|
|
Post by BOGC on Mar 25, 2018 20:00:36 GMT -5
I believe people have the right to possess guns. But they should be regulated as follows: 1. Convicted felons cannot possess guns. 2. Automatic weapons (and related devices) are banned. 3. Silencers are banned. 4. Gun ownership, possession and transfers must be registered. 5. Unregistered gun possession is illegal. 6. All guns must have serial numbers and tampering with them is illegal. 7. Ammunition purchases are recorded. 8. Possession of guns and ammo beyond a certain number is legal but subject to scrutiny. Edit add: None of the above would be onerous for a law abiding citizen. I have no problem with a lesser version of (4), namely requiring all transfers to be subject to instant check (NICS), including person-to-person ones; that to be a service of licensed dealers (which have to have the capability anyway), at a modest markup on the NICS fee, in exchange for their liability being limited to following the proper procedures. But trying to database everything is abusive. Maryland for a time had an inventory of fired sample rounds, required to be supplied with every firearms purchase for a time (or maybe it was just handguns). I think they gave it up, after it was demonstrably useless to solve anything. Maybe the FBI could do it, with computer assisted image matching of very standardized photographs; but the state sure couldn't figure it out. A database of all firearms owned would always have properly vigilant citizens concerned that it could be used if confiscation were to be implemented. (7) is similarly of limited use. If someone is planning something far enough in advance to acquire multiple firearms and achieve some proficiency with them, they can purchase their ammo in multiple small purchases over a period of time, and not be obvious. OTOH, if someone does a lot of target shooting (or, while being quite sane in other respects and no danger to anyone, wants to be ready in case the SHTF), they'll probably want to buy in bulk for lower prices. So the obvious people will likely be more, not less honest; although a target shooter with limited cashflow could look just like a bad guy trying to stockpile inconspicuously. (8) requires a degree of judgement that government is generally unfit to exercise. Different firearms serve different purposes; where concealed carry is allowed, a compact 9mm or .357 might be good for that; but to go along with a hunting rifle, one might want a more powerful handgun for bears and/or finishing off game that was down but not quite dead. A rifle suitable for elk is overkill (which equates to much more expensive ammo) for varmint hunting, and neither is suitable for birds, where you usually want a shotgun. One might want something else for competitive target shooting. (I'm not a hunter, so I may not have that 100%, but it should convey the notion that one could conceivably have half a dozen different firearms for half a dozen different applications.) Three or more handguns or rifles of substantially the same model and calibre might raise an eyebrow; and I suppose really large numbers (greater than ten or so, say) might also, even if different. But those wanting to arm a group would probably have every member arm themselves...so except in the case of a very centrally controlled cult-like group, I don't think that serves much purpose either. I suppose one might have more rigorous storage requirements for large numbers, that might not be unreasonable (greater hazard in event of a burglary). Other than that, full auto is only available for grandfathered (pre-1986) firearms, with expanded background check and $200 tax stamp; since no new ones are made, the supply of legal ones is very limited and pricey; legal full autos are almost never used in crimes. Silencers AFAIK just require the background check and tax stamp. They have legitimate uses (sparing the ears of the shooter)...and they do NOT reduce the sound of even a .22 to only that of a blowgun, unlike in the movies; they're not that effective. I suppose a hit man might use them...but it's pretty easy to make a silencer, if not a durable one, so their possible use in crime is probably vastly over-imagined too. (1) and (6) are already the case federally, AFAIK. Some states require NICS checks for ALL transfers. In general, the jurisdictions with the most rules and restrictions are also those with the most abuses. Which came first, the abuses or the rules? Probably the former, but I wouldn't exclude the possibility that an excess of regulation makes things worse by imposing a disadvantageous burden on law-abiding persons that criminals will simply ignore. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 21:06:46 GMT -5
the ballot box hasn't been effective at creating fast enough turnover to reduce corruption, cronyism, etc. Can't argue with you there. We elected Trump to get rid of the OLD corrupt officials and cronies. Now they have been replaced by a NEW set of corrupt officials and cronies. If you are correct about the present state of affairs, then you have stated exactly why human beings are not to put their trust in secular governments. We can respect them for their worldly authority but we can never trust them. Only God deserves our trust. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Mar 25, 2018 22:48:25 GMT -5
Ben - you remind me of someone from the old Amazon forum. His name was odd-something, might have been "oddjob". Are you him? If so, you need to give me an update on your kidney stones.
|
|
|
|
Post by agog on Mar 25, 2018 23:55:05 GMT -5
#4 the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with self protection I feel that to NOT mention self defense against common criminals and the like is a flaw in the Second Amendment. I'm guessing it was so obvious to the founders it was not seen as necessary to mention, but I don't know that for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by agog on Mar 25, 2018 23:57:07 GMT -5
It's nobody's business how many automobiles, guitars or firearms someone else has.
|
|
|
|
Post by agog on Mar 25, 2018 23:57:46 GMT -5
Ben - you remind me of someone from the old Amazon forum. His name was odd-something, might have been "oddjob". Are you him? If so, you need to give me an update on your kidney stones. Good old oddball. |
|
|
|
Post by agog on Mar 26, 2018 0:24:08 GMT -5
[tr][td class="content"][article] I support the right of people to own guns and defend themselves. I believe we need to stop guns from falling into the wrong hands. I support:
1. Mandatory gun registration so we know where all the guns are located.
2. Comprehensive background checks so that guns don't fall into the wrong hands (e.g. felons, terrorists, mentally ill).
3. Mandatory training and testing so that gun owners prove they know how to handle their guns, like drivers have to demonstrate that they are competent to drive.
