Gun Control Laws
Many members here loudly claim that there should be NO gun control laws. They say such things as only behavior, etc. should be controlled. A few members that have gotten my attention are even active LEO's. Now, I am not a liberal, I have owned guns for about 50 years and I also don't like gun control laws.
But if we don't get our argument/position right, we will have a harder time obtaining our rights. So I don't agree with just loudly demanding "no gun control laws."
I asked on LEO member who takes that stance if people sentenced to jail/prison could retain their guns. He laughed at that and maybe I did present that question in a not so good way. So let me try again.
In this "no gun control world", can the prisoner's attorney who comes into the jail/prison keep/carry their handguns? What about family members coming to visit? If the LEO maintains that the attorneys & family members should not be able to carry their handguns into the prisons/jail while they confer with their clients, to enforce that would require a gun control law.
The point I am trying to make is that anybody who wants to just flatly claim they support a "no gun control world", if presented with various secenarios, will at some point agree something like "well, in that partricular case I agree with gun control laws..
JMHO
But if we don't get our argument/position right, we will have a harder time obtaining our rights. So I don't agree with just loudly demanding "no gun control laws."
I asked on LEO member who takes that stance if people sentenced to jail/prison could retain their guns. He laughed at that and maybe I did present that question in a not so good way. So let me try again.
In this "no gun control world", can the prisoner's attorney who comes into the jail/prison keep/carry their handguns? What about family members coming to visit? If the LEO maintains that the attorneys & family members should not be able to carry their handguns into the prisons/jail while they confer with their clients, to enforce that would require a gun control law.
The point I am trying to make is that anybody who wants to just flatly claim they support a "no gun control world", if presented with various secenarios, will at some point agree something like "well, in that partricular case I agree with gun control laws..
JMHO
0
-
+1 Do we really want felons, rapists, drug addicts and other winners in society running around with fully automatic machine guns. I for one sure do not. Some laws really are "common sense", like not allowing a 5 year old to purchase a handgun..... but some of the laws really do go overboard. Not no gun control, but gun control that makes real sense. 0 -
Most jails don't even let LEO's carry into their buildings. You must check your guns in before entering. This is for safety only. You don't want a gun to find its way into a confinement facility. Any attorney, and or guest I am sure would also need to check them if they lived in a carry state.
Trinity +++0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Many members here loudly claim that there should be NO gun control laws. They say such things as only behavior, etc. should be controlled. A few members that have gotten my attention are even active LEO's. Now, I am not a liberal, I have owned guns for about 50 years and I also don't like gun control laws.
But if we don't get our argument/position right, we will have a harder time obtaining our rights. So I don't agree with just loudly demanding "no gun control laws."
I asked on LEO member who takes that stance if people sentenced to jail/prison could retain their guns. He laughed at that and maybe I did present that question in a not so good way. So let me try again.
In this "no gun control world", can the prisoner's attorney who comes into the jail/prison keep/carry their handguns? What about family members coming to visit? If the LEO maintains that the attorneys & family members should not be able to carry their handguns into the prisons/jail while they confer with their clients, to enforce that would require a gun control law.
The point I am trying to make is that anybody who wants to just flatly claim they support a "no gun control world", if presented with various secenarios, will at some point agree something like "well, in that partricular case I agree with gun control laws..
JMHO
TR,
The scenario you describe would be regarding the facility's rules, not the law of the land.
And yes, a convict who has paid his or her debt should have their rights restored.
Nice try though.0 -
Bad people don't obey any laws so what we have is " no gun control for bad people but all kinds of laws that effect good people. I think the majority understands some RULES, it's the Laws that fail to allow one to protect one's self from the unlawful bad oeople is what is at stake. IMHO 0 -
YOU are part of the problem. IF felons want to, THEY WILL CARRY AROUND FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ANYWAY, REGARDLESS OF THE LAWS IN PLACE!!!!!!!! THATS WHY THEY ARE FELONS!!!!
Are you really *that* dense to not see this?
Some people just amaze me. Pull your head out of your butt and THINK for once.
