1. Download the #1 Android News App:   EarlyBird - News for Android
    Dismiss Notice

The Gun Law Discussion

Last Updated:

  1. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    I'm starting this topic to be the place for discussion about the 2013 gun control movement, and beyond. Please carry on. :)

    Bob Maxey, PrinceCorwin and pbf98 like this.
  2. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    OK I'll start. Here are some issues being considered:

    1. Making background checks mandatory for all gun sales.
    2. Limiting "clip" capacity on all guns, regardless of purpose.
    3. Banning all "assault weapons".
    4. Raising the bar on mental health issues.
    These are the ones that I keep on hearing. Let's look at them:

    1. Background checks and personal liability. While I have no problem with closing this loophole, who's going to administer these checks for inter-personal sales? I can't get behind plans to hold a gun seller criminally liable for what someone down the line (and not necessarily the one you sold to) who commits a crime. What if they put such Draconian laws on all sales of everything? If someone who decides to make toast in the bathtub, is it right to put some salesperson in prison? Methinks the real aim of such laws is to shut down private gun sales entirely. That's not the way to do it, though.

    2. Small "clips". Do we really want laws to be made by people who are too lazy to find out the difference between a clip and a magazine? It's one thing when members of the press make mistakes like that. Lawmakers have no excuse for getting involved in issues that they haven't bothered to study first! Because they insist that they're all for home protection, the "clip" ban seems to be a decision that jeopardizes those who, unlike law enforcement and the military, often don't carry extra magazines when they go downstairs to investigate some sound. The argument is always something about hunting, and there are already hunting laws that restrict the capacities of hunting rifles. Why do we need another redundant law? Why didn't they bother to think first?

    3. Assault "weapon" bans. This trick wording really has me worried. If it's enacted into law with language like that, having a pair of scissors could be a felony crime! Again, why were they not thinking?

    4. Mental health. In an age where drug companies put tons of pressure on physicians to make depression diagnoses, and then put the patient on their drugs, will completely sane people be disqualified for life from their Constitutional rights? Is forcing medical doctors to break doctor-patient confidentiality even lawful?

    Just like there's a mandatory "cooling off period" for gun buyers, maybe there should be one for lawmakers who are rushing to pass half-witted laws.
  3. Ibrick

    Ibrick Well-Known Member

    I agree, mental health issues are the key here and everything else proposed has proven to be a complete failure in the past. Not sure why it would be different now.

    The 'gun show loophole
    galaxy501 and Drhyde like this.
  4. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    1. I hope they give widespread access to these background checks to private citizens.
    2. Just silly. So the shooter has to reload. BFD.
    3. Like you, I hope they actually define "assault weapon" pretty well.
    4. This make sense in theory, but not in execution. Who defines "mentally ill"? Who has this database? Is there a database somewhere of people who are "mentally ill"?
    Speed Daemon likes this.
  5. Ibrick

    Ibrick Well-Known Member

    The mentally ill are banned from owning a firearm under current laws. Its people ignoring warning signs, or families not wanting to acknowledge a mental illness that are more the problem.

    As for the background checks, statistically the number of guns purchased at gun shows is insignificant. How you prevent illegal sales is the issue, and since the current laws are ignored, why would stricter laws be followed?
    PrinceCorwin and Speed Daemon like this.
  6. pbf98

    pbf98 Well-Known Member Contributor

    #2 is what makes me laugh every time, it shows how uneducated the politicians are on the facts. A "clip" or a "magazine clip" is not what feeds the gun bullets. And I have heard even president Obama say he want's to ban "high capacity magazine clips".
    The a clip / magazine clip, is something that is often used to make reloading of magazines faster. To my knowledge they come in lengths to hold 5 bullets each clip (I haven't seen any higher capacity). Some bullets come pre-loaded in the clips inside the boxes.

    So go ahead and ban these little metal clips, I reload my magazines the hard way anyway lol

    But should someone that doesn't even the proper terminology behind their "issues", be able to make laws against them?

    Assault weapons is a made up term coined my the mainstream media. As far as the hunting issue you mentioned ie limit for capacity. In my area I can legally use my .223 semi auto ar-15 style pistol with any round capacity on big game, according to my local DNR. It is legally licensed in my name and I have the permit to carry it on the street being it is legally defined as a handgun.
  7. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    Yes, the number does appear to be arbitrary. And back when that was the law, it posed real danger to people who had purchased smaller caliber pistols that had been designed to hold as many as 15 rounds in a normal, non-extended magazine. But they were forced to keep their chosen (and legal) method of defense in a crippled state in order to obey the law. That's not right!

