Reasonable Gun Control Laws

[glocktogo]

funny, i think they should all be debating on why new laws are retarded, instead of trying to pass new ones as progress.

instead of saying i passed 42 new laws this year, it should read i helped repeal 42 retarded power grabbing laws this year.

Fixed it for ya!

[chadbag]

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.



--

[Clint]

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)

[chadbag]

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.

--

[Axcelea]

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.

[QuietShootr]

OK,

it appears many here are proponents of personal responsibility

and prefer to restrict certain bad individuals rather than inanimate objects.

Negative. It's the action I would restrict/punish, not the individual. IOW, as someone stated above, if you're enough of a ****head that you shouldn't have a gun, you're in prison. If you're not in prison, there are no restrictions on the OBJECTS, just what you DO with them. You think frags are fun? Knock yourself out. Hurt somebody or tear someone else's stuff up with them, you're in trouble.

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

Driver's license. Prove you're of age, and you're down the road with your new toy.

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"

Again I reiterate if you are too much of a ****head to be trusted with a weapon, you should be locked up/hospitalized/dead. Being stopped by LE should carry a prima facie assumption that you are NOT said ****head type, because you AREN'T locked up/hospitalized/dead. Deal with the reason for the stop, write the ticket, then move on.


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)

None of the above. You can't take it into custody with you, but if you're trust-able enough to be let out, your rights are restored. Period. If you're not, then you stay locked the **** up.

See above.

[armakraut]

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.

[MegademiC]

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.

[Iraqgunz]

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.

[d90king]

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?