What gun changes do you want to see ???

Geeko Sportivo said:
I am a gun owner, not a gun-toter by any means, but I know how to protect my home, property, and campsites I visit!

I am for any law that will help cool down the thoughts of people who are concerned about how to have the freedom to sell guns, yet protect people from becoming a victim of of a crime from someone having a gun that should never have had it in the first place.

One of my best friends- (OK it was 25 years ago now), but he was a Dallas Sheriff investigating a burglary of a business and was shot dead through the heart by someone who acquired the gun illegally on the black market.

This personal loss changed my views on Registration- and I have been speaking up about it ever since.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear about your friend, and I understand your perspective. You sound like you have the right reasons for supporting registration, but I just don't trust the state with that. The most I'm willing to accept is the paperwork that FFL's have to deal with. Also, gun permits are ok. NC has those, and they aren't particularly annoying to deal with.
 
Quasar44 said:
I fully support any gun for home defense !!! Yes even ARs
I don’t support concealed guns because too many mentally ill idiots are carrying . Here in Nevada it seems everyone has a gun and many are loose cannons . I am afraid to honk my horn as I may get a bullet through the window
What civilized society allows concealed guns ???
Click to expand...

indirectly, you made the case for regulating guns, “everyone has a gun” and “many are loose cannons”

Treat guns as we do vehicles, they have to be registered, you have to purchase liability insurance, you have to pass a test to obtain an operator’s license, and all of that has to be renewed on some chronological basis
 
Woko Haram said:
Constitutional rights shouldn't require a license.

Background checks are understandable, but registration is just a tool that can later be used for gun confiscation. Australia did this, for example.
Click to expand...

Not true, as even Scalia confirmed, no Constitutional right is absolute, they all can, and in fact are, regulated

As we know, background checks are easy to get around, one can even get a gun on the Internet merely by agreeing to conform to local and state requirements
 
archives said:
Not true, as even Scalia confirmed, no Constitutional right is absolute, they all can, and in fact are, regulated

As we know, background checks are easy to get around, one can even get a gun on the Internet merely by agreeing to conform to local and state requirements
Click to expand...

Uh, you clearly don't know how purchasing a gun on the internet works.

You have to get the gun delivered to a FFL. A background check is also applied. So, there is actually an additional layer of regulation involved as compared with buying a gun in a store. FFLs also have a strong incentive to be careful with these transactions, because they can be held criminally liable under many circumstances.

There are plenty of cases where a FFL will choose to hold onto a gun without allowing the purchaser to receive it, if they have suspicions about him/her. For example, a FFL can deny the acquisition of a gun, if the purchaser gives the impression he/she is intending on committing a crime with the gun. In states that require gun permits, the FFL is not legally allowed to give the gun to a purchaser that does not have an original copy of the permit with him/her.

It's definitely not a loose process.
 
anonymoose said:
The right to own and drive a vehicle is not in the constitution.
As a card carrying libertarian my first priority is personal responsibility and I believe owning a deadly weapon requires proof of that.

However I'm also a strict constitutionalist so 'd like to see the 2nd Amendment repealed.
BUT as a constitutionalist , as long as the 2nd Amendment remains, every citizen has the unlimited right to bear arms including front and rear mounted 20mm – F-15E Gatling Gun Systems on your vehicle for protection.
The insanity of that would force the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm not really a Constitutionalist to a point that I think the Constitution was carved on a stone tablet by a burning bush. But, I believe the Constitution was an instrument that built in a process for updates, upgrades, improvements, and moderizations that keep up with change and the needs of the people!

I also believe that states should be responsible enough to handle their own legislature in ways to keep the Federal legislators from having to take the responsibility away from the states. But it's not a perfect world.

I also believe in a Vocal Majority and a Voting Majority. I want to be on their side of the issues always.

But the vocal and voting majority don't always win do they?

Because also in our Constitution we have allowed the states to decide how we elect presidents, and control who gets to vote, and how those votes get counted, and how voting districts are laid out.

That is the scam that prevents the vocal and voting majority to ever be able to have the power in this nation and allows the powers that be to fall into the hands of the Vocal and Voting minority!
 
AProudLefty said:
The Second Amendment is clear.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it is anything but clear, until you can define the prefatory clause, the rest of the Amendment is muddled as proven by the SCOTUS inability to do such in the two hundred years they dealt with the Amendment. Scalia’s “definition” was to just skip over it, forget precedent, leaving Heller open to being overturn in the future
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Thanks! I'm not really a Constitutionalist to a point that I think the Constitution was carved on a stone tablet by a burning bush. But, I believe the Constitution was an instrument that built in a process for updates, upgrades, improvements, and moderizations that keep up with change and the needs of the people!

