A
Very nice of you to serve up my rights on a plattter, the good thing is no politician is even offering remotely what your saying. B
I live freaking hundreds of miles away from the closest FFL, its more then a gawdamm inconvenience.
You want me to give up my right to sell a tool to my neighbor? Then make miss and misses simpleton have a ten day wait for gas, and a car as well as background checks. Lets make women wait ten days for an abortion, and get a background check for that. Most importantly we need a background check to say dumb chit on the internwebs. C
The simple minded idiots voting for the creeps writing our laws let convicted car thieves, rapist who transport their victims in cars, arsonist and crazy people buy gas.
Most simple minded morons cant imagine the destruction 100 gallons of gas can do to a school, a crowded mall, a movie theater. Just because they’re feeble brained I aint giving up my rights to self defense.
You want to let crazy people buy gas but make it difficult for me to own a gun? NO! hell no!
**D ** instead of training requirements which are not making a bit of difference in states that don’t require them we make gun safety training mandatory to get out of high school? this way kids that don’t like guns know enough not to kill their children if they find one.
Bone, you mean well but the road to hell is paved with good intentions - no liberal politician will enact those proposals and no real gunnie will ever accept them.
Regardless of what Obama may or may not want, it’s pretty ridiculous for people to come into a thread where one group is, in fact, arguing for the confiscation of guns, and try to shout down those engaging with them by labeling anyone who thinks there are people who want to confiscate guns as paranoid to the point of insanity.
That’s a non-starter. No firearm, perhaps barring a “junk” gun from a Ring of Fire company (Lorcin/Jennings/Raven/Phoenix/Jimenez), is more or less safe than any other. Statistics bear out that “assault weapons” are not significant factors in crime, the recent events notwithstanding. If a weapon must be banned for the purposes of public safety, it would be the general class of handguns, and that is an absolute impossibility.
Pennsylvania does not have any storage requirements and buying a firearm or getting a CCW permit requires nothing more than a background check. Is there any evidence that states that impose storage requirements or otherwise require significant training have less gun crime? If not, then it’s kinda pointless, don’t you think? That said, I would not be inflexible on that subject, but I would have to be convinced.
I, every gun owner I know, and the NRA have long been in favor of that. I don’t think you truly realize how many laws there really are. I also don’t think you realize that if we enforced every law as proposed and passed we could fill prisons with ease. The point is that with the laws we have we hardly need any new ones. If you’re in favor of passing new ones, “tightening” gun laws as it were, you could save the time and trouble by ensuring that gun law violations are prosecuted.
Again Airman I am keeping to the aim of the op: this is not the thread for me to express any of my opinions, whatever they are, as I am not a gun-owner or a gun rights advocate. I am merely trying to flesh out the ideas and positions I am hearing and to understand their perspectives better.
Some weapons are illegal aren’t they though? (Really I do not know what is and what is not.) Should no weapons be illegal? (Since “No firearm … is more or less safe than any other.”)
To answer the question (not taking a position here), yes there is evidence that states that impose storage requirements have less gun violence - specifically less teen suicide. Again, despite pkbite’s frustration regarding the alleged laxity of our legal system, homicide rates have actually decreased dramatically over the past decade. Suicide rates, especially among youth, not.
It is my (perhaps ignorant) understanding that part of the reason for the complexity comes from multiple different state laws. Would there be a place, in your mind, for simplifying the laws into a more nationally consistent set?
Anything with fully automatic fire capability is regulated to the point of being practically illegal. If you want to own one, you have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops at the federal level, get the OK from your local law enforcement, and even then it can only be one that was manufactured (and registered for civilian ownership) before 1986. There are not a whole lot of these in private hands.
There are also regulations on the length of rifle and shotgun barrels – too short, and they must be federally registered as well, just like machine guns. A similar process applies to suppressors. None of these are outright bans, but they do make the restricted weapons more difficult and costly to obtain. The relevant legislation is the 1934 National Firearms Act.
Ninja edit: as for my personal opinion, no, I don’t think there should be any outright ban on any class of firearms. At most, I think that if tighter restrictions are applied, requiring more determination and legal scrutiny to obtain handguns might be beneficial. But I don’t think it should be impossible for any law-abiding individual to acquire handguns for whatever purpose, whether self-defense or just sport shooting.
