• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For Those Wanting More Firearm Laws

PureX

Veteran Member
No one wants "more firearms laws".

What most people want are laws that EFFECTIVELY REGULATE the ownership and use of firearms, with the goal of keeping them away from people who are likely to misuse them, and kill or injure themselves or someone else.

What about this do you find so impossible to recognize, and understand? What about it do you find so unreasonable and difficult to tolerate? We already do this with all sorts of deadly and potentially deadly machines. And there are no machines MORE potentially deadly than firearms. So why do you see regulating their use as being such an outrageous, or impossible a goal?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No one wants "more firearms laws".

What most people want are laws that EFFECTIVELY REGULATE the ownership and use of firearms, with the goal of keeping them away from people who are likely to misuse them, and kill or injure themselves or someone else.

What about this do you find so impossible to recognize, and understand? What about it do you find so unreasonable and difficult to tolerate? We already do this with all sorts of deadly and potentially deadly machines. And there are no machines MORE potentially deadly than firearms. So why do you see regulating their use as being such an outrageous, or impossible a goal?
So what class of people are likely to use & misuse guns and kill people with?

it's a preventative measure obviously, so there must be a class of people that will qualify.

Who are they?
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
What most people want are laws that EFFECTIVELY REGULATE the ownership and use of firearms, with the goal of keeping them away from people who are likely to misuse them, and kill or injure themselves or someone else.

The NRA has said this for years, to enforce the laws already on the books.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
So what class of people are likely to use & misuse guns and kill people with?
The "class" that have a history of violence, domestic abuse, stalking, alcoholism and/or drug abuse, road raging, paranoia, narcissism, sociopathy, and a history of general irresponsibility. All behaviors that can in most instances be detected by comprehensive background checks, and by some effective personal testing.
it's a preventative measure obviously, so there must be a class of people that will qualify.

Who are they?
They are the people who think they need lots of assault weapons to defend themselves against an imaginary horde of 'foreign' home invaders or "black ops" mercenaries sent by the government to take away their freedom to own lots of assault weapons that they need to defend themselves against the horde of imaginary ... :)
 

PureX

Veteran Member
its not so much the gun its, the lack of moral values that's really the issue
Humans are human. I don't think there's much we can do about that. Except to try and keep the deadly weapons away from those humans that are most likely to abuse them.
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
The laws on the books are mostly useless, which is why the NRA supports enforcing them.

Which ones? The ones that bar convicted felons, domestic abusers, etc. from legally purchasing firearms? You may want to read the existing laws already on the books, try the BATF website.

What reforms do you suggest?

Most of your posts about guns and gun owners tend to revolve around strawmen, insults, and and half baked psuedo-psychological assessments, I doubt very seriously your views will ultimately fall very far from this. We have seen this in elected leaders as well where they say on one hand they want sensible gun control but privately admit the ultimate goal is confiscation.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
What reforms do you suggest?
I support regulating firearm ownership and use the same way we regulate the ownership and use of other potentially injurious and deadly machines (airplanes, for example). One would have to have a license to own and use firearms. And to get that license one would have to pass a set of tests designed to ensure that they are stable, responsible citizens, and that they are knowledgeable and proficient in the safe storage and use of the type of firearms they intend to own.

It's not rocket science, and it's not at all unreasonable given the number of gun injuries and deaths in this country.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
The laws on the books are mostly useless, which is why the NRA supports enforcing them.
What laws, now on the books, do you consider useless. Be very specific and include which Title 18 of the Gun Control Act Title 18 of the U.S.C. Chapter 44 you are referring to. see Gun Control Act
What laws, now on the books, do you consider good laws. Be very specific and include which Title 18 of the Gun Control Act Title 18 of the U.S.C. Chapter 44 you are referring to. see Gun Control Act
What laws, not on the books, would you consider useful. You should probably justify why they would be useful and what purpose they would serve along with how to enforce them.
 
Last edited:

Stanyon

WWMRD?
And to get that license one would have to pass a set of tests designed to ensure that they are stable, responsible citizens, and that they are knowledgeable and proficient in the safe storage and use of the type of firearms they intend to own.

Who pays for all of this? There is certainly a price tag on it and it may very well be cost prohibitive to lower income people, the people that live in the highest crime areas.

A test to see if they are stable and responsible citizens would seem to be self evident in the fact they have no criminal record, have a valid driver's license, and have not been adjudicated as mentally deficient, all of this is covered in the instant background check. I do think that better communication between states and agencies is important but this has been getting better.

Give a sample set of ten questions you would like to see on your test.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Who pays for all of this?
Who pays for getting a drivers licence? Who pays for certifications to use heavy machinery? Why the person wanting the gun, of course.

There is certainly a price tag on it and it may very well be cost prohibitive to lower income people, the people that live in the highest crime areas.
So buying a gun itself is not cost-prohibitive? It's just a simple "gun licence" you have to add to that cost, just like you add paying for a drivers licence and all that goes with that, in addition to the cost of the car. This is no different than anything else we have to pay for. If they can afford a gun, they can afford a licence.

Unless you think the government should starting giving out "gun stamps" in order for poor people to be able to afford guns? :)
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
I support regulating firearm ownership and use the same way we regulate the ownership and use of other potentially injurious and deadly machines (airplanes, for example). One would have to have a license to own and use firearms. And to get that license one would have to pass a set of tests designed to ensure that they are stable, responsible citizens, and that they are knowledgeable and proficient in the safe storage and use of the type of firearms they intend to own.

It's not rocket science, and it's not at all unreasonable given the number of gun injuries and deaths in this country.


