Gun control poll

[Luddly Neddite]

Why or why not?

(Mods, please feel free to move this to a more appropriate forum. All threads seem to get put in "Politics" but there really isn't a good place for this ... that I could see.)

 

[Luddly Neddite]

James Holmes, Aurora Shooting Suspect, Used Internet For Arsenal

Should have added this ... do you believe anyone should be able to buy arms and ammo on line?

 

[chikenwing]

James Holmes, Aurora Shooting Suspect, Used Internet For Arsenal

Should have added this ... do you believe anyone should be able to buy arms and ammo on line?

The only "arms" you can buy on line are balck powder,nothing else,you can buy ammo and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Desperado]

I am tired of the gun control laws being designed for the least common denominator.
Why punish the many law abiding gun enthusiasts for the actions of a very small percentage.
I have no problem showing my id to purchase ammo, much like I have no problem showing my
id when I vote. I don't see that as any type of intrusion.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

James Holmes, Aurora Shooting Suspect, Used Internet For Arsenal

Should have added this ... do you believe anyone should be able to buy arms and ammo on line?

The only "arms" you can buy on line are balck powder,nothing else,you can buy ammo and there is nothing wrong with that.

Do a google search. You'll find you can buy damn near anything and certainly far more than just black powder and ammo.

And the Aurora shooter had no problem buying everything he used, either.

 

[Leweman]

You should have ID to buy weapons just like you should have ID to vote and register to vote. A background check and waiting period are also good ideas in theory but their will always be a black market for weapons for those who intend to break the law. ID's and background checks are only going to be used by law abiding citizens anyway.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I am tired of the gun control laws being designed for the least common denominator.
Why punish the many law abiding gun enthusiasts for the actions of a very small percentage.
I have no problem showing my id to purchase ammo, much like I have no problem showing my
id when I vote. I don't see that as any type of intrusion.

I don't know of any law that would "punish the law abiding gun enthusiast". I've been collecting and buying for years and I'm a "law abiding gun enthusiast".

Can you tell me what "gun control laws are designed for the least common denominator"?

I ask because I really don't know of any.

Thanks.

 

[Caroljo]

I have no problem with showing ID when purchasing any weapon or ammo....and i could understand if i had to wait a day or so to pick up a gun that i wanted to purchase so they can do a background check. Only criminals would have a problem with it.

But, like Holman that just killed 12 people....more than likely he's never been in any trouble and they wouldn't find anything on him. So there was nothing stopping him from getting it. There is NOTHING to stop a criminal from getting weapons....no law is going to stop them. It's more important to make sure citizens are allowed to arm themselves for protection. If just one or 2 people in that theater had had a gun, most likely not as many people would have died or been put in the hospital.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You should have ID to buy weapons just like you should have ID to vote and register to vote. A background check and waiting period are also good ideas in theory but their will always be a black market for weapons for those who intend to break the law. ID's and background checks are only going to be used by law abiding citizens anyway.

Not necessarily.

While I do have guns, I also have air tasers for home//car protection. For those who don't know they work, an air taser brings down your assailant and, in the case of the ones I have, you also have the option of using the stun gun feature.

What this means is that I can stop someone who is as far away as 15' AND I can stop others up close and personal.

When the taser is fired, it also fires a large number of tiny tags, far too many for someone to gather up in order to hide their identity. On each of those tiny tags is a number which identifies me as the buyer.

If the taser is stolen from me, those little tags would bring the law to my door to ask what happened to my air taser. If I had reported it as stolen, I'm off the hook.

While I don't know anything about the manufacture of ammo, why couldn't we come up with a way to fire tags that identify the buyer of the original ammo?

Assuming it could be done and of course, it could be, does anyone object to that? Would you object to your ammo being identified as being purchased by you?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Here's a damn good reason NOT to go to the movies with a gun in your pocket. From the police tapes:

"one of the shooters might be wearing a blue and white shirt".

What about a hellfire triggar? I have one and, last I knew, cost about $12 and I could make it in my garage.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

I vote in favor of Luddly being BANNED from owning firearms. He is a liar, a hypocrite, and is obviously unstable.

 

[Againsheila]

You should have ID to buy weapons just like you should have ID to vote and register to vote. A background check and waiting period are also good ideas in theory but their will always be a black market for weapons for those who intend to break the law. ID's and background checks are only going to be used by law abiding citizens anyway.

I believe that if you provide ID and they do a background check that after 2 or 3 years the whole thing should be tossed out. I don't want our government knowing who has what...that was the way Hitler was able to take guns from his people, first he had them registered.

 

[Too Tall]

Why or why not?

(Mods, please feel free to move this to a more appropriate forum. All threads seem to get put in "Politics" but there really isn't a good place for this ... that I could see.)

I support ID for voting and for buying a firearm.

 

[hortysir]

Far too complex for 5 poll choices that are obviously leading in nature.

Trolling Fail

 

[Noomi]

You should have to show ID, you should not be allowed be allowed to buy assault rifles or anything like that. Its common sense really.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You should have to show ID, you should not be allowed be allowed to buy assault rifles or anything like that. Its common sense really.

There is no such thing as an assault rifle. Or perhaps you could explain the definition to us?

 

[Missourian]

None of the above.

 

[Desperado]

You should have to show ID, you should not be allowed be allowed to buy assault rifles or anything like that. Its common sense really.

No, it is not common sense.
There are all types of shooters, and all types of guns, just like there are all types of drivers and all types of cars. Some shooters like black power, some like sports/assault weapons. Limiting the choice of someone's weapon, would be like limiting someone's car.
We don't allow full on race cars on the street and we don't allow people to have full on automatic weapons. Everything else should be fair game. Shooting a Sports/Assault rifle is a lot of fun, akin to driving a super car. A Lamborghini Murciélago LP640 is not a practical car but it a hell of a lot of fun to drive, do you want to ban those too?

Lets remember too, how the feds define "Assault" weapon.... Since automatic weapons are already banned, they are focusing only on semi-automatics firearms that possess the cosmetics of an assault rifle. Note, that their ban has nothing to do with the performance of the weapon but only the cosmetic appearance of the weapon.

 

[9thIDdoc]

No amount of talk will change the fact that laws only matter to the law abiding. Stricter gun contol aids and fosters crime by disarming those that the law should protect.

 

[Katzndogz]

As no amount or kind of gun control laws would have prevented what happened in Aurora, I'm against all gun control laws.