Should guns laws be nation wide?

Question

Should the same gun control laws that govern the people of say... rural Montana also govern the streets of Chicago? Would you take away the right of a rancher to carry a sidearm or rifle? How about those of us who depend on wild game for food? How about those of us who live an hour away from the nearest police officer? Would you take away those guns as well?

Answer 1

The United States Constitution clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. All gun control laws are unconstitutional, so yes, gun laws are supposed to be all the same nationwide. What we are debating here is how far will we allow the government to go in violation to the constitution.

Answer 2

I think that there should be some national enforcement.

If a person is judged likely to commit a crime, then they should be denied the access to a firearm, to prevent the possibility of gun violence. It may be discriminating, but I think the best option is to one day build a society where no one but perhaps the police and some security companies have access to guns. I don't think that ranchers and others should have guns, becuase there is the chance that they could fall into the hands of criminals that way.

Lets face it: more guns for society tends to result in more gun violence, not the other way around. Even if more people carry guns, are they going to carry them everywhere they go?

No, and if they did, that would be dangerouse, because when people get upset, then they might do something irrational, like fire their gun.

As for wild game, I don't think anybody hunts just for food. OR if they do, then they should be given some job training for another profession.

Answer 3

No. But since we have no internal borders, they need to be somewhat uniform in order to prevent a gun sold to a rancher in Montana being resold to a gang member on the streets of Chicago.

I like to quote a turn-of-the-century history book I have which says that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, means that a gentleman cannot be deprived of his right to carry a sidearm.
By definition, If the only firearms were owned by true ladies and gentlemen, there would be no problems, provided they kept them in a safe when not in use. So when you figure out how to keep them out of the hands of evil-doers and idiots, let me know.

Answer 4

Yes, there needs to be greater uniformity. Maybe not completely identical everywhere, but there should be some broader, universal standards.

One of the fake criticisms from the gun lobby is that there are already so many gun laws, we just need to enforce them better. But it's the mismatched mishmash of gun laws that essentially act as giant loopholes, allowing people to circumvent their local gun laws by driving an hour away to a state where requirements are exceedingly lax, in comparison. There are also specific loopholes for minimally regulated cases, like gun shows, that render local regulations meaningless, quite often.

This doesn't mean that we automatically adopt the most stringent ones out there. More uniformity would also mean that some of the most strict regulations would be relaxed in favor of the national standard, but it would make laws easier to enforce and harder to get around.

Answer 5

No, there is really no reason to standardize them, and there are a few good reasons not to. First of all, states can experiment around, and if something works well, other states will follow. For example, with the cell phone laws, a few states tried it, it supposedly worked, so more states are doing it. Also, state governments tend to be more responsive to people than the feds, so more power in state hands is a good thing.

Answer 6

There are in place standardized federal gun laws that apply to all states. A background check, felon rejection, and several other restrictions on types of firearms available. Individual states do control most gun laws, and rightly so. The federal government should not control citizen's right to bear arms. Please keep in mind, only law abiding citizens obey the law, that's why criminals are called criminals.

Answer 7

Whatever happened to our right to bear arms? Laws increasingly take away the people's rights to defend themselves in an adequate manner. (Do you really think a tazer, pepper spray or knife is an effective weapon against a thug with a pistol? Get real.)
Watch out: the laws are getting increasingly socialistic-- soon the only ones with guns will be government and criminals. The regular citizen will have no protection against either. Then, all those in favor of taking guns away will wish they had something to fight back with.

Answer 8

gun laws only prevent the lawful abiding citizens from owning guns....thieves, thugs, crackpots and whackos will always find a way to get a gun and have them with little trouble.
and please when is the last time anyone in America needed to hunt for food, that couldn't be found in a grocery store....unless you are eating possum stew or squirrel soup, you still don't need a gun when a snare will do nicely.
instead of making up reasons to have guns which we all should, I believe gun violence whould be dealt with severely.... verses removing honest peoples right to bear arms......

now go out and shoot a viscious chipmunk. you big ole bad a**

Answer 9

No gun laws should be handled at the state level. The questions you bring up in your "additional comments" present the reason why.

Answer 10

Some of the restrictions are thankfully being lifted and it is becoming easier for law abiding people to protect themselves. The majority of states and localities now have reciprocal conceal carry laws.