Reasonable regulations

[rustyx]

Today I interacted with someone on another forum on the topic of body armor. Well that's where it started, in his/her post they said body armor should be regulated along with "large caliber rifles" in a way that NFA items are. Also said things like NODs and ballistic helmets should also be regulated. They also said they own many firearms in a free state.

I've never interacted with a person who owns firearms who thinks they need to be regulated MORE.

So TL/DR; what's your idea of "reasonable" regulations for weapons?

I'll start, And I'm sure I'll get flamed by someone for this.

I think the only regulation should be a background check to assure you are not mentally ill or a violent criminal. All small arms should be readily available to anyone who wishes to own them. No NFA items. Auto, burst, SBR/SBS, suppressed should all be available over the counter at any gun shop.

Edit: after being schooled a bit, and doing some research, I've been steered into a better path. Also, the ruby ridge documentary is on Netflix if anyone is interested.

But by all means, flame on for my original post.

[DDscar]

Lol stay in cali buddy

[rustyx]

Lol stay in cali buddy

I know background checks don't do a whole lot but I know they stop some people. (I'm assuming that's why you said that)

[dwinters14]

I agree. It's been proven these regs don't do anything but limit our ability to self defence.

[dwalker]

Reasonable?

None.

It is not reasonable to ask me to violate my privacy to exercise a RIGHT. Owning a firearm or for that matter ANY weapon is not a privilege, its a RIGHT.

A RIGHT incidentally, that the Founders had no intention of denying to anyone, and that includes criminals. That did not come around until 1968, and if viewed in the circumstances of the day, was specifically aimed at preventing blacks from owning firearms.

So no, I disagree with any so called "reasonable" regulation

[HPBrowningMK3]

Whenever I hear "reasonable regulations" and guns, all I can think is about the gradual erosion of our rights under this sinister frame of "reasonable regulations" ( not a slam against you) -- just look at this stupid state and at least 3-4 gun grabbing bills in Excremento a month. To hell with being reasonable.

You want reasonable? I will tell you what I think is reasonable: Enforce the existing laws and absolutely ensure draconian punishments for anyone who uses a firearm to commit a crime, up to and including the death penalty-- if possible even faster than in Texas. No ifs or buts. I know, I know, I can dream, right? Much easier to blame inanimate objects and infringe on law abiding people's rights.

Today I interacted with someone on another forum on the topic of body armor. Well that's where it started, in his/her post they said body armor should be regulated along with "large caliber rifles" in a way that NFA items are. Also said things like NODs and ballistic helmets should also be regulated. They also said they own many firearms in a free state.

I've never interacted with a person who owns firearms who thinks they need to be regulated MORE.

So TL/DR; what's your idea of "reasonable" regulations for weapons?

I'll start, And I'm sure I'll get flamed by someone for this.

I think the only regulation should be a background check to assure you are not mentally ill or a violent criminal. All small arms should be readily available to anyone who wishes to own them. No NFA items. Auto, burst, SBR/SBS, suppressed should all be available over the counter at any gun shop.

[rustyx]

Whenever I hear "reasonable regulations" and guns, all I can think is about the gradual erosion of our rights under this sinister frame of "reasonable regulations" ( not a slam against you) -- just look at this stupid state and at least 3-4 gun grabbing bills in Excremento a month. To hell with being reasonable.

You want reasonable? I will tell you what I think is reasonable: Enforce the existing laws and absolutely ensure draconian punishments for anyone who uses a firearm to commit a crime, up to and including the death penalty-- if possible even faster than in Texas. No ifs or buts. I know, I know, I can dream, right? Much easier to blame inanimate objects and infringe on law abiding people's rights.

I agree with you completely. I only think of background checks because we have no way to defend ourselves against an aggressor without being looked at as a criminal in the courts eyes. And they do stop violent criminals from getting a new gun. They'll still get one, don't get me wrong.

[71MUSTY]

The Second Amendment is the only reasonable regulation we need. And it regulates the government not the people, which is why they work so hard to destroy it.

[dwalker]

I agree with you completely. I only think of background checks because we have no way to defend ourselves against an aggressor without being looked at as a criminal in the courts eyes. And they do stop violent criminals from getting a new gun. They'll still get one, don't get me wrong.

Who makes those decisions? Because the way the prison system s supposed to work is once you have paid your debt to society, that is it, over and done. None of us can tell who is going to be a violent criminal and certainly the .gov never envisioned itself to be the one to tell either.

Who decides if you are mentally "fit" to own a gun? YOU want to put one of your RIGHTS and FREEDOMS in the hands of a bureaucrat? Maybe you got drunk at a party in college make a pass at the wrong girl and your girlfriend calls the cops telling them that you are out of control and talking about killing yourself. POOF. Mental issue on your record. No guns for you down the road if some paperpusher decides anyone who thought about suicide is a risk.

This is the reality, and this is why they push for these things, over and over.

[rustyx]

Who makes those decisions? Because the way the prison system s supposed to work is once you have paid your debt to society, that is it, over and done. None of us can tell who is going to be a violent criminal and certainly the .gov never envisioned itself to be the one to tell either.



Who decides if you are mentally "fit" to own a gun? YOU want to put one of your RIGHTS and FREEDOMS in the hands of a bureaucrat? Maybe you got drunk at a party in college make a pass at the wrong girl and your girlfriend calls the cops telling them that you are out of control and talking about killing yourself. POOF. Mental issue on your record. No guns for you down the road if some paperpusher decides anyone who thought about suicide is a risk.



This is the reality, and this is why they push for these things, over and over.

You make a very solid point. You're starting to make me change my mind about my stance. And this is not sarcasm.

[dwalker]

Try and understand that the Founding Fathers had dealt with gun control etc. at the hands of the British and although the popular version of history maintains the Revolution was caused by taxation, it was the British abuse of power- commandeering property for the British Army and Navy, forcing families to feed and house British soldiers in thier homes, searching homes and property without notice or even a reason given, all of the abuses of power, and none of them have changed.

Read:

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html

[Jeepergeo]

When the time comes and big government elects to disarm the citizenry, it won't be the army knocking at your door, but rather your local LEA. And the mantra, which those that study history have heard before, will be joyously sung, "we are just following orders,."

As said above., any advance or restriction on our right to keep and bare arms, a right granted by God as a natural right and confirmed by our founding fathers, must be resisted. There can be no compromise on this and still maintain liberty.

NRA and CRPA memberships are essential to the fight.
If you are not a member, you are a poser and part of the problem.

[homelessdude]

NO reasonable laws when it comes to my rights.

[Bigtwin]

Shall not be infringed!

[OCEquestrian]

Today I interacted with someone on another forum on the topic of body armor. Well that's where it started, in his/her post they said body armor should be regulated along with "large caliber rifles" in a way that NFA items are. Also said things like NODs and ballistic helmets should also be regulated. They also said they own many firearms in a free state.

I've never interacted with a person who owns firearms who thinks they need to be regulated MORE.

So TL/DR; what's your idea of "reasonable" regulations for weapons?

I'll start, And I'm sure I'll get flamed by someone for this.

I think the only regulation should be a background check to assure you are not mentally ill or a violent criminal. All small arms should be readily available to anyone who wishes to own them. No NFA items. Auto, burst, SBR/SBS, suppressed should all be available over the counter at any gun shop.

Yuu just stepped in it...watching you flame out, crash and burn on this one