What is your definition of reasonable gun regulation?

[dirtykoala]

I should be able to own any gun I like with just a back ground check.

That's means that some people can't own guns, so your version of regulation would be much more extensive than that.

[Ksmash01]

Forms, and background checks are fine.

Roster, Awb, waiting period, ppt, 1 in 30, and many others, not cool...
Also, keeping weapons out of violent criminals is also ok.

Crimes against people or property with intention to harm surrounding people are illegal. Crimes involving property are between the owner and the thief. As long as the owner doesn't go overboard, no govt intervention necessary.

Everything else should work itself out...

[Meplat]

[scarville]

If you are really considered too dangerous to legally own a firearm, then you should be considered too dangerous to be free and should be kept in prison, because we all know you can get a gun very easily.

Exactly.

If a person is too dangerous to be out in public with a gun he is too dangerous to be out in public at all.

[Ksmash01]

Exactly.

If a person is too dangerous to be out in public with a gun he is too dangerous to be out in public at all.

We know this isn't the case...

Reality is a piece of work. There are some people that don't need to be in public with firearms. They're called children.

That said, the language of the 2A may need to be updated. Language, not intent. It just needs to be made more clear to people on the other side that it is my right to own whatever I want, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else.

Maybe something like "The fed will not stand in front of my barrel in an attempt to subvert my natural rights, neither should anyone else, unless I give up my rights by taking away the rights of another."

That way, anything with a barrel is good to go. You may need a permit for anything requiring a countdown to launch, or aerial drop.

[GW]

What is your definition of reasonable gun regulation?

75 yards

[scarville]

Reality is a piece of work. There are some people that don't need to be in public with firearms. They're called children

Yeah. I forgot that children are never victimized.

[VW*Mike]

As others have said, I think certain Felons should have the ability to get their rights back. If they were deemed able to be released upon the public, then they SHOULD, in theory be able to regain their rights. If they are that bad, murders, repeat offenders with violence, they have no business on the street anyway so leave them in jail. I would say after they have been out of prison, for a few years and have PROVEN they are on the straight and narrow, then fine, restore their rights. I think we have created a lot of problems by permanently brandishing people as criminals. It preprograms them for failure. Once convicted, and debt is paid, its almost impossible to put their lives back together enough to re assimilate to society and carry out a normal life. Problems getting a job, problems getting a place to rent, etc.

I carry the same attitude towards people with mental illness. I think if they have gone through therapy, and are deemed ok, then great. I think certain types of illness like schizophrenia, is hot or cold, and all it takes is a lapse in meds and they can be a real handful or dangerous. these people I'm a little more inclined to keep ANYTHING dangerous away from. I think at the TREATMENT level, a lot more needs to be done in HELPING people with mental illness. I think a lot of times, they just get handed medication and shuffled off. No follow up, no genuine care unless they are completely helpless.

After that, my thought is, if you can afford it, you should be able to have it, short of MAJOR weapons like bombs, nuclear, and biological weapons. SBR, full auto, whatever. WE are not the problem. We know it, they know.

[SanPedroShooter]

Zero gun laws. Let me add a slight qualifier. Zero gun laws for adults at least 18 unecumbered by legal complications, parole/probation or court certified mental health issues.

I would like to see the penalty for using a firearm to commit aggressive violence so harsh that no criminal would run the risk (except insane people, but they cant be controlled anyway. Tucson, Norway, Ihop... thats just the last 18 months or so...)

Use a gun to commit violent crime = life in prison/ electric chair.

Basically you are totaly free until you prove your self unworthy of societies trust. I also dont think I could every sit on a jury and convict someone unless a clear victim was established, "the state" is not good enough.

[shooterdave]

i beleive that there shouldn't be any gun laws period. if you can buy it then its yours.

[dantodd]

You asked for it...

ANY person not currently in prison, at any time, in any place (other than the one mentioned which is a restriction of all freedoms) shall be able to own, possess, purchase, sell, and/or carry any weapon regardless of operation of said weapon.

