Thread: A very serious question

First I will say that I was raised around guns. My father was an avid hunter and marksman. Hell, he even carved the stock for his deer rifle himself. I was raised in the military, and then I joined the military. I am not afraid of guns, I am a (*)(*)(*)(*) good shot (or was the last time I owned a gun. It's been a while) and I do not believe that guns should be taken away from our citizens. Don't let that fool you..I am a rabid left winger. I don't have guns now, because I do not care for them. I do not own a gun by choice..I like living in a country where I can if I choose to.

That being said, I would like to know exactly what controls would be acceptable to you? I am all about the Bill of Rights, and am well aware of them. I am also aware that no right comes without some codicils. We all have the right to freedom of speech, yet we are not allowed to say absolutely anything and everything with impunity. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, defamation, etc etc. We all have the right to peaceably assemble, yet permits and facilities are required in many instances. Obviously, there are rules about certain of our rights. Yet, I never hear anyone saying that people should definitely be allowed to say things which cause death to others. People accept that these limited restrictions are valid for safety. Yet, I hear many people say that there should be absolutely no limit whatsoever allowed when it comes to firearms. There is no doubt that guns can be used to commit great acts of violence, just as words can sometimes also lead to violence, thus, it seems to me, that some small rules are not uncalled for in the case of firearms.

So I ask with all sincerity, what regulations would you consider acceptable, and why? And those which you do not consider acceptable, why not? Gun control arguments always seem to go like this..
"You want to take away all my guns!!"
"You want every 3 year old to be fitted with a surgically embedded holster, and taught to shoot to kill!"

Hardly constructive..

The gun control laws should stay much the same as they are, however the 1989 Import Ban and the 1986 NFA are a bit silly.

Personally. Rifles only. Five shots or less.

Politically. Agree with Wolverine. Give and inch and lose a mile (or give a cm and lose a km for the rest of the world).

Although I do not support it, I think it is acceptable for handguns to require a license. And it is understandable to severely restrict automatic weapons (machine guns), or guns that can very easily be converted to automatic. And the government could also have the right to prevent the public from taking guns with them into government buildings. And of course, we cannot allow prisoners to have guns in prison.

I absolutely oppose any regulations on riffle ownership. The only exceptions should be if a former criminal has used a gun in a robbery. Some (but not all) cases of murder should also carry a life-time ban on gun ownership, and also violent rapes. But just because someone has committed a former crime (even serious) does not mean they should not be allowed to own guns the rest of their life. Only if it is the type of crime that directly suggests they may use a gun to commit crime in the future.

Children under 18, or 16 in some places, probably should also not be able to buy a gun themselves. But there should not be any other restrictions on guns.
Children should be allowed to use a gun with adult supervision, and in some rural places I also think 15 year old boys should be allowed to go hunting by themselves. I would start teaching my own children how to use a gun at 15 years old, but if some parents want to start at 12, that should also be okay. My grandfather went around hunting with a gun when he was only 11, so I do not see the harm, but obviously in inner city gang-plagued ghettos there would be problems. Overcrowded crime-ridden cities should be allowed to impose their own special laws regulating children and guns. I can really see the argument against hand guns (easily concealable) in ghettos with high levels of crime, but this argument certainly would not apply in other places with good family values.

Carrying guns into national parks should also be legal, but I think the government would be justified in requiring a special license for that (such a license should not cost any fees), to protect wildlife. It could still be illegal to shoot the gun (except in self defense or for survival if a hiker becomes lost).

I am also in favor of allowing guns at universities, but it should be the decission of the university administration.

Criminals don't pay much attention to silly gun laws as they pertain to procurement.

If there HAS to be some sort of background check at a gun store, let it be an instant check. No violent felon should ever be allowed the right to carry guns, even if they commited the crime at age 14 and have been living a pure and sinless life since that time. If the background check comes back negative, the felon should be held for the police, if he/she flees the scene, shoot them.

Honest citizens should be allowed to own any gun or machine gun up and including .50 cal. They may make trades among themselves without the government interfering. Illegal aliens, visa holders, etc., you are never allowed the right. Children under 17 should have a parent responsible for any gun they use.

Regulations that make sense are those that involve punishing illegal acts done with guns, or otherwise. How many gang-bangers killing others with illegal guns are serving full time for all the federal gun charges they break currently on the books? Hardly any.

Originally Posted by TornadoSiren

So I ask with all sincerity, what regulations would you consider acceptable, and why?

None, because it starts with small steps, bit by bit they break down the system (the founding fathers had setup for a reason, tyranny), to one day they have all citizens defenceless. Politics started with the subject firearms and firearms regulation, they made the first steps, because politics is there to take your power (vote), your freedom and your defence. That process takes decades (same with the dollar, systematically broken down over more than a century of time), they keep breaking down the original USA, disarming citizenry. 'Hitler' did the same (disarming the people who had guns, hunters and farmers), watch the videos/pictures and you know the same tyranny is working inside the USA today. The US founding fathers warned for tyranny, they knew this time would come.

People always bring up "yelling fire in a crowded theater". So lets apply the same rule to that case and to firearms.

You have the right to say anything you want to say, no matter how offensive or damaging, but you must also answer for the consequences. If a person wants to wield their right to free speech in an irresponsible manner, then that person pays the price. We don't ban free speech because a person yells "fire" in a theater. Or because a person might say something foolish.

Apply that to firearms. A person has the right to own a firearm, no matter how big or how many bullets it can shoot or how "dangerous" it looks, as long as they own it responsibly and answer for its misuse. We should not ban firearms because a few people misuse a firearm, or because someone in the future might misuse a firearm.
----------
As to the regulations I would consider acceptable, people should be able to own any firearm they can afford and maintain with the exception of people who are mentally incompetent, demonstrated they are a danger, or are in prison or parole.

That doesn't make much sense. Why require a license for handguns? It doesn't stop or decrease crime or accidental shootings. What will a handgun license supposed to accomplish?

You wrote "it is understandable to severely restrict automatic weapons (machine guns), or guns that can very easily be converted to automatic" and then wrote "I absolutely oppose any regulations on riffle ownership". Do you know how easy it is to convert a semi-auto rifle to auto? It can be done with many semi-auto rifles using a piece of string (literally a short piece of string). Are you going to ban all semi-auto rifles or not?

Thats the problem with regulations. They can never prevent a determined person from misusing a firearm. What does a criminal care about a handgun license or any other firearm regulation? Regulations only punish the law abiding people, not the criminals.