Gun control.
- ArevaloSOCOM
- Silencertalk Goon Squad
- Posts: 17511
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:22 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
Gun control.
Are you ok with any forms of gun control?
Are there gun control laws on the books that you feel are actually a good idea?
Or
ALL guns laws are wrong.
Think it through......................
You really ok with violent felons having access to guns legally?
You really ok with mentally ill people buying guns legally?
What about Instant Brady checks?
Restaining orders = no guns?
NFA? Would you really be ok with ANYONE being able to buy Machine guns and silencers over the counter with no backgorund check or papertrail?????????????
Are there gun control laws on the books that you feel are actually a good idea?
Or
ALL guns laws are wrong.
Think it through......................
You really ok with violent felons having access to guns legally?
You really ok with mentally ill people buying guns legally?
What about Instant Brady checks?
Restaining orders = no guns?
NFA? Would you really be ok with ANYONE being able to buy Machine guns and silencers over the counter with no backgorund check or papertrail?????????????
NFAtalk.org
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 2338
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:38 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
No, it does nothing. Do the crime serve the time, don't let people out who shouldn't be part of society.
Stop filling the justice system with non violent drug offenders, there will be more room for the violent people who shouldn't have access to weapons, or better yet society.
Stop filling the justice system with non violent drug offenders, there will be more room for the violent people who shouldn't have access to weapons, or better yet society.
"You'll put yer eye out with that thing"
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual; as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." - Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual; as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." - Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 2338
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:38 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
It shouldn't be that way though. Everyone who owns a gun should be able to get a silencer for it.Stu wrote:I'm torn on this a little. The only positive thing I can think of for NFA items, is due to the loop holes that you have to jump through, everyone just assumes that stuff is illegal, and don't bother. I like that.
AOWs, SBRs, SBSs, and MGs should be anymore limited than regular weapons.
This couldn't happen overnight, but I think society can deal with it. It would still take some cultural changes for it to work.
"You'll put yer eye out with that thing"
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual; as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." - Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual; as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." - Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp
- ArevaloSOCOM
- Silencertalk Goon Squad
- Posts: 17511
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:22 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
Let's run with this one for a second.Stu wrote:I'm torn on this a little. The only positive thing I can think of for NFA items, is due to the loop holes that you have to jump through, everyone just assumes that stuff is illegal, and don't bother. I like that.
Let's face it.
NFA as far as "gun control" works....................how many people killed with NFA weapons Vs. Non-NFA weapons every year.
Clearly it works in "saving lives" as people like to say.
Vs.
Non-NFA weapons are used in crimes everyday.
I'm playing Devil's advocate here, i hate all guns laws...........
NFAtalk.org
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 2338
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:38 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
In order to comply with the constitution's intent, there are certain options that should not be used.ArevaloSOCOM wrote:Let's run with this one for a second.Stu wrote:I'm torn on this a little. The only positive thing I can think of for NFA items, is due to the loop holes that you have to jump through, everyone just assumes that stuff is illegal, and don't bother. I like that.
Let's face it.
NFA as far as "gun control" works....................how many people killed with NFA weapons Vs. Non-NFA weapons every year.
Clearly it works in "saving lives" as people like to say.
Vs.
Non-NFA weapons are used in crimes everyday.
I'm playing Devil's advocate here, i hate all guns laws...........
If police could imprison anyone that looked suspicious, I bet there would be a lot less crime.
If we got rid of cars, lots more people would live.
"You'll put yer eye out with that thing"
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual; as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." - Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual; as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." - Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 3864
- Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:47 am
- Location: Chattanooga, TN
- Contact:
I think gun owners should be responsible and get proper training before using a firearm...other than that, nothing is necessary in my book.
Also, parents should teach their children to respect firearms and use them safely.
ETA:
Also, parents should teach their children to respect firearms and use them safely.
ETA:
Continuing with the car analogy, if you take away all the cars, then a lot of people would die from not getting medical attention. That said, we should still have ambulances, but a lot of regular non-EMT trained people use their vehicles to transport people to hospitals. Guns are the same way, just because some people don't use them safely doesn't mean no one is capable of using them for good.apochachuva wrote:In order to comply with the constitution's intent, there are certain options that should not be used.ArevaloSOCOM wrote:Let's run with this one for a second.Stu wrote:I'm torn on this a little. The only positive thing I can think of for NFA items, is due to the loop holes that you have to jump through, everyone just assumes that stuff is illegal, and don't bother. I like that.
Let's face it.
NFA as far as "gun control" works....................how many people killed with NFA weapons Vs. Non-NFA weapons every year.
Clearly it works in "saving lives" as people like to say.
Vs.
Non-NFA weapons are used in crimes everyday.
I'm playing Devil's advocate here, i hate all guns laws...........
If police could imprison anyone that looked suspicious, I bet there would be a lot less crime.
If we got rid of cars, lots more people would live.
