Fixed it for ya! :)
Printable View
I've long thought that Congress should be required to repeal 2 laws, each of equal magnitude, for each new law passed.
If they cannot find 2 laws of equal magnitude, then they have to repeal however many it takes to make up twice the magnitude of the new law.
If you want to count pages or words or whatever for magnitude, it has to generally be agreeable that it is the same magnitude.
--
OK,
it appears many here are proponents of personal responsibility
and prefer to restrict certain bad individuals rather than inanimate objects.
In order to restrict those bad individuals, What are the reasonable checks on people in relation to firearms?
If the only criteria for purchasing short barreled, full auto flame throwers is that the person must be an 18 year old citizen of sound mind with no felony record,
how should this initial purchase check be carried out?
-skip it
-instant check
-registration
-licence to operate
-records
What about subsequent checks, such as when stopped by LE for speeding while in proper possession of said device?
-quick check for no felony and "have a nice day"
What about an unrelated felony while not in possession of said device?
-all devices must be sold
-all devices must be turned in to local LE
-all devices should can be proactively seized ( only possible with records of ownership or blind search of residence based on felony alone)
How about things like it is unlawful to carry or possess with the intent to commit a crime. I am not sure of the wording, but that is the law in Vermont, more or less.
I see no reason to restrict a youth from owning or possessing a firearm. Parents would still be responsible for the youth's actions.
--
Reasonable gun control is gun control that isn't unreasonable.
Banning a particular weapon, feature of weapon, etc when there is no likelihood of having a noticeable overall positive effect on society (guns and features that are none issues, replaced with something else, or simply not go away via black market as examples) is unreasonable since there is no benefit. To give an example, bayonet lugs, when the hell was the last time someone was murdered with a mounted bayonet? and if one happens once a blue moon then would all the resources going into this law be worth the effort?
Honor system restrictions ("none-enforced" gun free zones as example) where it working relies on someone who is willing to break the most extreme laws will not break this law is unreasonable.
Not allowing guns in a highly sensitive area like a courthouse, jail, etc (places based around dealing with criminals) or areas targeted by criminals such as certain offices where the area in question is in fact secure (monitored entrances and exits, everyone gets screened, ample guard, etc) isn't unreasonable due to the nature of certain areas and the enforcement of safety.
Banning dangerous guns, defined here as pieces of crap whos construction is so bad your chances of losing fingers so far outweighs any potential of it saving your life isn't unreasonable like any product QC oversight.
Banning a gun that functions perfectly because some numb nut paralyzed them self when pulling the trigger with it being loaded is not reasonable.
Regrettably the only known cures for stupidity, criminality and insanity are doping, death, or dungeons.
Gun control is a waste of time... unless you own slaves.
If you cant be trusted with guns/weapons, you cant be trusted without them. Everyone in free society should be allowed to own anything firearms wise. If you shouldnt have it and/or infringe on another's rights, you need to be locked up/deported.
Unfortunately as we have discovered the left believes that no guns is reasonable, regardless of their lip service. As much as I believe in the Constitution and the 2nd we do have to some controls in place.
Define reasonable.
The problem is what is "reasonable" to you is not "reasonable" to others. Mitt Romeny thought his gun laws were "reasonable", however the citizens of Mass that he served disagreed. Bill Clinton thought his gun laws were "reasonable". Ronald Reagan thoughts his (Hughes) were "reasonable" he thought his support of the Brady Bill was "reasonable"...
See the problem?
In a perfect world, you really wouldn't even need the 'criminally unfit' part, as those who have served their time should be allowed to own guns again, and those too dangerous to own them should not be allowed out of prison.[/QUOTE]
^^^^^^^^
This would put and end to a large percentage of problems involving firearms
Felons
I don't believe felons should be allowed into general society if they can't be trusted with the rights of a general citizen.
Maybe a temporary probation period with intense monitoring after release, and if they violate the laws again they face punishment (death / life in prison / deportation)
If you can't be trusted with the rights of a citizen, you do not deserve to be allowed around other citizens.
I will admit I did not read every post before commenting.
The main problem with "reasonable" gun control laws is that everybody's idea of reasonable is different. I personally know many people who think that concealed carry is unreasonable, and view the people who carry as "paranoid" or trying to fulfill a role that only LEO should fill. My own parents don't understand why I carry, hell, I'm 26 and they still can't understand why I always have a knife clipped in my pocket:confused:
Just look at the varied responses seen here in this thread, on a very pro-gun forum, about where to draw the line for reasonable gun control laws.
