I'm just curious on what you think sensible gun control (LAWS) should look like. Me personally I don't like the hoops NJ make you jump through. How do you keep guns out of the hands of criminals. How can we keep firearms away from the mentally unstable. How do we respect the rights of law abiding citizens, While dealing with these issues. What do you think.???

All firearm transfers should go through a FFL. No more FTF sales for firearms.

That's a sticky wicket.

 

 

(imo of course) every single gun control law that has been passed is technically unconstitutional, based on the Founder's intent that the citizenry have access to the same weapons the govt does, so that they will always be able to overthrow a tyrannical govt, if neccesary. That WAS the primary intent of 2A.

 

However, I can totally understand the want of people being trained (and acquiring a license to prove that they are trained) in order to own firearms. I get that. In the old days, parents taught their children such things, but in today's dumbed-down world, that's not going to happen.

 

Other than that, the only other "sensible" (I hate that word- used by anti-gunners) gun control is the citizenry probably shouldn't be allowed to own mortars or tank rounds ( note the tanks themselves should be A-OK to own lol), etc.

 

But, automatic weapons? Should be legal. Hollowpoints, tracers, armor-piercing rounds, machine guns, belt-fed .50 cals..... all should be legal.

 

But the word "sensible" is used alot to make the pro-2A side "compromise"... as in, if we don't at least compromise with the anti-gunners wishes, we are somehow being UNsensible. BS.

 

 

Law-abiding, Bill of Rights-following Americans have been fighting the specter of "gun control" since 1837. And every time the anti-gunners yell "at least you need to COMPROMISE!"

 

If progressive gun control laws were fingers, toes, arms, and legs, and gun owners lost an appendage every time we "compromised" on this issue, we would be quadruple amputees by now.

 

 

Damn. Gotta' go to work now. Gonna' hate missing this thread today! Should be interesting.

There is no such thing as "sensible/reasonable control." Any attempt to control people’s actions through control of the things that are used as implements to those actions is inherently both insensible and unreasonable.

 

The only “sensible” thing is “sensible enforcement”. Enforce the 23,000 anti-gun laws that are already on the books sensibly. By that, I mean: prosecute criminals for illegal possession/use of firearms, do not persecute non-criminals for failing to navigate the labyrinth of gun laws.

 

Or, more simply: How’s come a gang banger in Camden is not worried about being caught with an illegally-possessed handgun on the sidewalk in front of a school, but normal law-abiding citizens are afraid of getting sent to prison for 7 years for the slightest screw-up on the way to the range?

I'm just curious on what you think sensible gun control should look like. Me personally I don't like the hoops NJ make you jump through. How do you keep guns out of the hands of criminals. How can we keep firearms away from the mentally unstable. How do we respect the rights of law abiding citizens, While dealing with these issues. What do you think.???

 

NICS Checks for FFL gun Purchaces and the 27 words that our founding fathers wrote...

No gun control laws.

All firearm transfers should go through a FFL. No more FTF sales for firearms.

 

Although I agree with this statement for obvious reasons, will it REALLY stop criminals from getting guns? I look at the founders wording in the 2A after the comma... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED".

 

Doing these background checks are essentially a registration. The government knows who, when, where, why. If the government changes this law, the criminal will find another way to illegally get guns.My goodness, we have our own government illegally running guns and it ain't just Obama.

 

We need to, as a society, get back to morals, values and take back this country. Parents need to start parenting again. We need to get people back to work and shrink the size of government and this propaganda machine.

 

Let me ask you this, if every (almost) household in the 1800's had a firearm with fewer incidences, then how could this be blamed on guns? It apparently is a culture shift towards secularism. Don't believe me? Do a search on 1963 findings after prayer was pulled out of school. Media desensitizing kids to violence, a culture of anything goes coupled with parents afraid to say "no". At some point all of these formulas come into play and lead to a self absorbed, mindless idiot with a vendetta for attention and urge for revenge. Also, doping up kids on all sorts of medications making them into mindless robots unable to make a distinction between reality and fiction.

 

Gun laws only hurt those that want to protect themselves because the criminal will always find a way to get a gun. BTW, twice as many people are killed with knives and hammers than rifles. Oh, btw, there are already very, very strict laws on murder. How's that working out? It's a societal thing and read into history because more people are killed (by FAR) after firearms are confiscated that when they are not. Try 2.5 million per year over 100 years as opposed to 30-80 killings per year like we witnessed at Sandy Hook.

All firearm transfers should go through a FFL. No more FTF sales for firearms.

 

I would support this in conjunction with the repealing of ALL other gun laws.. no need to limit mags... no need for a license to carry... no need to have NFA rules..

if you can pass the background check and prove not to be a criminal.. you can get a gun and carry it..

