"Reasonable" gun laws. (Page 1/23)
fredtoast SEP 16, 01:10 PM
Let me start out by saying that I am a gunowner. I am not trying to take aways everyone's guns. I am just concerned that the NRA and other gun lobbies are more interested in the protection of gun manufacturers than gun owners and the general population.


There are 2 very simple, basic gun regulations that would NOT TAKE AWAY ANYONE'S RIGHT TO OWN GUNS, but would greatly improve the ability of law enforcement to enforce existing gun laws, and make everyone safer.

First of all anyone who wants to own a gun should be licensed. All they have to do is pass a simple gun safety test and pass a background check to prove they are not a convicted felon, have a dangerous mental illness, or have a current order of protection against them. Currently the law is that even a misdemeanor conviction for domestic assault bars a person from ever owning a gun. I think goes a bit to far and would be willing to get rid of that restriction. Without licensing laws it is impossible for police to prosecute a person for illegal possession of a weapon because they usually don't have the time to run a full criminal background check on every person they come in contact with who has a gun. Imagin trying to determine if a person was legally authorized/qualified to drive a car without drivers licenses.

Second every gun needs to be registered to a specific owner. This is a necessity to hold gun owners responsible for securing these deadly weapons. It is also need so that police can enforce current gun laws. Right now when police catch people with guns they have no way of tracing where the gun came from. It makes it almost impossible to control the illegal trafficking of weapons. It is so easy for criminals to get guns because the people selling guns to them know they most likely can't get caught. Imagin trying to enforce laws against auto theft without any vehicle registration. Also a convicted felon can keep a gun as long as there is someone else in the house/car to claim ownership.

Both of these laws make a lot of sense. Both of these laws promote public safety and aid law enforcement. Neither of these laws stop people from owning guns. But when I suggest them the 2A crowd immediately objects. Many of them try to wrap themselves in the Constitution, but when you ask them if they would obey gun laws that were found to be Constitutional most of them say "no". So they really don't care about the Constitution. They just want to own guns.

And a lot of it has to do with NRA propaganda. Criminals are a HUGE market for guns. Gun makers don't want to reduce their market. so they almost always favor laws that make it easier for criminals to buy and possess guns. It is about the money for them.
olejoedad SEP 16, 05:27 PM
Are you an NRA member?
MidEngineManiac SEP 16, 07:08 PM
What Fred is describing is exactly what Canada had prior to the Firearms Act in the 90's.(1995)

Basic background check was called an FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate). Once you had that you went and bought what you wanted, stored it how you wanted and used it how you wanted (no, I dont mean robbing banks). Bought whatever ammo you wanted.

THEN the goobernment decided to regulate the living crap out of every-single-aspect to make ownership as inconvenient, onerous, irritating and as difficult as humanly possible.

End result is a whole SHEET-pile of people who would have complied under the "old" system now simply dont bother at all. They just buy black-market or have moved on to different weapons.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 09-16-2023).]

PhatMax SEP 16, 07:09 PM
I big no to all you suggest.
fredtoast SEP 16, 07:20 PM

quote
Originally posted by PhatMax:

I big no to all you suggest.




Why?

They do a lot of good and don't stop anyone from owning a gun.

The only people these laws hurt are criminals.
fredtoast SEP 16, 07:22 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

Are you an NRA member?




No. They do not provide any service that I need.

Are you? If so, why? What service do they provide that you need?
MidEngineManiac SEP 16, 08:26 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:
Why?

They do a lot of good and don't stop anyone from owning a gun.

The only people these laws hurt are criminals.



And you (or your kind) get to decide who the "criminals" are, right ?
randye SEP 16, 08:26 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:


Both of these laws make a lot of sense.






NEVER let a Leftist lecture you about "sensible" gun laws.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-16-2023).]

olejoedad SEP 16, 09:23 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:
No. They do not provide any service that I need.

Are you? If so, why? What service do they provide that you need?



Yes, I am a Life Member.

I receive the America's First Freedom monthly magazine, published by NRA's Institute for Legislative Action.

Did you know that the NRA is America's oldest civil rights organization, and was started at the request of an American President by two Army generals?

Did you know that the NRA provides more firearm safety training training for private citizens and LEO's than any other organization in the USA?

Are you familiar with the NRA's Eddie Eagle child safety program?

Are you aware of the NRA' response to the Parkland shooting?

Are you aware the the NRA lobbied for the initial background checks for handgun purchases?
randye SEP 16, 09:33 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:


Imagin (sic) trying to determine if a person was legally authorized/qualified to drive a car without drivers licenses.






A right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads is NOT enshrined in the United States Constitution.

The right to keep and bear arms IS.

A real lawyer would immediately know that distinction and wouldn't have made such a stupid comparison.