Yes, I support unlicensed and non-dealer transfers of any weapon one so chooses. Want that Glock 18 with under-barreled 40mm grenade launcher and shoulder stock? Find someone that has one and offer them cash. Load it up, throw it over your shoulder and take it home right then and there.

I take "may not be infringed" seriously.

So, children owning a gun without parental consent is ok, as long as they have the money?

So, a mentally handicapped adult with the cognitive level of a 10 year old, good to go buy that tommy gun?

[dantodd]

pretty sure a guy rolling into 7/11 with a gun in the waist ban is illegal, so that one is irrelevant.

why would it be illegal to carry a gun into 7/11. I'd argue that is one of the places you are most likely to need a gun.

problem is the mental capacity back ground checks are a joke. Now, I have a friend who is bi-polar and owns guns, let me now tell you that he always takes his meds and you would never know he was unless you knew him before being diagnosed... BUT the databases need to be linked, if you have a relapse of whatever, go off your pills and have to be forcibly admitted, you have to wait 4 years to get a gun, THAT will teach people not to be irresponsible with their bodies and medication.

The mental health checks are greatly flawed, it doesn't mean they aren't a good idea or that they aren't worth the effort to keep guns out of the hands of a narrowly defined group of people.

come on filling out the dros form is a joke, like you cant lie to the 20 questions? i believe mental databases should be used when doing a background check. TO many people who have serious mental problems that impede cognitive function can get a gun that way. [/quote]

But to keep guns out of the hands of such people we have to have universal (or nearly so) background checks.

All i ask is be responsible , take your meds, be a productive citizen despite your diagnosis and I will have no problem going shooting with you.

for folks for whom their meds are effective I agree completely. My grandfather was schizophrenic and he hunted and owned guns all his life. Meds can truly be a lifesaver.

[dantodd]

As for the nukes and crap. It takes a lot of money and proper storage as well as manning to even have stuff like that. Its cost prohibitive...

But wouldn't laws requiring proper storage, maintenance and training be "gun control?"

So, IF someone could afford to buy a couple suitcases from the former Soviet Union (probably $500K or so each) you'd be in favor of laws requiring safe storage etc?

Sure if someone is so mental and cannot even be trusted with a gun? Why are they living in society let alone outside of prison? Let alone alive?

What? You are suggesting that people with mental illness or injuries that have left them incapable of handling a firearm should be put in prison or killed? That's disgusting. We have a lot of folks coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq who have suffered permanent brain damage and your solution is to exterminate these soldiers who gave so much for this nation?

[dirtykoala]

So, children owning a gun without parental consent is ok, as long as they have the money?

So, a mentally handicapped adult with the cognitive level of a 10 year old, good to go buy that tommy gun?

1- parents are in charge of their children until they are 18

2- per the constitution, yes. lucky for you, the constitution has as much legal meaning to politicians as the sunday comics. some people are scared of freedom, scared to protect themselves and their family, and scared that something bad might happen to someone one day. so laws have been put in place to "protect" said scared people, laws like mentally handicapped adults can not own tommy guns.
















This is a very black and white issue, Freedom vs Restriction. The very instant that even just one law is passed that in some way limits or restricts freedom, it is no longer freedom, and you now have restriction.

Like i said before, it is a very cute idea that a mentally handicapped person cant own a gun, or that a gang member, or violent person cant own a gun, but its absolutely silly to think that a law will prevent someone from doing something that they want to do. if you dont believe me, read up on things called "free will" and "breaking the law".

Do i want gang members walking around with guns? personally, no, i would feel better if they didnt. but if gang members had restrictions to their rights, then we, the people would have restrictions to our rights.

[Don29palms]

So, children owning a gun without parental consent is ok, as long as they have the money?

Children don't have rights anyway. They have priviliges allowed by their parent or guardian that is responsible for them.

So, a mentally handicapped adult with the cognitive level of a 10 year old, good to go buy that tommy gun?

Yes but undoubtedly an adult that has the cognitive level of a ten year old has a caretaker that is responsible for them like a child. If that mentally handicapped adult chooses to use that tommy gun in an illegal fashion and gets eliminated then so be it.

Again I bring up personal responsibility.