Common sense Gun control,based on our Constitution

[gollbladder13]

imported post

I didn't buy my first gun to be a 2A advocate. I bought it to protect my family.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

Lurchiron wrote:

My thoughts are the 48 hour wait is a domestic abuse deterrent(a good thing), and if you can't wait 2 days to pick up your gun; why does one spend so much time on researching what gun would serve them best for their needs only to bitch about an extra 2 day wait?

48 hour wait is an ineffective solution to a non existent problem. Nothing stops someone from walking out of the store with a 12 guage the same day. Don't tell me that a handgun is more dangerous.

Also, if you already own a handgun, what is the sense of waiting 48 hours for another?

A waiting period is "feel good" fuzzy horse manure.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

Landose_theghost wrote:

I say that yes we keep the background check,and hell maybe even keep the 48 hr hold law(that's a big maybe ). But in an effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we inact a law that makes it mandatory to know the Constitution and Bill of rights for ANYONE purchasing a firearm for the first time. Once the test is passed, the tester will be given a card or document stating they have gone thru the proper chanels to obtain a firearm.

There are alot of educated individuals who know the US Constitution front to back, yet vote to take away our guns and our gun rights.

The most basic objection I have is that no where in the 2nd Amendment is there a test required. Or anywere else in the US Constitution before you may enjoy the rights affirmed by that great document we hold so dearly.

 

[Lurchiron]

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

Lurchiron wrote:

My thoughts are the 48 hour wait is a domestic abuse deterrent(a good thing), and if you can't wait 2 days to pick up your gun; why does one spend so much time on researching what gun would serve them best for their needs only to bitch about an extra 2 day wait?

48 hour wait is an ineffective solution to a non existent problem. Nothing stops someone from walking out of the store with a 12 guage the same day. Don't tell me that a handgun is more dangerous.

Also, if you already own a handgun, what is the sense of waiting 48 hours for another?

A waiting period is "feel good" fuzzy horse manure.

No one said handguns are more dangerous than long guns; just that they usually operate at a more up close and personal range. Thus making them more scary to the sheeple who seem to think that seperation(from their attacker) is safety.

As far as the waiting period, I stand by my post. If you already own a handgun what's the big deal about waiting 2 days? Maybe you should just order it 2 days earlier then!!!

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

Ineffective Solution

Nonexistent problem

Waiting period is more effective at allowing victims to be victimized for 48 hours more than it is in protecting anyone from violence (unless that someone is a criminal).

Handguns are more suitable to be carried about one's person for defensive purposes than is a long gun which is unnecessarily cumbersome.

 

[Lurchiron]

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

Ineffective Solution

Nonexistent problem

Waiting period is more effective at allowing victims to be victimized for 48 hours more than it is in protecting anyone from violence (unless that someone is a criminal).

Handguns are more suitable to be carried about one's person for defensive purposes than is a long gun which is unnecessarily cumbersome.

Just how can you be victimized by a gun that at the present time is being held for 48 hours. Seems impossible to me. Explain please!!!

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

Lurchiron wrote:

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

Ineffective Solution

Nonexistent problem

Waiting period is more effective at allowing victims to be victimized for 48 hours more than it is in protecting anyone from violence (unless that someone is a criminal).

Handguns are more suitable to be carried about one's person for defensive purposes than is a long gun which is unnecessarily cumbersome.

Just how can you be victimized by a gun that at the present time is being held for 48 hours. Seems impossible to me. Explain please!!!

It is not the gun which is victimized. Guns don't kill, people kill...

The person who for whatever reason currently owns no handgun but finds themselves being threatened, should not be forced to be disarmed an additional 48 hours. Handguns are more suitable to be carried about one's person for defensive purposes than is a long gun which is unnecessarily cumbersome.

 

[Lurchiron]

imported post

Sounds to me that then your debate should center on growing up American; by that I mean one should have in their possesion by certain ages, certain objects denoting their ability to accept responsibility for their actions.

Under such a debate, one would think that any normal-to-smart individual would by adulthood have any & all devices for ensuring their personal safety. As such there would be no need to "feel victimized" because one would already be armed & educated.

Therefore the 48hr.wait should be taken as is was intended; to prevent a fit of rage crime.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

Lurchiron wrote:

Sounds to me that then your debate should center on growing up American; by that I mean one should have in their possesion by certain ages, certain objects denoting their ability to accept responsibility for their actions.

This is a seperate issue and one which is addressed by organizations like the Appelseed Project whose goal is to instill the most basic marksmanship skills to all Americans. A very important goal of the Open Carry movement is to normalize firearms in our society. Firearms most certainly should be an essential tool in every houshold just as is a fire extinguisher


Lurchiron wrote:

Therefore the 48hr.wait should be taken as is was intended; to prevent a fit of rage crime.

Which can be committed equally effectively with a knife, hammer, bat, rock or sharp stick......

The bottom line and irrefutable fact is that the legislation (Federal) was enacted by the Brady Act. An over reaction to a handgun being used in a crime against Sarah Brady's husband.

This logic makes sense to the timid and incompetent firearms users but makes no sense to those of us who were raised around firearms, served their country using firearms and have an inner sense of responsibility which includes defending our families with firearms....

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

Lurchiron wrote:

Sounds to me that then your debate should center on growing up American; by that I mean one should have in their possesion by certain ages, certain objects denoting their ability to accept responsibility for their actions.

This is a seperate issue and one which is addressed by organizations like the Appelseed Project whose goal is to instill the most basic marksmanship skills to all Americans. A very important goal of the Open Carry movement is to normalize firearms in our society. Firearms most certainly should be an essential tool in every houshold just as is a fire extinguisher


Lurchiron wrote:

Therefore the 48hr.wait should be taken as is was intended; to prevent a fit of rage crime.

Which can be committed equally effectively with a knife, hammer, bat, rock or sharp stick......

The bottom line and irrefutable fact is that the legislation (Federal) was enacted by the Brady Act. An over reaction to a handgun being used in a crime against Sarah Brady's husband.

This logic makes sense to the timid and incompetent firearms users but makes no sense to those of us who were raised around firearms, served their country using firearms and have an inner sense of responsibility which includes defending our families with firearms....

or a rifle / shotgun, that you can walk out of the store with 15 minutes after walking in. 48 hour Handgun cool down periods are a joke , as is anyone that supports the 48 hour wait. The AR15 I own will do more damage than your pistol and I don't have to wait to buy it....:? no logic in a 48 hour waiting period, NONE.

 

[Lurchiron]

imported post

You got me, I didn't say it was a good law; just what I percieved its intent to be.

Early to bed, later to rise;

Lurch out.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

Landose_theghost wrote:

Ok, I'd like to first say that I know it's been a while since I've been on the forum and it feels damn good to be back in Wisconsin, and back on the board in general.

So anyways,I have been doing a lot ofpondering on how to curtail this nationwide problem we have with criminals having guns and so on and so forth, and It came to me that it isn't the guns,nor the magizine size or caliber of the guns,but it is a overall lack of education on not just the 2nd amendment, but the entire constitution & Bill of rights in general.

Now bear with me, this is what I impose as a way to do away with CCW permits,gun registration and the whole school zone crap law.

I say that yes we keep the background check,and hell maybe even keep the 48 hr hold law(that's a big maybe ). But in an effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we inact a law that makes it mandatory to know the Constitution and Bill of rights for ANYONE purchasing a firearm for the first time. Once the test is passed, the tester will be given a card or document stating they have gone thru the proper chanels to obtain a firearm.

The test/conditions on this common senseproposed gun lawwill be as follows:

1)The Test can be taken once a week,and up to, but no more than5 times a year. The test will be designed togauge the knowledge of the US constitution, which means the ENTIRE constitutionword for word. And will also test your knowledge of the Bill of rights, not just the 2nd ammendment.

2)As stated above the test will only apply to people purchasing a gun for the first time( current firearm owners will be exempt), but will also have to be taken every 5-10 years just to make sure you are up to par with the rights our forefathers died for.

3)The test MUST make people more "aware" of their rights because honestly,if you can't pass a test of knowledge based on the consitution and bill of rights, you really shouldn't have a gun in the first place.(I mean hell, you have to know this stuff to enter the country legally and most legal imigrants no more about our constitution than we do!!!)

