gun control reasonable?

Question

It doesn't appear that the US government has taken away a Constitutional right. Currently it is illegal to use automatics, have a background check to buy a weapon, cannot conceal a weapn without a permit, cannot have a weapon inside any public building, and you must have a gun unloaded and in a case in some states. I believe it is also illegal to use teflon bullits (correct me if I'm wrong) and some military ammunition.

These appear to be rules designed for the reasonable use and ownership of guns and seem mostly to ensure citizens with no criminal record keep weapons in a responsible way. If assault weapons are outlawed for the safety of law enforcement or if it becomes more difficult or takes longer for a citizen to get a gun, is that a bad thing really. If so called anti-gun people want a few more restriction...is that really a bad thing?

I want to add that I have guns and that giving up on a few minor points will not lessen the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms....in my opinion

Answer 1

Slippery slope. Where does it stop? Plus, every single one of those laws violates the founders intent. They intended for us to be armed comparably to the Federal governement, in case we someday need to tear it down. If they have automatics and armor piercers, we need them too. To limit our abilty to fight tyranny is to go against the intent of the second. Look at Mao, Stalin and Hitler's views on gun control. Then look what happened after they disarmed the general populace. It makes you feel good, but gun control makes us slaves and limits our freedom. No matter what the laws, you can't stop the lone wolf nutjob from cracking and killing a bunch of people. Columbine was done with 2 guns that were illegal under the assualt weapons ban from the Clinton era, yet they still had them. Laws don't stop anything.

Answer 2

there are already more than enough "gun control" laws on the books now. They are not enforced. but people keep saying we need more.
I own several handguns, shot guns and rifles. I have not a problem paying $30 -$40 to have my records checked and get a concealed permit even though as law enforcement I don't have to. I would guess that every legaly bought firearm out there has had to go through these same checks.
What about the thousands of illegaly bought guns?

As someone mentioned in an earlier answer, about the grips, there is a new proposal out that would make ANY gun with a grip illegal. This would include my 2 shot derringer and my MUZZLE LOADER for pity's sake.
Ask any street cop how he would feel to have to go to any house that a formerly legal gun owner lived at and tried to conficate their firearms because some politictical hack made every gun out there illegal. This IS a subject that came up in my Department when the clinton ban came out.

Answer 3

The problem with your way of thinking is that you assume that anti-gun people are reasonable, or that criminals are also reasonable. For instance, they California has banned .50 BMG rifles, even though they are rare, can't be concealed, and have never been used in a crime. Ever. During the Clinton admin, he helped ban assault weapons. Such weapons were defined as having: a pistol grip (which means that all those assaut weapons had to get ugly new thumhole stocks installed), a flash suppressor (which is screwed on or off a barrel), and a bayonet lug. So, the first two are removable, and the third is superflous, since again, there has ever been a crime committed with a bayonet, ever. The anti-gun fanatics in this country love laws like these, because they lead to new and more restrictive laws. If you can ban rifles with a pistol grip, why not pistols themselves? If you can rule that .50 BMG rifles (many of which are single-shot bolt actions) have no sporting use, why not rule that .308 and .223 rifles have no sporting use, since these calibers are "military" rounds.

And then there are the criminals. Do you think a person who breaks into houses for a living cares if the gun he is illegally carrying is loaded with an illegal high-capacity magazine? Australia has banned the ownership of guns that hold more than two rounds. And crime has skyrocketed. England has outlawed private owned guns for a while, and crime skyrocketed. Crime in D.C. (a city with a prohibition on carrying handguns) is outrageous, but in Virginia (with a much more liberal concealed carry law), crime is one-tenth, even in counties bordering Washington D.C.

Answer 4

What do you advise? Unreasonably strict gun-administration measures are already in place. those "mindless crimes" are perpetrated by using human beings, not weapons. you're extremely unaware of the regulation. attack rifles, grenade launchers, and computerized weapons have been unlawful for an prolonged time. the only thank you to purchase those products is with an high priced and invasive type III license. Gun administration is a terrible concept, because it has by no ability labored in anyplace that's been tried. i will by no ability be responsive to how human beings can justify the assumption of banning weapons while they are inanimate gadgets. A gun has by no ability killed a individual interior the background of the worldwide. that's human beings!!!!!

Answer 5

Gun control advocate always try to sugar coat their reasons for their action, but in reality, they know people will NEVER agree to a total gun ban, so they chip away at the right to bear arms a little at a time. I mean, if you turn an hourglass filled with sand upside down , sooner, or later, all the sand will drop to the bottom.

Answer 6

The NRA and most of it's members are Republicans. If you want to purchase a weapon without a background check just go to a gunshow especially in Texas. You can purchace semi auto assault rifles and the conversion kits at the same gunshow.

Answer 7

If the people who appoint give consent to who govern them find gun control reasonable than so be it. Yet the government does not have the right to impose itself against the will of the people.

I think gun control like many issues is better handled by the state and the constitution makes it a non-federal issue.

Of course we have the right to bear arms (to some degree) but when the constitution was signed automatic weapons and WMD did not exist.

Answer 8

well one thing automactic guns are leagl in most states all you need is a class 3 tax stamp i have one and you can carry guns in public buidings i do it all the time i have a CCWwe cant carry in goverment buildings i think we should be able to carry in most places because crimanals dont care about the law they will do whatever they want and there is no reson to ban "assault weapons " when i can just go buy a 50.cal machine gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31vm3-BQRJU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIZpCLvXsoM

Answer 9

its important to keep in mind that the original purpose of that right is that armed citizens have the power to cast off the shackles of an oppressive regime, and if the price for protecting liberty is the tragedy of accidental or worse, intentional gun injuries/death, its worth it. that having been said, one must gauge the risk of an oppressive regime seizing power against the risk of making deadly machines readily available and choose the leeser of the two evils.

Answer 10

Not really.

But then again you had Washington DC, which banned them completely. Thankfully, this was thrown out.

Then you also have it like in NY where it is almost impossible to get a gun.

In theory, you are correct. However, when you get liberals involved, the situation changes dramatically.