    Now we have people using straw man rationalizations, saying that "nobody needs that many bullets for hunting." Well self-defense is not hunting!

    It looks like the driving force behind this latest prohibition movement is TV pundits who don't know what they're talking about. As a scientist I'm shocked and disappointed to see that real experts aren't being invited into the discussion at any level.
  8. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    This is a real problem, since most of us have some minor condition that's technically a mental illness. Is a fear of heights really a just reason to revoke someone's Constitutional rights?

    One plan makes it mandatory for mental health professionals to report anything and everything that could be used to deny gun ownership. After a long, hard fight to protect private health records under HIPAA, the last thing I want to see is rumors about my mental health being made public, or health care professionals reporting everyone in a CYA move! Mental illness is still a stigma. If they start reporting it like credit reports (which are notoriously wrong), a lot of innocent people who don't even care about firearms could end up being blacklisted in the job market.

    This is a Pandora's Box that needs to be treated with due care.
    Ibrick likes this.
  9. Ibrick

    Ibrick Well-Known Member

    That's an excellent point, take for example a soldier returning from duty, probably the most well trained of the general public handling firearms, being diagnosed with PTSD. Should they be banned for life? Who would decide when its 'OK' for them to own a firearm?

    Lots of angles to examine..
  10. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I don't think anyone is a fan of the mentally ill owning weapons. That's something we would probably all agree on. As it is though, there's no database containing the names of everyone who is "mentally ill". Let's say I actually run a gun shop and someone comes in to buy a gun. I run a background check (no problem with that) do I then have to do a psych evaluation on the person to see if they're "mentally ill" or not? How do I as a business owner make that determination? I'm not even close to being qualified.
  11. PrinceCorwin

    PrinceCorwin Well-Known Member

    I understand where you're coming from here but I have to stand up for the rights of all the people diagnosed with a mental illness who would NEVER do something like this. Aren't we kind of stereotyping them here by saying none of them should EVER be able to own a gun. I mean, I'm not a fan of someone who is mentally ill having a chainsaw either but I don't want laws preventing them from owning them.

    Should we just lock all of them in a padded cell because of the possible future crimes of a select few. I mean, isn't ANYONE who is capable of serial or mass murder (and many other crimes) considered mentally ill? Or do we just call them evil? Is there a difference? I think there is.
    So just because Lanza was mentally ill doesn't mean his horrific act was due to that illness. Perhaps he was simply evil.
    I don't agree with taking away constitutional rights from people because they are handicapped. All of these laws seem to steer toward an unattainable sense of utopia where we can forsee and prevent each and every possiblity of misdeed by passing laws that make it impossible to commit the deeds.

    That just doesn't work. The criminal mind will always come up with a new way to commit crime and the previously passed laws than only cause a greater and greater burden to the good natured law abiding citizen. New laws are like antiviruses. The code gets written in hindsight trying to solve problems of the past. Then they slow down and restrict your system constantly trying to prevent the same instance from happening again. But they never stop the next big thing from invading your daily life suddenly to cause a catastrophe.

    And then the answer to that event is always the same: let's just add some more code (which just makes it all the more restrictive)

    And the President uses the phrase, "if it saves even one life..."
    Actually, I'm not willing to give up my liberties just to save a life, or even many lives. I don't buy the guilt trip. My conscience is clean. Their blood is not on my hands or yours. Don't let the liberals trick you into thinking these tradgedies are your fault because you believe in protecting your freedom.

    "Anyone willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."
    -who said it?
    Speed Daemon likes this.
  12. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    That's a fair enough argument. Certainly it's inaccurate to say that everyone who is mentally ill is violent. I don't disagree with that.
    PrinceCorwin likes this.
  13. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    PTSD is a tough issue. And with the suicide rate in the US military at an all-time high, we need to be sensitive to those who have been injured mentally by this war.

    Another thing to consider is that people who have been trained to use weapons, possibly the only weapons that they've ever seen, to maim and kill people. It may require some retraining for those who were indoctrinated to kill in the name of America to operate under a new set of rules.