4)Upon passing said test, the citizen WILL be able to carry in any matter they see fit (IE. Open carry, CCW "sans" permit, no school zone restrictions...etc.)

5)The legal carrier will NOT be permited to carry while intoxicated, which should be backed up by a strict not a drop while carrying law (less you be charged with a Felony). After all people, we are dealing with a weapon here, enough said.

6)Anyone carrying a firearm without proof that they passed said test, will be subject to not only an imeadiatefelony conviction which will barthem from firearm ownership, but will also subject them to nomore than 5 years in prison for violating the law.

and 7) This test MUST be passed with no less than 90% accuracy(Strict I know, but passing with 90% or more WILL force people to be educated on the topic wether they like it or not)



Now I realizeguys that this is not 100% foolproof, nor is the wording set in stone. But I do know that with enough insight from all of us members,we can peice together this proposed law and in the end we will have a clean bill that just makes sense.

That said lets have a good clean fight on the subject and lets try to get this off the ground!

Thoughts? Insults? Post'em below guys. Thx.

-Landose_theghost-

PS. on another note we should have a OC event to raise money for Haiti, just a thought but I had to get it off my chest...L8r.

this is a great idea. too bad it would never be made law:uhoh: They don't want you to know your rights.:what: Just look at the Liberal crud they now teach to our youngsters in school:banghead:

 

[Landose_theghost]

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

The most basic objection I have is that no where in the 2nd Amendment is there a test required. Or anywere else in the US Constitution before you may enjoy the rights affirmed by that great document we hold so dearly.

Well you have to admit that we pretty much already have to jump thru hoops to get a gun in the first place (IE.Unconstitutional in every sense of the word). And what I am imposing as stated in a previous RE:, the test is not a "test" persay, but more of a enlighting process. The test can be taken as many times as one sees fit, untill it is passed, no limitations,no weekly test limits,no cost at all associated with this "test" what so ever. I mean hell, u could take the test,fail, and retake the test right away untill you pass. 100 times a day until you pass it if that's what it takes(unrealistic I know,just an example). In the end, the outcome will be that you are forced to know your rights. Mind you if we can couple this with public education then in 10 years from now this test will be no less than a stumbling block or maybe even off the books due to the majority of people respecting and knowing their rights.

I know, I know, There shouldn't be any "Infringment" on ANY of our rights guys, I've cought that much, and we should technically be able to go to the gun store and grab a gun and be in and out in less than 5 min. But the sad, sad fact of the matter is that this is NEVER going to be the case, Not today,not tommorow(maybe in the future). But as of now there are too many sh*t lawson the books, and too manyidiots in power who have already infringed on our rights,andthere is no way will get back to the great times of freedom we had in 1776 less a revolution. Which honestly isn't what I am imposing a revolution of sorts? a Revolution of knowledge?

I meanare wegoing to be uncomfortable at first? Yes, undoubtedly. But anyone can tell you that change isn't all comfy and cushy, and everybody is NOT going to agree with it, but IMHO,the end the result outways the process. I just think that if we can seriously think,step back, andkeep an open mind, we can have our rights back. We can be able to go to the gun store and grab a gun and leave the same day, and carry where/how ever we wish. But it all begins with a little enlightenment, and if this enlightment must be forced upon the people then so be it, afterall consider the alternative outcome.

-Landose-

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

Landose_theghost wrote:

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

The most basic objection I have is that no where in the 2nd Amendment is there a test required. Or anywere else in the US Constitution before you may enjoy the rights affirmed by that great document we hold so dearly.

Well you have to admit that we pretty much already have to jump thru hoops to get a gun in the first place (IE.Unconstitutional in every sense of the word). And what I am imposing as stated in a previous RE:, the test is not a "test" persay, but more of a enlighting process. The test can be taken as many times as one sees fit, untill it is passed, no limitations,no weekly test limits,no cost at all associated with this "test" what so ever. I mean hell, u could take the test,fail, and retake the test right away untill you pass. 100 times a day until you pass it if that's what it takes (unrealistic I know,just an example). In the end, the outcome will be that you are forced to know your rights. Mind you if we can couple this with public education then in 10 years from now this test will be no less than a stumbling block or maybe even off the books due to the majority of people respecting and knowing their rights.

