ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   U.S. Issues BRC's propsed gun control legislation (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=267927)

BigRedChief 12-22-2012 09:58 AM

BRC's propsed gun control legislation
 
I'm a known Obama supporter on here. I also have a long standing belief that gun control legislation usually doesn't work and besides...and this is not a small thing in the discussion..........the constitution is clear, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. Thats why even though I don't own guns or hunt that I've been a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. The constitution is clear.

I understand that the constitution is also very clear on free speech but we restrict free speech in some circumstances (libel, yelling fire etc.). Thats the test that I've always used in evaluating any gun control legislation. If we allow and support the real ugly and reprehensible parts of free speech such as the Nazi's marching in a Jewish neighborhood then the Democrats must do the same with allowing gun owners that freedom guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Republicans have to be open to some limitations on gun control along the same lines as the limits we put on free speech.

The compromise:
  1. Forbid the mentally ill to own guns of any kind.
  2. Forbid those who have been found guilty of violence against fellow citizens from owning guns.
  3. Make illegal the purchase and ownership of armor piercing bullets.
  4. Make illegal any ammunition clips greater than 10 rounds. (Exception could be in place for gun ranges)
  5. Make laws that punish gun owners if their own registered guns are used to commit crimes.
  6. Closing the gun show loophole.
#1 and #2 are easy. No one should be against those proposals.
#3 There is no need reason for an individual citizen to own armor piercing bullets.
#4 This is the key. The Ft. Hood, Va. tech, Gabby Giffords shooter were all stopped when their ammo clips ran out and they stop to reload. We can limit the body count if they have to stop to reload a clip even if it takes only 3-5 seconds.
#5 Gun owners should already be securing their firearms so that kids, mentally ill, suicidal people don't have access to their guns. This would have prevented Shady Hook.
#6 You buy a gun at your local shop they perform a background check but buy at a gun show they don't? Thats idiotic. If there is a background check, it applies to gun shows.



What got left off the table:
  • Assault weapons ban. It was already in effect for 10 years. It didn't lower crime. It doesn't meet the first amendment Nazi's marching test. The constitution is about the rights to own guns, not how many bullets that gun can fire.
  • Mental illness legislation. A different discussion.

BucEyedPea 12-22-2012 09:58 AM

I think we have some of those.

Futhermore, Connecticut had some of the toughest gun control laws in this country with a ban on assault weapons.
It didn't work, in this case, did it?

It will take smart technology to prevent arms from getting into the hands of non-owners.

BigRedChief 12-22-2012 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea (Post 9231514)
I think we have some of those.

I was trying to list a totality of how far I was willing to go in restricting a constitutionally guaranteed right.

BucEyedPea 12-22-2012 10:02 AM

Ok

Bambi 12-22-2012 10:04 AM

What about the purchasing at gun shows with no back ground check whatsoever?

That didn't make this list?

BigRedChief 12-22-2012 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wickedson (Post 9231523)
What about the purchasing at gun shows with no back ground check whatsoever?

That didn't make this list?

I was assuming this was to be the law of the land. There would be no gun show loophole. But, I'll add it to the compromise. It definitely needs to happen. It's a stupid loophole.

kcpasco 12-22-2012 10:08 AM

Number 1 is a no brainer
Number 2 you would have to define more.
Numbers 3 4 5 and 6 is a definite no from me.

HonestChieffan 12-22-2012 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wickedson (Post 9231523)
What about the purchasing at gun shows with no back ground check whatsoever?

That didn't make this list?


1) If you are a gun dealer selling at a gun show you have to do background checks now.
2) Only private treaty sale from one individual to another is not done with a background check.
3) Private treaty sales take place everyday away from a GunShow so in essence there is no such thing as a gun show loophole.

HonestChieffan 12-22-2012 10:15 AM

You do realize guns are not registered in the US?

Bambi 12-22-2012 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan (Post 9231537)
1) If you are a gun dealer selling at a gun show you have to do background checks now.
2) Only private treaty sale from one individual to another is not done with a background check.
3) Private treaty sales take place everyday away from a GunShow so in essence there is no such thing as a gun show loophole.

So every purchase at a gun show is done with a full background check?

I'm confused because I've been hearing much different through multiple media outlets.

HonestChieffan 12-22-2012 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wickedson (Post 9231543)
So every purchase at a gun show is done with a full background check?

I'm confused because I've been hearing much different through multiple media outlets.


Every gun sold by a FFL dealer at a gun show goes through the exact process as if you went to his store and bought it

There are individuals selling guns to individuals and no those are not run through a check no different than if you bought a gun from me.

Fish 12-22-2012 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wickedson (Post 9231543)
So every purchase at a gun show is done with a full background check?

I'm confused because I've been hearing much different through multiple media outlets.

Yeah... that's a shocker...

Fat Elvis 12-22-2012 10:38 AM

Number 1 is completely insane.

What exactly is "mental illness" or "mentally ill?"

How do you forbid someone who suffers from, but hasn't been diagnosed as "mentally ill" from purchasing a gun?

What is the threshold for "mentally ill" and who defines it? Would someone who is paranoid that the government is going to take over their freedoms if they don't have their military grade guns/weapons qualify as mentally ill? It certainly does in my book. I consider that delusional thinking.

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 25% of adults live with some type of mental illness and that 50% of the US population has a mental illness at some point in their life.

Does your proposal also mean that if someone in your household or family have a mental illness that you are prevented from having a gun as well? Remember, other members in your household will have access to the guns even if you aren't mentally ill. The Sandy Point shooter was mentally ill, his mother wasn't; he shot up the school with her guns--access to those guns would be totally legal under your proposal.

Finally, the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent at all. In my estimation, stripping a person of their 4th Amendment Right to due process is far worse than stripping people of their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms.

BucEyedPea 12-22-2012 10:40 AM

Investigate the Big Pharma and FDA on allowing psychotropic drugs and prosecute them if needed. Then ban them.

That's my gun control.

Fish 12-22-2012 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 9231512)
The compromise:
Forbid the mentally ill to own guns of any kind.
Forbid those who have been found guilty of violence against fellow citizens from owning guns.
Make illegal the purchase and ownership of armor piercing bullets.
Make illegal any ammunition clips greater than 10 rounds. (Exception could be in place for gun ranges)
Make laws that punish gun owners if their own registered guns are used to commit crimes.
Closing the gun show loophole.[/list]

There are already regulations in place to satisfy 1, 2, 3, and 5.

4. Would be very close to unenforceable. But as a gun owner, I'd still listen to and accept compromise on implementing this into future gun regulations.

6. There is no gun show loophole. As HCF has said, gun shows don't provide any activity that isn't legal anywhere else at any time. This topic is simple. It involves either requiring background checks on all sales private and commercial, or leaving it off the table. And again as a gun owner, I wouldn't be resistant to the thought of changing this. But I'd need to see why/how it would be effective against those using guns illegally for harm. Because this is something that could easily result in a hindrance to those using guns legally, and completely ignored by those who are not. With the number of guns in private hands, I strongly question whether new background check regulation would be effective at all. Too many sellers would ignore it because they'll make more money in the deal by not doing the background check. Unless you could overcome that and give sellers enough motivation to overcome the additional expense it would incur, then I don't see this one working.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.