Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-27-2005, 10:27 AM
prkprisoner's Avatar
prkprisoner prkprisoner is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vacaville
Posts: 269
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

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"
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-26-2005, 7:26 AM
delloro delloro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the Inland Empire
Posts: 549
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
How would you envision gun laws?
simpler, fairer, and a means to their own end, and not a total gun ban.
__________________
.
click HERE to see scantily-clad women with guns
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-26-2005, 4:19 PM
arvs arvs is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-02-2005, 11:24 AM
icormba's Avatar
icormba icormba is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,802
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
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!!
__________________
Chris
http://www.m1garand.net
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-26-2005, 4:01 PM
delloro delloro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the Inland Empire
Posts: 549
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

registration can be a very useful tool for crime solving. the only problem is its usefulness for confiscation as well.
__________________
.
click HERE to see scantily-clad women with guns
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-27-2005, 1:38 PM
imported_82a1 imported_82a1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: PRK
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-26-2005, 6:32 PM
Charliegone's Avatar
Charliegone Charliegone is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 6,021
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________


I will vote for a donkey-sex maniac if he's pro-gun.
-BWiese
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-30-2005, 7:19 PM
Pulsar Pulsar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,048
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
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.
__________________
"There are over 550,000,000 firearms in worldwide circulation, that's one firearm for every 12 people. The only question is, how do we arm the other 11?" -Lord of War
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-26-2005, 5:02 PM
imported_82a1 imported_82a1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: PRK
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-26-2005, 2:15 PM
prkprisoner's Avatar
prkprisoner prkprisoner is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vacaville
Posts: 269
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-30-2005, 11:41 PM
Mike Searson's Avatar
Mike Searson Mike Searson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 451
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-26-2005, 4:45 PM
BigAL's Avatar
BigAL BigAL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 832
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-26-2005, 4:59 PM
walkerboh4269's Avatar
walkerboh4269 walkerboh4269 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Apple Valley, CA
Posts: 142
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-25-2005, 10:21 PM
SunshineGlocker SunshineGlocker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 139
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-26-2005, 8:57 AM
trempel_ry@yahoo.com trempel_ry@yahoo.com is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-26-2005, 6:37 PM
Charliegone's Avatar
Charliegone Charliegone is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 6,021
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________


I will vote for a donkey-sex maniac if he's pro-gun.
-BWiese
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-27-2005, 12:40 PM
imported_82a1 imported_82a1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: PRK
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Unfortunately, our "leaders" of this state do not have the common sense to realize that.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-26-2005, 9:24 PM
imported_82a1 imported_82a1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: PRK
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-25-2005, 8:56 PM
JAFGO JAFGO is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Eureka
Posts: 257
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-26-2005, 7:00 PM
imported_82a1 imported_82a1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: PRK
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-26-2005, 5:18 PM
icormba's Avatar
icormba icormba is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,802
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Chris
http://www.m1garand.net
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-25-2005, 8:28 PM
TonyNorCal's Avatar
TonyNorCal TonyNorCal is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,442
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

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?
__________________
...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-30-2005, 5:31 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-26-2005, 4:09 PM
prkprisoner's Avatar
prkprisoner prkprisoner is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vacaville
Posts: 269
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

id like to see the stat on how many guns that are used in crimes are actually legally registered and owned
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-26-2005, 9:14 PM
Charliegone's Avatar
Charliegone Charliegone is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 6,021
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Maybe, but a few minutes of your time won't be much of an infringement.
__________________


I will vote for a donkey-sex maniac if he's pro-gun.
-BWiese
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-02-2005, 12:57 PM
Bling Bling's Avatar
Bling Bling Bling Bling is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 299
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:02 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.