For those wanting more gun regulation, and I am not saying I do or do not, but what ideas do you have? I am somewhat ignorant of the laws which exist so usually you just get rhetoric from both sides that deal with the extremes.

Like Bugatti I , too, am ignorant of existing laws.

 

Both sides need to put their defenses down before any meaningful conversation can take place.

 

Pro-gun control folks need to understand that gun ownership is a fundamental right. We also have to lay the responsibility where it belongs - on the shooter.

 

Anti-gun control people need to STOP with the argument that crazy and bad people will always be able to get a gun. If we used that logic we would not have any laws.

 

The goal should be to make sure the people who fit categories that are high-risk do NOT get access LEGALLY to guns. We have to make sure we make LEGIT background checks a priority and reality.

 

Compromise will NOT stop ALL incidents. It CAN help and as long as it does not infringe greatly on the responsible gun owners then it has to be considered.

 

Sadly, I think both sides are so LOCKED IN to their stance that we will just spin our wheels and both sides will be at fault for that.

 

The goal should be to make sure the people who fit categories that are high-risk do NOT get access LEGALLY to guns. We have to make sure we make LEGIT background checks a priority and reality.

 

 

Who gets to define high-risk? If it is a politician (which it probably would be), mark me suspect from the start.

 

 

To me the battle over gun control is VERY similar to the battle over the Patriot Act. Many, many, many people accepted the fact that the Patriot Act probably has prevented some terrorist attack on the US and probably would do so more in the future if it were to continue but still agree with me that the power that Act gives politicians is too great a risk to Americans liberty so basically, they feel some additional risk is worth the liberty. I feel the same way with Clinton's ban he passed in 1994. Did it maybe prevent a few shooting? I don't know. Did it definitely restrict the rights of millions of gun owners, absolutely. So this is another case of risk versus liberty.

It would help if those in the know could share what the current laws are and where the weaknesses in the system occur.

This might be a better thread for my questions I posed in the other thread....

 

Are you able to own a gun if you've been convicted of a crime in the past?

 

Are you able to own a gun if you're taking or have previously taken anti-depressant or "mood" altering medication?

You cannot have a gun if you're a felon or if you've been convicted of domestic assault charges.

 

The medication side I'm not entirely sure on but when I bought a new rifle a few months back, there was a question on the form about it. My guess is it will put a hold or wait time on the purchase upon further review.

You cannot have a gun if you're a felon or if you've been convicted of domestic assault charges.

 

The medication side I'm not entirely sure on but when I bought a new rifle a few months back, there was a question on the form about it. My guess is it will put a hold or wait time on the purchase upon further review.

 

Gotcha thanks.

 

I'll never own a gun. Have zero desire to. Don't see the point of it. That being said, I firmly support the right of others to have them. I do think some stricter regulations would probably be beneficial though.

 

I'd say a zero tolerance policy for anyone who's been convicted of a crime (as an adult).

 

I'd also be for not allowing anyone who is currently taking those kind of medications to own one, or at the very minimum have to pass a mental evaluation in order to have one.

 

:idunno: Kinda thinking out loud here.

Not sure what the answer is, I guess I'm just not smart enough, but I do know this.

 

The problem isn't with legally abiding, responsible gun owners, which is the vast majority of the population that own guns. The problem lies with the criminal element and "crazy" people getting their hands on guns. I know the term "crazy" may not be politically correct, but there it is.

 

That's where the problem lies and that's where the focus needs to be put.

 

However, there are many that don't understand why "Johnny Lovestoshoot", avid hunter, shooter and responsible gun owner wants to own 5 rifles, 2 shotguns, 3-4 pistols and hundreds of rounds of ammo at one time. Well, it's really none of those peoples business and it essentially is no different that "Johnny Lovestogolf" having 10 different sets of golf clubs in his garage. The people who think this way usually fall on the left side of the spectrum. And many of those people would not let Johnny Lovestoshoot own all of those if they had their say, and we all know that's a fact. As long as that sentiment is there, then anything that approaches restricting guns that could affect the general population as a whole will be looked upon unfavorably and fought tooth and nail.

