolyptic movies, I mean you are already outmatched when the governemnt has weapons that are clearly unable to be purchased and used by the public, you think you can match them with the weapons you have when the army can use drones and things? you are already outmatched so you will not need them to overthrow the governemnt, but if you ever needed a gun you could very easily do just fine with a semi automatic, full automatic rifles with high capacity rounds are just too dangerous for just anyone to get their hands on, and I thought in America they had to do background checks on people before they bought a gun, but recently I found out that was only optional, I mean seriously? what are people thinking recklessly selling guns to people like that? mandatory background checks and requiring guns to be stored under lock and key would be an absolute minimum I would think.
Anyway that’s just my opinion.
Thank you for reading
Josh
E
Ender
Guest
One has to have a special license to own an automatic weapon; for all practical purposes they are banned, nor is there any push to make them legal. As for background checks, yes, they are mandatory in most cases but the specific regulations differ from state to state and between cities within the same state. In New York State I was finger printed, underwent a security check, had to take a registered fire arms class, and finally had to appear before a judge before I was granted a license to own a hand gun. The entire process took ten months … and the license did not extend to New York City. This was decades ago and New York has just enacted even more stringent laws.
The problem with this proliferation of laws is that they are largely irrelevant in achieving the (stated) objectives of reducing crimes and gun violence. During those ten months while I went through the process one parolee obtained a hand gun within a week of his release to commit another crime and an escapee from Riker’s Island - the prison for the City of New York - got his hands on one the night he escaped. Adding time, difficulty, and expense for the law abiding citizen to own a weapon really adds little difficulty to the task of criminal in obtaining one.
Ender
J
josh987654321
Guest
I completly understand what you mean Ender, In an environment where criminals can easily get their hands on all kinds of guns, than I can understand that people feel the need for a gun for their own self defense and at this stage it seems that the gun control levels seem to only be affecting the reponsible ones.
However if the gun laws were sufficent or tough enough to remove guns from the hands of criminals but included removing these guns from all civilians, it would be worth it wouldn’t you agree?
There is no way of knowing who is a potential criminal or not, so therefore if they removed these weapons from every civilian altogether, wouldn’t that be better than both parties having them?
See if there was a ban on Asssualt rifle’s and concealed handgun’s, criminals might in rare circumstance be able to get their hands on them, but it would be like drugs, they could be arrested and those fire arms removed before any harm was done in most cases, however while the laws are the way they are now, police can’t control these weapons.
I just know that I would rather no civilian has concealed handgun’s or automatic rifle’s, than every civilian having concealed handgun’s or automatic rifle’s, the hard part about that is getting every civilian including the criminals to not have concealed handgun’s or automatic rifle’s, but that can be done with the right laws and enforcement with police I think.
So I think the dilemma people are facing is, we either have no restrictions on assualt rifle’s and concealed handgun’s or we have complete restrictions e.g. a ban on all assualt rifle’s and concealed hand guns’s for all civilians, anything other than that I think would just be making it harder for responsible people and doing nothing to stop criminals.
Thank you for reading
Josh
However if the gun laws were sufficent or tough enough to remove guns from the hands of criminals but included removing these guns from all civilians, it would be worth it wouldn’t you agree?
There is no way of knowing who is a potential criminal or not, so therefore if they removed these weapons from every civilian altogether, wouldn’t that be better than both parties having them?
See if there was a ban on Asssualt rifle’s and concealed handgun’s, criminals might in rare circumstance be able to get their hands on them, but it would be like drugs, they could be arrested and those fire arms removed before any harm was done in most cases, however while the laws are the way they are now, police can’t control these weapons.
I just know that I would rather no civilian has concealed handgun’s or automatic rifle’s, than every civilian having concealed handgun’s or automatic rifle’s, the hard part about that is getting every civilian including the criminals to not have concealed handgun’s or automatic rifle’s, but that can be done with the right laws and enforcement with police I think.
So I think the dilemma people are facing is, we either have no restrictions on assualt rifle’s and concealed handgun’s or we have complete restrictions e.g. a ban on all assualt rifle’s and concealed hand guns’s for all civilians, anything other than that I think would just be making it harder for responsible people and doing nothing to stop criminals.