Explain this post, please. What do you know that learned from a source other than Sarah Brady and her ilk? They rallied against those pistols because they were inexpensive and easily concealable. They tried to use the fact that they still fire with the magazine out and a round in the chamber. But guess what? Few semi-auto pistols have magazine disconnects incorporated into them.
I’ve dealt with those brands of handguns. I’ve had several of them pass through my dealership. I tested each and every one. They are no more nor more less safe than any other brand of firearm. They wouldn’t be my first choice for carry, but the all did what they were meant to do: SHOOT BULLETS!
I agree with you to the extent we are talking about banning anything, including NFA items. I would never compromise on any of these items and would fight to repeal any existing bans. However, I think there are things that gun rights advocates should support, independent of what anyone else is pushing for. People who feel like BobLibDem will always be around, but they are not part of this conversation as far as I’m concerned. Their views are fairly marginalized as far as I can tell and no one takes them seriously. They need to be resisted as a matter of principle, but they have lost for the foreseeable future.
What I think we as gun rights advocates should support are restricting firearms for prohibited persons. Violent felons and mentally adjudicated persons should not possess firearms. That is a point we should be able to agree on. I would support laws that work toward that goal without burdening everyone else.
If you want laws that make sense, then there is no value for X, Y or Z that would be acceptable. In the hands of the vast majority of people, law abiding people, then no value for X, Y, or Z is dangerous to anyone. To think otherwise is not reality based.
I don’t think I’ve been fooled when I say I do not want to accidentally sell a firearm to a crazy person. If I did and they ended up responsible for some massacre, I would feel horrible and though I wouldn’t be responsible if I did my diligence, I’m not sure I could move forward with a clear conscious.
In addition, I think we have an opportunity to craft some national laws rather than the state by state patchwork we currently have. As all gun rights advocates are also proponents of safety, I think increased training is a worthwhile goal with the tradeoff being national shall issue to create a more permissive carry environment. People demand folks have more training, fine but once trained those same people should have not restriction on their ownership or carry.
On a side note, realistically, a great way to reduce gun violence would be drug legalization. As Pk noted earlier, much of the gun violence in this country is due to gang activity, driven in part by the demand for illegal drugs. Making drugs legal would go a long way toward reducing gun violence.
I thought I was pretty clear. I didn’t really want to get into the minutiae of handguns, but since you insist, I wouldn’t carry one of those pieces of junk if you paid me to do it. You get what you pay for, and with those you get something that looks like a handgun and mostly works like one for at least the first shot. Reputations are earned, and they well and truly earned their reputations as junk. If you have to do all of this to make your firearm what a reputable brand is out of the box, you’re holding a piece of junk.
Ridiculous. You don’t have to do any of that nonsense. With my own hands I’ve fired at least 100 rounds each through about 30 of them and every one of them did what it was made to do. The Jennings were especially reliable.
Like I posted before they wouldn’t be my first choice, but they’re better than nothing. I can’t throw rocks at 1200 feet per second.
This is bullshit. The violent crime problem in this country has nothing to do with law abiding people not being trained enough. Most gun enthusiasts already seek training on their own. The antis just want to use mandatory training as a tool in the ultimate goal of total civil disarmament.
I’m all for gun control, and I love guns, provided they aren’t pointed at me. I think the NRA makes all gun enthusiasts look bad, personally. They just aren’t willing to budge an inch on anything.
Like this- I live in Texas, and if I want to buy a handgun from a store then I need to fill out the forms, submit to the background check, as well it should be. BUT, it’s perfectly legal for me to do a private sale of a firearm with another citizen in state, and I don’t need to see so much as an ID. I got in a dispute with a guy I had sold a gun to on GunBroker. I was insisting on a dealer transfer, and he was saying “I’m in Texas, just send it to me, otherwise I have to pay a fee.” I was like “Sir, all due respect, but I don’t know you, and I’m not sending you a gun registered in my name for you to go off and do who knows what with it.”