 

the ONLY reason I support background checks is they are logical... without a back ground check a criminal could easily buy a gun face to face.. no reason to over regulate guns.. but no reason to make them readily available to criminals either..

"Gun free" NYC recently had two incidents of mentally unstable individuals pushing riders in front of subway trains. I'd suggest controlling criminals and controlling the mentally ill would be more effective. I think there was only one mass school killing prior to the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 (CMHA), and it involved explosives, not guns.

 

 

NICS Checks for FFL gun Purchaces and the 27 words that our founding fathers wrote...

 

^^^ This

The only "sensible" thing is to repeal ALL gun laws and start over.

 

Since that will never happen, sensible doesent mean anything except feel good BS.

 

Your sensible and mine are vastly different as are the libs idea of it.

 

What i would deal with is full repeal of the NFA restrictions make suppressors cash and carry no poll tax, i think thats possible do due to noise concerns. All other NFA (sbr, sbs,FA,aow,DD)can continue with the $200 poll tax, but its paid/approved at the time of purchase and there is no BS "examiners" crap itll save tax dollars and create them at the same time.

 

The tax monies are then put into a fund that funds firearm saftey programs in schools like DARE, NRA already has that in place the eddie eagle program.

 

Whatever the ATFs budget was for the examiners and the NFA program is used to create a armed teacher program where teachers and admin can be trained to protect there school if needed. This program would be voluntary and include the equivelent traing as EMS would recieve.

 

As far as magazine capacity and firearm ownership eliminate it all at the federal level.No BS at all No database no registration. The only thing that will stay from the current "injustices" would be the nics check, expanded to include a new system thats available on the internet, phone, fax etc.

 

It should be streamlined so that non qualifiers are put in the system quicker and more efficently w/o excess BS. The new expanded NICS will be staffed by the prior ATF examiners. A flat fee of $15 dollars per NICS transaction will be one of the sole funding of NICS after a 3yr startup funding program.

 

A new "tax" like the pittman robertson act will place a 1.5% tax on all safes, firearm containers that will be the second funding source for NICS. The NICS fee and the Safe tax cannot be raised, but are tax deductable.

 

As far as the states are concerned they can be stricter than the feds if it is voted on by the public, to exclude registration, and purchase limits (screw you OGAM!!) The banning of firearms is strictly prohibited.

 

Magazine capacity laws cannot be less than 20rounds except for state/federal game laws.

 

States and the NFA, all NFA items can be restricted by the state EXCEPT for suppressors which are now considered a title 1 firearm.

 

There will be no ammunition restrictions at the federal level, at the state level it may be restricted to what is commonly in use by the police and military.

 

Firearms while commiting a crime. I believe what is on the books should be enforced. After 5 years of your release you can petition for your right to own firearms back. For 5 years after that anything more serious than a moving violation will get you back to where you started. Goodbye career criminals if you cant function in society and abide by the same laws your done.

 

I have ideas i understand that MOST wont go for it but i do think the only "sensable" thing with regard to firearm laws is to have a REAL disscussion about what it actually accomplishes W/O the BS agendas getting in the way, on BOTH sides.

All firearm transfers should go through a FFL. No more FTF sales for firearms.

 

Definitely not. This would give the Government a lot of power and would be a de facto registration.

Hmmm just reread my post let me clarify MY position NO laws abolish it all. No background checks no limits nothing constitutional carry etc. It WILL never happen i know that but thats my actual position.

 

My post was in reference to what may actually be doable if both sides get past the BS agendas and we have a REAL disscusion to really do something.

Sensible gun control? Proper stance, breath, sight picture and trigger squeeze...

 

As far as laws, no gun free zones, shall issue or constitutional ccw, no NFA, harsh mandatory penalties with no early release and no plea possibility for those who commit crimes with firearms.

Definitely not. This would give the Government a lot of power and would be a de facto registration.

 

exactly. people still are blind to the fact that 95% of all shooting are done with ILLEGAL guns; stolen or otherwise. national NICS will do absolutely nothing to save lives

can someone explain how gun registration is infringing on your rights... it is not saying you CAN'T have.. it is simply saying we know you have... I do not support gun registration.. but find it a little odd how overly against it most people are... in NJ almost all my guns were registered (purchased through an FFL)..

 

for those of you saying "most gun crimes are committed with illegal guns".. sure that might be true.. but why allow for even a small percentage of guns to get into the hands of criminals via an unchecked transaction...

You're talking about what to give up...sensible gun control is proper safety, locking them up when not on your person, and not pointing one where you don't want to kill.

The shootings are not a gun control problem, they're a mental health problem. ANY restriction on guns has no effect. They've banned drugs, but somehow everyone has them. You don't ban Corvettes because they have more horsepower than Civics ("why do you need all that horsepower"?) . You don't ban driving after 9 pm because drunk drivers kill people at night. They don't ban free speech because sometimes someone gets mad and strangles another person (no gun involved).

