Thread: Reasonable Gun restrictions - need some help here...

The problem with more gun legislation isn't that there are some good ideas on the table. I think some of them are fine. I think universal background checks are good (Illinois has implemented it recently and even private citizens are required to call and do a background check before selling a gun). I think a waiting period (cool down) is good (24 hours on long guns and 72 on handguns in Illinois).

The trouble comes from the fact that our second amendment rights have been whittled away ever since 1934 with the National Firearms Act. Then in 1938 came the Federal Firearms Act which implemented FFL and a "registry" and permits. 1968 with even more strict FFL rules and banning of more types of firearms. In '72 the BATF was formed. In '86 it was made illegal to use, manufacture or import armor piercing bullets. 1990 - criminal penalties for possessing or discharging a firearm in a school zone. Outlawed the assembly of illegal semiautomatic rifles or shotguns from legally imported parts. 1994 - NICS implemented by 98 with a 5 day waiting period in the interim to purchase a gun. Assault weapons ban created. Unlawful for a juvenile to own weapons.

That's federal only. States have been doing it on a more regular basis and more restrictive. Some of those things are good and I have no problem with it. But other things and state level legislation are worded so vaguely that the people enforcing the laws are able to interpret them in ways that are even more restrictive. With few exceptions the laws have gotten more restrictive and none have loosened the reins.

And even fewer exceptions, the more restrictive laws have done little to curb gun violence. Gun violence in Chicago is the worst in the country and yet it has the most restrictive laws in the country. (New York City may now win that title as most restrictive now).

Clinton claimed that the Brady Bill had resulted in thousands of criminals unable to purchase guns with the background checks. Maybe. And maybe they no longer went the legal route to get their guns. Of 23000 cases, the BATF only arrested 56 people by 2000.

Gun owners have watched their rights get chipped away year after year; decade after decade when "events" occur like Littleton, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Brady, Kennedy. Events that cause the nation to stop what they are doing and stand in shock certainly. But singular events nonetheless. Yet it's those events that prompt massive sweeping changes to occur.

Yet those events are also not requiring of CHANGE. They require enforcement of EXISTING laws. The shooter in aurora had mental issues that should have prevented his purchasing a gun to begin with. The mother did not have her guns locked up or properly protected in Sandy Hook. New laws aren't going to make the issues raised in those cases extra special illegal. Properly enforcing existing laws and providing adequate safety measures without infringing on lawful gun owners' rights will help.

So the active stance of most gun owners these days has become "not one more inch" and they refuse to give an inch on legislation even if that legislation is reasonable. Because until the current laws are enforced effectively, new ones aren't going to matter.

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

Have you guys read what the Japanese do in order for a citizen to own a gun? What do you think?

chop they're hands off?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I dont see how its relevant. Japan and the US are miles apart on many things.

stature?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I firmly believe what ever restrictions we have the government should have. If that makes me a whack job i can live with it.

apparently.....lol

I don't want my dipshit neighbor to have an Abrams, or pipe bombs (unless he makes them himself...I'd be cool with that as I've seen his craftmanship), or grenade launchers, or Sea Bass with lasers. I also don't think felons or those with violent historys have anything more dangerous than a spaghetti noodle. Wanting much less (restriction wise) borders on the whacky.

I'm all-for resticting anything that explodes, either stationary (the dg drum ) or while flying (fired), as well as background checks. While I agree to the spirit of the Constitution as written, I don't think the Founding Fathers had nukes, drones, Bradleys or Napalm in mind. History has also proven that the World can be forever changed with one well placed shot, and imo, that satisfies the spirit of the law. The rest is just a balancing act of what I think we should be able to have freely (which is pretty much everything else, including full auto), against what I want to keep out of my dipshit neighbor's hands (the go boom stuff).

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

The problem with more gun legislation isn't that there are some good ideas on the table. I think some of them are fine. I think universal background checks are good (Illinois has implemented it recently and even private citizens are required to call and do a background check before selling a gun). I think a waiting period (cool down) is good (24 hours on long guns and 72 on handguns in Illinois).

The trouble comes from the fact that our second amendment rights have been whittled away ever since 1934 with the National Firearms Act. Then in 1938 came the Federal Firearms Act which implemented FFL and a "registry" and permits. 1968 with even more strict FFL rules and banning of more types of firearms. In '72 the BATF was formed. In '86 it was made illegal to use, manufacture or import armor piercing bullets. 1990 - criminal penalties for possessing or discharging a firearm in a school zone. Outlawed the assembly of illegal semiautomatic rifles or shotguns from legally imported parts. 1994 - NICS implemented by 98 with a 5 day waiting period in the interim to purchase a gun. Assault weapons ban created. Unlawful for a juvenile to own weapons.

That's federal only. States have been doing it on a more regular basis and more restrictive. Some of those things are good and I have no problem with it. But other things and state level legislation are worded so vaguely that the people enforcing the laws are able to interpret them in ways that are even more restrictive. With few exceptions the laws have gotten more restrictive and none have loosened the reins.

And even fewer exceptions, the more restrictive laws have done little to curb gun violence. Gun violence in Chicago is the worst in the country and yet it has the most restrictive laws in the country. (New York City may now win that title as most restrictive now).

Clinton claimed that the Brady Bill had resulted in thousands of criminals unable to purchase guns with the background checks. Maybe. And maybe they no longer went the legal route to get their guns. Of 23000 cases, the BATF only arrested 56 people by 2000.

Gun owners have watched their rights get chipped away year after year; decade after decade when "events" occur like Littleton, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Brady, Kennedy. Events that cause the nation to stop what they are doing and stand in shock certainly. But singular events nonetheless. Yet it's those events that prompt massive sweeping changes to occur.

Yet those events are also not requiring of CHANGE. They require enforcement of EXISTING laws. The shooter in aurora had mental issues that should have prevented his purchasing a gun to begin with. The mother did not have her guns locked up or properly protected in Sandy Hook. New laws aren't going to make the issues raised in those cases extra special illegal. Properly enforcing existing laws and providing adequate safety measures without infringing on lawful gun owners' rights will help.

So the active stance of most gun owners these days has become "not one more inch" and they refuse to give an inch on legislation even if that legislation is reasonable. Because until the current laws are enforced effectively, new ones aren't going to matter.