Survey: What "Reasonable Gun Law Reform" would/could you accept?

[LPMan59]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

lol whats it matter anyways? NFA will never go away

 

[Bunnykid68]

lol whats it matter anyways? NFA will never go away

This part of 19 (background checks, training, and proficiency checks)

 

[Unobogus]

I oppose gun regulation on principle. That means that even if you could show that a particular regulation might prevent a mass shooting, I'd still be against it.

That's not the way to argue this, however. Do it backwards. Argue the principle last. First make anyone who argues for a particular regulation to demonstrate how it will prevent whatever it is they're trying to prevent.

We gain nothing from political compromise.

I agree completely!

 

[wpframe01]

#21. The answer has to be none. There's nothing reasonable about any of it.

 

[MTC]

BACK to reality, if we are talking throw a dog a bone to get them to stop screaming insane demands then:

1. Probably the most acceptable.

5. Least hurtful because its the highest capacity listed.

7. Kind of scary, could be misinterpreted. Example: Anti's could pull some fake crap out of their butts saying that all pistols were originally designed to only hold 10 rounds or less. If it were to state as of current production then, OK.

18. I think this one, the mandatory training might be very acceptable to the anti's. Giving them a warm and fuzzy feeling. Footnotes could be added so that any formal training, boyscout, military etc. would meet the requirements. Yes I know many of you are grinding your teeth, take a deep breath.

14. Scares the living hell out of me. I dont want a National anything. The less the Federal betrayers of the Constitution are directly involved the better. National anything is just a really bad idea.

1. Mental health check psyc evaluation before purchase
2.gun safety training with the purchase of a firearm
3.gun permit apps must go through a self defense coarse
4.waiting time 7days or more
5 checks for private sales(we had a LEO shot with a illegal gun)
6 register all firearms (indiana does not have this)

add these to ones we already have dont change the laws on guns make it harder for a bad guy to get one this includes taking more guns off the streets.

Wow that is scary right there. You do know that gun registration only leads to confiscation, right? And exactly how would gun registration make anything safer?

Why say that's scary? After all, it's just throwing the dog a bone or two or six or more to "get them to stop screaming insane demands".

No. You don't give the bully your lunch money in the hopes he will leave you alone. You don't give away the Sudetenland thinking it will bring "peace in our time".

Give them nothing.

 

[japartridge]

There are only two reasonable reforms. The Second Amendment is very plain. It is a right. Rights do not come with strings attached, and if they do, they are not rights, but rather revocable privileges. First, the only acceptable solution is proper adherence to the Second Amendment, particularly the 'shall not be infringed' part and there should be no conditions or restrictions on anyone's rights except during times of incarceration in a correctional or mental health institution. As soon as their feet hit the sidewalk, their rights are back with them. Second, anyone advocating, lobbying for, introducing to congress, voting in congress for, or signing as president any law restricting [STRIKE]the Second[/STRIKE] Any Amendment should face MANDATORY treason charges for having done so.

FIFY

 

[IndyDave1776]

FIFY

I stand duly corrected for allowing myself to develop tunnel vision!

 

[TopDog]

Why say that's scary? After all, it's just throwing the dog a bone or two or six or more to "get them to stop screaming insane demands".

No. You don't give the bully your lunch money in the hopes he will leave you alone. You don't give away the Sudetenland thinking it will bring "peace in our time".

Give them nothing.

Because we are addressing the question of the OP. I stand for no AWB, no gun control. And I as a member of the NRA will keep writing, canvasing, signing petitions, voting and anything else I can to protect the 2A. But if the OP wants an answer to his question, those are my answers.

I had no choice in the original AWB but I had to accept it, so did you. I dont like the current laws, rules, and regulations either but I abide by them.

The registration thing was not part of the original list. Why would we be adding more restrictions to the list we dont want in the first place?

 

[TopDog]

By the way any of you that are answering no, none and 21 you better be doing something to stop the soon to be proposed legislation and not just giving face time here on INGO. Just spouting I will stand for no infringement on this forum and not doing anything to actually stop the proposed legislation is BS.

 

[MTC]

Because we are addressing the question of the OP. I stand for no AWB, no gun control. And I as a member of the NRA will keep writing, canvasing, signing petitions, voting and anything else I can to protect the 2A. But if the OP wants an answer to his question, those are my answers.

I had no choice in the original AWB but I had to accept it, so did you. I dont like the current laws, rules, and regulations either but I abide by them.

The registration thing was not part of the original list. Why would we be adding more restrictions to the list we dont want in the first place?

As we are in agreement on so many things, not meant to start anything with you personally, rather to make an overall point. And as an aside, many of the items on the original list involve de facto registration, whether people admit it or not.

By the way any of you that are answering no, none and 21 you better be doing something to stop the soon to be proposed legislation and not just giving face time here on INGO. Just spouting I will stand for no infringement on this forum and not doing anything to actually stop the proposed legislation is BS.

Agree on this point.

 

[Pitmaster]

None of the above. All gun laws beginning with the NFA of 1934 forward should be removed.

Although, if forced to actually make one choice I would make the NFA the cut off point under protest.

 

[Stopper]

#21. Give these videos a watch if you have the time.

The first is a long one by nutnfancy and the second is demonstrating a magazine switch between two ten round magazines versus a single twenty round magazine.

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2MLQTnEGRg
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CLsMRcA0

 

[IN28]

21

 

[Snavelybob]

The mental illness check/balance should be in the hands of a dr. If you are Ill it should be reported, like a contagious disease or a pedi file!! And that reporting should be part of the national database that is part of a background check for purchasing a gun..

 

[Pitmaster]

The mental illness check/balance should be in the hands of a dr. If you are Ill it should be reported, like a contagious disease or a pedi file!! And that reporting should be part of the national database that is part of a background check for purchasing a gun..

Absolutely not. I've been around psychiatrist's for years. I don't want them making that decision. They can start the process at the request of a family member or prosecutor's office. You don't want an angry ex-spouse, sibling, parent, other relative, friend, employer, or anyone else using false allegations to take away your rights. This is a slippery slope we don't want in government hands. I want any decision to take away or restrict anyone's rights to be placed in a court, with a trial, and not rubber stamped. This should not be an easy process at all.

For reference, it is not that hard to structure an interview in a manner to where quite a few on here can can be diagnosed with some sort of psychiatric disorder.

 

[Snavelybob]

Great point... Thinking about it that way I probably wouldn't want that eitther

 

[greyhound47]

I am all for more stringent background and mental health checks. If we say no to all "safeguards" then we will lose everything.

 

[Pitmaster]

I am all for more stringent background and mental health checks. If we say no to all "safeguards" then we will lose everything.

Not me. I don't want my or your rights compromised.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise"

 

[RoyalTenenbaum]

There is no such thing as reasonable infringement.

 

[CarmelHP]

There is no such thing as reasonable infringement.

Precisely.