Reasonable gun control measure?

[10-Ring]

I'm probably more against gun control than anyone I know.  I think we should be able to own whatever kinds of guns we want and whatever kinds of magazines we want.  Maybe I'm missing something here but as a compromise to current legislation how about a law that you can own any guns that are currently legal but you are also required to own a gun safe.  Yes, I realize that like any other gun law this one is unenforceable.  And, in reality, if any such measure was adopted it would be in addition to other absurd measures.  I'm just thinking in the case of Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza stole his mothers guns, had they been locked away at least those guns would have been inaccessible to him.  What about all of the stolen guns that get in the wrong hands, this would cut it down at least, maybe.  In reality I think I'm pissing in the wind here, common sense would never fly in the midst of all of the tomfoolery out there.

 

Note:  Before I had a safe I never appreciated the risks that I was taking by not having one.  I think there is a lot to be said to be able to know where your guns are at all times and that they are secure.  I had a safe before I had a kid but I can not imagine having guns in the house with a kid and without a safe.

[Sam1]

I think we should ban shooting victims, then there would be no need for gun control.

[Jonnin]

Let me say it this way:

 

I am 100% OK with any law that the government passes that dictates that I must OWN something SO LONG AS the government PROVIDES THE ITEM FOR FREE and DOES NOT RAISE TAXES TO PAY FOR IT.

 

Now, that said, feel free to buy me as many guns safes as you want, Mr president.

[1gewehr]

Reasonable gun control would be a law requiring every able-bodied adult male to own a serviceable rifle in a military caliber as well as a basic load of ammunition and equipment for it.  Hmmm, that sounds familiar.  Oh, wait!  We already did that once with the Second Militia Act of 1792!  Maybe it's time to dust that one off.

 

More Reasonable Gun Control would be a law requiring a citizen to shoot the Army Rifle AQT course with a passing score in order to vote. Even my 80 year-old Mom can qualify on the AQT, so this should be a no-brainer.  Maybe make some kind of allowance for those who are blind, though.

 

Here's some more Reasonable Gun Control that I REALLY like!  Allow tax credits for those who have more than the minimum rifle and equipment in the first paragraph!  How about a $1000 credit for owning a long-range rifle and completing a 800 yard qualification course?!  And a $2000 credit for owning a belt-fed machine gun and completing a qualification course!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm probably more against gun control than anyone I know.  I think we should be able to own whatever kinds of guns we want and whatever kinds of magazines we want.  Maybe I'm missing something here but as a compromise to current legislation how about a law that you can own any guns that are currently legal but you are also required to own a gun safe.  Yes, I realize that like any other gun law this one is unenforceable.  And, in reality, if any such measure was adopted it would be in addition to other absurd measures.  I'm just thinking in the case of Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza stole his mothers guns, had they been locked away at least those guns would have been inaccessible to him.  What about all of the stolen guns that get in the wrong hands, this would cut it down at least, maybe.  In reality I think I'm pissing in the wind here, common sense would never fly in the midst of all of the tomfoolery out there.

 

Note:  Before I had a safe I never appreciated the risks that I was taking by not having one.  I think there is a lot to be said to be able to know where your guns are at all times and that they are secure.  I had a safe before I had a kid but I can not imagine having guns in the house with a kid and without a safe.

No to anything from the federal government. Why do you think this is worth compromising? Why do you think a responsible

gun owner needs a law to require him to do what he should do? Absolutely no!

 

If you aren't consistent in your argument concerning the 2nd Amendment, you cannot win the argument. The Dems will take any

compromise and make it work to their advantage while law abiding citizens continue to be punished for nothing. A criminal does

not care anything about a new law. He already breaks every law there is. Do you only want to make new criminals?

 

Never compromise.

[Stegall Law Firm]

You can't legislate responsibility.  If you could there would be fewer traffic fatalities, teenage pregnancies, and stray dogs.  But our elected officials sure do try, God love 'em.  They really try. 

[TMF]

[quote name="Stegall Law Firm" post="894722" timestamp="1359046233"]You can't legislate responsibility.  If you could there would be fewer traffic fatalities, teenage pregnancies, and stray dogs.  But our elected officials sure do try, God love 'em.  They really try. [/quote] Spot on. I'd like to see legislation which targets criminals, not the rest of us. The common denominator in all this gun control talk is that the laws will only impact those who have no desire to commit a crime, as any of these laws will be ignored by a person intent on committing a crime. So what are we mitigating here?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

We would only be relegating ourselves to criminal status.