 

Unfortunately I'm not sure I can come up with an answer other than sever prison sentences to felons caught with a gun, but even that doesn't deal with those with some sort of diminished mental capacity due to some sort on imbalance.

Not sure what the answer is, I guess I'm just not smart enough, but I do know this.

 

The problem isn't with legally abiding, responsible gun owners, which is the vast majority of the population that own guns. The problem lies with the criminal element and "crazy" people getting their hands on guns. I know the term "crazy" may not be politically correct, but there it is.

 

That's where the problem lies and that's where the focus needs to be put.

 

However, there are many that don't understand why "Johnny Lovestoshoot", avid hunter, shooter and responsible gun owner wants to own 5 rifles, 2 shotguns, 3-4 pistols and hundreds of rounds of ammo at one time. Well, it's really none of those peoples business and it essentially is no different that "Johnny Lovestogolf" having 10 different sets of golf clubs in his garage. The people who think this way usually fall on the left side of the spectrum. And many of those people would not let Johnny Lovestoshoot own all of those if they had their say, and we all know that's a fact. As long as that sentiment is there, then anything that approaches restricting guns that could affect the general population as a whole will be looked upon unfavorably and fought tooth and nail.

 

Unfortunately I'm not sure I can come up with an answer other than sever prison sentences to felons caught with a gun, but even that doesn't deal with those with some sort of diminished mental capacity due to some sort on imbalance.

 

You're absolutely right. I don't understand the bolded. Not even remotely. Doesn't mean I don't think he should be allowed to. Just wanted to point out that just because some people don't understand it doesn't mean they're against it or opposed to it.

It would help if those in the know could share what the current laws are and where the weaknesses in the system occur.

 

National Firearms Act of 1934 - Prohibition and just ended and thousands of government "alcohol agents" needed something to do. The NFA of 1934 put the regulation of fully automatic machine guns, sawed off rifles and shotguns, and suppressors (often mistakenly called silencers, in reality they don't silence, I still wear ear protection around them) under the jurisdiction of the Bureau Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Today for a citizen to obtain a fully automatic machine gun, a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches,a shot gun shorter than 18 inches and/or a suppressor requires a mountain of paper work, an extremely in depth background check, and a tax stamp.

 

Gun Control Act of 1968 - Passed as a reaction to the assassination of John and Bobby Kennedy along with Malcom X and Martin Luther King, Jr. all within a short period of time. The biggest component of the GCA of 68 was it restricted the interstate commerce of firearms. Basically, if I were over in Southern Indiana having Spin Doc implement torture often called Dentistry on my teeth and then decided to stop by Bass Pro Shops to look around and saw a gun I wanted to buy, I could not have Bass Pro Shops do the federal background check on me, buy the fire arm and take it home with me to Louisville. Instead, I would have to buy the gun, pay for Bass Pro to ship the firearm to a licensed dealer in Kentucky, go to that dealer, do the background check, pay the FFL fee and then take the gun home. Not sure how this makes society safer but, that is the law.

 

Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 - This law was sold as protecting the rights of Gun Owners but the NRA has since admitted that they had one pulled on them and missed the ball not opposing this bill. A major aspect of this act is that banned the ownership of any fully automatic firearms made from the date of the Act forward. So basically, pretty much all machine guns legally owned today were built May 7, 1986 or earlier (I think I have the right day).

Edited October 2, 201510 yr by Bert

It would help if those in the know could share what the current laws are and where the weaknesses in the system occur.

 

I would say private sales.

Gotcha thanks. I'll never own a gun. Have zero desire to. Don't see the point of it. That being said' date=' I firmly support the right of others to have them. I do think some stricter regulations would probably be beneficial though. I'd say a zero tolerance policy for anyone who's been convicted of a crime (as an adult). I'd also be for not allowing anyone who is currently taking those kind of medications to own one, or at the very minimum have to pass a mental evaluation in order to have one. :idunno: Kinda thinking out loud here.[/quote']

 

The mental evaluation part is what I see coming/being pushed.

I would say private sales.

 

Would that include gun shows?

However, going back to the mental evaluation part that isn't easy a process. We have a shortage of doctors for it and high dollar prices when you do obtain it.

I would say private sales.

 

That makes sense.