Bickering over gun control and what it MAY cost you...

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Let me start off by saying two things...

I support your right to own whatever firearm you choose short of fully automatic death machines.

I also believe this is more a mental health issue than a gun contro issue.



Having said that I also realize something else. Something more important. Something that most of you don't seem to be considering.

Congress doesn't care about solving the problem. They care about twothings, their agenda and most Iimportantly getting reelected. And to get reelected they aren't going to want to appear to be seen on the wrong side of this issue by the public. Recent polls have suggested that opposing gun control at this point is the wrong side of the issue.

So rather than simply arguing to the point of no return on gun control and tossing in issues that congress WILL mostly ignore why not TRY to beat them to the punch by proposing sensible measures that BOTH sides will see as a concession? I truly believe that despite my personal feelings on the issue this isn't going to be swept under the rug like it always is. To many the safety of their children is more important than their right to own a weapon. Right or wrong that sentiment will beat your ardent rights argument because the only ones that have to be convinced are the weasels in DC.

Don't get left behind because you won't bend. You don't have to lose anything if you can put forth a reasonable idea that both sides in DC can grasp onto. There are many ideas out there from the extreme to nothing at all. Once the major polls start rolling in congress will be forced to act so beat them to the punch with ideas. Or sit back and watch your rights be whittled into nothing over time.

I have tossed out some ideas and most of you shoot them down for trivial reasons like criminals will find a way around biometrics. While probably true that analogy suggest that we shouldn't even bother locking our doors to begin with. Its a terrible excuse and excuses like that will cost you this battle.

 

[Old Rocks]

One. The assault weopons are created for one purpose only, to kill a large number of people rapidly. Require the same license for a semi-automatic rifle as for a fully automatic one. After all, what is the differance? 30 shots in under ten seconds with a semi-auto in a crowded mall or a school room is hardly any differant that a fully automatic. If someone is caught outside their home with an AK or AR with no license, the weopon is confiscated and destroyed, and the person faces jail time.

Two. If you store you guns, of any type, carelessly, and someone takes one and uses it in a crime, you own that crime.

Three. Somehow, we have to address the problem of the mentally ill in our population. After they have committed a crime, it is far too late. Too late for the victim, too late for the mentally ill person.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Most pistols can be fired just as fast as a semiautomatic AR.

Where do you draw the line then?

Banning asault rifles won't stop murders so what is the point?

 

[Old Rocks]

Would you note that I did not say ban. I said that you have to pass some stringent requirements to own or purchase one. And if you are caught without that license with one of these weopons, the weopon is confiscated and destroyed, and you face jail time.

These pistols with 15 shots or more should have the same laws as we do for hunting shot guns. You plug the magazine so that there is a maximum of six shots. If you cannot defend yourself with that amount, you should not have the weopon.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Would you note that I did not say ban. I said that you have to pass some stringent requirements to own or purchase one. And if you are caught without that license with one of these weopons, the weopon is confiscated and destroyed, and you face jail time.

These pistols with 15 shots or more should have the same laws as we do for hunting shot guns. You plug the magazine so that there is a maximum of six shots. If you cannot defend yourself with that amount, you should not have the weopon.

Fair enough.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is time for sane gun owners to come together and pass laws that would prevent most of the atrocities with have seen in the last decade.

We have the insane claiming that what is needed are even more guns. And that is what we have seen for the last decade. Ever more weopons out there. And ever more atrocities committed by the crazies that the NRA has armed.

Time for an end to the insanity.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What would you suggest the requirements be to be licensed for an AR?

 

[Old Rocks]

Same as a fully automatic weopon.

 

[occupied]

I am of the opinion that this problem cannot be attacked on the gun control angle and it is foolish to try, already too many dangerous combat weapons in circulation and driving them underground is hardly going to help anything. I do not feel there is an actual solution but there are a lot of ways to attack this from a mental health/law enforcement angle that might not make the gun nuts close ranks and freak out.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Would you note that I did not say ban. I said that you have to pass some stringent requirements to own or purchase one. And if you are caught without that license with one of these weopons, the weopon is confiscated and destroyed, and you face jail time.

These pistols with 15 shots or more should have the same laws as we do for hunting shot guns. You plug the magazine so that there is a maximum of six shots. If you cannot defend yourself with that amount, you should not have the weopon.

You suggested almost nothing that is constitutional.
What guns I have and how much ammo they can hold is none of your damn business.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I am of the opinion that this problem cannot be attacked on the gun control angle and it is foolish to try, already too many dangerous combat weapons in circulation and driving them underground is hardly going to help anything. I do not feel there is an actual solution but there are a lot of ways to attack this from a mental health/law enforcement angle that might not make the gun nuts close ranks and freak out.

I am stunned.

Rep incoming

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Would you note that I did not say ban. I said that you have to pass some stringent requirements to own or purchase one. And if you are caught without that license with one of these weopons, the weopon is confiscated and destroyed, and you face jail time.

These pistols with 15 shots or more should have the same laws as we do for hunting shot guns. You plug the magazine so that there is a maximum of six shots. If you cannot defend yourself with that amount, you should not have the weopon.

You suggested almost nothing that is constitutional.
What guns I have and how much ammo they can hold is none of your damn business.

But what video games we own is?

 

[occupied]

I am of the opinion that this problem cannot be attacked on the gun control angle and it is foolish to try, already too many dangerous combat weapons in circulation and driving them underground is hardly going to help anything. I do not feel there is an actual solution but there are a lot of ways to attack this from a mental health/law enforcement angle that might not make the gun nuts close ranks and freak out.

I am stunned.