[LagerHead]

Let me say it this way:

 

I am 100% OK with any law that the government passes that dictates that I must OWN something SO LONG AS the government PROVIDES THE ITEM FOR FREE and DOES NOT RAISE TAXES TO PAY FOR IT.

 

Now, that said, feel free to buy me as many guns safes as you want, Mr president.

 

Fortunately that is not possible. I am NOT OK with ANY law that tells me I have to buy something, even if I already own it, regardless of the tax or other financial implications. It is not within the government's authority to tell me what I must buy, yet they already do so and so I must comply under the threat of violence. 

[Jonnin]

Fortunately that is not possible. I am NOT OK with ANY law that tells me I have to buy something, even if I already own it, regardless of the tax or other financial implications. It is not within the government's authority to tell me what I must buy, yet they already do so and so I must comply under the threat of violence. 

Hard to say on that one.  While the constitution does not say the govt can force people to buy things, its been done since the inception of our country and there is plenty of precedence to argue that it is legal (sigh if anyone has ever done it before we allow it to continue, legal or not).   IIRC the original militia had to own their own gun and have ready to use 1 pound of powder and some amount of shot, for example.  Maybe that was a state law, I do not recall, but either way --- level of govt matters little when it comes down to a burden or aggravation to the individual.  

 

Me, I would take the FREE safe and use it without raising a stink.  If the govt cannot afford to buy me a safe, then they just put a price on the heads of all those innocent (and mythological) children that my wild, uncorralled guns would (hypothetically) have killed.  They can't DO that without disproving their own garbage. 

Edited January 24, 2013 by Jonnin

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nothing personal to the OP or anyone else, but anyone who starts talking about some kind of compromise needs their head

examined. There is no need for the laws already on the books, excepting those that address a criminal's possession of any

kind of firearm. All the rest should be done away with. If the gun community were to stick to a consistent repetitive tone, such

as this, we might be able to stop all this nonsense. A compromise will only make more criminals out of us. As one should never

compromise his principles, the 2nd Amendment should never be compromised. Why even talk of such?

 

There comes a point in time when you stand up for something you believe in, or you sit down and become a slave to a master.

I will never be a slave to the likes of Feinstein, or anyone else. You are already caving when the first mention of that word is

brought up. It is one of the most dangerous words a principled man can ever use. I would rather die fighting for something I

believe in before I gave up to some coward slave master like a gun grabber. The 2nd Amendment is very clear in it's purpose,

unless you buy the liberal argument. And buying that argument is a mistake you will regret.

[Jonnin]

Agreed.  My "compromise" is a poorly disguised attempt to get free stuff out of idiots and was only really meant as sarcasm since 1) I don't really want govt handouts but so long as they tax me and give stuff out I won't argue if given one and 2) we can't afford it, but then again, we can afford to give away umpteen billion in fighter jets to our enemy today, so maybe we can....

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I knew that, Jonnin. :D

[Dolomite_supafly]

A safe, like any lock, only keeps honest people honest.

Dolomite

[LagerHead]

Hard to say on that one.  While the constitution does not say the govt can force people to buy things, its been done since the inception of our country and there is plenty of precedence to argue that it is legal (sigh if anyone has ever done it before we allow it to continue, legal or not).   IIRC the original militia had to own their own gun and have ready to use 1 pound of powder and some amount of shot, for example.  Maybe that was a state law, I do not recall, but either way --- level of govt matters little when it comes down to a burden or aggravation to the individual.  

 

Me, I would take the FREE safe and use it without raising a stink.  If the govt cannot afford to buy me a safe, then they just put a price on the heads of all those innocent (and mythological) children that my wild, uncorralled guns would (hypothetically) have killed.  They can't DO that without disproving their own garbage. 

 

I agree on the first part. The government daily does things that are not within its authority. For two hundred years they imposed slavery on people based on the color of their skin. That doesn't mean it WAS in their authority, it just means they did it anyway. 

[Moped]

There should not be compromise on anything, period!

[10-Ring]

Points taken, just had an idea and thought that I would throw it out there.  I did forget for a minute that all of this legislation has nothing to do with guns, it's all about controlling the people.  I agree 100% that we should not budge and give anything up. 

[DaveTN]

I'm just thinking in the case of Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza stole his mothers guns, had they been locked away at least those guns would have been inaccessible to him. 

I’m pretty sure if someone was willing to kill you, as in the case of Lanza, they could make you open your safe.

[battleop]

I'm probably more against gun control than anyone I know.  I think we should be able to own whatever kinds of guns we want and whatever kinds of magazines we want.  Maybe I'm missing something here but as a compromise to current legislation how about a law that you can own any guns that are currently legal but you are also required to own a gun safe.  Yes, I realize that like any other gun law this one is unenforceable.  And, in reality, if any such measure was adopted it would be in addition to other absurd measures.  I'm just thinking in the case of Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza stole his mothers guns, had they been locked away at least those guns would have been inaccessible to him.  What about all of the stolen guns that get in the wrong hands, this would cut it down at least, maybe.  In reality I think I'm pissing in the wind here, common sense would never fly in the midst of all of the tomfoolery out there.

 

Note:  Before I had a safe I never appreciated the risks that I was taking by not having one.  I think there is a lot to be said to be able to know where your guns are at all times and that they are secure.  I had a safe before I had a kid but I can not imagine having guns in the house with a kid and without a safe.

Personally I don't have a problem with having everyone lock up their guns when not in use. Why would anyone not want for someone to steal their guns?

[Major Kong]

Personally I don't have a problem with having everyone lock up their guns when not in use. Why would anyone not want for someone to steal their guns?

I lock my guns up because it's common sense, not because some bureaucrat tells me to.

 

I would also wear my seatbelt in my car without being told to. I resent, however, being forced to do so by the same worthless bureaucrat. Same with motorcycle helmet laws and any other place the government tries to legislate common sense.

[Mark@Sea]

Nothing personal to the OP or anyone else, but anyone who starts talking about some kind of compromise needs their head

examined.

 

  I'm quite willing to compromise, 6.8.  Here's the deal - the politicians abide by the terms of the contract by which they govern, and I don't go looking for lamp posts and rope.  To me, sounds like the bargain of the century.

[gunwhatgun]

Nothing personal to the OP or anyone else, but anyone who starts talking about some kind of compromise needs their head

examined. There is no need for the laws already on the books, excepting those that address a criminal's possession of any

kind of firearm. All the rest should be done away with. If the gun community were to stick to a consistent repetitive tone, such

as this, we might be able to stop all this nonsense. A compromise will only make more criminals out of us. As one should never

compromise his principles, the 2nd Amendment should never be compromised. Why even talk of such?

 

There comes a point in time when you stand up for something you believe in, or you sit down and become a slave to a master.

I will never be a slave to the likes of Feinstein, or anyone else. You are already caving when the first mention of that word is

brought up. It is one of the most dangerous words a principled man can ever use. I would rather die fighting for something I

believe in before I gave up to some coward slave master like a gun grabber. The 2nd Amendment is very clear in it's purpose,

unless you buy the liberal argument. And buying that argument is a mistake you will regret.

I agree with this 100%. I would also like to add that the one seeking compromise in matters such as these are usually the first ones kneeling to a knew regime.

[Good_Steward]

Fortunately that is not possible. I am NOT OK with ANY law that tells me I have to buy something, even if I already own it, regardless of the tax or other financial implications. It is not within the government's authority to tell me what I must buy, yet they already do so and so I must comply under the threat of violence. 

 

That is the government. They actually have a monopoly on lethal force, if you truly think about it. Think about this: you receive your tax notice for $2.79 from Amazon, refuse to pay. The .gov wants to know why you aren't paying, and sends an official IRS notice (paying 10x the requested cost in official notices, most likely) saying you are obligated to pay. You blow them off. Next thing you know, your assets are frozen and you are being tried for fraud. You go to jail. Thinking you are wrongfully imprisoned, you make a break for it. Shot. dead. For $2.79 you owe the guv. Far fetched? Probably. Could it happen? Well, when the guv has the monopoly on lethal force....

Edited January 25, 2013 by Good_Steward

[LagerHead]

That is the government. They actually have a monopoly on lethal force, if you truly think about it. Think about this: you receive your tax notice for $2.79 from Amazon, refuse to pay. The .gov wants to know why you aren't paying, and sends an official IRS notice (paying 10x the requested cost in official notices, most likely) saying you are obligated to pay. You blow them off. Next thing you know, your assets are frozen and you are being tried for fraud. You go to jail. Thinking you are wrongfully imprisoned, you make a break for it. Shot. dead. For $2.79 you owe the guv. Far fetched? Probably. Could it happen? Well, when the guv has the monopoly on lethal force....

 

I never said they couldn't make you do it. I just said it's not within their authority. In other words half the things they do, they do outside of their authority and outside of the law. Might does not make right.

[DWARREN123]

I have not seen or heard of any reasonable gun control measures being discuss ever. How about laws against murder, people getting firearms who are not allowed to own firearms. That would work, right?