 

And how does our governement have any credibility trying to ban guns when they spew them all over the world by the boatload? This administration traffics guns everywhere...thousands into Mexico where BHO and his evil henchmen are responsible for hundreds of deaths. Our government needs gun control placed on THEM...not the other way around.

Our government needs gun control placed on THEM...not the other way around.

 

Thought that's what the 2A was for...

Hows about abolish all existing laws and add a new one that when agun is acquired, the purchser/receiver must pass acheck as to their criminal record/ mental commitment status. With no reason as to why the check is beong done or what may or maynot being purchased. I see no reason the powers that be need to know what Iam purchasing.

 

OK, my take. You're going to love this.

 

I do not support mandating all transfers go through FFLs. New guns fine but face to face sales are a different story. I support opening up NICS to allow for civilians to be able to perform a background check before transferring a firearm to an individual. There should be a civil penalty if a firearm is transferred without a background verification being performed and a criminal penalty if background check verification flags an individual as prohibited and the transaction is still completed. The only reason they can argue to require FFLs to perform the checks is so they can maintain a paper trail which is exactly what they are not supposed to be doing. They say it is about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals then my plan fits the bill without giving them paper trails.

Thought that's what the 2A was is for...

 

fixed that.

 

Wait a minute-- you were right:

Thought that's what the 2A is was for...

Yup...

Agreed!

 

I would support this in conjunction with the repealing of ALL other gun laws.. no need to limit mags... no need for a license to carry... no need to have NFA rules..

if you can pass the background check and prove not to be a criminal.. you can get a gun and carry it..

 

the ONLY reason I support background checks is they are logical... without a back ground check a criminal could easily buy a gun face to face.. no reason to over regulate guns.. but no reason to make them readily available to criminals either..

can someone explain how gun registration is infringing on your rights... it is not saying you CAN'T have.. it is simply saying we know you have... I do not support gun registration.. but find it a little odd how overly against it most people are... in NJ almost all my guns were registered (purchased through an FFL)..

 

for those of you saying "most gun crimes are committed with illegal guns".. sure that might be true.. but why allow for even a small percentage of guns to get into the hands of criminals via an unchecked transaction...

 

Because the BATFE and NJSP, should they decide to ban guns, can simply look up all our info, how many guns we have, and systematically raid people in the dead of night.

 

Or, they can simply do what they did with post-1986 machine guns and close the registry... oops.

can someone explain how gun registration is infringing on your rights... it is not saying you CAN'T have.. it is simply saying we know you have...

 

While your point of checks to see if a person is a prohibited person for all transfers and sales I could live with as long as we got rid of all the other laws on the books that do nothing to stop crimes with guns, registering them is none of their business. Remember history, it started that way in other places with some not such a great out come. I even think you might have even posted pics of some of the places from your vacation last year..

We all agree (I think) that people with violent felony convictions and seriously mentally ill people shouldn't own guns (with some arguing that even violent felons should be given a chance to regain their 2A rights after a probationary period). With that in mind: keep current background check system; add background checks for face to face private sales provided that they are free, take no more than 1 hour (with burden on government so that sale is free to proceed if results not back in 1 hour), and no permanent record kept. Imrpove mental health screening, treatment and reporting. National CCW reciprocity permit with permit holder required to pass a background check and certificate of completion of NRA personal protection outside the home or equivalent (with less restrictive state laws not pre-empted for residents of those states). Remove supressors from NFA catgeory.

Honestly, I don't get why we restrict the rights of former felons... If you did the crime and served the time, you're done. If you're still such a threat, then why are you out in the world?

Hughes Amendment?

What a sick joke on us (by that bastahd Charlie Rangel)

Honestly, I don't get why we restrict the rights of former felons... If you did the crime and served the time, you're done. If you're still such a threat, then why are you out in the world?

 

you should not be out in the world in many cases... a separate issue is to close the revolving door that is prison.. stop locking people up with social problems.. and start incarcerating people that are violent for longer periods of time..

 

to be honest... at face value I struggle with what you said.. because at the core I honestly agree with what you said.. in that you serve your time and come out.. and you MIGHT be a totally different person... lets face it a drug addicted 20 year old that robs a liquor store.. may NOT be the same guy 20 years later.. reformed.. with a full time job.. a wife.. and two kids.. people do change..

 

if penalties were harsher I could seriously consider agreeing with that.. especially for first time offenders.. but subsequent penalties would have to be SEVERE..

Honestly, I don't get why we restrict the rights of former felons... If you did the crime and served the time, you're done. If you're still such a threat, then why are you out in the world?

Because "Doing the time" (murder your mother with a hammer)

Out in 17 years. Whats he do? Kill twice more.

 

By denying a firearm to a felon, it is not taking away his rights. He gave up his rights by doing what he did.