An argument about the ineffectiveness of legal gun control
- Thread starter Chapdog
- Start date
C
Cancel3
Guest
I don't disagree with waiting periods, but I don't think they have much effect.
Background checks are not a bad idea, but are also ineffective. The guy who killed all those people at VaTech bought guns legally and went thru the background check and waiting period.
Background checks are not a bad idea, but are also ineffective. The guy who killed all those people at VaTech bought guns legally and went thru the background check and waiting period.
I wouldn't say that they are ineffective due to that one example.
I think reasonable Americans can agree that people who have, say, convictions for violent felony should not be allowed to purchase a gun, and that a background check is warranted & not excessive.
C
Cancel3
Guest
I have no problem with that. The current system does just that and also checks for some other things. I think the legal gun owners are not the threat. It is the armed criminals that we should worry about.
On the other hand, people with no criminal record have committed some pretty horrendous acts.
I do have a problem with licensing when its a penalty fee. Shouldn't cost me hundreds of dollars every couple years for a license. I don't have a problem getting the background and license but not with a deterrent attached.
Good Luck
New member
Absolutely. We're talking about an enumerate constitutional right here, not a city/state/federally granted privilege. It is not objectionable to take reasonable steps to assure people with violent criminal backgrounds are not out buying weapons on the legal market (not that they do anyway - the black market is good enough for them, and beyond legal controls.) But to make LEGAL gun owners PAY for their constitutional right is flat, dead, plain WRONG.
As such, back ground checks are not objectionable. Licensing IS objectionable. Licenses do NOTHING with regard to possession of firearms by violent criminals while placing an unfair burden on the law abiding citizen gun owners.
I agree that there could be a point where licenses become unconstitutional, but they aren't per se an "unfair burden" on gun owners.
On top of that in MA they decided to create a pin number. So now you cannot buy a gun without providing both your license and pin number. However there was no announcement and the pin just showed up in the mail one day in an unmarked envelope. One sheet of paper that said you must provide this pin number when purchasing a gun. So i just wrote in permanent marker my pin number on my license. Making us jump thru hoops to buy in this state.
How difficult would it be to get your pin with a phone call?
C
Cancel3
Guest
I agree with the licencing. There is no need and it is a violation of rights.
Do the background checks. But once I buy my firearm, making me renew an annual licence is ridiculous.
Does anyone know what states require this? I know neither Alabama nor Florida do.
Do the background checks. But once I buy my firearm, making me renew an annual licence is ridiculous.
Does anyone know what states require this? I know neither Alabama nor Florida do.
I happen to have the letter here at work. Here is the text:
Please fine listed below the PIN issued for License #: xxxxxxxxx
When purchasing a firearm, please be sure to either have your PIN memorized of bring this form with you as you may be required to present it.
If you lose your PIN, please contact the xxxxxxx Police Department to arrange an appointment for replacement.
If you hold more then one license, you will be issued a unique PIN for each licence
C
Cancel3
Guest
This works for me. I cannot imagine letting one of my kids fire a full automatic uzi.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Before we add to the increasing pile of paperwork needed to own a gun, we should look at see whether the additional registration does any good.
If I am a legal gun owner, as determined by my background check at the purchase, what good would further registration do?
That is simply teh suxor.
Here you just fill out some paperwork, pay a small fee, show that you took the class and you have a conceal carry... You need no license to buy a firearm, you just need to pass the background check and that only takes seconds...
Sure, you are a legal gun owner as determined by your background check. And to prove it you've got your license. And to make sure you didn't lose your fucking mind, commit a felony or become a junky in the time since you made your lawful purchase, the state requires you to renew your license on an annual basis.
I think it's just really tough to enforce background checks and keeping guns out of the hand of the people that shouldn't have guns if there is no follow up to make sure you would still pass the background check years after the purchase.
Same here Damo.....as well it should be. An instantaneous background check in this day and time should delay the purchase of a firearm in seconds or minutes, not days (as in a waiting period). As to the licensing, definitely a deal breaker. Once I purchase a gun legally I should not have to pay for a license to have it at my house. I am not opposed to the various concealed carry laws which make a person take a course and demonstrate that they can handle their firearm before them receiving a ccp though.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
first off, as a specifically protected constitutional right that 'shall not be infringed', there should be absolutely no firearm prohibited from civilian ownership.
secondly, no license should EVER be required to exercise a constitutional right
thirdly, background checks are a stepping stone to further infringe that right as it only takes the legislative swipe of a pen to add restrictions
fourth, no gun control law ever stopped a criminal from obtaining a weapon, chicago case in point.
If a person who has comitted violent crimes cannot be trusted out in public with his rights restored, then he shouldn't be released at all. Damn liberal bleeding heart judges caused this mess and they should be made to live with it.
secondly, no license should EVER be required to exercise a constitutional right
thirdly, background checks are a stepping stone to further infringe that right as it only takes the legislative swipe of a pen to add restrictions
fourth, no gun control law ever stopped a criminal from obtaining a weapon, chicago case in point.
If a person who has comitted violent crimes cannot be trusted out in public with his rights restored, then he shouldn't be released at all. Damn liberal bleeding heart judges caused this mess and they should be made to live with it.
C
Cancel3
Guest
So you want this under the premise that I must prove my innocence on an annual basis?
No, that is not an acceptable idea. That is based on assumption that I am only remaining as a law-abiding citizen so long as there are regular checks to prove it.