I also believe that states should be responsible enough to handle their own legislature in ways to keep the Federal legislators from having to take the responsibility away from the states. But it's not a perfect world.

I also believe in a Vocal Majority and a Voting Majority. I want to be on their side of the issues always.

But the vocal and voting majority don't always win do they?

Because also in our Constitution we have allowed the states to decide how we elect presidents, and control who gets to vote, and how those votes get counted, and how voting districts are laid out.

That is the scam that prevents the vocal and voting majority to ever be able to have the power in this nation and allows the powers that be to fall into the hands of the Vocal and Voting minority!
Click to expand...

Agreed with you about arms being a state's rights issue. CA , e.g., is different from Montana.
 
anonymoose said:
The right to own and drive a vehicle is not in the constitution.
As a card carrying libertarian my first priority is personal responsibility and I believe owning a deadly weapon requires proof of that.

However I'm also a strict constitutionalist so 'd like to see the 2nd Amendment repealed.
BUT as a constitutionalist , as long as the 2nd Amendment remains, every citizen has the unlimited right to bear arms including front and rear mounted 20mm – F-15E Gatling Gun Systems on your vehicle for protection.
The insanity of that would force the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Not true, I don’t understand why conservatives can’t comprehend the fact that any right in the Constitution can be regulated, no right is absolute
 
archives said:
Unfortunately, it is anything but clear, until you can define the prefatory clause, the rest of the Amendment is muddled as proven by the SCOTUS inability to do such in the two hundred years they dealt with the Amendment. Scalia’s “definition” was to just skip over it, forget precedent, leaving Heller open to being overturn in the future
Click to expand...
That's why I say go with unlimited rights to bear arms until the insanity of that forces it's repeal.
 
Woko Haram said:
Uh, you clearly don't know how purchasing a gun on the internet works.

You have to get the gun delivered to a FFL. A background check is also applied. So, there is actually an additional layer of regulation involved as compared with buying a gun in a store. FFLs also have a strong incentive to be careful with these transactions, because they can be held criminally liable under many circumstances.

There are plenty of cases where a FFL will choose to hold onto a gun without allowing the purchaser to receive it, if they have suspicions about him/her. For example, a FFL can deny the acquisition of a gun, if the purchaser gives the impression he/she is intending on committing a crime with the gun. In states that require gun permits, the FFL is not legally allowed to give the gun to a purchaser that does not have an original copy of the permit with him/her.

It's definitely not a loose process.
Click to expand...

Not true, all one has to do is “agree” to the “terms of contract” (https://www.armslist.com/) and you are on your own, obvious you never used Craigslist
 
anonymoose said:
That's why I say go with unlimited rights to bear arms until the insanity of that forces it's repeal.
Click to expand...

Nothing personal, but that doesn’t make sense, no Constitutional right is absolute, so why make a special exception now for guns? Would you approve of any schmuck off the street walking into the US Senate and making a speech? Any group who wanted having a parade down the middle of your city anytime they wanted? Media outlets to have complete access to any information they wanted at any time they choose?

Every right is legally regulated, no right is absolute, never has been
 
archives said:
indirectly, you made the case for regulating guns, “everyone has a gun” and “many are loose cannons”

Treat guns as we do vehicles, they have to be registered, you have to purchase liability insurance, you have to pass a test to obtain an operator’s license, and all of that has to be renewed on some chronological basis
Click to expand...

Not that easy
Many concealed gun nuts will never seek help for a mental illness
The NRA is as disgusting as the ACLU
ACLU is a Jewish terrorist group lol
That was a joke lol
 
Celticguy said:
Two really. Ownership since they have intrinsic value but mainly revenue.
Click to expand...
They call it handling expenses. But I catch your drift that Automobile registration should not be costing me 70 bucks a year!

But I'll listen to any ideas anyone has on how to keep weapons out of the hands of people who intend on using them for illegal activity and nefarious reasons!
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
They call it handling expenses. But I catch your drift that Automobile registration should not be costing me 70 bucks a year!

But I'll listen to any ideas anyone has on how to keep weapons out of the hands of people who intend on using them for illegal activity and nefarious reasons!
Click to expand...

Justice swift and sure.
Use a firearm in the commission of a crime, death penaltu.
An lets remember the swift part. We had a couple murderers sentenced, tried, appealed and dead in < 2 years here. It need not take 10-20 years.
Not quite as effective as public hangings but criminals notice.
Then there is the matter of crazy people.
Read carefully and you will find that all these lunatics were kniwn to be lunatics by mental health professionals.
Why were they not reported (so as to include them in background checks) as required by law ?
And if its required by law, why are these mental health professionals not prosecuted ?
Lock up a few and they will take notice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top