- boulderchild
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 535
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:17 am
- Location: NW Arkansas
I voted no, but I am a bit torn. I feel that gun control laws do little to prevent crime and are largely unconstitutional. With that being said the as a country the US seems to be undeniably moving toward a "it's not my fault" mentality which says that it must be the fault of an inanimate object such as a gun when a crime is committed rather than the fault of the person committing the crime. If you don't believe me look at the penalties for a NFA infraction vs. the penalties for most violent crimes. Better yet look at how the same groups that lobby for gun control also loby to remove the death penalty. Much of this outcry to ban guns has come from a very small sector of our society and they are helped out by movies and TV that emphasize gun violence but downplay every time someone is aided by a gun.
I said all that to get to this, as our society stands today I would rather go through a NICS or the NFA process accordingly and be able to buy guns than have that vocal group gain support to take them away completely.
I said all that to get to this, as our society stands today I would rather go through a NICS or the NFA process accordingly and be able to buy guns than have that vocal group gain support to take them away completely.
- shootertom
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:48 pm
- Location: Mid-West
I think the only form of gun control should be handed to criminals or otherwise individuals who may not be trusted to handle them properly. Things like silencers really seems to blow me away that they could not be owned in some states. The reference has been made that they are no different than a car muffler. This is true indeed, along with hearing safety and the list goes on. Its just a common sense issue, those who don't like them have none.
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 2338
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:38 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
Point 1. Gun dealers should have discretion shady guy/gal comes in. Reserve the right to refuse sale.Twinsen wrote:I voted yes for two reasons:
1. Little kids are retarded. No guns for 4 year olds.
2. I know you disagree with me on this, but I like background checks. If you got caught for a felony, I don't think you should have a gun.
Point 2.It doesn't take nearly as much to be a felon these days, and anywa I feel that once you serve your sentence, you should have your rights fully restored.
"You'll put yer eye out with that thing"
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual; as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." - Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual; as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." - Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp
I can see only two restrictions as being defensible.
One, free bearing of arms is for adults. What that age is, or if it's even determined by age, is open for debate.
Two, indiscrimate arms have no place in the hands of the citizen soldier. By indiscriminate I mean chemical, biological, nuclear - the stuff where it's literally impossible to limit it to a specific target. They are weapons that do have a place in warfare, but it's one that should be employed by professionals. Just the nature of the beast.
I think explosives should require training but should be available with minimal restriction to those who know how to handle and store them (kind of the border between discriminate and indiscriminate tools). They're vitally necessary to modern warfare, and our being deprived of them almost completely is one of the more serious crimes our government has perpetrated upon us.
One, free bearing of arms is for adults. What that age is, or if it's even determined by age, is open for debate.
Two, indiscrimate arms have no place in the hands of the citizen soldier. By indiscriminate I mean chemical, biological, nuclear - the stuff where it's literally impossible to limit it to a specific target. They are weapons that do have a place in warfare, but it's one that should be employed by professionals. Just the nature of the beast.
I think explosives should require training but should be available with minimal restriction to those who know how to handle and store them (kind of the border between discriminate and indiscriminate tools). They're vitally necessary to modern warfare, and our being deprived of them almost completely is one of the more serious crimes our government has perpetrated upon us.
Minimal gun control is necessary, but we're already past what I believe are reasonable restrictions.
Felons that serve their sentence and keep thier nose clean for a while (maybe a year or two) should have thier rights restored. Unless the felony that landed you in prison involved a firearm. Anyone convicted of a felony involving a firearm should have to wait longer to have thier right to bear arms restored than someone that was convicted of, oh I don't know, election fraud.
Why in the hell can't a person that has a CCW permit bring a weapon into a government building? It isn't "thier" building, it's "our" building. This "Us and Them" attitude needs to go away and elected officials and government employees need to understand that they work for us, not the other way around. We aren't part of their "empire".
I think we should be able to own the exact same weapons and equipment that the average infantry soldier or police officer is authorized to carry. If it's necessary for them, it is reasonable for us too.
Silencers and other NFA items should be every bit as easy to buy as a bolt action .22 rifle.
We have to take a test to demonstrate competency to operate a motor vehicle, why not require people to attend a mandatory class and take a test to demonstrate their comptency with regard to firearms? And of course I'd support military service as a alternate route to qualification.
Felons that serve their sentence and keep thier nose clean for a while (maybe a year or two) should have thier rights restored. Unless the felony that landed you in prison involved a firearm. Anyone convicted of a felony involving a firearm should have to wait longer to have thier right to bear arms restored than someone that was convicted of, oh I don't know, election fraud.
Why in the hell can't a person that has a CCW permit bring a weapon into a government building? It isn't "thier" building, it's "our" building. This "Us and Them" attitude needs to go away and elected officials and government employees need to understand that they work for us, not the other way around. We aren't part of their "empire".
I think we should be able to own the exact same weapons and equipment that the average infantry soldier or police officer is authorized to carry. If it's necessary for them, it is reasonable for us too.
Silencers and other NFA items should be every bit as easy to buy as a bolt action .22 rifle.
We have to take a test to demonstrate competency to operate a motor vehicle, why not require people to attend a mandatory class and take a test to demonstrate their comptency with regard to firearms? And of course I'd support military service as a alternate route to qualification.
"And by the way, if you're gonna take up a hobby of letter writing, you might want to learn how to spell "writing" you stupid F--k." - Nighthawk re kwikrnu
Crimminals are going to do what crimminals do - namely, break the law and BE crimminals.
