Common sense gun laws

[TurtleDude]

Most of my rifles have bayonets. All make really good clubs.

The British Rifles of the late 19th Century often had brass reinforcements on the butt stock for such use. One of the British tricks that the Zulu learned about was that the British Soldier would lunge with the bayonet which the Zulu would try to deflect with his shield and the Brit would then spin the butt stock up into the zulu's chin-Ouch

 

[Mark F]

The British Rifles of the late 19th Century often had brass reinforcements on the butt stock for such use. One of the British tricks that the Zulu learned about was that the British Soldier would lunge with the bayonet which the Zulu would try to deflect with his shield and the Brit would then spin the butt stock up into the zulu's chin-Ouch

I have 4 Lee Enfields. Very sturdy.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have 4 Lee Enfields. Very sturdy.

yeah and their bolts' actions gave the British a big advantage in WWI. in fact in some battles, the Germans attributed high casualty rates to the Brits having Machine guns when they didn't but that SMLE set records for fire volumes from Bolt guns. IN WWII the Garand gave the US an even bigger advantage over the Mauser 98 and Arisaka bolt rifles that the Germans and Japanese used

In the late 1800s the British were the best bayonet fighters in the world since they spent hours practicing bayonet techniques and that included the thrust, spin buttstroke that killed many a zulu in close quarters fighting

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

I have 4 Lee Enfields. Very sturdy.

I am reminded of the old adage about WW1 rifles.

The Americans made a target rifle
The Germans made a hunting rifle
and the British made a BATTLE RIFLE.

My son and I both had Lithgow Mk3's made in 1943. Very sturdy indeed. Even without a bayonet, that solid brass button in the front would put a hurt on someone.

I also like the way the stripper clip goes flying on bolt closure. No need to remove it first like on the 03 or the Mauser. Nice feature. Probably saved some Tommy's life.

Once at an AZ gun shop, I had to have their gunsmith show me how to remove the bolt from a Mk4. I was used to the Mk3, but the Mk4 bolt comes out differently. That was a learning experience.

Good luck finding ammo for either one now.

 

[Crimefree]

I am reminded of the old adage about WW1 rifles.

The Americans made a target rifle
The Germans made a hunting rifle
and the British made a BATTLE RIFLE.

My son and I both had Lithgow Mk3's made in 1943. Very sturdy indeed. Even without a bayonet, that solid brass button in the front would put a hurt on someone.

I also like the way the stripper clip goes flying on bolt closure. No need to remove it first like on the 03 or the Mauser. Nice feature. Probably saved some Tommy's life.

Once at an AZ gun shop, I had to have their gunsmith show me how to remove the bolt from a Mk4. I was used to the Mk3, but the Mk4 bolt comes out differently. That was a learning experience.

Good luck finding ammo for either one now.

That flying clip type design cost many lives simply because it is a tuning fork and when it comes out makes a distinctive sound that broadcasts shoot me I'm out of ammo.

 

[Crimefree]

I know... It really is a control issue more than a gun issue.

No matter how many times one says gun control is not about guns it is about control, the majority of people just do not get the point. Gun control laws are not about making people safer, they are about controlling those misfits that don't think government can or will look after them.

 

[Mark F]

I am reminded of the old adage about WW1 rifles.

The Americans made a target rifle
The Germans made a hunting rifle
and the British made a BATTLE RIFLE.

My son and I both had Lithgow Mk3's made in 1943. Very sturdy indeed. Even without a bayonet, that solid brass button in the front would put a hurt on someone.

I also like the way the stripper clip goes flying on bolt closure. No need to remove it first like on the 03 or the Mauser. Nice feature. Probably saved some Tommy's life.

Once at an AZ gun shop, I had to have their gunsmith show me how to remove the bolt from a Mk4. I was used to the Mk3, but the Mk4 bolt comes out differently. That was a learning experience.

Good luck finding ammo for either one now.

0.303 British ammo is quite easy to come by. Besides a couple of thousand rounds of 1970's vintage Greek Army surplus I have stashed I have never had a problem finding it whenever I go into a gun store, usually with several brands to choose from. I shoot the Lee Enfield's more than just about anything else besides my .22's.

 

[Mark F]

That flying clip type design cost many lives simply because it is a tuning fork and when it comes out makes a distinctive sound that broadcasts shoot me I'm out of ammo.

No. You are thinking the M1 Garand.

In the Lee Enfield it means exactly the opposite.

 

[calamity]

What exactly is common sense gun laws? Laws that are open to interpretation and re-interpretation I would think.

