U.S. Issues BRC's propsed gun control legislation - Page 6

**BigRedChief** · 09:08 AM

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:

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.

#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, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AussieChiefsFan

Guess so.

Not telling us what to do, 'eh? You just voted in this poll. Your vote doesn't count.

AussieChiefsFan · 12-22-2012, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Not telling us what to do, 'eh? You just voted in this poll. Your vote doesn't count.

I know. I'm still not telling anyone what to do. Just voting in an online poll.

Prison Bitch · 12-22-2012, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I'm a known Obama supporter on here.

I stopped reading at this point.

BucEyedPea · 12-22-2012, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AussieChiefsFan

I know. I'm still not telling anyone what to do. Just voting in an online poll.

I don't believe you. Participation in such is a desire to influence outcomes. I can also say what I think of this, as part of my free speech too.

**BigRedChief** · 12-22-2012, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Passing laws for no reason doesn't seem very intelligent to me.

Since when does Washington make sense?

Dave · 12-22-2012, 05:49 PM

Criminals with follow all of those religiously.

**mlyonsd** · 12-22-2012, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Since when does Washington make sense?

I'm talking about your proposals.

**BigRedChief** · 12-22-2012, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I'm talking about your proposals.

Huh?

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 12-23-2012, 04:22 AM

I just can't get behind a ban on armor piercing bullets. I know the military could wipe out anyone with ballistic missiles, and what not. I don't care. The idea of the 2nd amendment was to protect the people from a corrupt government. That's a big deal to me. Call it, Mr. Flopnuts' insurance policy. So, no. I can't get behind this.

Of course I like premise 1 and 2, and definitely 6. I can live with 5 if it's done correctly, but 3, and 4 are absolute deal breakers for me. The problem in my eyes is not guns, it's the nut bags that use them. I'd almost be okay with a psyche evaluation on prospective gun owners. But not limiting mags, or armor piercing bullets. Responsible gun owning members of society are the last people I worry about.

BucEyedPea · 12-23-2012, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

I just can't get behind a ban on armor piercing bullets. I know the military could wipe out anyone with ballistic missiles, and what not. I don't care. The idea of the 2nd amendment was to protect the people from a corrupt government. That's a big deal to me. Call it, Mr. Flopnuts' insurance policy. So, no. I can't get behind this.

One reason we've not fallen, at least fully, into a tyranny is because the people are armed. Can't say that for other countries, eventhough we're moving in that direction more.

Federalist No. 46, Madison confidently "contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as 'afraid to trust the people with arms.' He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of 'the advantage of being armed....'" ( Wiki-there are quotes by Framers commenting on how the kingdoms of Europe had disarmed their people.)

...and remember, the newly freed slaves of the south were disarmed by the Southern states.

**BigRedChief** · 12-23-2012, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

One reason we've not fallen, at least fully, into a tyranny is because the people are armed. Can't say that for other countries, eventhough we're moving in that direction more.

This is just pure BS.

you think the government is holding back from becoming a dictatorship because some citizens have pea shooters?

We have the biggest and best military the world has ever known. You think they are so scared of a citizen with a glock that they haven't turned our country into a dictatorship?

**BigRedChief** · 12-23-2012, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

Responsible gun owning members of society are the last people I worry about.

I agree. But, something is going to be done. Like it or not. That train has left the station.

HonestChieffan · 12-23-2012, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I agree. But, something is going to be done. Like it or not. That train has left the station.

Something. Even things that wont do one damn thing. Do something? None of the proposals by any politician would have prevented, reduced, or had any impact on the recent killing. So we are going to do something for the sake of doing something. Utter insanity

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 12-23-2012, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I agree. But, something is going to be done. Like it or not. That train has left the station.

I guess time will tell but I disagree that the train has left the station.

**BigRedChief** · 12-23-2012, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

I guess time will tell but I disagree that the train has left the station.

You don't think the Sandy Hook tragedy is going to generate legislature out of Washington?

View Poll Results: Is this an acceptable compromise?
Yes	4	12.50%
No	22	68.75%
Maybe, see my tweak to the proposal	1	3.13%
Take out the restriction on the # of rounds in a clip, then we got a deal	5	15.63%
We need to go further to restrict access to guns	0	0%
Obligatory GAZ option	0	0%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

12-22-2012, 08:58 AM
BigRedChief Brainwashed Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Swims with fishes Casino cash: $2264697	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: 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. #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. Last edited by BigRedChief; 12-22-2012 at 09:08 AM..
Posts: 37,871

12-22-2012, 05:49 PM	#81
Dave New Hope Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Florida Casino cash: $171547	Criminals with follow all of those religiously.
Posts: 45,360

12-23-2012, 04:22 AM	#84
Mr. Flopnuts Banned Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Down the rabbit hole Casino cash: $113740936	I just can't get behind a ban on armor piercing bullets. I know the military could wipe out anyone with ballistic missiles, and what not. I don't care. The idea of the 2nd amendment was to protect the people from a corrupt government. That's a big deal to me. Call it, Mr. Flopnuts' insurance policy. So, no. I can't get behind this. Of course I like premise 1 and 2, and definitely 6. I can live with 5 if it's done correctly, but 3, and 4 are absolute deal breakers for me. The problem in my eyes is not guns, it's the nut bags that use them. I'd almost be okay with a psyche evaluation on prospective gun owners. But not limiting mags, or armor piercing bullets. Responsible gun owning members of society are the last people I worry about.
Posts: 41,484

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode