Where do you stand?[W:452]

This poll question addresses what you think the laws and the constitution should say about firearms in your ideal scenario.

Re: Where do you stand?

Did you mean that to be a radio button poll, or a check box poll?

Because I'd answer in the affirmative for these two:

-Federal registration and/or licensing should be established.
-Gun shows should be more regulated or banned.



Edit: Also, I'm sitting right now. Not sure if that should play into your thread or not.

Re: Where do you stand?

brothern said:

Did you mean that to be a radio button poll, or a check box poll?

Because I'd answer in the affirmative for these two:

-Federal registration and/or licensing should be established.
-Gun shows should be more regulated or banned.



Edit: Also, I'm sitting right now. Not sure if that should play into your thread or not.

Click to expand...

I echo "brothern's" comments & choices, categorically & exactly - I couldn't vote as desired for those two choices due to the poll mechanics.

Re: Where do you stand?

Guns and ammunition should be kept out of the hands of anyone who would use them illegally.

Re: Where do you stand?

I voted "other" only because the first choice "no restrictions" is too broad. There has to be some restrictions. Convicted felons shouldn't be permitted for example, mentally ill restricted, age restrictions, etc.

As for type of firearm, magazine capacity, caliber etc....there should be no restrictions, no registrations.

Re: Where do you stand?

The only gun control I could ever entertain is barring felons from guns and age restrictions of no higher than 18.

Unfortunately (this is in regards to felons), until someone can come up with the least restrictive means of accomplishing that, maybe even that is a waste of time. Chances are, they'll just get their guns illegally anyways. BUT, as I shall reiterate, if there actually was an effective way of barring felons from owning guns, I wouldn't give a rat's ass.

Otherwise, no gun control. I'm fine with laws that state that if a crime is committed with a gun, the given sentence is automatically the maximum that that particular crime has, etc.

Re: Where do you stand?

The right to keep and bear arms simply should not be infringed and that includes the sale or other transfer of firearms between any two people. That being said, I absolutely support enhanced penalties for crimes committed with the use of a firearm and rescinding the right of those lawfully deemed a danger to themselves and/or to others to own or possess firearms.

Re: Where do you stand?

shrubnose said:

Guns and ammunition should be kept out of the hands of anyone who would use them illegally.

Click to expand...

Bitchin' idea!! How the hell do you propose we sort out who among us will act illegally?

Re: Where do you stand?

DifferentDrummr said:

This poll question addresses what you think the laws and the constitution should say about firearms in your ideal scenario.

Click to expand...

There's a large number of possibilities between your options 1 and 2 and a large number of people who might think that no regulation is too little the existing regulations are too much

Re: Where do you stand?

shrubnose said:

Guns and ammunition should be kept out of the hands of anyone who would use them illegally.

Click to expand...

Is this meant to be satirical or sarcastic?

Re: Where do you stand?

Chomsky said:

I echo "brothern's" comments & choices, categorically & exactly - I couldn't vote as desired for those two choices due to the poll mechanics.

Click to expand...

No worries, you two can simply check the "Other" option.

Re: Where do you stand?

Luftwaffe said:

The only gun control I could ever entertain is barring felons from guns and age restrictions of no higher than 18.

Unfortunately (this is in regards to felons), until someone can come up with the least restrictive means of accomplishing that, maybe even that is a waste of time. Chances are, they'll just get their guns illegally anyways. BUT, as I shall reiterate, if there actually was an effective way of barring felons from owning guns, I wouldn't give a rat's ass.

Otherwise, no gun control. I'm fine with laws that state that if a crime is committed with a gun, the given sentence is automatically the maximum that that particular crime has, etc.

Click to expand...