Lets say we all agree to this idea and we pass universal background checks, ban "Assault Rifles" and any magazines over 10 rounds. Would this be common sense gun laws?

Now after we enact these common sense gun laws let's assume all the law abiding citizens comply, even though criminals wont, .... but lets just pretend that they will too.

Now what happens when mass murders are still committed only now they are with hunting rifles with only 10 round magazines? Of course the 99% of murders that were committed with non-Assault weapons are still occurring as well.

So now what, I suppose it would be common sense to maybe ban all removable magazines and put more restrictions on hand guns, finger print locks? a longer waiting list? A gun registry? Stop CCW permits?

When that doesn't work what does common sense tell us then?

Common sense gun laws:

1. Banning convicts who are in prison from having guns. I doubt anyone here would argue that such an infringement on bearing arms is not 100% acceptable.

2. Banning crazy people from having guns. Sure, we'd have to define "crazy." But, I doubt anyone here would argue that a schizophrenic should not have his right to bear arms infringed upon.

3. People convicted of gun crimes. OK, this one gets a little more gray. Should their right to bear arms be infringed upon after they serve their sentences? I say yes, they already proved they cannot be responsible gun owners.

4. People who were careless with their guns and accidentally killed someone or caused severe injury. Same as 3, IMO.

5. People who allowed their guns to fall into the hands of criminals or children who used them to commit gun crimes or involuntary homicide. Same as 3 & 4, IMO.

That's about it, IMO. Everyone else should be allowed to own a gun, including convicted felons who have served their time, but were not convicted of gun crimes. I might be open to arguments making an exception for those convicted of other violent crimes however. It might make sense to ban them from ever again owning a gun as well.

 

[Ikari]

Common sense gun laws:

1. Banning convicts who are in prison from having guns. I doubt anyone here would argue that such an infringement on bearing arms is not 100% acceptable.

2. Banning crazy people from having guns. Sure, we'd have to define "crazy." But, I doubt anyone here would argue that a schizophrenic should not have his right to bear arms infringed upon.

3. People convicted of gun crimes. OK, this one gets a little more gray. Should their right to bear arms be infringed upon after they serve their sentences? I say yes, they already proved they cannot be responsible gun owners.

4. People who were careless with their guns and accidentally killed someone or caused severe injury. Same as 3, IMO.

5. People who allowed their guns to fall into the hands of criminals or children who used them to commit gun crimes or involuntary homicide. Same as 3 & 4, IMO.

That's about it, IMO. Everyone else should be allowed to own a gun, including convicted felons who have served their time, but were not convicted of gun crimes. I might be open to arguments making an exception for those convicted of other violent crimes however. It might make sense to ban them from ever again owning a gun as well.

1) They are in jail...so pretty much only guards can have guns in jail.
2) Sure...but as you say, define crazy. Not only that, how are we testing for that? Does everyone who wants a gun have to under go psychiatric evaluation? Who pays? Or do we allow open health records for anyone to read? Or do we have some institution more widely available to ensure proper mental health of all the people? Which then would require the open health records so private companies can see medical histories.
3) Once sentence is completed in full, punishment ends.
4) They can be punished for their crimes, but refer to 3
4) Refer to 4

 

[calamity]

1) They are in jail...so pretty much only guards can have guns in jail.
2) Sure...but as you say, define crazy. Not only that, how are we testing for that? Does everyone who wants a gun have to under go psychiatric evaluation? Who pays? Or do we allow open health records for anyone to read? Or do we have some institution more widely available to ensure proper mental health of all the people? Which then would require the open health records so private companies can see medical histories.
3) Once sentence is completed in full, punishment ends.
4) They can be punished for their crimes, but refer to 3
4) Refer to 4

1. I know, but we are infringing on the prisoner's right to bear arms. Of course, this makes perfect sense. Hence, it is a common sense gun law.

2. Would you want John Hinkley to be allowed to buy a gun?

3. So, someone who used a gun to kill his spouse, serves 15 years and gets out can own another gun? I disagree. Common sense gun law says. "No gun for this guy." Same with an armed robber who is let out.

4. Why would you give another gun to someone who proved they are too stupid or careless to be a responsible gun owner. Again, common sense gun law says, "No gun for this guy or gal."

5. Same deal. If someone proves they are not responsible with guns, it's foolish to then allow them to have another one.

 

[Ikari]

1. I know, but we are infringing on the prisoner's right to bear arms. Of course, this makes perfect sense. Hence, it is a common sense gun law.

far greater is infringed upon by jail. It's the one method through which government can legitimately infringe upon the rights of the individual, through due process of law.

