PDA

View Full Version : So what do you think guns laws should be? If any?


TonyNorCal
08-25-2005, 9:28 PM
I am curious what you think guns laws should be?

What does the Second Ammendment mean to you?

Should anyone be able to buy any gun at any time? Absolute, no restrictions?

Should felons be forbidden?

Should there be background checks?

Should any guns be forbidden?

What about concealed carry? Should anyone be able to carry anywhere at any time?

How would you envision gun laws?

JAFGO
08-25-2005, 9:56 PM
The only laws I would agree with would be that violent felons be prohibited from owning guns and that if you use a gun in the commission of crime that you get a mandatory 20 year prison sentence in addition to whatever other punishment that's meted out for the original offense.

SunshineGlocker
08-25-2005, 11:21 PM
I may not be representative of members of the group, but here goes:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>I do favor background checks.
<LI>Anyone with a violent felony should be barred from owning a gun, probably for life, although there should be some kind of appeals process for that. Someone who was in a scuffle where no one was hurt might end up with a violent felony record, and he should have some appeals process for getting his rights back eventually.
<LI>Same goes for anyone with certain types of mental illness.
<LI>CCW permits should be through a straightforward shall-issue process, or perhaps not even necessary
<LI>Guns other than conventional hunting rifles and shotguns should probably be required to be registered. The reason for this is the following point...
<LI>No restrictions on the types of guns, other than it must be something which can be carried and fired by an individual, and should not have explosive, guided or otherwise exceptionally dangerous rounds. The reason for registration is that 50 cal machineguns, silenced cane guns, and similar things really are exceptionally dangerous and someone should keep a list of who owns them and where they are.
<LI>No special rules on imports. Where a gun is made shouldn't matter.
[/list]
So yeah, that would require rolling back almost everything except the NFA.

delloro
08-26-2005, 8:26 AM
Originally posted by Tony:What does the Second Ammendment mean to you? It means the populace must, in general, not be deprived of their privately held martial arms.

Should anyone be able to buy any gun at any time? Absolute, no restrictions? Absolutely not.

Should felons be forbidden? Ahh, for the good old days. It used to be that felons were not legally cognizable persons and could not own land, vote, own guns, or exercise any other incidents of citizenship. they were persona non grata. but there were only 12 felonies.

I think violent felons should be forbidden, but in my world most would be locked up forever anyways. certain violent misdemeanants should also be deprived of their RKBA. most non-violent felons should not be deprived.

Should there be background checks? Yes. But, just an instant check to determine the criminal status, and that's it. no more info, records not kept.

Should any guns be forbidden? Yes, rugers and the like.

What about concealed carry? Should anyone be able to carry anywhere at any time? seems to work in Vermont and other states. I don't think one should be allowed to carry in a bar or other places where deviant behavior and impaired judgment are expected, employers have a right to restrict their employees and private property owners have a right to restrict their clientele.

How would you envision gun laws? simpler, fairer, and a means to their own end, and not a total gun ban.

trempel_ry@yahoo.com
08-26-2005, 9:57 AM
I'm in favor of background checks. People that've been convicted of violent and drug related crimes should be prohibited from owning firearms. Throw DUIs in there as well.
CCW should be shall issue, but with one prerequisite - a shooting qualification. If you can't hit what you're aiming at, carrying a gun won't help you. There should be very little restrictions on where you can carry.
No restrictions on types of firearms one could own. .50 BMGs, semi-auto military type weapons, full-auto - all good to go. No stupid certification list for pistols, no capacity restrictions.
My 2 C.

prkprisoner
08-26-2005, 3:15 PM
I think any person that commits a crime and pays the price and is not on parole or probation should legally be allowed to own/posess/purchase any firearm. If someone commits a crime currently there in no motivation to stop commiting crimes. "Once a criminal always a criminal" is BS. People make mistakes and people change. If a criminal wants a gun they will get one legal or not. I think all guns should be legal. No Mandatory registration. No background checks, i feel they do nothing to guns out of the hands of criminals.

delloro
08-26-2005, 5:01 PM
registration can be a very useful tool for crime solving. the only problem is its usefulness for confiscation as well.

prkprisoner
08-26-2005, 5:09 PM
id like to see the stat on how many guns that are used in crimes are actually legally registered and owned

arvs
08-26-2005, 5:19 PM
In my opinion, you should be able to go into a store and buy any gun you want without any background checks or waiting periods and no registration. I remember 20 years ago it was like that. The world is already crazy, what difference will it make.