Unfortunately for you, the right to own an airplane, car, bulldozer, etc., is not specifically written into the Constitution (without silly, 'feel-good' restrictions, btw). If this does not fit into your world view, then change the Constitution; or completely disregard any of the freedoms and liberties that exist in other amendments.
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
Who pays for getting a drivers licence?
So buying a gun itself is not cost-prohibitive? It's just a simple "gun licence" you have to add to that cost, just like you add paying for a drivers licence and all that goes with that, in addition to the cost of the car. This is no different than anything else we have to pay for. If they can afford a gun, they can afford a licence.

So how much?
Class III licences can be pretty pricey plus your tax stamps , transfer fees, etc.
 

cataway

Well-Known Member
its not so much the gun its, the lack of moral values that's really the issue
Humans are human. I don't think there's much we can do about that. Except to try and keep the deadly weapons away from those humans that are most likely to abuse them.
and when they cant get guns its knifes ,clubs , cars , trucks and even airplanes. its a lack of moral values
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
No one wants "more firearms laws".

What most people want are laws that EFFECTIVELY REGULATE the ownership and use of firearms, with the goal of keeping them away from people who are likely to misuse them, and kill or injure themselves or someone else.

What about this do you find so impossible to recognize, and understand? What about it do you find so unreasonable and difficult to tolerate? We already do this with all sorts of deadly and potentially deadly machines. And there are no machines MORE potentially deadly than firearms. So why do you see regulating their use as being such an outrageous, or impossible a goal?
Of course, the Constitutional right of people to own and use firearms says nothing about regulation. The only mention in the second amendment of regulation is a well regulated militia, which means the militia, if and when created, is well regulated. The right of the people, all the people to own firearms shall not be infringed.

Having a machine of any type is not a Constitutional right.

The problem with your argument is that common sense regulation is always just a step in banning firearms. Why? Because no matter the regulation, people are going to violate it and do evil things, thus another step must be taken.

In this debate, it seems that the dead from firearms use seem to be more valuable and important than death from other causes, like automobiles. Those are taken as simply the price to be paid for transportation. No one is running around with their hair on fire demanding over, and over, and over again changes in that area. Since the 16 to 30 age group is responsible for many more accidents than any other age group, why not simply ban them from driving, or at least teenagers? Few care about the deaths caused by these people.

"Regulation" is always defacto restriction. When it comes to firearms, it is restriction from emotion, rather than fact.

If you listen to the gun banners, the AR15 platform is the most evil creation of man. You would think that it is used in every murder that occurs. The look of a rifle built on this platform terrorizes people, it must be banned.

The facts are that it is the most popular rifle, and most popular hunting rifle in the country, It has been used in fewer murders than other types of firearms, the last time the gun grabbers got it banned, the ban had no effect on the murder rate. The gun grabbers don't care about the facts, they care about the emotion and optics.

I find it incongruous that people who advocate for a person to be able to choose suicide, are enraged that a person chooses suicide by using a firearm.

If those who make this choice regarding their own body and their own life were removed from the death by firearm statistics, the total would be cut in half.

I do believe in commonsense firearms laws. However, until there is an effective information sharing method between government agencies, they cannot be effective.

All of the current firearms laws should be strictly enforced. Gun crime cases should not be allowed to be plea bargained by throwing away the use of a firearm.

Rigorous background checks should be ensured.

"training" as far as the basic safety aspects of firearms, which are simple, should be provided at the point of sale, probably by a short video then a quiz before the firearm is handed to it's new owner.

Draconian firearms laws do not make people safer. I can say this as an "expert witness", why? Because I spent 25 years working in law enforcement in what is now "the peoples republic of california", with the most draconian firearms laws in the country. Time after time after time firearms are removed from people who by law are banned from owning them. Time after time after time murders are committed by people who have an illegal gun and are banned from having one. Time after time people are murdered because they are following the law and have no firearm for defense when a predator with a gun, who laughs at the laws, kills them.

The supply of illegal firearms is abundant, and no law to date has eliminated it, Hell, if you have enough money, you can buy a very illegal fully automatic firearm.

So, ANY firearms law is specifically directed at the good citizen who follows the law, the good citizen who will suffer because of restrictions that effect his/her constitutional right. It can inly apply to the bad guy once the crime with a firearm has been committed.

The so called red flag laws are simply unconstitutional. The confiscation of someones property who is not an imminent threat, and the warrantless search of the home with no probable cause or due process is unconstitutional. You cannot punish someone first for a crime that never happened, on the unverified word of someone, then force the property owner to go to court for the return of his property which was seized on unconstitutional grounds.

I have confiscated firearms from people who at the time posed a direct threat, the most notable being a woman who shoved a pistol in my gut with intent to shoot me, but was pulling the trigger guard rather than the trigger out of nervousness. I have counseled people who might act out who owned a gun, I have asked a spouse to secure a firearm in the house, temporarily. I have never, under color of the law, confiscated a firearm from anyone who is not an immediate threat.

Considering these, I truly would like to see what you view as reasonable firearms laws.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Who pays for all of this? There is certainly a price tag on it and it may very well be cost prohibitive to lower income people, the people that live in the highest crime areas.

A test to see if they are stable and responsible citizens would seem to be self evident in the fact they have no criminal record, have a valid driver's license, and have not been adjudicated as mentally deficient, all of this is covered in the instant background check. I do think that better communication between states and agencies is important but this has been getting better.

Give a sample set of ten questions you would like to see on your test.
No one has a Constitutional right that must be earned, then granted by the government. A right exists regardless of the government. Jumping through hoops, any or all hoops, ensures nothing, except government interjecting itself as an arbiter and grantor of a right.

I too would like to see this test.
 
Top