Gun Control

B

bpeter3196

Member
As has been noted so do ours however there are many provisions that don't change and should not: Laws prohibiting religions, the right to own property, unreasonable search and seizure, and the second amendment as a military backup may not hold the importance it once did however it gives me the right to posses the tools I need to defend myself with the same level of force that I may be faced with.

There are provisions to overrule citizen's rights, e.g. known criminals and the mentally disturbed are not granted these rights. With proper cause the government can invade a domicile or seize funds (e.g. drug dealers). These things are deliberately ambiguous to allow for different situations.
 
WhackAJack

WhackAJack

New member
Because a change in the Constitution can have far reaching ramifications. It's very ambiguous and changes can lead to new legal pressidents that may not have been intended.

Ultimately changing the second amendment is a moot point as it would have no affect on the availibilty of firearms here. The U.S. works on a free enterprise system that revolves around competition. Even criminal enterprises are looking for something to give them the edge over their competition. Adapt, adopt and evolve or become a victim; like it or not, that's the reality. Where there is a demand there will be someone looking to fill it.
 
M

muziqaddict

New member
Well, on the topic of laws, i believe there should be a law, whether it be constitutional or state, in which individuals should have psychological evaluations who wish to purchase a firearm, and/or any previous criminal activity, if you will, should be checked. Maybe this will help narrow down crazy people trying to obtain guns, like the VT gunman.

Also, gun-free zones may sort of produce problems. For one, if people can bring in guns in a gun-free zone, then what's the purpose, unless authorities are present. Second, i believe there are good, law abiding citizens who would protect others in such a situation. So, if gun-free zones are present, these people cannot act to help others if such a horrific situation should occur.
 
G

gjohnson9894

New member
You're right. The constitution doesn't protect anyone. It is the enforcement of the rights given there that protects us. The same as any law anywhere.
 
C

CARLGH

Member
Background checks with every gun purchase already check for criminal history as well as prior evidence of mental illness (if you've ever been committed, you can't buy a gun).

A "gun-free" zone simply means peaceable citizens are disarmed. I guarantee you could go into any high school which is declared a "drug-free" zone in this country on almost any given day, and if you searched the entire school, all cars, and all people, you would certainly find at least a bag of pot. Gun-free zones are a hazard for the same reasons. People who would do anything wrong or harmful with the guns are obviously not law-abiding citizens and will not respect the "gun-free" zone. In effect, they're useless for their intended purpose.
 
M

McGuyver

Member
I personally think the best way to discourage gun use is to have penalties so severe for using them illegally that it would discourage anyone using them. 20 years seems reasonable to me for a first offense in which a gun was present regardless of whether it was drawn or used. If discharged, life seems like a reasonable first offense penalty.
 
B

boogie_4wheel

Member
When are we going to enact car confiscation legislation. Tens of thousands of people are killed every year by these deadly weapons. With public and private transporation available, there is absolutely no reason for these deadly weapons to be in the hands of private citizens.

How many lives is it going to take before we come to our senses and outlaw these deadly devices which have no business being in private hands?

And what is all this nonsense about cars do not kill people, people kill people? Cars kill people, plain and simple.

I see car dealerships in every city selling hundreds of models of these deadly weapons. Choose your favorite color for destructive purposes.

Stop the insanity and join Parents Against Car Violence. Get these deadly machines off our streets NOW!!!!
 
C

Carrie[braceyourself]

New member
Possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony is in itself a felony with a mandatory 10 year sentence. 20 would be fine with me too, but the issue is that prosecutors tend to plea down these charges instead of sticking the bastards with every charge possible at the maximum available sentences.
 
I

IsClareLike

New member
While its an interesting parody, its pretty off the mark.

Guns sole purpose is death. Thats why they were made, and thats what they were designed to do. Cars where designed to move people from A to B. Just because some people cant control them, doesnt make them anywhere in the same league as guns.

Ban people having guns in the their home, or carrying them. Lock them up at the shooting range, and dont limit what weapons you can use. I think everyone having to lock up their home snub nose might be less resistent if it means they get to shoot an Ak at the shooting range.
 
J

johnathan

Member
A gun's sole purpose is transportation as well. It's to get a 55 to 800 grain slug from the cartridge case to a point the shooter desires. That's it. I have one handgun which I solely use to punch holes in paper and coke cans. It's great fun. We can already use whatever firearms we want at a range if we go to the right one (depending on what state we're in). A simple distraction isn't going to work here, and there's no justifiable reason to do so anyway.
 
L

lololkoko

New member
No justifable reason? Tell that to the 30 000 people that get shot to death every year.

Guns werent made to shoot holes in cans. Thats a bb guns job.
 
B

belairjr

Member
Here is something towards that end that is being hotly debated right about now:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030201a.htm



that's a bit... but there is a two page article on it and the ensuing debate if you follow the link. I also think this is only at the state level for the state of California... not at the Federal level across the board.
 
J

JessN

Member
I personally don't have much of a problem with it. I think that anything that carries the responsibility that owning a gun does (and it does entail a lot of responsibilities) - should definitely have some proficiency standards attached to it.

I'm sure the pro-gun-freedom-at-all-costs crowd will inevitably say how it's eroding away their rights. Of course the focus is going to come down to two words...

1) Rights

2) Privelages

and the all the gory details and ensuing debate about the intent of the 2nd amendment
 
A

armatose

Member
You may be wrong there, if it can be presented well they may be able to enlist the NRA to administer the tests as the NRA does with many state required liscensing exams for hunters. The biggest mistake people make with regards to the NRA is that the NRA does more for gun saftey and proper use of handguns than any other organisation in the US they also back many of the background check laws so long as the laws don't restrict what type of firearms can be sold.
 
T

TheReverendSoleil

Member
That's the problem. It should be mandatory. No plea bargains. If the people know they are going to be going away for a minimum of 20 years if they committ a crime with a gun, they will at least give it a thought.
 
D

Delgarits

Member
It would be interesting if it ever came to pass. As with anything and guns... getting the money and political power of the NRA behind will certainly give it more of a chance than just about anything else.
 
Top