2. Would you want John Hinkley to be allowed to buy a gun?

Don't really care, chances are we're never going to meet ever. Is he insane? Still? You have his medical records there in front of you? But here we go, you bring up one guy, I asked about in general. In general, how are you going to determine who is "crazy". Does everyone who wants a gun have to under go psychiatric evaluation? Who pays? Or do we allow open health records for anyone to read? Or do we have some institution more widely available to ensure proper mental health of all the people? Which then would require the open health records so private companies can see medical histories.

3. So, someone who used a gun to kill his spouse, serves 15 years and gets out can own another gun? I disagree. Common sense gun law says. "No gun for this guy." Same with an armed robber who is let out.

Appeal to emotions won't work with me. Yes, after he serves his time and complete probation, the full of his rights should be recognized again. If he is so "untrustworthy" as to never regain his rights, then why was he let out of prison in the first place.

How about this instead. Starting at the end of the probation period, the Government must prove why continued force is required against an individual who has completed all punishment. If they can bring enough evidence to the table every, let's say 3 years, against an individual to demonstrate they should not be allowed to have a firearm, then we can continue the use of force. If they cannot, then force ends.

4. Why would you give another gun to someone who proved they are too stupid or careless to be a responsible gun owner. Again, common sense gun law says, "No gun for this guy or gal."

Once punishment has ended, the full of rights need to be recognized again.

5. Same deal. If someone proves they are not responsible with guns, it's foolish to then allow them to have another one.

There is force of law, if they were criminally negligent, they can be held to those standards. Once punishment has ended, the full of rights need to be recognized again.

 

[Crimefree]

1) They are in jail...so pretty much only guards can have guns in jail.

Something most cannot understand.

2) Sure...but as you say, define crazy. Not only that, how are we testing for that? Does everyone who wants a gun have to under go psychiatric evaluation? Who pays? Or do we allow open health records for anyone to read? Or do we have some institution more widely available to ensure proper mental health of all the people? Which then would require the open health records so private companies can see medical histories.

Hell which one of them can determine with any accuracy what somebody will do in the future? I heard not only was it unconstitutional to punish for crimes as yet uncommitted, it is violation against all human rights agreements. It is called oppression and unconstitutional.

3) Once sentence is completed in full, punishment ends.

That is what we have courts for, to determine punishment. If they are a danger to the public and cannot be allowed to go free that is the court and governments problem. A gun control law cannot fix it. That is patently impossible. Many felonies have nothing to do with firearms and blanket laws are unjust, punishing those who have done nothing to deserve such punishment.

4) They can be punished for their crimes, but refer to 3

That is why we have courts to determine culpability and punishment. There is no need for silly blanket laws.

4 sic 5) Refer to 4

I love asking if we should punish vehicle owners who allow their vehicle to be stolen by criminas or used by their irresponsible offspring in crime? If not why not?

 

[calamity]

far greater is infringed upon by jail. It's the one method through which government can legitimately infringe upon the rights of the individual, through due process of law.



Don't really care, chances are we're never going to meet ever. Is he insane? Still? You have his medical records there in front of you? But here we go, you bring up one guy, I asked about in general. In general, how are you going to determine who is "crazy". Does everyone who wants a gun have to under go psychiatric evaluation? Who pays? Or do we allow open health records for anyone to read? Or do we have some institution more widely available to ensure proper mental health of all the people? Which then would require the open health records so private companies can see medical histories.



Appeal to emotions won't work with me. Yes, after he serves his time and complete probation, the full of his rights should be recognized again. If he is so "untrustworthy" as to never regain his rights, then why was he let out of prison in the first place.

How about this instead. Starting at the end of the probation period, the Government must prove why continued force is required against an individual who has completed all punishment. If they can bring enough evidence to the table every, let's say 3 years, against an individual to demonstrate they should not be allowed to have a firearm, then we can continue the use of force. If they cannot, then force ends.

Well, you bring up a couple good points. I guess my answer is I would not let murderers out of jail again, ever. So, problem solved.

Once punishment has ended, the full of rights need to be recognized again.



There is force of law, if they were criminally negligent, they can be held to those standards. Once punishment has ended, the full of rights need to be recognized again.

We put sex offenders on a lifetime list, banning them from all sorts of activities. I'm good with doing the same with gun crime offenders.

 

[Ikari]

Well, you bring up a couple good points. I guess my answer is I would not let murderers out of jail again, ever. So, problem solved.

If you can justify life without parole, OK then. But anything with a finite punishment time is finite.

