I lost my fire arm collection

I’ve never waved a flag in my life (except for the Beer-Thirty flag) and I’ve always picked and chosen the laws I obey. So do you, or have you never sped in a car in your life?

Hypocrite.

Are all these incompetent klutzes that are losing weapons right and left the same patriots that I am supposed to depend on when the Commies take over and the gun confiscations begin?

Yep. They will miraculously find their guns, at least the ones I haven’t found first on scuba diving trips to random lakes.

It also has a whiff of the “magic words” thinking that’s that hallmark of so many anti-government conspiracy nuts: “If I announce that I’m a sovereign citizen in a naval court and print my name all in capital letters on my certified letter to myself, then I don’t have to pay any taxes!”

If the government ever does come for your bang-bangs, the cops won’t give a crap about your made-up stories about how you lost your gun collection. In fact, it’s a red flag that you’re hiding weapons.

I don’t agree with your numbers but I agree with the general principle.

I feel the majority of gun owners are rational responsible people. And as such they should be the first people going after the irrational irresponsible gun owners who give guns a bad reputation. They should be creating a clear distinction in the public mind between good responsible gun ownership and bad irresponsible gun ownership.

Instead, responsible gun owners have been duped by extremists with the argument that all gun owners - good and bad - need to make common cause. The result is the responsible gun owners end up getting lumped in with the irresponsible gun owners in the public mind. To use the cliche, they’re seen as part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

I think you all know that I’m a [del]Socialist[/del] Liberal; but even so, I do enjoy firearms. Go figure. I would not like my collection to be confiscated. But if the government paid fair-market value, based on the highest prevailing price before a ban went into effect, I would have little problem complying with the law. Just the Evil Black Guns would put a nice downpayment on that airplane I’ve always wanted. (Of course, there’s no way they could comply with the 5th Amendment. It would be way too expensive.)

Their point is the constitution trumps local laws. A constitutional right trumps regulations.

Where are the rational gun owners jumping on Sigene for posting an insensitive comment even though the graves of those children still have fresh dirt? Where are the rational gun owners who say they’ll give up some of their conveniences so that gun violence is limited?

I support private gun ownership, but I think it should be done knowing that guns can kill people if they fall into the wrong hands. The right to own a gun doesn’t mean that it can’t be registered and made harder to purchase. We’ll never be able to get rid of gun violence. However, there are steps that could be taken to reduce it. For example:

  • Strict gun registration. A fully computerized trail of ownership. (Right now the feds are prohibited from computerizing registrations) When a gun is transferred to a new owner, both parties need to register the transfer. Either party not registering the transfer should be a serious crime. Ownership of an unregistered gun should be a serious crime. This would allow the police to quickly trace the ownership of a gun used in a crime, but gun owners cry it’s inconvenient and it’s only so the gov’t can take their guns.

  • Mandatory waiting period. Only one gun purchased at a time. A waiting period between gun purchases. If you need a gun immediately, you can fast-path the process by following some procedure at the police station. This way a guy who snaps cannot amass an arsenal quickly, but gun owners cry it’s inconvenient.

  • Max clip size of 6 in a gun. It will slow down the crazy guy, but gun owners cry it’s inconvenient to reload.

  • Stored guns must be secured. It would be a crime to have an unsecured gun in your home. This would make it harder for burglars or unstable family members access to the guns, but gun owners say it would slow them down if an intruder breaks in.

I think background checks are only useful to keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals. It does nothing to keep them away from that quiet loner at State College who snaps one day.

I want to hear ideas from rational gun owners who understand the object they love can be used for great harm and that they’re willing to find a solution which allows them to keep their guns and minimizes the harm they could cause. Instead, all I’m hearing from gun owners is that anyone who doesn’t own a gun is a sissy, anyone who supports stronger gun regulations is a liberal pacifist, and that if the government tries to register their guns they’re going to take them on a frozen lake with thin ice to take one last picture of them.