Unfortunately, we will most likely always be fighting to keep the ground we have and trying to regain the ground we've already lost. We do, however, have in our favor the fact that there are many, many more gun owners today than there were say 10-20 years ago. The only issue is determining if those people feel strongly enough about the right to private ownership to vote that way that way in election years. Additionally, many more college-age students are being exposed to firearms in a positive light. Young Americans are very impressionable, as we all know, so this can be working for us. Maybe the NRA should put more effort into soliciting this target market.
"Reasonable gun control laws" is code for us losing our rights. Just like "common sense gun law". The antis use these statements all the time to win support.
Reasonable gun control is keeping your finger off of the trigger until a target is acquired.
Common sense gun law is the Second Amendment.
The way to counter this is the following:
"Sure, I will discuss reasonable gun control with you, but first I want you to do something for me. List some of the over 20,000 gun control laws you think are unreasonable we can get rid of at the same time."
That will shut it down hard.
To hell with that, any felon is out in my book. Very, very bad judgement (or multiple bouts of bad judgement) is needed to "earn" yourself a felony. These people do not need to own a gun ever. Don't want your right taken away, don't commit a felony. And some violent misdemeanors should come with gun ownership restrictions (maybe not permanent). I don't want the guy getting into bar fights every week or beating the shit out of his wife owning a gun either. Call me crazy.
The government has pretty much taken care of individual responsiblity every time a new law is created. It seems as though we are just not responsible enough as a society and therefore more laws are needed. We don't need to be responsible as long as there are laws that can keep us all in line under fear of prosecution and jail. :sarcastic:
Are there any reasonable gun control laws?
No. Any restriction that keeps them out of the hands of criminals keeps them out of the hands of those who need protection from criminals.
We need to control criminals, not guns. Laws that prevent only criminal access to guns are just fine.
This. So many here keep saying,declared by court mentally unfit , but with the complaints about the direction of courts these days why would anybody trust that. Someone else already mentioned a what if returning vets are deemed to be unfit because of PTSD? No I think we should punish those who commit crimes not restrict inanimate objects such as guns. People can still hurt and kill others through alternative means. One can use bare hands, knives, cars, belts ect. the list is endless.
Think about what you are saying. It is easier and easier to become a felon in today's society.With the laws and the penalties increasing, just about everyone has committed, or will commit a felony and not even know about it because know one was there to catch them. Most stated betting is illegal, but how many throw in on a Super Bowl pool at work? For those that have ever done a side job for a little extra cash just 20-200$ range did you report every dime to the IRS? Tax evasion is a felony. That is just the first two off the top of my head, there are many more that few know about. All it takes is for you to do it(not knowing it is a crime) and have someone else see it who does know, and it is all down hill from there. It is not necessarily the law you have to worry about, but how the government worker whose job it is to enforce it, interprets it that can cause the issue.
Maybe you should start a campaign to put guns in the hands of felons and the mentally unstable. See how far that goes. That's some fringe extremist thinking man.
And yeah, facilitating a gambling operation and tax evasion can be felonies but how many folks with otherwise clean records have you seen CONVICTED of a felony for running an office pool or for missing a thing or two on their taxes? Bad examples in my opinion. Any even in the few cases where someone who lived a clean life got screwed with an unfair felony CONVICTION, maybe your efforts would be better applied to affecting change in the relevant laws rather than going with "well, all felons aren't really that bad."
And of course PTSD should NOT be an automatic disqualified. plenty of guys have symptoms of post and lead healthy and functional lives. Any legislation to take rights away from these folks should be handily defeated. Now there are a few guys who gave their all for our country and came back with post and/or tbi who have a very hard time dealing and functioning (a couple of the best friends I've ever had in this life have gone through this). On a case by case basis, some of these folks may need to have their right to own guns suspended until they are better. This is not only for their family, friends, and society but also for them.
I have a buddy in this boat and unfortunately he may never improve substantially. He suffered extensive tbi from an IED and he has serious issues controlling his agression and his mood can change on a dime. I'd rather my buddy get better and have his rights restored than him do something that will take him away from his family and friends forever. Yeah, he could do it with scissors but a gun makes it a whole hell of a lot easier. He doesn't drive either so don't go barking up that way.