So what the Hell would gun control do to effect them? Nohting.
Only law-abiding people follow laws in the first place, so really, gun control is ONLY for law abiding citizens - NOT crimminals.
Therefore, why control them? The only people who it would effect aren't the ones committing crimes in the first place.
If someone served their sentence ( a realistic sentence, not "get him outta here we need the room") and is rehabilitated, then their slate is clean. They should have their rights reinstated. Why keep punishing them after they've paid their debt?
That's like buying a car, paying cash for it, and them having to make payments on it again.
So what the Hell would gun control do to effect them? Nohting.
Only law-abiding people follow laws in the first place, so really, gun control is ONLY for law abiding citizens - NOT crimminals.
Therefore, why control them? The only people who it would effect aren't the ones committing crimes in the first place.
If someone served their sentence ( a realistic sentence, not "get him outta here we need the room") and is rehabilitated, then their slate is clean. They should have their rights reinstated. Why keep punishing them after they've paid their debt?
That's like buying a car, paying cash for it, and them having to make payments on it again.
Mitt Romney is a gun banning RINO.
N.B.C. stuff is a no go. I don't see what dropping a cloud of anthrax on a mill base would do that a load of HE couldn't do .
explosives should have minamial restrictions ,and some kind of storage requirement , but I'm not sure how that could be enforced.
all other firearms should be as easy as buying a set of tires . and I've seen customers sent packing at tire shops , the right to refuse can be a good thing sometimes. mental patients come to mind.
I vote no to the having to proove the or take a gun ownership test .
same with felons.
explosives should have minamial restrictions ,and some kind of storage requirement , but I'm not sure how that could be enforced.
all other firearms should be as easy as buying a set of tires . and I've seen customers sent packing at tire shops , the right to refuse can be a good thing sometimes. mental patients come to mind.
I vote no to the having to proove the or take a gun ownership test .
same with felons.
I'd be willing to submit to a class and a test in exchange for less restrictions from the gun grabbers. Give a little, get a little. (In theory at least)zach h wrote:I vote no to the having to proove the or take a gun ownership test .
"And by the way, if you're gonna take up a hobby of letter writing, you might want to learn how to spell "writing" you stupid F--k." - Nighthawk re kwikrnu
I cannot argue with your logic. You won me over in 2 seconds.apochachuva wrote:Point 1. Gun dealers should have discretion shady guy/gal comes in. Reserve the right to refuse sale.Twinsen wrote:I voted yes for two reasons:
1. Little kids are retarded. No guns for 4 year olds.
2. I know you disagree with me on this, but I like background checks. If you got caught for a felony, I don't think you should have a gun.
Point 2.It doesn't take nearly as much to be a felon these days, and anywa I feel that once you serve your sentence, you should have your rights fully restored.
there would have to be some kind of regestration showing that you passed the test ,correct. then they could have you retake the test for every new gun you want to buy . then the test gets harder and harder. then you have to renew your permit , Imean retake an impossible test and still end up loosing your rights.Blaubart wrote:I'd be willing to submit to a class and a test in exchange for less restrictions from the gun grabbers. Give a little, get a little. (In theory at least)zach h wrote:I vote no to the having to proove the or take a gun ownership test .
Yeah, I would've said they would just dust off the Jim Crow playbook, but since they never stopped using it...zach h wrote:there would have to be some kind of regestration showing that you passed the test ,correct. then they could have you retake the test for every new gun you want to buy . then the test gets harder and harder. then you have to renew your permit , Imean retake an impossible test and still end up loosing your rights.
Good point. Let's make the test a one time event and mandatory or highly encouraged for all people 18-20 years old. That way, nobody could use the registration list as a hit list to find people with guns.zach h wrote:There would have to be some kind of regestration showing that you passed the test ,correct. then they could have you retake the test for every new gun you want to buy . then the test gets harder and harder. then you have to renew your permit , Imean retake an impossible test and still end up loosing your rights.
"And by the way, if you're gonna take up a hobby of letter writing, you might want to learn how to spell "writing" you stupid F--k." - Nighthawk re kwikrnu
I do believe the penalties for using guns in crime should be alot stiffer.
I think the penilty for shooting someone should be the same whether they live or not. If i shoot someone and they live it is assualt with a deadly weapon, I will do little time. But If I shoot someone and they die it is murder. Basicly I committed the same crime both times, they just had different results.
I think sometimes the person that lived could suffer for the rest of their life and the crime is worse then murder. Now someone has to take care of the victim and the whole family suffers for who knows how long.
Put them behind bars for the rest of their lives and they will never get to use a gun on anyone else.
I think the penilty for shooting someone should be the same whether they live or not. If i shoot someone and they live it is assualt with a deadly weapon, I will do little time. But If I shoot someone and they die it is murder. Basicly I committed the same crime both times, they just had different results.
I think sometimes the person that lived could suffer for the rest of their life and the crime is worse then murder. Now someone has to take care of the victim and the whole family suffers for who knows how long.
Put them behind bars for the rest of their lives and they will never get to use a gun on anyone else.