To me it’s just common sense. Try that before doing a magazine cap or a ban on collapsable stocks. Which, by the way, did no good at all. You could still get them as long as they were manufactured prior to the ban date, they just cost more. I remember a 15 round Beretta mag set me back $90.
I never said violent crime was related to lack of training. I think training for both safety and marksmanship would moot any reason against more permissive carry. I think having national shall issue would do much to improve and at least not increase the violent crime problem in this country. National permissive shall issue would need to happen contemporaneously with increased training requirements. I think that’s a fair trade.
I completely understand the ‘no compromise ever’ approach. I see it as tactic, not a goal in and of itself. Clearly you think it’s the best tactic. Given the current environment, do you think it will be successful? I’d hope to be part of shaping the discussion and ‘no compromise ever’ means you are outside of it.
If I read the post correctly, the would-be buyer lived in Texas and ** Blacksheep5150** lives somewhere else (presumably somewhere where they have gun registration laws in effect). And I’d presume the sale was involving a long gun, as handgun sales across state lines are already required to be done via FFL dealers.
Right, which is why I want mandatory training to graduate and not to own a gun: to reduce accidental shootings without creating an opening for anti-gun government to restrict training to suppress gun ownership.
I learned to shoot a .22 rifle when I was 9 years old. I first shot a 12-guage and learned to shoot trap when I was 12. Didn’t do any shooting for the next 8 years, until I was 20, but not much after that, either.
When I was 25, I bought a .380 ACP for concealed carry and a .44 Magnum for hiking in bear country.
Got my concealed carry permit when I was 27, and have been carrying ever since (I’m now 49).
I shot expert throughout my 20 year career in the Air Force, and I qualified on three firearms: M-8 (.38), M-9 (9mm), and M-16 (A2).
Taught my son to shoot when he was 9 years old. My training for him consisted of a morning of study, followed by discussion, then a test. He scored a 92. The test was designed for adults. On Day 2 I should him how to disassemble and reassemble it, so he would know the working parts. We also used snap caps (plastic bullets) and did dry fires, loading and unloading, procedures for misfires, and for clearing jams. Day 3 we headed to the range and he performed admirably!
I have a gun safe at home. It requires both a key as well as a combination. When my son is visiting me, my firearm is either on my person, in immediate reach, or in the safe.
I’m a “legal researcher” on gun law here in the State of Colorado. I work with local law firms on some of the grayer areas in both Colorado and Federal gun laws.
My personal take on firearms in the U.S. is that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This is so ridiculously simple and straightforward that I’m continually amazed at the unbelievable stupidity required to convolute it.
Between the 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the two recent landmark Supreme Court cases, Heller, and McDonald, it’s been thoroughly established that:
a) Armed U.S. citizens are “the militia”
b) “The militia” is not synonymous with either the National Guard, the reserves, or Active Duty military
I do support a limited prohibition for felons after they’ve completed all sentencing, including probation, monitoring, etc. I think somewhere between 3 and 10 years is good. Let’s pick 7 years, after which their right to keep and bear arms would be restored, no questions asked. This business of denying them firearms for the remainder of their lives is for the birds.
I also support prohibiting firearms to those who present an immediate threat to themselves or others. This is a very problematic topic, however, and is ripe for abuse, particularly as mental health is far less of a “science” than the practice of medicine. Both are based on science, but psychology is far from precise. I have no problem with a PhD. in Psychology temporarily (three days, max) restricting a person’s ability to obtain a firearm, but only once. Not time and time again. If the psych doc things there’s more to it, it’s up to the psych doc to obtain independent confirmation by means of direct, face-to-face consultation between the subject in question and another psych doc, and not one that’s located in the same practice, either. If corroborated, the prohibition could last, say, 3 weeks, during which time the individual could obtain his own evaluation from a similarly-credentialed individual, and knock the opinion of the others out of the ball park. Obviously, however, if someone has a long history of mental illness that’s not readily treatable, and that mental illness is of the sort which makes their actions somewhat unpredictable or worse, then I agree that allowing them to have access to a firearm isn’t a very good idea. I still think it’s ripe for abuse, though, and would rather err on the side of freedom than the side of the police state.
