Does anyone actually want a gun ban?

Post Reply New Topic

As opposed to reasonable regulations, like universal background checks and limits on clip/magazine size?

I don't like being "controlled" in any way, so.........

What exactly is "reasonable" as opposed to the gun laws we already have?
We already have background checks, NICS, so that's one thing you are apparently unaware of.
I like my magazines to be the way I like them, not how the government wants them.. ...

We insist that people who use the public roads prove that they can operate a motor vehicle safely and according to the traffic rules.

We can't we insist that people who carry fire arms about with them prove they can use them safely and according to the rules.

No one will be prevented from learning how to qualify as qualified safe fire arms users, except underage persons, persons with visual impairment (or problems with control of hands and arms) and persons convicted of violent crimes.

ruveyn

Yes, there are people that want to ban all guns for everybody but the government. "Reasonable" regulations is an incremental approach, we've seen what has happened in other countries. Our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

they already have background checks and many states require a formal license to purchase firearms.in many states on must take a safety coarse and interview with detectives to get a license.one must also take a hunters safety coarse to get a hunting license and that goes in all fifty states.

its possably the goverment may increase the information that the ATF data bases have access to but that could take years of legal debate to define what extra information the data bases are entitled too.

right now except for muzzleloaders no person can buy a gun legaly without a background check

Driving is a licences privileged while gun ownership is a right. There is a difference.
In most states the carry license applicant must attend a firearms safety class as it pertains to being armed in public and be required to shoot some rounds to demonstrate adequate proficiency. That and a be fingerprinted and have a criminal records check.

in massachusetts they use that same process just to own a shotgun.in vermont you need a safety coarse to buy a handgun and i dont know how concealed weapons permits in vermont works because very few people use them because they not usefull in vermont.

in vermont you can carry any gun openly in public as long as you dont conceal it.if on private property or in someones business they can ask you to leave your gun in the car but its not a crime,if one refused and they called the police the police could only ask you to leave.most vermonters carry hostered pistols and skip the concealed part

History has shown, even inside the US, that one final compromise on gun control never happens. "Reasonable" or "common sense" regulations have been proven to be nothing more than pages out of a playbook for a game of political football. Sooner or later there is always a new proposal for what "reasonable" should mean. For the gun control lobby, "compromise" is nothing more than a euphemism for "creeping incrementalism".

I'm all for mandatory safety courses (might keep accidents down) and usual background checks

I'm not for banning specific weapons and licenses -- licenses do the same thing as background checks, and it is just a bother to deal with (being as I come from a place that issues firearms licenses). Banning specific weapons doesn't affect anything -- killing unarmed innocents is just as easy with a double barrel duck gun or an AR-15 (you only need the ability to fire a round a second or two, which all modern metallic cartridge firearms are capable of)

I'm also for allowing other small arms to be legally purchased such as grenade launchers [and grenades] and other genuine military arms (you might just need to take out a tank someday). A parity between the populace and military needs to be kept IMO (far too much historical and current evidence pointing to this)

Last edited by Dillogic on 29 Dec 2012, 1:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Of course some people do. And hey, they probably vote Democrat.

Then again, there are some people who want laws ensuring white supremacy, and they probably vote Republican.

The important thing is to deal with people one at a time, instead of making sweeping assumptions about their opinions.

Once interpretation asserts that it is a right if one is in the militia. We have not had militia for many decades. We have a standing army. The Reserves are an ancillary to the standing army, not a militia.

ruveyn

Absolutely not. Another man has been killed in NYC by another whacko who pushed him on to the train tracks. We aren't going to ban trains now? It has nothing to do with protecting the populace, it is about control - most Liberals I know are control freaks to the max.

Yes, and that's been hashed out over and over by the Supreme Court. The consensus seems to be that the 2nd amendment affirms the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. How long do we have to split hairs over this?

2nd Amendment

If there were no guns, we can’t shoot each other, less people die, it’s as simple as that...

a

Long before there were fire arms there were rocks, fire, spears, swords, clubs and knives. Murder and mayhem were quite alive and well long before fire arms.

ruveyn