I know, I know, There shouldn't be any "Infringment" on ANY of our rights guys, I've cought that much, and we should technically be able to go to the gun store and grab a gun and be in and out in less than 5 min. But the sad, sad fact of the matter is that this is NEVER going to be the case, Not today,not tommorow(maybe in the future). But as of now there are too many sh*t lawson the books, and too manyidiots in power who have already infringed on our rights,andthere is no way will get back to the great times of freedom we had in 1776 less a revolution. Which honestly isn't what I am imposing a revolution of sorts? a Revolution of knowledge?

I meanare wegoing to be uncomfortable at first? Yes, undoubtedly. But anyone can tell you that change isn't all comfy and cushy, and everybody is NOT going to agree with it, but IMHO,the end the result outways the process. I just think that if we can seriously think,step back, andkeep an open mind, we can have our rights back. We can be able to go to the gun store and grab a gun and leave the same day, and carry where/how ever we wish. But it all begins with a little enlightenment, and if this enlightment must be forced upon the people then so be it, afterall consider the alternative outcome.

-Landose-

I like the Revolution part.

 

[KansasKraut]

imported post

I agree with many other people on here. A right is a right. Once you institute any kind of test, waiting period, background check, et cetera, it is no longer a right. Guns scare both the ignorant and many leftist elites who'd rather decide what's best for you; thus we have such unconstitutional measures.

I mean, no other right in the Bill of Rights requires such BS. What if you had to take a test to freely speak your mind? What if you had to pass a background check to freely practice your religion? What if you had to wait for 48 hours before you could refuse a warrantless search by an agent of the state?

I never thought I'd say this, but I have to agree with Master Doug Huffman (minus the whole NRA kiss my ass thing ):

"Good people ought to be armed where [and when] they will."

And to paraphrase Mr. Huffman:

"Either we are free or we are not."

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

KansasKraut wrote:

I agree with many other people on here. A right is a right. Once you institute any kind of test, waiting period, background check, et cetera, it is no longer a right. Guns scare both the ignorant and many leftist elites who'd rather decide what's best for you; thus we have such unconstitutional measures.

I mean, no other right in the Bill of Rights requires such BS. What if you had to take a test to freely speak your mind? What if you had to pass a background check to freely practice your religion? What if you had to wait for 48 hours before you could refuse a warrantless search by an agent of the state?

I never thought I'd say this, but I have to agree with Master Doug Huffman (minus the whole NRA kiss my ass thing ):

"Good people ought to be armed where [and when] they will."

And to paraphrase Mr. Huffman:

"Either we are free or we are not."

We have not been FREE for about a 150 years now.:?

 

[Old Grump]

imported post

Glock34 wrote:

KansasKraut wrote:

I agree with many other people on here. A right is a right. Once you institute any kind of test, waiting period, background check, et cetera, it is no longer a right. Guns scare both the ignorant and many leftist elites who'd rather decide what's best for you; thus we have such unconstitutional measures.

I mean, no other right in the Bill of Rights requires such BS. What if you had to take a test to freely speak your mind? What if you had to pass a background check to freely practice your religion? What if you had to wait for 48 hours before you could refuse a warrantless search by an agent of the state?

I never thought I'd say this, but I have to agree with Master Doug Huffman (minus the whole NRA kiss my ass thing ):

"Good people ought to be armed where [and when] they will."

And to paraphrase Mr. Huffman:

"Either we are free or we are not."

We have not been FREE for about a 150 years now.:?

Nobody is forcing you to stay in an unfree state. The idea that we will be freer by adding more restrictions and enforcing a 48 hour waiting period on law abiding citizens but not outlaws makes as much sense as forcing a man working in a tannery to wear deodorant so he won't offend his fellow workers. Eye wash for the liberals and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

I have walked in a store and walked minutes later with a gun I just bought. I have sat on the back of a motorcycle in Miami openly carrying a 22 rifle past a squad car on my way to the rifle range and they didn't blink. I openly carried in Texas and New Mexico into stores and at gas stations and nobody blinked. I have carried my gun box aboard an airliner and gave it to a stewardess for storage in the cockpit, she didn't blink and the pilot didn't mind and I was sure that my guns arrived at the same destination I did. I used to shoot pistol matches in Waukegan and Chicago Illinois down town in indoor ranges. The world did not come to an end.