Having the law forbidding felons from having guns gives another prosecutorial tool; even if you can't prove they committed the robbery or murder after a prior felony coviction, you may be able to prove they have a gun. So, while such laws don't stop individuals from breaking them (no law does), it gives a mechanism for preventing them from causing further harm. Which is why laws that restrict otherwise lawful citizens rights are so repulsive: it turns them into criminals for no good reason. This includes NFA, "assault-weapon" bans, magazine capacity limits, etc. Apparently, everyone is assumed guilty when it comes to these items for some bizarre reason.

Re: Where do you stand?

Lutherf said:

The right to keep and bear arms simply should not be infringed and that includes the sale or other transfer of firearms between any two people. That being said, I absolutely support enhanced penalties for crimes committed with the use of a firearm and rescinding the right of those lawfully deemed a danger to themselves and/or to others to own or possess firearms.

Click to expand...

Right, we really need to worry about your right to put a loaded weapon in the hands of a mass murderer. That's a really important right to defend...

Re: Where do you stand?

Absentglare said:

Right, we really need to worry about your right to put a loaded weapon in the hands of a mass murderer. That's a really important right to defend...

Click to expand...

What are you blabbering about? Read the last part of his comment

Re: Where do you stand?

DifferentDrummr said:

This poll question addresses what you think the laws and the constitution should say about firearms in your ideal scenario.

Click to expand...

I am sorry as I can't take part, there is no op to provide information. It is assumed everyone knows all the details, and therefore plays directly to the pro gun crowd or the informed anti-gun crowd, assuming any of them actually have information.

I can't play because all I have is myth, conjecture, and isolated incidents.

You need to know things like "how many crimes are committee as a result of guns sold at gun shows? Existing gun laws are so varied I could be brought down by a swat team in California for the same Dear Slayer I used in Montana. How can I answer that question?

All civilian firearms should be banned? Is there a movement for that? And if so how serious?

On this topic, any poll has to be presented with facts, so at least when the myth starts pouting in some people might be able to keep up.

I will part with this, I used to be a big supporter of strict gun control. I still do not see a valid use for military grade hardware available to anyone.

Having said that, how many gun deaths are at the hands of legal weapons?
How many crimes are committed by legal weapons?
How many legal weapons owners commit violent crimes?
What is the percentage of crimes committee by illegal weapons?
What is the ratio of crimes committed with guns by illegal immigrants?

I strongly believe you already have sufficient gun control with the exception of military grade, and what you really need is enforcement, better training of owners, and better enforcement on the trafficking of illegal weapons.

Re: Where do you stand?

Gaius46 said:

There's a large number of possibilities between your options 1 and 2 and a large number of people who might think that no regulation is too little the existing regulations are too much

Click to expand...

No poll can cover the entire range of possibilities. That's the reason for an "Other" option.

Re: Where do you stand?

shrubnose said:

Guns and ammunition should be kept out of the hands of anyone who would use them illegally.

Click to expand...

I wish you luck on that impossible task.

Re: Where do you stand?

shrubnose said:

Guns and ammunition should be kept out of the hands of anyone who would use them illegally.

Click to expand...

How exactly do you propose to do that?

Re: Where do you stand?

Luftwaffe said:

What are you blabbering about? Read the last part of his comment

Click to expand...

It's funny, when it's a $2 trillion dollar war where we lose 4,400 American lives, it's good to be proactive. That was a good decision.

When it's about handing over a loaded gun to someone with aggression problems, mental illness, or a record as a violent criminal, let's just be reactive and scream bloody murder at any attempt to be proactive.

Why? Because i don't care if some other American dies for no reason. I'm a conservative.

Sigh...

Re: Where do you stand?

Absentglare said:

It's funny, when it's a $2 trillion dollar war where we lose 4,400 American lives, it's good to be proactive. That was a good decision.

When it's about handing over a loaded gun to someone with aggression problems, mental illness, or a record as a violent criminal, let's just be reactive and scream bloody murder at any attempt to be proactive.

Why? Because i don't care if some other American dies for no reason. I'm a conservative.

Sigh...

Click to expand...