    But when it comes to people who have never fired a shot in anger, or at a person, I'd hate to see these new laws born of this anti-gun frenzy turn upstanding citizens into outcasts among their peers. People who can no longer go hunting, or something as innocent as plinking and target shooting.

    From the medical side it's inexcusable to break promises of confidentiality. I hope the medical community speaks up on this matter and says that using them as political pawns is unacceptable.
  14. pbf98

    pbf98 Well-Known Member Contributor

    Well President Obama addressed his proposal last night. He used the constitution and found an example where guns hindered each right.

    and here's one part I said "did he really just say that?"

    Chicago? Doesn't Chicago have some of the strictest gun laws on the books? I wish someone would have called him on that..

    Then he goes on to say:
    What about those who never imagined they'd lose a loved to a senseless car accident?

    That statement angered me, 2 years ago, I lost the love of my life to a senseless car accident, and there was no one trying to pass bills to avenge her death. She was only 20 years old, how is her life less important than those involved in a shooting? Sure it was only one life (Acctually 2 she was with her cousin). But a loss of any life is a tragic event. You should not say anyones death is more important than someone else.

    If "we're" responsible for those who have lost a loved one from a bullet, than "we're" responsible for any death in any way. I am not the one who shot up the movie theater, and I am not the one who killed 20 kids, I am not responsible for those deaths, and neither are my firearms that I own. The ones responsible for both are either dead or in custody, blame them not the People of this country, and not the firearms that we use to keep us safe.
  15. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    The logic flaw Obama is using is large enough to drive a bus through. He's making a pretty blatant pathos appeal which is sad because the guy is smarter than that. It's a bunch of political posturing more than anything. Personally, I don't consider myself responsible for every gun death. Anyone who does needs to have their head examined.
  16. pbf98

    pbf98 Well-Known Member Contributor

    Here is one of the proposals that Obama is looking at and considering:

    Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
    120 specifically-named firearms;
    Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
    Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
    Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
    Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
    Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
    Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
    Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
    Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
    Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
    Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
    Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
    Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
    Background check of owner and any transferee;
    Type and serial number of the firearm;
    Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
    Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
    Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

    You can view it yourself at:
    Assault Weapons - Issues - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

    According to the wording in there, my first BB gun would be illegal to buy, sell, or transfer, because it holds up to 30 BBs. My 22 rifle I received as a kid for one of my 10th birthday would be illegal because it has a detachable magazine.

    And we get to keep all previously owned firearms as long as we registrar all of them? And get photographed, and fingerprinted?? Big brother, is that you?
  17. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Set aside all the political implications of the proposal. If this proposal was in effect 6 months ago, how does it prevent what happened at Sandy Hook? I'm not seeing it.
  18. javasirc

    javasirc Well-Known Member

    I dont think the assault weapons ban has anything to do with the safety of civilians, including school shootings, sniper attacks, etc. These recent events are being used as propaganda in attempt to convince American citizens and government to support the ban. I believe the government, more specifically Obama, wants to disarm American citizens so we cant protect ourselves from the government in the event of economy collapse, or any other major event.

    There is no question whether or not Obama wants full power. He seeks monarch power. Trying to use Executive Orders proves it. He tries to link the 2nd amendment to hunting and sports shooting, when the 2nd amendment is for the citizens to protect themselves from corrupt government and policing. The government violates our 1st amendment as well, in multiple ways. This includes using armed police and military personnel to fight against peaceful protesters and activists. The government has staged events during protests where officers would act as riots and destroy cars and break windows. One specific event of this was a police car parked on the street of a protest. No police in it. There were 3 undercover officers acting as rioters in attempt to get the peaceful protesters excited to where they started rioting, and the nearby riot-control would attack them, and use it against protesters. However a true wise-man uncovered what they were doing. The officers were pretended to be arrested.

    The government compares semi automatic rifles to military assault rifles, based on their body style and cosmetics. A rifle that looks like a military rifle because of its greyish metalic appearance and AK/AR styled magazine, pistol grip etc, but shoots exactly like a semi-automatic hunting rifle, its considered an assault weapon when its nothing more than a sporting rifle with a military-like theme. There are sporting rifles just like there are sports cars. It comes down to taste. Sports cars are considered cool, so are military rifles. So why not tag military-rifle lookalikes as assault rifles.

    Another concern is guns being registered. Registering isnt going to prevent criminals from killing people. And criminals wont even get their guns registered. Citizens registering their guns will just tell the government where to go when its time for a full gun-ban and confiscation.