Thus making a truism of the adage, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

Great, now you’ve armed fish.

Gun control is a long-term concept. So people hide guns for 20 years to make themselves feel better, with stricter gun control 50 years from now there will still be vastly fewer weapons out there.

Along with “don’t quit your day job.”

Why? I understand that you don’t want some hothead to buy a gun and use it against someone; but what about people who already own guns? Of what use is a waiting period?

Why limit purchases to one per month? Suppose I want to buy a matched pair of something? Again, purchase limits are useless intrusions.

Why six? Why not seven? Or four? Is it because revolvers carry six? What would you do with something lie this?

If a firearm is meant for self defense, this is virtually the same as banning a gun. What is a person supposed to do when she is awakened in the middle of the night? Say, ‘Excuse me, Mr. Rapist/Burglar/Killer. Give me a few minutes while I nip off to the gun safe and work the combination and get my gun so that I can protect myself from you.’?

So the only way to be a rational gun owner is to agree with you? Neat debating tactic. You learn that in school?

And, btw, the Second Amendment is not a “convenience”. I refuse to surrender my rights to make you feel safer. The world is a dangerous place. You could get run over by a bus on the way home tonight. Deal with it.

Why bother checking the brakes on the bus for safety when a when the driver could be drunk? Why bother restricting drunk drivers when road slicks can cause accidents?
Because, while you can’t make life perfectly safe, it might be possible to make it safer.

This is the point I’m making. You don’t want to be inconvenienced even though it may limit a hothead’s access to guns. Is it imperative to walk out of a shopping car full of weapons right away? Why not put them on layaway?

I thought six because of a revolver. Any existing gun would be grandfathered in. New guns would have clip limits.

I do feel this is a valid point. It is very important that the gun still be useful for personal defense. Perhaps it could be that a single, unsecured gun could be kept in the bedroom. This way the homeowner could quickly defend themselves but their unstable child wouldn’t have access to a whole arsenal.

I support your right to own a gun. But I don’t support unfettered, unrestricted access to guns. By your arguments, it seems anyone should be allowed to purchase unlimited quantities of any gun manufactured. Why aren’t you standing up for the 2nd Amendment rights of criminals and mentally unstable to own guns?

Yes, all those courageous patriots who spontaneously formed well-regulated militias to go defend Ruby Ridge and Waco from the jackbooted tyrannical gummint, and would proudly do so again to defend anyone’s right to own firearms.

What, you didn’t hear about that?

Let’s see what James Yeager, owner of a tactical response training school, can add to the discussion:

Yep, another level-headed gun owner helping move the discussion forward.

I’m from northern Idaho, and the responsible gunowners stayed away from the “Idjit Militias”.

I’m more of a collector than a shooter. When looking for collectibles of any kind, one is often faced with multiple auctions where there is a limited time to buy an item. If purchases were limited to one per month, then items may well be unavailable later. You may call that an ‘inconvenience’, but in the end it is denying a collector a piece of his collection.

And again, why is it important to limit purchases? If I have a hundred guns, am I likely to use the two or three I buy at auction to commit a crime? No, of course not.

I do see the logic of your proposal in regards to straw purchases. But straw purchases are already illegal.

As a CCW permit holder, I don’t have to endure the waiting period on my purchases. I can pay my money and walk out with my piece. I’ve already been vetted during the permitting process, and my background is checked each time I make a purchase. Limiting the number of purchases does nothing.

I don’t have children. I will never have children. It is unlikely that a child will ever be in my house. Who does this protect?

Your logic is flawed. I support the ability of people like me to buy as many guns of whatever type that they can afford. I do not support the ability of certain people to obtain firearms, including criminals and mentally unstable people. The former forfeited their right to own a firearm, and the latter should not have that right because they are a danger to society where people like me are not.

Here’s an option for you: Why not keep a registry of people who are mentally unstable? Then they can be flagged in the background checks that are already used for firearms purchases?