Thank you for reading
Josh
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Well, will the gun laws apply to the government? Will we disarm all government entities? You do realize the second amendment was to ensure an armed populace would be a damper on the ambitions of those in power, the framers of the constitution did not think folks in the US were radically different or superior to other human beings. That future politicians would be just as susceptible to the temptations of power.
The last century showed how justified their concern was. Deaths from crime pale into insignificance compared to the numbers killed by their own governments after disarming them. Estimates range from 150 to 260 million in the last century.
No, we should not disarm the victims. We should never render populations helpless. We should never operate under the conceit and arrogance that somehow we Americans are superior to others, immune to the errors others have succumbed to.
G
Geist
Guest
No gun is illegal! They prefer to be called “undocumented”! 
S
SamH
Guest
So how many laws will need to be repealed before we get back to the sensible level?
S
scipio337
Guest
Josh, I’m not sure you understand: NO ONE IS COMMITTING CRIMES WITH “AUTOMATIC RIFLES”!!!
None! It requires a very expensive Bureau of Alchohol Tobacco and Firearms license (class 3), lenthy background checks with the FBI and BATF to be able to purchase one (not to mention the $15,000+ price tag).
Since 1934, there has been ONE murder with a fully automatic rifle, and the man who committed that murder was a police officer.
guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html
justfactsdaily.com/five-fallacies-about-guns-and-violence
The issue is that up until lately, some in Congress wanted to ban “assault rifles”, which is categorized by largely cosmetic features.
“Automatic weapons” have been highly regulated (pretty much banned for most) since 1934. Basically, they currently want to ban box fed, SEMI Automatic rifles (and some pistols).
As evidenced by the very high crime rates in US cities WITH VERY strict “gun control” laws, laws simply don’t work. By definition, criminals aren’t deterred by law.
None! It requires a very expensive Bureau of Alchohol Tobacco and Firearms license (class 3), lenthy background checks with the FBI and BATF to be able to purchase one (not to mention the $15,000+ price tag).
Since 1934, there has been ONE murder with a fully automatic rifle, and the man who committed that murder was a police officer.
guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html
justfactsdaily.com/five-fallacies-about-guns-and-violence
The issue is that up until lately, some in Congress wanted to ban “assault rifles”, which is categorized by largely cosmetic features.
“Automatic weapons” have been highly regulated (pretty much banned for most) since 1934. Basically, they currently want to ban box fed, SEMI Automatic rifles (and some pistols).
As evidenced by the very high crime rates in US cities WITH VERY strict “gun control” laws, laws simply don’t work. By definition, criminals aren’t deterred by law.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Difficult to picture what laws would do that. After all, street drugs are illegal and the penalties for drug running are severe, and yet tons and tons of them are brought into this country every year and can be found almost anywhere in the country. I heard on the news this morning that fewer than half of illegal entrants across the Mexican border are caught. Outlaw legal guns and half those people could soon be carrying an illegal gun across the border for criminals, just as a lot of them carry drugs for criminals to sell now.
S
SamH
Guest
No. The simple fact is it would be very easy to pass sufficently “tough” gun control laws to disarm the law abiding, its the criminals that won’t hand over their weapons.
B
bellasbane
Guest
Hi Scipio,
You sound like my husband!
This may be a bit off topic, but what do you think about the regulations on extended magazines and the purchase of ammunition? These are not protected by the 2nd Amendment and while it may not prevent a massacre, the argument that it would mitigate their impact seems sound to me. In Tucson, Loughner was disarmed when he stopped firing in order to reload.
Adam Lanza used 30 round magazines to fire 154 bullets in 5 minutes at Sandyhook elementary school. FIVE MINUTES. He had access to 10 round magazines, but left them at home. If he only had access to the 10 round magazines he would have had to carry at least 16 in order to shoot as many bullets. During the massacre, he used a tactical method of dropping the magazines before then were empty and reloading new ones in order to avoid running out of bullets. That means even fewer bullets might have been fired and he would have had to reload more often.
How often do guns jam because the person loading the magazine made a mistake?
articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-28/news/sns-rt-us-usa-shooting-connecticutbre92r0em-20130328_1_adam-lanza-nancy-lanza-school-shooting
- Status