BigAL
08-26-2005, 5:45 PM
I can't believe some of the crap i'm reading in this thread.

"...shall not be infringed."

Background checks are infringement.
Registration is infringement.
Restricting concealed carry is infringement.
Resticting guns based on type/design is infringement.
And yes, even convited felons should be able to buy guns. If you can't trust them with a gun, they shouldn't be out of jail in the first place.

walkerboh4269
08-26-2005, 5:59 PM
Originally posted by BigAL:
I can't believe some of the crap i'm reading in this thread.

"...shall not be infringed."

Background checks are infringement.
Registration is infringement.
Restricting concealed carry is infringement.
Resticting guns based on type/design is infringement.
And yes, even convited felons should be able to buy guns. If you can't trust them with a gun, they shouldn't be out of jail in the first place.

I agree with Big Al on this one.

Some of the responses in this thread point out exactly why we have the stupid gun laws in CA that we do.

It's not sensible gun control it's just gun control. And Gun Control = People Control.

imported_82a1
08-26-2005, 6:02 PM
BigAL,

I agree with you. Many people don't seem to realize that criminals will get guns - regardless of how many BS gun laws that were supposedly created to prevent them from doing so. What part of "shall not be infringed" do people not understand?
You're lucky to live in a free state, where people are not treated like little kids and can buy any kind of gun they want.

82a1

icormba
08-26-2005, 6:18 PM
like I always hear...
Gun Control = hitting your target.

How about Felon Control? Label a Felon a Felon... bar code them... implant GPS systems into them. Treat them as criminals.

Ok, maybe that's a bit excessive, but I just hate being considered a criminal for just owning a gun and sometimes that's just how I feel even though I've never even thought of committing a violent crime.

Charliegone
08-26-2005, 7:32 PM
What does the Second Ammendment mean to you?

Well, that no law abiding citizen shall be denied the right to keep and bear arms. Not by anyone, not even the government.

Should anyone be able to buy any gun at any time? Absolute, no restrictions?


No not anyone. Violent felons and the mentally ill should not be allowed to keep firearms. For the mentally ill, though, their right should be given back if they are found to be sane again. No waiting periods. That is just dumb.

Charliegone
08-26-2005, 7:37 PM
Should there be background checks?

Actually yes their should always be background checks, instant check is the way to go for everything.

Should any guns be forbidden?
Hell no.

What about concealed carry? Should anyone be able to carry anywhere at any time?
Anyone who wishes should, as long as they are not felons or mental disturbed.

How would you envision gun laws

Simple, quick, efficient, and that do not infringe. Infringement would be requiring a waiting period, 20 day background checks, and choosing from only a limited amount of weapons.

imported_82a1
08-26-2005, 8:00 PM
Most (if not all) of the gun laws in this state just feel good (to gun controllers), but accomplish nothing. I'm not saying violent felons should have guns - just saying they'll get their guns (off the black market) whether there are gun laws or not. So, to say background checks are the way to prevent them from acquiring firearms, is simply not true.

Charliegone
08-26-2005, 10:14 PM
Maybe, but a few minutes of your time won't be much of an infringement.

imported_82a1
08-26-2005, 10:24 PM
If the gun laws in this state were revised so that "a few minutes of your time" was needed for a background check and any kind of firearm could be purchased, I would be content with that. But, as far as I'm concerned, it's still an infringement, and therefore will never agree with it.

prkprisoner
08-27-2005, 11:27 AM
No matter what laws are made anyone can get a gun including criminals and mentally disturbed people. Members of gun organizations are already considered to be extremists by some. How far off is that from being a gun restricting label? If someone is a threat to society they should not be with the general population. Law abiding citizens should not have to suffer because the criminal justice system cant do its job. Im with bigal "shall not be infringed"

imported_82a1
08-27-2005, 1:40 PM
Unfortunately, our "leaders" of this state do not have the common sense to realize that. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

imported_82a1
08-27-2005, 2:38 PM
Exactly. And if he was denied the purchase of that gun in a shop because he was mentally unstable, he could have easily got one off the street. In other words, no gun law would necessarily have prevented the attempted assassination on Reagan.