Merc (disgusted by a so called "gun owner")
quote:Originally posted by ladams
+1 Do we really want felons, rapists, drug addicts and other winners in society running around with fully automatic machine guns. I for one sure do not. Some laws really are "common sense", like not allowing a 5 year old to purchase a handgun..... but some of the laws really do go overboard. Not no gun control, but gun control that makes real sense.0 -
Well, yeah, but if all the laws were changed to reflect the "no gun laws" rules that many here defend, on what legal basis/reason would they have to give if a prison or jail said "well, that no gun law rule does not apply here. Here you CANNOT possess a gun." What I am trying to say that even if there was to become a "no gun law" society, there would still have to be places where no guns were allowed to be carried by peaceful, lawful citizens.
So, if that is the case, how would that square with the general "no gun laws" society? Seems like what some towns have done in some states regarding the CCW laws. They tried to say that even though you had a statewide CCW, you cannot carry in our town (or many areas of that town were restricted).
So, even if you had a "no gun laws" society, wouldn't you still have some gun laws? And if that is the case aren't we fooling ourselves by demanding "no gun laws?"
Just wondering.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Well, yeah, but if all the laws were changed to reflect the "no gun laws" rules that many here defend, on what legal basis/reason would they have to give if a prison or jail said "well, that no gun law rule does not apply here. Here you CANNOT possess a gun." What I am trying to say that even if there was to become a "no gun law" society, there would still have to be places where no guns were allowed to be carried by peaceful, lawful citizens.
So, if that is the case, how would that square with the general "no gun laws" society? Seems like what some towns have done in some states regarding the CCW laws. They tried to say that even though you had a statewide CCW, you cannot carry in our town (or many areas of that town were restricted).
So, even if you had a "no gun laws" society, wouldn't you still have some gun laws? And if that is the case aren't we fooling ourselves by demanding "no gun laws?"
Just wondering.
TR,
Again, your are referring to a facility rule, not the law of the land,
EG:
I don't allow smoking in my home, it is not against the law, but I don't permit it.
Don0 -
I think what TR is trying to say is that in a true "no gun control" society.
There wouldn't be gun control in "facilities" if in a truly "no gun control" society.
My .020 -
OK isee what you (trfox) are saying and I would have said everyone agrees that there need to limits as to the carrying, or owning, of a firearm. but then I read mercurys post and I guess that this is a subject that won't be agreed upon.
Personally I think that there has to be limits (let the screaming begin) those who have commited crimes should not be allowed to carry or own a gun, not should the be carried into a jails or nut houses.
Yes I know that they are going to carry anyway even bigger guns than I have but there has to be a line in the sand saying ENOUGH. already.
I too have owned guns for 50 or so years and carried when it was unlawful, but I carried for my personal protection, and I never used the gun to commit a crime nor did I ever put myself in a position that I came under the scrutinity of leo's even though many in my cumminity knew that I had one.0 -
Is this a build up to, "So see it is really best the NRA sold out after all."?
Which part of "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." do you not understand?0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
Is this a build up to, "So see it is really best the NRA sold out after all."?
Which part of "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." do you not understand?
It's for the children.0 -
Do you think that we should provide arms to the inmates of the city and county jails, so as not to infringe upon there rights? Or maybe we should wait until they get out, thatway they will have a way to get bus fare for the ride home? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by ladams
+1 Do we really want felons, rapists, drug addicts and other winners in society running around with fully automatic machine guns. I for one sure do not.
Well YOU TRUST these evil people enough to let them out of jail and have all the guns they want now. The guns they own are not legal but what do they care, they are criminals. The only difference now is that NON CRIMINALS are not allowed to have them.
You DO believe in not to allow NON CRIMINAL people to have them. Supporting "gun control" only works for people WILLING to follow the law. Criminals have proven they are not willing to follow laws so why will this "ONE" law stop them?
Read my tag line.
I use to feel the same about some Laws being ok, but I have seen the light and found I was wrong.0 -
Only 3 restrictions are acceptable.
1)Firearms must be carried or towed up to a 10 ton vehicle or less.[:o)][:o)]
2)Must be a citizen with no felony convictions.
3)Lawful citizens get first pick of all Military surplus weapons, 1st one is free with 5k rds ammo per year.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Well, yeah, but if all the laws were changed to reflect the "no gun laws" rules that many here defend, on what legal basis/reason would they have to give if a prison or jail said "well, that no gun law rule does not apply here. Here you CANNOT possess a gun." What I am trying to say that even if there was to become a "no gun law" society, there would still have to be places where no guns were allowed to be carried by peaceful, lawful citizens.
So, if that is the case, how would that square with the general "no gun laws" society? Seems like what some towns have done in some states regarding the CCW laws. They tried to say that even though you had a statewide CCW, you cannot carry in our town (or many areas of that town were restricted).
So, even if you had a "no gun laws" society, wouldn't you still have some gun laws? And if that is the case aren't we fooling ourselves by demanding "no gun laws?"
Just wondering.
TR,
Again, your are referring to a facility rule, not the law of the land,
EG:
I don't allow smoking in my home, it is not against the law, but I don't permit it.
Don
I agree with you as far as you go. But I guess I am not getting the exact point of my message across. You can make a "rule" about no smoking in your home just as a facility can make a rule about no smoking in that facility. But you cannot mix a constitutional right, especially when we gunners claim that 2A right means "no gun laws" with the personal, not constitutional right of smoking.
I.E., if it is agreed that the 2A means no gun laws then any government facilitiy could not prohibit lawful, peaceful citizens from carrying their guns because that facility would be violating the law, as a government entity, if it made a rule or otherwise prohibited carrying guns. Although you yourself could still make a personal "rule" prohibiting carrying guns (like you did about the smokeing) in your house.
Bottom line, if there are absolutely no gun laws, then no government agency can tell you what to do or not to do with your guns as long as you are a lawful, peaceful citizen. Right?0 -
The answer you seek is really quite simple. Rather then thinking about it logically, you instead prefer to try and drag EVERYBODY into your pit of "Big Brother watching over you"...
Given a civilazion that WORKS;
Decent people are LEFT ALONE to pursue their OWN course in life;
Vicious criminals are KILLED.
Either by said Citzen..or collectively, by Society, after a trial.
I think it would be rather INFANTILE to expect that someone bringing a weapon into a Courthouse/Jail, and brandishing said weapon..shouldn't expect to be shot out of hand.
quote:I asked on LEO member who takes that stance if people sentenced to jail/prison could retain their guns.This is, of course, a red herring. Once you are arrested, naturally you will be relieved of your weapons.
However..as you walk out of the prison gate...your .45 is handed back to you.
You have "Paid Your Debt to Society"..as of that moment. Go and Sin no more !! Either you are fit to release, and become a citizen again..or you REMAIN IN JAIL.0 -
quote:Originally posted by daveald
Do you think that we should provide arms to the inmates of the city and county jails, so as not to infringe upon there rights?
NO, they are criminals in jail and have NO rights while paying their debit.
quote:Or maybe we should wait until they get out, that way they will have a way to get bus fare for the ride home?
If they can not be trusted back in society WHY are they back on the streets in the first place?0 -
In my perfect world, a person convicted of a non-violent felony, that is, a crime where he did not hurt or threaten to hurt a person, would have ALL his rights restored after he had completely discharged his sentence, paid all fines, restitution, etc. 0 -
1. You let him out of jail. Therefore, he has paid his debt, and is restored to the society of human beings. Either you can trust him with a gun, or you should not have let him out.
2. Are there places that guns should not be allowed? Uh- how about the same places that do not permit matches, lighters, and cigarettes? A gasoline refinery, flammable liquid storage area- and my explosives magazines. That is not gun control, any more than it is match or lighter control.
3. A 5 yr old with a gun? No- 5 yr olds are infants, not adults. If the age of majority is 18, then Happy Birthday, here is your gun. BTW, always thought the "no handguns under 21" was really stupid- at 18 I was carrying an M-60, but could not buy a Ruger 22 target pistol.
4. Inmate with a gun? No- having been sentenced to jail, you just lost some of your rights- like freedom of movement, freedom of association, etc. When you go out of the gate, those are restored.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
You have "Paid Your Debt to Society"..as of that moment. Go and Sin no more !! Either you are fit to release, and become a citizen again..or you REMAIN IN JAIL.
X-ring!!!!!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Many members here loudly claim that there should be NO gun control laws. They say such things as only behavior, etc. should be controlled. A few members that have gotten my attention are even active LEO's. Now, I am not a liberal, I have owned guns for about 50 years and I also don't like gun control laws.
But if we don't get our argument/position right, we will have a harder time obtaining our rights. So I don't agree with just loudly demanding "no gun control laws."
I asked on LEO member who takes that stance if people sentenced to jail/prison could retain their guns. He laughed at that and maybe I did present that question in a not so good way. So let me try again.
In this "no gun control world", can the prisoner's attorney who comes into the jail/prison keep/carry their handguns? What about family members coming to visit? If the LEO maintains that the attorneys & family members should not be able to carry their handguns into the prisons/jail while they confer with their clients, to enforce that would require a gun control law.
The point I am trying to make is that anybody who wants to just flatly claim they support a "no gun control world", if presented with various secenarios, will at some point agree something like "well, in that partricular case I agree with gun control laws..
JMHO
Greater rights necessitate harsher penalties for the violation of those rights. Our current penalties aren't nearly harsh enough. There aren't enough work farms, and the death penalty isn't applied quickly enough or broadly enough.0 -
perhaps all guns should be banned. it seems that is the only way TR FOX and the nra will be happy and shut up about this crap! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by br549
perhaps all guns should be banned. it seems that is the only way TR FOX and the nra will be happy and shut up about this crap!
If this "CRAP" bothers you so much DON'T OPEN/READ IT!.
See? Simple solution for simple minds.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
The answer you seek is really quite simple. Rather then thinking about it logically, you instead prefer to try and drag EVERYBODY into your pit of "Big Brother watching over you"...
Given a civilazion that WORKS;
Decent people are LEFT ALONE to pursue their OWN course in life;
Vicious criminals are KILLED.
Either by said Citzen..or collectively, by Society, after a trial.
I think it would be rather INFANTILE to expect that someone bringing a weapon into a Courthouse/Jail, and brandishing said weapon..shouldn't expect to be shot out of hand.
quote:I asked on LEO member who takes that stance if people sentenced to jail/prison could retain their guns.This is, of course, a red herring. Once you are arrested, naturally you will be relieved of your weapons.
However..as you walk out of the prison gate...your .45 is handed back to you.
You have "Paid Your Debt to Society"..as of that moment. Go and Sin no more !! Either you are fit to release, and become a citizen again..or you REMAIN IN JAIL.
You always go exteme on me Highballs. I am not at all "trying to drag anyone into any pit." Geez S. Crist. I am only asking questions and looking at answers. If you OR ANYBODY ELSE HERE is bothered by that, then use some common sense and DON'T READ WHAT I POST.0 -
OK, what about this for the "no gun control laws" position. Once in place, does that mean also no laws or prohibitions against when and where you may shoot those guns? I mean, if it is OK to have no gun control laws, wouldn't it be a contridiction to allow laws that control when and where you are able to shoot those "no gun control" guns?
In other words, say with no gun control laws everybody can buy any gun they want. So, if the government comes along and says "well, you can't shoot your guns in our county, even on private property" isn't that about as bad as having gun control laws that prohibit what guns you can purchase or who can purchase them?
Basic point I am trying to figure out (yeah, figure out. I am seeking imput on this, not lecturing anyone) is that I doubt we cana ever totally get rid of any and all gun control laws.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, what about this for the "no gun control laws" position. Once in place, does that mean also no laws or prohibitions against when and where you may shoot those guns? I mean, if it is OK to have no gun control laws, wouldn't it be a contridiction to allow laws that control when and where you are able to shoot those "no gun control" guns?
In other words, say with no gun control laws everybody can buy any gun they want. So, if the government comes along and says "well, you can't shoot your guns in our county, even on private property" isn't that about as bad as having gun control laws that prohibit what guns you can purchase or who can purchase them?
Basic point I am trying to figure out (yeah, figure out. I am seeking imput on this, not lecturing anyone) is that I doubt we cana ever totally get rid of any and all gun control laws.
TR,
You seem to have the same opinion as the brady bunch, No gun control = anarchy.0 -
I think some people think too much. Should a 5 year old be able to buy a handgun? YES! But common sense would give the dealer the right to refuse a sale. It's a judgement thing as we aren't as stupid as our goverment think we are.
I believe that anyone should be able to own a gun. If you are a retard, criminal, insane, or whatever they will be weeded from society. Who are we to judge someone elses ability. If you give them the rope, they will hang themselves.
I just can't figure out why everyone wants to intrude in someone elses life and their rights. The law of physics will take care of those who don't want to live by the rules that God has given us. Alot will argue that these laws are for safety, but what they actually do is take away the rights of law abiding citizens.
Well what about jail houses? Again, someone is thinking too much. Laws affect the populance, but rules only affect a specific location, similar to NO-Smoking when you fill your car with gas.
Quit thinking so hard. You'll blow a fuse.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
27 comments