    I honestly dont think a weapons ban would be that bad. Im more concerned about the government having full control over the citizens. We will lose more and more freedom over time. With all the militias that have been created over the last decade, theres no doubt the government wants to disarm them so they can have greater control of our lives and the future without worrying about the citizens revolting.
  19. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I guess I'm probably the only person who has no objection to weapons being registered. Our cars are registered. Why not guns? Both can be equally dangerous and a registered gun can be traced more easily by authorities just like a registered car. I don't see the issue with that one at all. The idea that the feds are going to confiscate every single gun in America is completely ludicrous and pretty much everyone agrees on that.
  20. pbf98

    pbf98 Well-Known Member Contributor

    I guess I just look back at history when they say they want every citizen to register every gun.
    First example, look at the Nazi Weapon Act of 1938
    Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
    All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
    Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
    Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
    The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
    Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

    Shortly after they started confiscating all firearms, sure they mainly targeted the Jewish citizens.

    Not only did Hitler do this, Stalin followed the same premise very closely

    There's an old saying that goes something like

    those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it

    The thing that makes it bad, is because it makes it easier for the government to come along and look at what guns everyone has. Then if they see one gun in particular that they don't like and sees there is a large population of people that own it, they can send authorities to their home and confiscate it.

    Why shouldn't the government be able require us to registrar guns but be able to require for cars? Our ownership of guns is a right, driving is a privilege.

    Sure I don't see a mass confiscation happening, but why give them what they need to make it easy?

    Oh, and if they were to pass a bill saying I have to register all my firearms that meet the listed criteria, I will be bringing in my BB gun to show them how ridiculous it is. I looked at my BB gun the other night, not only does it hold more than 10 rounds, it also has what could be considered a "thumb hole stock"
  21. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Godwin's law for the win!
  22. pbf98

    pbf98 Well-Known Member Contributor

    So you're saying we should just disregard what has happened in the past just because of some internet meme?

    Don't want me to refrence hitler / nazi's? ok:

    “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
    - Joseph Stalin

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

    “The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. … They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
    - Benito Mussolini, address to the Italian Senate, 1931

    Two more examples of government confiscating guns.

    How will registering guns prevent another mass shooting? Isn't that what they are trying to achieve by attempting to pass more gun control laws? If it has no affect why is it needed? Why should I give into saying I am ok with registering all my firearms? It is my right to keep and bear arms with out the government telling me what i can and can't have or do.

    The government belongs in gun control just as much as they belong in controlling the internet.
  23. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    Because cars aren't guns.

    This oft-used fallacy ignores the fact that it's the use of cars on public roads that is being regulated, not the cars themselves. You don't have to register a car that's never driven on public roads, so why should people who keep and use their guns in private places have to register them?

    While confiscating everyone's guns might not be imminent, that's hardly the only reason to keep gun ownership private. The first and foremost is because the Constitution says so. Another might be police profiling. How would you like to be shot by a cop who saw that you were a gun owner, and overreacted?

    Say it can't happen? Here in Madison a young man was killed by a police officer, and although he was unarmed and too drunk to be a threat to anyone, it was declared a righteous shoot. The cop got away with murder because the wife of a neighbor who was helping the young man home decided to call the cops and say there was a burglary. (There wasn't.) Because she used that magic word, the cop's use of deadly force was unquestioned.

    If police agencies get gun ownership records, there's no doubt that they'll use them that way. They already use the database that keeps records of all police contact for everyone in the US to make other key decisions. In the age of the "Patriot" law it's a cinch that every gun owner would be greeted with lots of drawn weapons for something as innocuous as a traffic stop. That's just asking for trouble!
  24. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    No such law.

    The German Weapons Act of 1938 actually loosened gun regulations imposed on Germany by the Allies after WWI. Although it did forbid Jews from manufacture and ownership, everyone else got more liberty.
  25. pbf98

    pbf98 Well-Known Member Contributor

    just curious where you found your info, to further my knowledge. I based my findings off a pdf on the University of Chicago Law School, and a few other articles I found. I know not everything on the internet is true, but in my teachings I was taught that if multiple sources state it (ones with out .com domain) it has better chance of being true.

    I'm not challenging you, just want to know more haha I don't post anything unless I try debunking it myself first.

Share This Page