I for one intend on exercising my right to gun ownership. I want to be prepared for Armageddon should the economy or society collapse and it's "every man for himself". It would be irresponsible for me not to be prepared to protect my family…
I think that the criminal element will always be in position of guns and any laws enacted will only hurt law abiding citizens.
It's a gift...and a curse ~ Adrian Monk
Point blank, I think any law limiting law abiding citizens to possess and acquire firearms effects only law abiding citizens. The criminal element are criminals because they don't abide by the law.
However, with that being said, I'm all for limited regulation that actually works. I, for one, am in favor of mandatory firearm training before purchase or a purchase conditioned on mandatory fire arm training within one week of purchase or something like that.
I'm also in favor of some resource to help limit people with mental health history to purchase firearms. I would limit it to any issues within the past 10 years. Of course discretion should be left to the gun store if they don't feel comfortable with that.
Background checks seem to be pointless especially since mass shootings as kipper points out are not done with people who have had previous criminal history.
Of course, this is a personal opinion and I'm sure my logic is flawed somewhere and someone will point it out to me.
And if going by statistics, we should ban drunk driving and underage smoking to prevent deaths. Oh wait, we have and it still causes more deaths than guns.
Relative danger to a society should be considered in the debate.
Size of the gun: I would rather have a gun visible like an AR 15 over a concealed weapon.
Machine gun: I would rather have a semi-automatic over a full automatic weapon be available.
Background check: I would rather have the owner/user and seller of all dangerous items be found without criminality, insanity, substance abuse, and poor vision was we have for private airplane pilots. If 40% of sales of guns is without background checks, why have any?
Size of magazine: Is there a number of deaths at one time that will occur before magazine size is limited, such as a crazed gunman at a large sports event shooting with a 500 round magazine? 100 to 1000 deaths will not be enough for the NRA. Obviously, age of victims and congressional victims are not sufficient for the Senate to limit magazine size.
Straw man purchases: Should penalties be increased for those selling guns across state lines to known criminals?
MY PERSONAL OPINION IS...
1. Background checks no matter what. The check should include criminal, medical/mental clearance and such.
2. Registration and accountability. At one point Virginia had the highest rate of "stolen" weapons in the US with insurance claims to match...get the point? As an example, there is some guy out in the SW area that has an annual machine gun festival and for some huge amount of $$$ you can buy time to fire his mini-gun. I DON'T CARE. But, at the end of the day he better be able to account for his arsenal.
3. Limit high capacity clips except by permit. There are some valid reasons for them such as sport/competition and such but come on...does anyone think they will be able to stand the fire power of the real powers because they have these? If it takes you 7-10 rounds to kill a dear, maybe you don't deserve to own one?
4. Ballistic finger printing. (Related to accountability)
BTW...I am FOR concealed carry permits. HOWEVER...I think that should required REAL training before it is issued. At least a day of SERIOUS classroom and a day of firing range training with the weapon or weapons used to apply for CC. Training shouldn't be a day of BBQ and government bashing at the local Sportsman's Club and a day with your buddies trying to prove who is the best fast draw artist on the line.
OK...line up the firing squad and call me a socialist/pinko commie/Marxist. At least use your "totally necessary for personal protection", 50 cal. sniper guns and make it quick. Heck, even a well placed Hellfire Missile could be painless.
Ready on the left, ready on the right...
Rolled over to Fidelity 2/24/18.
Fantasy still playing with Daily Strategy 12767.
I've got your back. Currently, however, I only have some fingernail clippers, though.
Wait. They were removed from me at the airport.
The cowards who walk into a school, movie theatre, church etc. are for the most part entering an unarmed place and unloading on those who are unprepared to defend themselves. My 2 girls went to high school here in Las Vegas which has an armed school police dept on campus.
Just my humble opinion.
Regulation is needed. This country has an issue with guns. We act as though they are one of the rings from Lord of the Rings and they are our own personal "precious". The obsession is unhealthy.
With that being said I am a gun owner and beleive in my rights given to me by the Second Amendment. However, the action of me stockpiling weapons in my basement with no background checks cannot be considered regulated at all, let alone well regulated. Depending on your interpretation of the Second Amendment, the individual you as stockpiling weapons without regulation may indeed be the one that is in violation of the Second Amendment.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
•"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
•"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
•"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
•"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
•" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
•"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
Additional quotes can be found at: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html
In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Of course, I'm a bit of a pacifist. When I was in the Army, I was called the Fighting Mennonite which was meant to be an oxymoron. However, I think pacifist teachings and the use of force mesh well.