Thanks for letting us know up front you have no interest in any meaningful discussion on the subject. A real time saver that.

Re: Where do you stand?

Absentglare said:

Right, we really need to worry about your right to put a loaded weapon in the hands of a mass murderer. That's a really important right to defend...

Click to expand...

Well, if the person asking for a gun says that he wants it so that he can kill 20 people at a shopping mall I figure that would fall into the "danger to themselves and/or others" category. Other than that, how do you propose we determine whether someone will decide to become a mass murderer in a week or a month or a year?

Re: Where do you stand?

Absentglare said:

It's funny, when it's a $2 trillion dollar war where we lose 4,400 American lives, it's good to be proactive. That was a good decision.

When it's about handing over a loaded gun to someone with aggression problems, mental illness, or a record as a violent criminal, let's just be reactive and scream bloody murder at any attempt to be proactive.

Why? Because i don't care if some other American dies for no reason. I'm a conservative.

Sigh...

Click to expand...

Well...

#1 I'm a libertarian
#2 I believe the Iraq War was moronic
#3 those are too subjective. My brother was classified as having anger issues when he was younger and he has yet to ever even knock someone out or even go after people. And besides, you can't be proactive in such a way that you just start ****ting on the rights of the entirety. As for your mentally ill argument, Lutherf agrees with you, but his process is more legally sound. He doesn't want crazies having guns but in order to determine if someone is a crazy they would have to go to court to determine whether or not they are adjudicated mentally incompetent.

Libarulz need to go to reading classes...

Re: Where do you stand?

Lutherf said:

Well, if the person asking for a gun says that he wants it so that he can kill 20 people at a shopping mall I figure that would fall into the "danger to themselves and/or others" category. Other than that, how do you propose we determine whether someone will decide to become a mass murderer in a week or a month or a year?

Click to expand...

Meh **** it, in progressive land you just assume everyone has that temper. Therefor, it becomes logically sound to stick everyone the middle finger.

Oh wait, government, both local and federal, are exceptions to that rule.

Re: Where do you stand?

Luftwaffe said:

Meh **** it, in progressive land you just assume everyone has that temper. Therefor, it becomes logically sound to stick everyone the middle finger.

Oh wait, government, both local and federal, are exceptions to that rule.

Click to expand...

And therein lies my single biggest beef with liberals. I absolutely ABHOR the idea that everyone is out to get everyone else. Those who believe that everyone except themselves is a threat tend to be the ones most threatening to society and that's especially true when they gain political power.

Re: Where do you stand?

Absentglare said:

Right, we really need to worry about your right to put a loaded weapon in the hands of a mass murderer. That's a really important right to defend...

Click to expand...

Really?

Your play to the dramatics failed here, hyperbole is usually a sign of ignorance.

For the record, please list at least ten mass murders that could have been prevented with gun control, and what form that would take. What is the waiting list? What are the qualifications? What signs are the clerks to look for? How will they be trained? and how much will it cost.

The truth is this. The United States tops the world for gun deaths in advanced countries, you beat Uruguay. Canada is among the lowest, beat by Sweden and Switzerland, all three countries have very lax ownership laws, in Switzerland every family has a rifle. Canada's gun control laws are far more lax than the US, and we have, per capita more gun owners, because we hunt.

The only valid conclusion that can be drawn for that is: "Gun control has no impact on gun crime."

The so called liberals in the US hate hearing this. The problem is not guns, not the people who are allowed to have them, but your whole gimme, gimme culture. You have generations on welfare, blacks vs whites in every issue, crumbling infrastructure and hopelessness across the land because of legislative pandering for five generations. You have whole cities of people who have been told they have a right to this and that, and expect free everything...and that generation gets frustrated watching their jobs go to illegals...and on and on.

The US has been unable to fix its most serious social problems since Kennedy, you are playing politics with everything from gun control to illegal aliens, and you are paying the price for the vote buying by the Clintons and Obama.