What gun control would you actually support?

[zbrod]

Yeah I'm still here, lurking in the shadows, waiting for my chance to start another flame war... No but really, I've been reading a lot of the threads about injustices visited upon gun owners* by the state, and generally I sympathize so contain your rage. I've also read many posts about how, if the state had enforced their existing laws, such and such incident wouldn't have been an issue, or have alluded to a set of "acceptable" gun laws/restrictions that are not actually enumerated anywhere. So I ask you: what, if any, gun regulation do you support in order to keep them out of the hands of bad guys (people seem to generally agree this is a legitimate aim)?

Also, again to avoid cluttering the forum: I've decided that for my first gun I want a .45 1911. Recommendations? I'm looking at the S&W's.


*There was one thread about a guy who had C4, and people were outraged it had been taken from him. I was kinda surprised.

 

[CRSIII]

I want my c4 and a rocket launcher too.

 

[KMS]

None...

 

[william_munny]

I wouldn't support any sort of regulation for firearms. If you want to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, you don't let the bad guys out of jail.

And as for the bad guys who just haven't got caught and gone to jail yet... well, they have the same ability to mess their lives up that I do. That's just life, and I don't want to change it.

 

[MACGYVR]

Dumb question.

The founding fathers made the answer perfectly clear.

 

[cekim]

Don't bother trying to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, keep bad guys off the handles of guns. I'd support that gun control measure.

I think we see in Libya what 2A was intended to do - their government had left their people powerless against them without outside intervention.

You will not stop bad people from doing bad things or even getting hold of weapons to extend their influence. The only thing you can do with gun control is infringe on the liberty of the law abiding.

I support harsh sentencing for violent crime such that, once your guilt has been proven in a court of law, you do not get a second chance to bring harm.

I support ending the war on drugs to stop the whole-sale criminalization of entire swaths of our population and funding foreign cartels and drug/war lords.

There is absolutely no measure of infringement on the rights of innocent people that would support. A great deal of the laws we already have need to be removed from the books, much less adding more, that cookie jar is closed my friend...

 

[whatluck]

 

[el duderino]

Use both hands.

 

[Dija]

Whatever will allow me to have AAA in my backyard. And maybe an APC or two in the garage.

 

[wahsben]

Dumb question.

The founding fathers made the answer perfectly clear.

This! The founders realized that any gun control would create an imbalance of power that would only benefit tyrants and criminals since they do not obey the law.

 

[Tim94gt]

I want my c4 and a rocket launcher too.

+1, I'm with Carl on this one.....

I will not support any sort of gun control, regulation or whatever else they want to call it.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Don't feed the troll.

 

[sportycliff]

0

 

[Mike S]

I would fully support strong gun control with my weak hand. This would be a good thing, ambidexterity!

 

[newenglandshooter]

Don't bother trying to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, keep bad guys off the handles of guns. I'd support that gun control measure.

I think we see in Libya what 2A was intended to do - their government had left their people powerless against them without outside intervention.

You will not stop bad people from doing bad things or even getting hold of weapons to extend their influence. The only thing you can do with gun control is infringe on the liberty of the law abiding.

I support harsh sentencing for violent crime such that, once your guilt has been proven in a court of law, you do not get a second chance to bring harm.

I support ending the war on drugs to stop the whole-sale criminalization of entire swaths of our population and funding foreign cartels and drug/war lords.

There is absolutely no measure of infringement on the rights of innocent people that would support. A great deal of the laws we already have need to be removed from the books, much less adding more, that cookie jar is closed my friend...

Basically this.

 

[cekim]

I would fully support strong gun control with my weak hand. This would be a good thing, ambidexterity!

I don't know, I think we should consider disarming the "left."

 

[joehaus]

To the OP, please fill in the blanks.

" the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall ____ __ ______"

If you want gun control, move to Canada.

 

[OCB]

I have a full size S&W 1911PD that I like a lot.

 

[Blitz1]

Go back to DU.

The answer to your question is none. Criminals don't abide by laws.

 

[Mike S]

I don't know, I think we should consider disarming the "left."

Cekim just won the internet for the day, this thread can be closed now, nothing to see here, move along...

 

[Martlet]

Zilch

 

[Rmccar4318]

2A!

 

[jaymce]

Trigger control ... Practice on your keyboard.

 

[AfterFX]

I own a gun/s. I am in control of it. End of story.

 

[ochmude]

Perhaps a gun law that makes it a criminal act, punishable by actual prison time, to enact legislation contrary to the 2A?

 

[cekim]

Zbrod, I think you are going to find that on this issue, like many, your side of the political spectrum has overplayed their hand for decades now. We are so far past anything that we'd find acceptable that the concept of "compromise" is no longer available to us, we need to start working on taking away much of the power you have given to government.

Compromise requires agreeing on a point between two opinions, but the spectrum looks like this:

X <------------------> Y

Where:
X=New Deal, Welfare State, BarryCare, Medicare, Social Security, BarryCare Wealth Redistribution through taxation, State Sponsored Union thugary, violation of 1A, 2A, 4A, 5A, etc...

Y=GET OFF MY LAWN.

We are already pegged on your side of the spectrum. If you think we can allow you to go further, you are mistaken.

 

[el duderino]

I want my c4 and a rocket launcher too.

Well im not sure if C4 is covered under 2A, but it should be.

 

[M1911]

None...

This.

 

[cekim]

Well im not sure if C4 is covered under 2A, but it should be.

It is - notice they did not say, "knives, cannon, musket, etc..." they said "arms," because they meant to describe the elements they needed to effectively defend themselves against their own tyrannical government.

 

[gunclinger]

I wouldn't support any sort of regulation for firearms. If you want to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, you don't let the bad guys out of jail.

And as for the bad guys who just haven't got caught and gone to jail yet... well, they have the same ability to mess their lives up that I do. That's just life, and I don't want to change it.

I would basically agre with this with perhaps minimal exceptions. If jail is about punishment and rehab of criminals, then take it seriously and sentence accordingly. And habitual criminals should just be permanently jailed. I have no problem with incredibly serious sentences for gun (or other weapon) crime. And I don't mean some BS charge put upon someone defending their life and property...