08-30-2005, 6:31 PM
I am a strong supporter of the second ammendment, however, there is a huge problem with guns getting into the wrong hands. I think the biggest problem is that the legal system is overwhelmed and lets criminals get off way too easy. I think that is where the focus should be to resolve the problems related with guns. I say raise taxes, get the criminals through the deliberation process as quick as possible, and then be done with them. I think if they've been found guilty of 1st degree muder, and maybe lesser degrees, they should be put to death as quickly as possible so they aren't a burden on taxpayers. Would this disuade criminals from "poppin a cap"? We need to be harder on the criminals. I do think background checks should be more thorough though. I think a gun safety and responsibility class should be required before being able to purchase a firearm. But I think that it should be funded by taxpayers as well, because it is a right. The anti-gun lobby might hate that idea, but really it benefits them indirectly, making gun owners more responsible and educated. These are just ideas. I'm curious if "gunnies" think this might be too harsh. But there is a problem, and I think it needs a pro-active solution so that we can protect that right. Let me know?

Pulsar
08-30-2005, 8:19 PM
Originally posted by goobliglob:
I am a strong supporter of the second ammendment, however, there is a huge problem with guns getting into the wrong hands. I think the biggest problem is that the legal system is overwhelmed and lets criminals get off way too easy. I think that is where the focus should be to resolve the problems related with guns. I say raise taxes, get the criminals through the deliberation process as quick as possible, and then be done with them. I think if they've been found guilty of 1st degree muder, and maybe lesser degrees, they should be put to death as quickly as possible so they aren't a burden on taxpayers. Would this disuade criminals from "poppin a cap"? We need to be harder on the criminals. I do think background checks should be more thorough though. I think a gun safety and responsibility class should be required before being able to purchase a firearm. But I think that it should be funded by taxpayers as well, because it is a right. The anti-gun lobby might hate that idea, but really it benefits them indirectly, making gun owners more responsible and educated. These are just ideas. I'm curious if "gunnies" think this might be too harsh. But there is a problem, and I think it needs a pro-active solution so that we can protect that right. Let me know?

I really have a problem with the raise tax's part, and having to take classes as well.

RKBA is a right not a privlidge, but raising tax's on guns you are essentially blocking the poor from owning firearms. And having to take a class just screams of socialism to me.

Mike Searson
08-31-2005, 12:41 AM
I believe in Background Checks. INSTA-CHEK is the way to go. Maybe if this jaggoff state ever steps into the 21st century they can embrace the technology that the rest of America has.

Waiting periods are lame.

I believe in a safety class only for CCW certification. As long as you are not a felon it is your right and duty as an American to own a firearm.

Class 3, Title 2, AOW stuff for everybody as long as you have a background check done and pay the Tax.

Standard capacity magazines should be allowed. Restricted Capacity magazines blow goats!

Anybody wanting to ban so-called "assault weapons" needs to have their face smashed to little bloody puddles with a framing hammer to learn what assault really is.

icormba
09-02-2005, 12:24 PM
there is a huge problem with guns getting into the wrong hands.

The thing that bothers me more than this is driving on the highway and watching a SUV fly passed me doing 80mph while the driver is talking on his/or her cell phone, & putting on his/or her makeup all at the same time!!

Bling Bling
09-02-2005, 1:57 PM
Plato had a similar discussion regarding your friend lending you some weapons and then when attempt to return them, you find your friend has gone cookoo, hence the dilema to return the weapons to a crazy person. I think it was in the Euthophyro actually. Obviously Plato is looking for the ethical answer though.

I don't believe we should be allowing crazies to buy guns. As far as a process of determining what a "crazy", I haven't go that figured out yet. Some felons seem to have learned a lot from their mistakes and have repaired their lives, there is no reason not to trust them. But then some felons jump right back to their old patterns. It makes more sense to error on the side of caution and just not allow any felons to buy guns. I think the type of felony will need to be examined too. If it was a violent crime, it should be clear.

Would you let someone buy a gun if while they were looking at it in the store they were listing all the people they were going to kill and talking to the gun?

Remember WE might be responsible gun owners but NOT everyone thinks like we do. There are a LOT of stupid people out there. Look at how many people voted for John Kerry!

Would you give a 8-year old a loaded gun and just leave him to figure it out? Many crazies have the mental capacities of an 8-year old child.

Background checks, although not perfect, at least try address these issues.