We put sex offenders on a lifetime list, banning them from all sorts of activities. I'm good with doing the same with gun crime offenders.

Yeah, those lists cause more problems than they fix, they should be nixed.

 

[calamity]

If you can justify life without parole, OK then. But anything with a finite punishment time is finite.

We disagree. I'll support laws which ban violent criminals from ever again owning a gun, especially if said violence involved the use of a gun.

Yeah, those lists cause more problems than they fix, they should be nixed.

Maybe, maybe not. It is what it is. IMO, gun violators and sex violators should both be put on a list; their rights restricted for life.

 

[Ikari]

We disagree. I'll support laws which ban violent criminals from ever again owning a gun, especially if said violence involved the use of a gun.

That's infinite force, and is only justified in very specific situations. As I said, if the government wants to keep applying force beyond the punishment period set by the courts, then the government must make and defend its case for doing so.

Maybe, maybe not. It is what it is. IMO, gun violators and sex violators should both be put on a list; their rights restricted for life.

There's no maybe/maybe not about it. We've created areas where people who are thrown on that list have to live under overpasses or in the woods. It's unreasonable and unjustified, the premise of the lists were built upon emotional appeal.

These lists need to be done away with. Once one has completed punishment in full, the full of their rights needs to be recognized again.

 

[calamity]

That's infinite force, and is only justified in very specific situations. As I said, if the government wants to keep applying force beyond the punishment period set by the courts, then the government must make and defend its case for doing so.



There's no maybe/maybe not about it. We've created areas where people who are thrown on that list have to live under overpasses or in the woods. It's unreasonable and unjustified, the premise of the lists were built upon emotional appeal.

These lists need to be done away with. Once one has completed punishment in full, the full of their rights needs to be recognized again.

I don't disagree. But, what is happening is that instead of locking these POS criminals away from life, we let them out after a few years and place restrictions on them. I guess, I can live with B because it is too expensive to practice A.

 

[Ikari]

I don't disagree. But, what is happening is that instead of locking these POS criminals away from life, we let them out after a few years and place restrictions on them. I guess, I can live with B because it is too expensive to practice A.

No, that's not how it works. Finite punishment is finite. Either you throw them in jail for life without parole if they have committed a crime on that level, or at some point the punishment ends. Government is not authorized to apply infinite force without due process.

 

[Vox]

Nationwide stop and frisk with a long mandatory prison sentence for those caught with illegal guns would solve our gun violence problems in a year or two.

Is it so hard to figure out that when the bad guys are in prison the rest of us are safe?

 

[Ikari]

Nationwide stop and frisk with a long mandatory prison sentence for those caught with illegal guns would solve our gun violence problems in a year or two.

Is it so hard to figure out that when the bad guys are in prison the rest of us are safe?

Is it so hard to figure out that Free is not Safe nor will it ever be Safe?

I'm not looking for "safe", I'm looking for free.

Your solution is exactly what we need to be warning against, some big brother police state.

 

[calamity]

No, that's not how it works. Finite punishment is finite. Either you throw them in jail for life without parole if they have committed a crime on that level, or at some point the punishment ends. Government is not authorized to apply infinite force without due process.

Due process includes lifetime gun bans and sex offender lists. You don't want to be on a sex offender list, don't commit a sex crime. You don't want to be banned from owning a gun, don't commit a felony.

 

[jimbo]

No, that's not how it works. Finite punishment is finite. Either you throw them in jail for life without parole if they have committed a crime on that level, or at some point the punishment ends. Government is not authorized to apply infinite force without due process.

That's only partially correct. Incarceration is only part of the sentence. Society and judges sometimes imposes restrictions over and above the jail time. Convicted felons generally cannot vote or carry weapons. Sexual violators get put on lists and are not permitted within proximity of a school.

 

[Ikari]

Due process includes lifetime gun bans and sex offender lists. You don't want to be on a sex offender list, don't commit a sex crime. You don't want to be banned from owning a gun, don't commit a felony.

No, that's just stuff they made laws for later to excuse infinite force.

Once punishment is over, it's over. Infinite force is not justified in most of these cases.

 

[Ikari]

That's only partially correct. Incarceration is only part of the sentence. Society and judges sometimes imposes restrictions over and above the jail time. Convicted felons generally cannot vote or carry weapons. Sexual violators get put on lists and are not permitted within proximity of a school.

Yup, and all these further restrictions are increased uses of force outside the bounds of the court. There's no oversight. If the government wishes to continue to apply force, it needs to be the one to demonstrate that the continued use of force is necessary and justified.