Admitted all this was done a long time ago, I am a dinosaur and its sad I cannot do any of this now because of common sense gun laws. How would that work under your commonsense regulations. Would it make us safer? Only a liberal gun grabber delighting in any restriction inconveniencing gun owners could appreciate this plan. If you really want to make this country safe rescind every single firearms restriction law since the 1932 NFA.

 

[Landose_theghost]

imported post

Okay, I'm sorry to be blunt about this guys. But before you post, think about our current situation. It is FAR more dire than what I propose, most people posting crap about "not my rights" or "no more restrictions on our rights!" need to really read the proposed legislation (I have updated the post btw so plz go 2 the 1st page b4 u post), you will see that this "test" can be taken an infinite number of times (Untill you pass), and will not cost you a dime EVER.

Honestly, passing a simple test based on the knowledge of the US constitution and bill of rights seems far less restricting than current laws on the books, and will do more good than bad.

Consider the following:

-This simple test, when passed,WILL give youmore knowledge of your rights like it or not,this is a good thing.


-Some say we should have VT style carry with no restrictions, well guess what? When (not if) you pass the test, you would be able to carry in any matter you wish.

-Some say the 48 hour law is garbage, I concur, so when(not if)you pass the test, you will be able to get your pistol the same day.

-Some say this proposed legislation is more restricting, and I'll say it again, think about our current situation!


-When not if you pass the test,there will beno more advanced training,no more tests,nada,NEVER.

-And If my memory serves me right, Iseem to remember lots of you guys sayingyou can't wait till we haveCCW permits here in WI, but guess what comes along with your CCW? Firearm regisration, and you guessed it, a TEST!(<---sounds like asking permission to express your rights to me!)

So what's the big deal here, once we take a look @ the big situation you will see that this is not a huge deal. This test is a way to educate people, not restrict them.

And finally, for all you naysayers, think about all the in the inner cities in WI, (For example, Think Badger Guns in Milwaukee), Where most "criminals" who frequent there are not that bright, and/or use a strawpurchaser to do thier dirty work for them(who's also not that bright mind you),now considering current legislation ,this buyer will just wait the 48 hrs,pickup thierfirearm,and we can safely say thatanothergun is in the hands of a stupid criminal whohas nothing but cruel intentions.

Now, had this proposed testbeen in place, isn't it safe to say that thisstrawpurchaser/Criminal would more than likely have been halted by this Proposed test due to their general lack of knowledge of the constitution? While at the same time still allowing law abidingpeople to be armed themselves?

Remember guys, yes we should all be able to carry via the 2nd ammendment, but honestly, there are too many stupid people out here making 2-ply out of the bill of rights, and a stupid person is far more dangerous than a well informed one. Hense the proposed Legislation,Nuff sed.

-Landose-

 

[Nutczak]

imported post

I see this working shortly after an intelligence test is mandated to have the ability to vote. if this was the case, I doubt we would be in the world of schitt we are in right now.

No matter what happens or whatever gun restrictions are put in place or removed, the simple fact still remains that there will always be guns in the hands of people that should not have them.
How many decades of gun control legislation have we seen? and how many people still use them that are prohibited by law?
I just got done watching an episode of "Gangland" on the history channel, I suggest you watch that show at least once, and then tell me how creating more restrictions will stop the scum of the earth from killing each other, and attacking innocents.

it is not ever going to happen! all anything is going to do is restrict gun ownership from people that would not use these guns in an illegal or immoral manner and effectively disarming the law abiding and leaving them no way of defending themselves.

The only people that feel threateaned by law abiding citizens are the people in government that are trying to create subjects from citizens. And if this current trend continues, they have good reason tofeel frightened.

 

[Lammie]

imported post

The Gun Control Act was enacted in 1934. That would be 7.6 decades.