Write the New Federal Firearm Law - Page 4
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 55

Thread: Write the New Federal Firearm Law

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare45 View Post
    Already law in every state in the union who determines your or my status. If a mental health professional is seeing a mental health professional should he be able to rule on you or my mental health??????????
    I think I know what you're getting at. People needing help might not seek it because a gun-hating mind-doc could just put all patients on the list.

  2.   
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Why are there so many folks who think the right to keep and bear arms should be subject to their control so they can have peace of mind and "feel safe" because they have credentials that they think make them qualified to judge others? Good grief.. that is the mentality of Fienstein, Holder, and Obama....

    Look... folks can trot out any multitude of mental masturbatory pseudo logic to try to show that laws that restrict the rights of others will make people safe in order to justify their desire to be the one who decides who is, and who isn't, "acceptable" or qualified to have a gun.

    But all of that falls flat on it's face when the inconvenient truth that cannot be avoided is...

    All the laws we already have that say felons/nuts/and other classes of prohibited folks are not "allowed" to have guns have NOT stopped felons/nuts/and other classes of prohibited folks .... from getting guns.


    If the law actually worked then there would have been no way Adam Lanza would have been able to get guns by murdering his mother (after all the law says people are not "allowed" to commit murder) and then continue his killing spree (there are laws that say people are not "allowed" to go on killing sprees)............ right?

    Bottom line... if the law actually stopped felons/nuts/and other classes of prohibited folks from getting guns then the argument that more laws will fix things would have merit.. but what I'm seeing is the same old crap that has been going on for decades of gun control. Just more of the same from folks who believe they are uniquely qualified to decide what new law will solve the problem... that violent people don't obey the law. Think about the mental disconnect involved in that.

    Does anyone really think that more gun control will stop the violence that those who don't obey those gun control laws will commit?

    Not to mention that those who would use guns to commit violence will NOT bother with a background check.............. so how will background checks help to .. stop violence? By proving law abiding folks who get background checks don't do violent things? How does that stop those who actually do violent things?

    When will folks understand that the premise that a law will stop violent people when those violent people don't obey the law no matter what the law is or how many laws there are... is BS right from the get go?

    As for the gun owning/carrying community speaking with one voice? How about we start with understanding that gun control laws do not control violent people with guns or keep violent people from getting guns......... and stop trying to find a new gun control law to pacify the anti gunners and demand action that will address violent people?

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer1113 View Post
    -snip-
    As a Former Military Police Officer I would like nothing more than to be able to freely walk into any retailer and buy a gun, no questions asked. But there are people I do not want to be able to do that. For me to have that piece of mind I am more than willing to pay my $5.00 wait for the call to be completed before I leave with my gun. Happy, Happy, Happy.-snip-
    Hmmmm.... the 2nd Amendment says...

    "Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    It does NOT say...

    "Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." unless someone who thinks his experience as a military cop makes him qualified to decide who can't have a gun just because he wants to have peace of mind.

    If we start down that road then we arrive at the same place Fienstein, Holder, Obama, the Brady Organization, and every other anti gun person/organization is with the attitude that the only people who should be "allowed" to have guns are the people I think are good enough.

    We do NOT need gun control... we need criminal and nut control. To think differently is to deny the reality that criminals and nuts will always get guns no matter how many gun control laws there are.

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Just in case anyone might not have understood my position on the idea that more laws on top of the laws we already have that have NOT had any effect on stopping violent people who do not obey the law ...

    If gun control laws actually stopped violent people from violently harming innocent people I'd be all for it. But the inescapable fact.. yes... FACT!!! that the anti gunners, including gun owners who really are anti gunners in disguise (if you want only those you think are "acceptable" to have guns and deny those who you arrogantly think are "unacceptable" then you are an anti gunner), supporting even more gun control laws want to pretend doesn't exist is...

    the violent people who do the violence that gun control is supposed to stop...

    do NOT obey the gun control laws that are supposed to stop the gun violence!!!


    I don't care what kind of brain dead stupid stuff is offered as "feel good" laws... the plain unadulterated truth.. the inescapable bare bones truth... the simple actual freaking facts that cannot be avoided are..........................

    THOSE THAT GUN CONTROL IS SUPPOSED TO CONTROL DO NOT OBEY.............. GUN CONTROL!

    Got that? All those laws mean nothing to those who wipe their arses with the laws folks think are supposed to keep them.... "safe".

    Want to be "safe"? Never mind trying to restrict the rights of anyone, including criminals and nuts... restrict the ability of criminals and nuts to have access to new innocent victims by taking the violent completely out of society by putting them in prison or a secure nut hospital.