Rep incoming

What are you stunned about? That I don't fit the stereotype? Gun control has never appealed to me even though I despise the gun lobby for their lack of a common sense attitude towards efforts to curb gun violence. I am a political realist and I know a losing battle when I see one, besides, I myself own an unspecified number and type of firearms and I like them the same as any well made and expensive tool I own, I have no animistic fetish about them.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Would you note that I did not say ban. I said that you have to pass some stringent requirements to own or purchase one. And if you are caught without that license with one of these weopons, the weopon is confiscated and destroyed, and you face jail time.

These pistols with 15 shots or more should have the same laws as we do for hunting shot guns. You plug the magazine so that there is a maximum of six shots. If you cannot defend yourself with that amount, you should not have the weopon.

You suggested almost nothing that is constitutional.
What guns I have and how much ammo they can hold is none of your damn business.

But what video games we own is?

I could care less what video games someone owns. You must be thinking of someone else.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Most pistols can be fired just as fast as a semiautomatic AR.

Where do you draw the line then?

30 round clips and 100 round drums?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Would you note that I did not say ban. I said that you have to pass some stringent requirements to own or purchase one. And if you are caught without that license with one of these weopons, the weopon is confiscated and destroyed, and you face jail time.

These pistols with 15 shots or more should have the same laws as we do for hunting shot guns. You plug the magazine so that there is a maximum of six shots. If you cannot defend yourself with that amount, you should not have the weopon.

You suggested almost nothing that is constitutional.
What guns I have and how much ammo they can hold is none of your damn business.

I see your two right heels are dug in like a couple of Alabama Ticks...

This is the attitude that will cost the true, law abiding, American Gun Enthusiast the most over the next 10 years.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Would you note that I did not say ban. I said that you have to pass some stringent requirements to own or purchase one. And if you are caught without that license with one of these weopons, the weopon is confiscated and destroyed, and you face jail time.

These pistols with 15 shots or more should have the same laws as we do for hunting shot guns. You plug the magazine so that there is a maximum of six shots. If you cannot defend yourself with that amount, you should not have the weopon.

You suggested almost nothing that is constitutional.
What guns I have and how much ammo they can hold is none of your damn business.

I see your two right heels are dug in like a couple of Alabama Ticks...

This is the attitude that will cost the true, law abiding, American Gun Enthusiast the most over the next 10 years.

Bullshit. My attitude is of little import. My response was based on the Constitution and recent USSC and fed. court rulings. If somebody wants to change those they are welcome to try.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Keep telling yourself that, Slick.

 

[MikeK]

One. The assault weopons are created for one purpose only, to kill a large number of people rapidly. Require the same license for a semi-automatic rifle as for a fully automatic one. After all, what is the differance? 30 shots in under ten seconds with a semi-auto in a crowded mall or a school room is hardly any differant that a fully automatic. If someone is caught outside their home with an AK or AR with no license, the weopon is confiscated and destroyed, and the person faces jail time.

Two. If you store you guns, of any type, carelessly, and someone takes one and uses it in a crime, you own that crime.

Three. Somehow, we have to address the problem of the mentally ill in our population. After they have committed a crime, it is far too late. Too late for the victim, too late for the mentally ill person.

If preservation of life is a primary concern let's shift focus from firearms misuse to recreational and unnecessary automobile use which happens to be responsible for infinitely more death and maiming than are guns. An analytical poll would reveal that less than half of all automobile use in the U.S. is necessary and if all this unnecessary automobile use were prohibited the rate of highway death and maiming would be proportionally reduced.

Every day of every week a substantial number of drunks, incompetents, and temperamental screwballs manage to kill or maim hundreds of innocents, many of them children, by unnecessarily bringing automobiles into the traffic stream and colliding with or diverting others into collision. But there is no agitation to prohibit the unnecessary use of automobiles. Why? Because every American with a driver license either frequently or occasionally makes unnecessary use of a motor vehicle of some kind. And in doing so they voluntarily participate in the ongoing game of highway mayhem which collectively kills or maims thousands of innocent others every year.

The situation is analogous to the vigorous prohibition of recreational drugs while the use of beverage alcohol is responsible for infinitely more death and malicious violence than all recreational drugs combined. Yet that circumstance is as casually ignored as is that of highway deaths.

 

[oldernwiser]

One. The assault weopons are created for one purpose only, to kill a large number of people rapidly. Require the same license for a semi-automatic rifle as for a fully automatic one. After all, what is the differance? 30 shots in under ten seconds with a semi-auto in a crowded mall or a school room is hardly any differant that a fully automatic. If someone is caught outside their home with an AK or AR with no license, the weopon is confiscated and destroyed, and the person faces jail time.

Two. If you store you guns, of any type, carelessly, and someone takes one and uses it in a crime, you own that crime.

Three. Somehow, we have to address the problem of the mentally ill in our population. After they have committed a crime, it is far too late. Too late for the victim, too late for the mentally ill person.

Fine...
Except - I'm not sure if any rampage killers didn't already have their own death as the ultimate end. So I'm fairly confident that facing jail time for carrying a weapon without an adequate permit fixes nothing in particular.

In the Lanza case, the owner of the weapons used was the 1st target. It would be silly to throw her in jail now, wouldn't it?

Your 3rd point is the one that no one is going to touch. There is a BIG problem when someone loses empathy on such a scale as this. It's hard to detect, even harder to stop. I'm pretty sure that most of us don't have the psychology background to know the difference between rebelling and irrational thinking - and again, it would mean that we would have to take the time to find out. Maybe if we weren't such an individualistic society, we would take that time. But we aren't there yet.