4. Limits on gun features (automatic fire, silencers, high capacity magazines, etc) and ownership of excessive number of guns, since none of this is necessary for self defense.
5. Registration of ammo purchases so we know who is buying ammo and how much. [/article] [/td] [/tr] [tr] [td class="foot"] [/td][/tr][/quote] I'm glad you support people's right to own firearms for self defense. Now, mind your own business on the rest of your post. You have no business trying to restrict me and a hundred million other firearm owners to low capacity magazines because some mentally deranged person misused them. I have very poor hearing in one ear since Viet Nam. If I listen to Jackie when I go to sleep I must lay on one side and not the other if I want to hear her. Same if I'm listening to a sermon or lecture at bedtime. A suppressor would be appreciated by me at the range. EDIT TO ADD: I do use earplugs and headphone looking noise protectors at the range but I don't carry them everywhere I go. We should execute murderers QUICKLY to reduce murders, not restrict MILLIONS of law abiding citizens who have not and will not commit any serious crime with their firearms. (I understand there are valid issues about false convictions but there are MANY instances where the guilt is NOT in question.) The government has no business knowing who owns firearms and how many any one person owns. No one NEEDS two Van Goghs but that's no reason to prohibit ownership of multiple Van Goghs. If you are interested in reducing murders join an anti abortion group. Tens of millions of the most innocent people have been murdered for convenience. But mostly MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! |
|
|
|
Post by agog on Mar 26, 2018 0:31:14 GMT -5
As has been pointed out here and other places, governments are the great killers on this Earth. I don't understand why so many people think governments are so moral and good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Mar 26, 2018 1:00:10 GMT -5
Now, mind your own business on the rest of your post. My life is my business. That's why the regulation of devices that can end it is my business. not restrict MILLIONS of law abiding citizens who have not and will not commit any serious crime with their firearms. There are literally millions of pages of federal, state and local laws in this country. All these laws restrict law abiding citizens as well as criminals. The law says I, a law abiding citizen, can't buy a toilet that uses more than 1.6 gallons per flush. The law says that I, a law abiding citizen, cannot buy an incandescent light bulb. Very few people are killed by toilets or light bulbs, yet they, and a zillion other things are regulated. So why shouldn't a device that kills tens of thousands of people per year be regulated too? |
|
|
|
Post by agog on Mar 26, 2018 1:22:46 GMT -5
Now, mind your own business on the rest of your post. My life is my business. That's why the regulation of devices that can end it is my business. not restrict MILLIONS of law abiding citizens who have not and will not commit any serious crime with their firearms. There are literally millions of pages of federal, state and local laws in this country. All these laws restrict law abiding citizens as well as criminals. The law says I, a law abiding citizen, can't buy a toilet that uses more than 1.6 gallons per flush. The law says that I, a law abiding citizen, cannot buy an incandescent light bulb. Very few people are killed by toilets or light bulbs, yet they, and a zillion other things are regulated. So why shouldn't a device that kills tens of thousands of people per year be regulated too? Your life IS your business. Regulating ME isn't. Firearms are used far more times to protect people than to wrongfully take a life. I want to keep a tool that can protect my life and other people's lives. Saying government already regulates our lives in so many ways so why not even more, is a poor argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Mar 26, 2018 2:04:35 GMT -5
Your life IS your business. Regulating ME isn't. ... Saying government already regulates our lives in so many ways so why not even more, is a poor argument. That ship has already sailed. The government already regulates firearms. I'd like them to do a better job of it. I want to keep a tool that can protect my life and other people's lives. No disagreement there. |
|
|
|
Post by agog on Mar 26, 2018 6:19:57 GMT -5
That ship has already sailed. The government already regulates firearms. I'd like them to do a better job of it That ship needs to be scuttled at the dock. Don't blame the tool, blame the fool. |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Mar 26, 2018 9:26:37 GMT -5
Now, mind your own business on the rest of your post. My life is my business. That's why the regulation of devices that can end it is my business. not restrict MILLIONS of law abiding citizens who have not and will not commit any serious crime with their firearms. There are literally millions of pages of federal, state and local laws in this country. All these laws restrict law abiding citizens as well as criminals. The law says I, a law abiding citizen, can't buy a toilet that uses more than 1.6 gallons per flush. The law says that I, a law abiding citizen, cannot buy an incandescent light bulb. Very few people are killed by toilets or light bulbs, yet they, and a zillion other things are regulated. So why shouldn't a device that kills tens of thousands of people per year be regulated too? Peace through superior firepower. The only gun control that's legitimate is self-control and accuracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Mar 26, 2018 11:55:40 GMT -5
The only gun control that's legitimate is self-control and accuracy. Legitimacy is entire subjective. I'm interested in what works, as objectively measured by comparing our gun death rates with other developed countries. The system we have has clearly not been working for decades. We need to try something different. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Mar 26, 2018 12:35:39 GMT -5
The only gun control that's legitimate is self-control and accuracy. Legitimacy is entire subjective. I'm interested in what works, as objectively measured by comparing our gun death rates with other developed countries. The system we have has clearly not been working for decades. We need to try something different. I am all for trying something new as long as guns are completely off the table as they should be. Gun free zones seems to be a good place to start since it seems to be more and advertisement than actually accomplishing anything. |
|