    What part of actually addressing the source of the violence, the criminal and nut themselves.. the person who commits the violence, instead of the things the violent use is the logical way to solve the problem of violence... is so freaking difficult to understand?

    So I ask... what is the agenda? Is it to stop the violent from committing violence? Or is the agenda just more of the same elitist BS where those who think they are above others believe they should be in control of ... who is "allowed" to have rights?

    Think very carefully because... will one more law on top of all the thousands of laws we already have stop the criminals and nuts who already disobey all the other laws... suddenly result in... criminals and nuts obeying the law? Please consider the conflict in honest logic untainted by any agenda contained in that question!!!

    Now... I'll really annoy some folks...

    It is my personal opinion that anyone who is so deluded as to think another law added to the multitude of laws we already have... will suddenly cause all criminals and nuts that have not obeyed all those other laws... to suddenly obey the new law... is suffering from a mental illness that should disqualify them from owning a gun. There... how do you like it sent right back atcha? Scary how that can be used against us all... isn't it?

    Think carefully about what it is that you want to deny others because it can easily come right back to deny...............you.

    We do not need gun control... we do not need to control the guns.... we need to control the people, the individuals, who would commit crimes using guns.

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Hmmmm.... the 2nd Amendment says...

    "Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    It does NOT say...

    "Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." unless someone who thinks his experience as a military cop makes him qualified to decide who can't have a gun just because he wants to have peace of mind.

    If we start down that road then we arrive at the same place Fienstein, Holder, Obama, the Brady Organization, and every other anti gun person/organization is with the attitude that the only people who should be "allowed" to have guns are the people I think are good enough.

    We do NOT need gun control... we need criminal and nut control. To think differently is to deny the reality that criminals and nuts will always get guns no matter how many gun control laws there are.
    Remember that the second amendment does not give us any rights. If that was the case then our rights would be decided more often than not by a majority of 5-4. The second amendment merely affirms our GOD GIVEN right and forbids the federal government from touching them. They've been touched too much already, and I don't like it. Think about it... my state is better than your state because they infringe on my GOD GIVEN rights less? That's crazy talk.
    Chief

  7. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer1113 View Post
    I read a lot of complaining about Federal and State Firearm Laws. I'm a believer that there must be some law governing the sale and use of firearms and I'm also OK with Background Checks because of the need to prohibit those who may suffer from mental illness and those who may have violent pasts.
    Most everyone here on the boards knows that no matter what is done criminals will always get their hands on guns.

    So what would you do? The answer is right in front of us. Maybe we, the "Gun Community" can self govern our way to being heard if we are unified in what is needed, what is not, and what we believe is fair for all.

    I am fine with a background check when I purchase a firearm from a dealer or vendor.
    Friend to friend sales are a different situation and should only require a bill of sale that includes who sold what to who and when and both party's signatures.
    Prohibited sales should remain as they currently are.
    One exception is we absolutely have to find a way to prohibit the mentally ill from purchasing, owning, or having access to any type of firearm.
    Medical professionals have to be the answer as I do not want the government to decide who is mentally ill, or the definition of mentally ill.

    I do not believe there is ever a reason for your firearms to be registered.

    Don't be lazy or shy, put into words your ideas. If we brainstorm long enough we may just come up with something.
    Here's my attempt (and please, don't stop me, even if think you may have heard it before):

    A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of The People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

    Every state and federal law passed either infringes DIRECTLY on our constitutional rights, or simply grants the government more power at the expense of the peoples' liberties.

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer1113 View Post
    I am starting to like this debate again.

    The laws we currently have are not perfect, but tolerable at the Federal Level. Some state laws clearly infringe on the peoples rights.

    I support background checks because those of us who purchase our firearms and undergo a background check are responsible gun owners.
    How does a background check indicate anyone is a responsible gun owner? All a background check tells us is the purchaser doesn't currently have a criminal record. There are countless stories of people shooting themselves while cleaning loaded guns, playing with loaded guns and leaving their loaded guns laying around for their kids to find.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer1113 View Post
    I am starting to like this debate again.

    The laws we currently have are not perfect, but tolerable at the Federal Level. Some state laws clearly infringe on the peoples rights.

    I support background checks because those of us who purchase our firearms and undergo a background check are responsible gun owners. We create the very best argument for the freedom to own firearms. When the Gun grabbers look at a statistic that says less than .20% of gun crimes are the result of a legal gun owner, that stat speaks volumes. Without it the claims by the liberal media and others would run rampant and we would have nothing to fall back on.
    Comprehensive reform in the mental illness/wellness is where a huge part of reform must take place. For almost all of us there would be NO change in the current system. But, if your found naked at the mall chasing imaginary pink and blue bunnies, well, things may need to change in your ability to own firearms.
    As a Former Military Police Officer I would like nothing more than to be able to freely walk into any retailer and buy a gun, no questions asked. But there are people I do not want to be able to do that. For me to have that piece of mind I am more than willing to pay my $5.00 wait for the call to be completed before I leave with my gun. Happy, Happy, Happy.

