Recent Gun Control developments/speculation thread

[EonDresari]

In case anyone hasn't seen it. It's very thoughtful, respectful, logically argued, and not offensive. I know most of us know these things already, but I figured it'd help some of our less knowledgable members. I figured it should go here rather than start a new thread, if I'm wrong, feel free to move it.

 

[oleheat]

Any ideas on how we can get Piers Morgan's arse shipped back to Jolley Olde England?

This is CNN's idea of an INTERVIEW????


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/12/19/piers-morgan-calls-pro-gun-advocate-unbelievably-stupid-dangerous-you#ixzz2FVObHNAH

 

[Geardo]

You guys own semi automatic rifles?

Yes I do, and they will never be registered, or surrendered!

 

[Geardo]

Do we have gun control supporters on this site?

Probably! If they support the NFA, or background checks, or a permit for concealed carry, they support gun control!

 

[GOAT]

This is just a feeler for an idea. Instead of Gun Control, try (don't pay attention to the name, hear me out) People Control. People have the right to drive a car, fact.People have to take a drivers test to get a license to drive a car legally, fact. People will drive without a license, unfortunately fact. Police arrest/ticket people that are caught driving without a license, fact. Why not take the same approach with handguns and rifles. I had to go to a class for to concealed carry. I listened to the guy talk about the functions of a gun, the legalities of guns, tested on shooting the gun, ect. I got a photo id that says "I can carry a gun under my shirt." I propose, enforcing a law that requires anyone that owns a gun to apply to own that gun. It can have different levels such as," I want a single shot rifle for hunting," boom hunting rifle permit. Down the line, " I want to get into competitive pistol shooting," take the test, boom, pistol addendum added to that license.

Now where this differs from most anything else, mental evaluation as part of the licensing. One hour, with a psychologist, to sign off that, " this person doesn't seem like a sociopath. Will it keep people from illegally owning weapons? No. But if it was passed with the right for police to do "random checks" like the folks in Arizona did to curb illegal immigration, it would be more effective. Yes, it would turn into a registry of people that are able to own firearms. I consider this a lesser evil compared to banning the 15 round magazine on my Sig. If this were to happen, a compromise could be made to keep the sale of guns between private citizens legal. It would supplement this by forcing people to cough up their "carrier's card" during these p2p sales.

This is only an idea, and it would never pass because both sides would have to compromise. But hey, no body cares what I have to say anyway.

Please give your (constructive) criticism.

 

[mr.z28]

no background checks bro?...

 

[mr.z28]

I don't agree goat...imagine the peril when you try to sell a firearm to someone... "wts glock 27 (glock 27 gen 4 permitees only)"....

 

[JNieman]

I got nothing constructive to add to your idea man, it's just retarded.

Nothing about that will change anything, help anyone, gun owner or gun banner, and it's a bunch of added bureaucratic that will have no effect other than increases costs of ownership and usage.

In short.

We are all dumber, now, for having read that.

 

[GOAT]

I don't agree goat...imagine the peril when you try to sell a firearm to someone... "wts glock 27 (glock 27 gen 4 permitees only)"....

That would be more specific than the example I made. Could be by caliber and/or type of weapon. I.e. Bolt action rife or .22lr-45acp. I think if (I said unlikely) something similar came about, the qualification would be implied in the title of the ad. Military uses this system, I cannot carry a m249 without being certified on it.

 

[GOAT]

I got nothing constructive to add to your idea man, it's just retarded.

Nothing about that will change anything, help anyone, gun owner or gun banner, and it's a bunch of added bureaucratic that will have no effect other than increases costs of ownership and usage.

In short.

We are all dumber, now, for having read that.

You are correct, let's go with your insightful idea. What was that again? What original idea came from your username? Right.

 

[CUJOHUNTER]

Would the democrats really be stupid enough to try to pull this? I can't see it.
1. The ATF doesn't have the manpower to handle this. How many AR's are out there?
2. They are running a new president in 4 years. They don't have a solid Obama replacement. Biden isn't up to it. This would make 2A the top issue in the next election and they can't win that one. Plus there are a lot of dems that will get strung up at reelection. Think about Mary Landrieu.
3. We control the house. If obama does this we can block every bill he tries for the next 4 years. The 2A crowd will be hounding them.
4. It sets a terrible precedent. Allowing any president to use executive orders to do an end run on congress is not going to be liked by any congressman. The presidency is going to change hands eventually so the Dems don't want to start an executive order fight.
5. The US population is much more accepting of firearms now than in the early 90's. Revolvers are considered archaic now. Most states have CC now. It would be an unpopular move. The dems were pointing out semiauto pistols, not just AR's.

No, I still think this is going to be a congressional fight. They're already talking about filing bills. Had they done this instead from the start it might have worked. If they loose the fight in congress then Obama taking action then will be met with outrage, not to mention the 'crisis' will be long past.

Honestly, the issue they need to address is mental health benefits. The US mental health system needs to be overhauled. The last several attacks have been by individuals that were on or had been on mental health type drugs. The school shooter was an autistic patient that could feel no pain. We need to focus on fixing the real problem. The Republican leaders should be putting together a mental health bill and school protection bill right now to offer as a reasonable response to the situation in lieu of another ridiculous firearms ban attempt (which is how it needs to be presented).

+1

 

[Akajun]

My Opinon is they are after 4 goals right now.

1 Renewal of the awb
2 a high cap mag ban
3 a ban on private sales/gunshows/internet classifieds like on this site.
4 more restrictions on who can own firearms

They will play the same playbook they used in 94, especially since Joe Biden wrote the last Crime Bill,
They will call it a " Public Saftey Bill, Patriot Act 2, whatever and roll a bunch of money for mental health, school security officers, possibly some form of TSA to deal with Firearms/schools/ large gatherings/sports events. They will basically bribe the congressmen with so much money they will have a hard time turning it down.

GUys our only hope in this is to right now, call, write, harrass every congressman and senator in your state, even the ones who we know will vote against us, let them know that 2a voters are one issue voters, and when their re election comes up, we will do everything in our power to put someone else in office, even another gun banner.

 

[Gus McCrae]

We should ban boats because all of you gun guys keep being irresponsible and losing your guns on boating trips.

JR1572

Underappreciated post.

A guy I knew in high school (a hunter) posted that while he "supports gun rights, and the second amendment" he didn't think anything that holds over 3 rounds should be legal for private citizens to own. I find that responding to stupidity is pointless so I ignored it, but talk about clueless.

I think that it's a good idea to politely engage such people and help them see the light.

 

[oleheat]

A guy I knew in high school (a hunter) posted that while he "supports gun rights, and the second amendment" he didn't think anything that holds over 3 rounds should be legal for private citizens to own. I find that responding to stupidity is pointless so I ignored it, but talk about clueless.

Funny- I had someone try and use that same logic on me just the other day. ('why do you NEED this & that....')

I asked him if he thought beer sales/possesion should be limited to 3 cans per day in order to fight drunk driving. He actually asked me why should he as a responsible drinker be held responsible for those who drink and drive.....

Think about it, Bro.

 

[Emperor]

Nothing is going to happen. These worthless politicians who pander to emotions and opportunistic tragedies should be imprisoned. Words have not been invented to thoroghly describe the loathing I have for them.

 

[Vermiform]

I got nothing constructive to add to your idea man, it's just retarded.

Nothing about that will change anything, help anyone, gun owner or gun banner, and it's a bunch of added bureaucratic that will have no effect other than increases costs of ownership and usage.

In short.

We are all dumber, now, for having read that.

Brutal............

 

[Vermiform]

You are correct, let's go with your insightful idea. What was that again? What original idea came from your username? Right.

We don't need any new insightful ideas here. We have compromised enough, there is no more room for anymore "common sense" gun control. If they want to have a "serious discussion", then fine let the liberals discuss it among themselves and when they come to us, our answer to more gun control needs to be "HELL NO, GO KICK ROCKS!". Their idea of a "serious dialog" about safe schools does not contain any real solutions and never will until we have a "Beslan" happen here.

 

[JNieman]

We don't need any new insightful ideas here. We have compromised enough, there is no more room for anymore "common sense" gun control. If they want to have a "serious discussion", then fine let the liberals discuss it among themselves and when they come to us, our answer to more gun control needs to be "HELL NO, GO KICK ROCKS!". Their idea of a "serious dialog" about safe schools does not contain any real solutions and never will until we have a "Beslan" happen here.

Bingo - the very act of asking for alternate solutions is a farce... we don't /need/ to give anything constructive to gun bans.

That's /not/ the answer.

How about armed policeman in every school, or letting faculty carry and qualifying adults carry on campus? How about the same things that have led to the increasingly lowering rates of violent crime since the AWB, and continued after it expired?

 

[oleheat]

Nothing is going to happen.

I hope not, Sir. But I am disheartened hearing some things being said out there by some I never thought I'd hear say them....


Then there the phonies out there who CLAIM to be pro-2A- then give themselves away by questioning 'why anyone needs an assault weapon'(O'Reilly comes to mind), along with questions involving things like ammo limits, magazine rescrictions, etc...

 

[Sugarbug]

This is just a feeler for an idea. Instead of Gun Control, try (don't pay attention to the name, hear me out) People Control. People have the right to drive a car, fact.People have to take a drivers test to get a license to drive a car legally, fact. People will drive without a license, unfortunately fact. Police arrest/ticket people that are caught driving without a license, fact. Why not take the same approach with handguns and rifles. I had to go to a class for to concealed carry. I listened to the guy talk about the functions of a gun, the legalities of guns, tested on shooting the gun, ect. I got a photo id that says "I can carry a gun under my shirt." I propose, enforcing a law that requires anyone that owns a gun to apply to own that gun. It can have different levels such as," I want a single shot rifle for hunting," boom hunting rifle permit. Down the line, " I want to get into competitive pistol shooting," take the test, boom, pistol addendum added to that license.

Now where this differs from most anything else, mental evaluation as part of the licensing. One hour, with a psychologist, to sign off that, " this person doesn't seem like a sociopath. Will it keep people from illegally owning weapons? No. But if it was passed with the right for police to do "random checks" like the folks in Arizona did to curb illegal immigration, it would be more effective. Yes, it would turn into a registry of people that are able to own firearms. I consider this a lesser evil compared to banning the 15 round magazine on my Sig. If this were to happen, a compromise could be made to keep the sale of guns between private citizens legal. It would supplement this by forcing people to cough up their "carrier's card" during these p2p sales.

This is only an idea, and it would never pass because both sides would have to compromise. But hey, no body cares what I have to say anyway.

Please give your (constructive) criticism.

The right to own a firearm is constitutionally protected; fact. The "right" to drive a car is not; fact.

I heartily disagree with your suggestion. In no way do I mean to be disrespectful, but I do see some clear drawbacks:

1) Anyone who is applying for one of these permits must have that type of gun... Furthermore, they likely still have it as they now can only have sold it to people who hold a similar permit.

2) It's a constitutionally protected right. As is free speech and the freedom of religion. I think MORE good would be done if we made people get a permit to be a certain religion. Think of all the horrible things done in the name of religion; it far surpasses the crimes committed with guns.

3) What a great way to just make it nearly impossible for anyone to own a firearm. Who is the one to decide what the criteria should be to own one?

I just don't see how what you propose would in any way help the issue other than make it harder and more frustrating for those like you and I who obey the law and are responsible with their firearms.