    Who currently rules on your mental health? If you have never been in the "System", then no one is going to rule on your mental health... Maybe friends and family do but that's life!
    I wish we had beautiful naked women parading around open carry style defending our rights like they do against furs, but I don't think that going to happen.
    As a community we have to be able to define what is and is not acceptable for us. When the time comes we have to be able to speak with one voice not a fragmented armed community.


    Two problems with your post. You aren't debating when you fail to respond to points that counter your beliefs and it seems that you are one who is apparently "fragmented" from the rest of us. Personally, I don't think you have any interest in the Second Amendment or preserving our rights. Seems to me that you are pretty much on "their" side of this issue.

    If you could just explain to me how expanding background checks and registration of firearms to the federal level is going to solve anything of significance along with how it is justification to give up our rights, I will reconsider my position. Your turn.


    I used to be a government-educated stooge. By the grace of God, I repent. -Robert Burris

  10. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by SR40c View Post
    [/B]

    Two problems with your post. You aren't debating when you fail to respond to points that counter your beliefs and it seems that you are one who is apparently "fragmented" from the rest of us. Personally, I don't think you have any interest in the Second Amendment or preserving our rights. Seems to me that you are pretty much on "their" side of this issue.

    If you could just explain to me how expanding background checks and registration of firearms to the federal level is going to solve anything of significance along with how it is justification to give up our rights, I will reconsider my position. Your turn.
    ... And obviously you skip scan the posts.
    I'm not for expanding anything. There would actually be less laws if the state laws in most cases went away.
    You are kidding yourself if you think background checks are ever going away.
    And My Position on writing the new federal firearms law is simply improving the ability to deal with mental illness.
    All the other requirements (Background check @ $5.00) stay the same.
    This is just my opinion.
    Original Post said Write the new Federal firearm law.

    In Good Faith I had hoped for some realistic input.
    If you don't want a background check, write your idea of a law that would prohibit felon's and the mentally ill and who ever else should not have a gun from getting them.
    Come on, show us your stuff.
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

  11. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Why are there so many folks who think the right to keep and bear arms should be subject to their control so they can have peace of mind and "feel safe" because they have credentials that they think make them qualified to judge others? Good grief.. that is the mentality of Fienstein, Holder, and Obama....

    Look... folks can trot out any multitude of mental masturbatory pseudo logic to try to show that laws that restrict the rights of others will make people safe in order to justify their desire to be the one who decides who is, and who isn't, "acceptable" or qualified to have a gun.

    But all of that falls flat on it's face when the inconvenient truth that cannot be avoided is...

    All the laws we already have that say felons/nuts/and other classes of prohibited folks are not "allowed" to have guns have NOT stopped felons/nuts/and other classes of prohibited folks .... from getting guns.


    If the law actually worked then there would have been no way Adam Lanza would have been able to get guns by murdering his mother (after all the law says people are not "allowed" to commit murder) and then continue his killing spree (there are laws that say people are not "allowed" to go on killing sprees)............ right?

    Bottom line... if the law actually stopped felons/nuts/and other classes of prohibited folks from getting guns then the argument that more laws will fix things would have merit.. but what I'm seeing is the same old crap that has been going on for decades of gun control. Just more of the same from folks who believe they are uniquely qualified to decide what new law will solve the problem... that violent people don't obey the law. Think about the mental disconnect involved in that.

    Does anyone really think that more gun control will stop the violence that those who don't obey those gun control laws will commit?

    Not to mention that those who would use guns to commit violence will NOT bother with a background check.............. so how will background checks help to .. stop violence? By proving law abiding folks who get background checks don't do violent things? How does that stop those who actually do violent things?

    When will folks understand that the premise that a law will stop violent people when those violent people don't obey the law no matter what the law is or how many laws there are... is BS right from the get go?

    As for the gun owning/carrying community speaking with one voice? How about we start with understanding that gun control laws do not control violent people with guns or keep violent people from getting guns......... and stop trying to find a new gun control law to pacify the anti gunners and demand action that will address violent people?
    So tell us oh Michigan Man. What do the current gun laws do for us. Keep it real and try to stick to less words than the Obama debt in dollars.
    And why don't you put in your qualifications as well.
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast