Jump to content

Gun control

Recommended Posts

What would you guys in here like to see in terms of gun control legislation? Sarah Palin often talks of "common sense" laws. What constitutes common sense gun control legislation to you?


If you don't think Americans should be allowed to have any time of gun they want, or however many they want, what should the restrictions be?


Or do you think the right to bear arms is absolute, and that you can have any and however many guns you want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats, you started your own thread with your subject ! That's beautiful, man !


Anyways, I don't believe there are but a few gun owners that think we should be allowed

to own working machine guns, or working hand grenades or bazookas.... The way laws are in Ohio, I can own any kind of shotgun, rifle, or pistol, but

it cannot be automatic, can't have a cutoff too short barrel, I think there's a limit on the number of

cartridges the magazine or chamber can hold...


I think it might be 7 shotgun shells ??? Beats me.


I believe in no restrictions on the amount of ammo. Hey, you have common sense gun laws, but there isn't any

common sense in ammo ownership. If I want to go out and buy 4 big boxes of ammo, or 12, because I'm thinkin

the price will soar in a few years, I should be fine.


The way the laws are, are just fine to me. I can get a cc permit if I choose, I can hunt, and protect

my family in my home. The previous gov, a Dem, signed the Castle law, re-emphazing that it is legal to use

a gun in defense of your home and family. Some drunk guy can kick a window in, come in my house, and

call for "Ethel", and I wouldn't shoot him, even when my pistol would be in my hand, unless he was armed

and pointed it at me.


Otherwise, even as a last resort, a simple warning shot while waiting for the police to arrive should suffice.


A legit threat to my family's well-being? The emphasis on LEGIT ... they are shot dead.


If society breaks down, our gov falls apart, and an oppressive dictator takes over? Well, then a lot of

Americans will have their shotguns en masse, to stop the fascist and his foreign troops, and go back to our



That's silly? Yeah, only until it happens one day, ten, twenty or a hundred years from now. I've always like

that saying, was it the Japanese official during WWII? that said "you can't invade the U.S.A., because there's a gun behind

every blade of grass." Now I'll have to go look that up, it's my own paraphrase...


Less silly, is if a huge war breaks out, and we need to draft civilians again, which I hope never happens,

would you want your entire new army to know absolutely nothing about guns? I think not.


There is no law limiting the number of guns, and that's good. For one, gun collectors would not be able to collect them.

Like Antique guns, etc.


Generally, I like 2 or 3 shotguns, 3 or 4 rifles, ..we have two pistols.

Different guns do different things. A .22 doesn't do in a groundhog if it's near its hole, with a long shot.


.22's, .22 mags can richochet, which is why I want to get a .17. They say they don't. I like my single shot 12

for squirrel hunting, and if I hunt rabbit (not as good for supper,...) I'd use the 12 gauge semi-auto.


I carry my .22 revolver when I'm out back in the woods after dark, like when I realized I left my camp saw

out there accidently. But that is no good for home defense.


Owning fully functional machine guns and cannons seems to be silly, unless a new gov throws out the Constitution,

and declares a dictatorship. Then, I'd change my mind.


I've been around guns all my life, hunted when I carried a -toy gun- to show my Dad I could be trusted

with a gun and start hunting. I had to carry that toy gun like a real one all the year I was in the 4th grade.

Yep, I learned serious hunting safety. It paid off well, a year later. @@


The only time I almost shot someone, we were hunting on our farm in S. Ohio. We had 147 acres, mostly big woods.

We were out on a hill rabbit hunting, Dad and I, his friend from work, and his two sons, his sons were one and two

years older than me.


So, we're on this hill, surrounded by big beech trees, and the beagles come sounding from a distance, from right to left,

to right past the bottom of our hill. We'd been on that hill for at least a half hour, smiling at the sound of the beagles

echoing throug the valleys.


Anyways, it was my turn to shoot a rabbit. I saw the rabbit fly down the valley, toward my left, across the bottom

of the hill. I set my gun, was going to follow through while aiming, had my finger just ready...

and fired just before the rabbit entered some tall brush at my left.


But, a tenth of a second before my shotgun fired, I pulled it up into the air. Dad says "WHAT the heck are you doing?"

And I quietly pointed to the bottom of the hill. I had seen some tiny flicker of movement through a gap in the brush, about three feet off the ground.

After I fired, we heard screaming. It was his youngest son. He had gone back down the hill behind us, and circled around, and hid in the brush, when the beagles got closer. His dad took his gun, and carried it with him the rest of the way.

He also told him in no certain terms, that Dad taught me excellent safety in hunting, or he would have been killed.


He shook my hand, and thanked me from the bottom of his heart.

His son was exactly where I would have fired, if I hadn't pulled up while pulling the trigger.


So, like owning and driving a car, operating a boat on Lake Erie - require those owners to be trained in gun safety.

They have that now. Kids MUST pass a solid gun safety class before ever being allowed to hunt.


I believe owning an ATV, that training should be required. Right now, it is free with a new purchase of a Honda,

we took it. Kids/teens are getting killed, not following safety guidelines.


Common sense gun laws?


It should be up to the states. Our gov isn't stopping illegal immigrants, and the crime is absolutely horrendous in

Arizona. If I lived there, until I moved the heck out, I'd be packin, concealed carry, too, you betcha.

Maybe, if it gets worse, they should offer a submachine gun permit to certain ranchers on the border....


Alaska, with bears and wolves, mountain lions, etc - of course most folks should be packin.


The restrictions on the mentally disabled, ex-cons, etc, not allowed to own guns, I'm fine with that.


The background check, I like that. That is REALLY common sense. When we bought our 9mm pistol, even the gun shop owner

was surprised at how quickly my background check came back approved. I wonder if they know the AF tried to recruit me

into OSI toward the end of my four years. I guess I'll never know...


To fill the form out took longer.


Society has a right to protect itself, but doesn't have the right to violate the Constitution.

Common sense gun laws, are those that the gun owners, and gun haters, both can agree to, in a certain state.


That makes sense to me.


Playing with words, and "nudging" into more and more control, like defining assault weapons as those with a clip,


or semi-automatics... runs into those who want to ban MOST guns, on the way to banning ALL guns.


That isn't common sense, that's leftist "sense".






Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be straight with you Heck.

This is one of those uncomfortable situations when we need to admit to ourselves the constitution is no longer relevant.


It was written in a time when 98 % of Americans were farmers and the government, newly snatched from the loyalists, was in constant peril of having that favor returned by any number of rivals.


So farmer Brown was encouraged to keep a cannon or a rack of muskets in the barn.


So these days, instead of being called heroes those who would wish to overthrow what they felt was political oppression are called terrorists.

Today those in power need to make sure that anybody wanting to pull off the next revolution is completely outgunned.

Hence the watered down second amendment is something of a joke.


That said; hell no, I don't want the dregs of society carrying a LAWS rocket.


Now if it were 1780 and there was a real chance the king might send more soldiers to take back his "piece of the action" I'd want my guys to have state of the art firepower.



I guess stricter lisencing, reggistration and stringent training for all gun owners is a good idea.

Petty horseshit like a 10 vs an 11 round clip or an aluminum vs a wooden stock is widow dressing.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are already laws and restrictions that don't seem to do any good.


The reason is criminals are going to break laws.


We don't need any more laws or restrictions, we need fewer criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont allow progressive liberals to have access to guns, or allow progressive liberal to make any laws on guns.


I would also like to see some of the restrictions lifted, for one why in the hell are you only allowed 3 shots in any shotgun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are already laws and restrictions that don't seem to do any good.


The reason is criminals are going to break laws.


We don't need any more laws or restrictions, we need fewer criminals.



Oh I agree Peen.

I'm not saying less guns I'm just saying more responsibility for those who want em.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I agree Peen.

I'm not saying less guns I'm just saying more responsibility for those who want em.






Oh, I know....it was a general reply and not directed towards your reply.



Sorry I didn't make that clear.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for more criminals. And against working families.



No you're not.


It's not my fault you want to rehash the same stuff, expecting a new angle is somehow going to get a different opinion.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least he jokingly stated what he believes in.


heh... maybe he is serious...


"I'm for more criminals. And against working families. "




Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you aren't a convicted Felon, mentally disabled or sick, you should be able to own a normal weapon. (Rifle, shotgun or pistol). No restrictions period. I don't personally see the need for a civilian to own a 30 round clip so I can see limiting it to 10 rounds. I see no need for a civilian to own an automatic weapon.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dont shoot much do you diehard?


30 round mags and clips are great when your shooting, you dont have to reload as often.


The 2nd amendment is a worthy of protecting.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


keyword here is infringed, so all of the old ladies can silence themselves now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I go to the driving range, I don't think they should give me those little baskets of balls. I should be able to take the whole pile of range balls with me. That way I don't have to go back to the clubhouse so often. Heck




BTW, you know those golf clubs kill people? They should all be banned. Those golf balls are a menace, too.


That's why golfers can only have a basket at a time - to prevent mass murders.


You golfers should just go find a stick, and use big bur oak acorns in place of those dangerous golf balls, from in the woods.

That's all you need. We don't need those golf clubs - you never know when somebody might use one to kill somebody.

Sure, "people kill people", but it is way too easy to use a golf club.


That, and any leftwing hater's violent criticism of golf is going to cause certain people to go berserk and murder someone

on the course... ;)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I go to the driving range, I don't think they should give me those little baskets of balls. I should be able to take the whole pile of range balls with me. That way I don't have to go back to the clubhouse so often.

Oh no, you should have to get one ball at a time.

plus fill out a seperate receipt every time. <_<


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't see what can be improved upon, as it is now. I mean, more thorough background checks, and if there's any hint of mental instability, and I mean ANY, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.


Granted, I have no idea what exactly I mean by that. I'd say anyone that has a history of depression, maybe, but isn't that like a fifth of the nation? Probably wouldn't fly. As long as it's legal to own a gun, and it always will be, if a depressed, but otherwise normal person snaps, there's nothing anyone can do about it. There's no way to catch them preemptively.


As for fully automatic weapons... I mean. Hell yeah, I'd love to own a Glock 18, but if EVERYONE owned one of those, and was allowed to use them in self-defense, good Christ, that'd be scary. I think it should be limited to semi-auto, just for the fact that you can selectively kill people with it. If you hold the trigger like an idiot, which you know some people would do, you have no idea where the rest of the bullets are gonna go, and the ability to select a target with each bullet goes away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine's not all that different than Cal's. I'm further to the right than you on this. The Constitution clearly says you can have a gun. As long as that essential right is protected, common sense restrictions are fine with me.


It's a big country. Gun laws in Vermont or Montana can and should be different than they are in Los Angeles or Washington DC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine's not all that different than Cal's. I'm further to the right than you on this. The Constitution clearly says you can have a gun. As long as that essential right is protected, common sense restrictions are fine with me.


Fook that, T is going to buy a grenade launcher to hunt.


Politics are so 80's. They are so predictable it's funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Calfoxwc,


Statists never sleep.


That quote is becoming popular because it is undeniably true.


They never stop finding ways to curb our liberties. They want you reported and tracked anyway they can get it.


The gun-grabbers are scheming again. But this time they are stealing through the back door. They don't want you to see them coming.


The BATFE has recently begun to connive "emergency powers" from President Obama to monitor purchases from gun stores.


They don't want you buying more than one rifle without you being reported to Washington over so-called "terrorism concerns".


More importantly, they're using "emergency powers" so they can steal away what they want without a vote.


They've been monitoring citizens for decades with handgun sales, and now they're trying it with rifles.


Of course, you and I both know that they're plotting to stop you from buying any guns without them recording it. But this is how they start down that path.


Emergency powers.


The BATFE is using their favorite bogey man of terrorism and drug-related violence in other countries to trump the charge that your purchase of rifles is to blame. They are stealing powers away from your elected representatives and into their own hands to spy on and record your purchases if you buy more than one gun in a week.


If this is starting to sound all too familiar, that's because it is.


Remember Mayor Bloomberg? One of the wealthiest and most powerful anti-gunners out there?


This was Bloomberg's plan.


And it's blatantly against the law.


The Firearm Owners' Protection Act was designed specifically to prevent this perversion of freedom from happening.


In fact, this act also requires that any changes be given a public hearing no less than 90 days in advance (the BATFE is attempting this power-grab with just 30 days notice).


In other words, existing Federal law stops this move specifically, and the speed in which it is being attempted...


...And they are rolling right over it like it wasn't even there.


Even schoolchildren know that it is the legislature's job to write law in the United States, not the President or some power-hungry law enforcement agency, bent on crafting their own rules. But with so many distractions out there, some of your Congressmen and Senators don't even know what's going on with this story or how it will impact the average gun owner.


That’s where you come in.


Call the Senate and the House to talk to your representative. Tell them you know what the law says and make sure they know it, too. Tell them:


  • This is an illegal request by the BATFE and that you won’t stand for it.
  • That their responsibilities are being minimized by an activist President and a failing law enforcement agency.
  • It is the job of Congress to legislate, and the duty of law enforcement to back up that legislation. Not the other way around.

Call the main switchboard for the U.S. Senate at 202-224-3121 and 202-225-3121 for the House of Representatives.


Make sure they know that your freedom is more important than a backroom deal by federal law enforcement agency who ignores the law.


For liberty,



Dudley Brown

Executive Director

National Association for Gun Rights



P.S. The BATFE is creating its own set of rules to regulate the sale of "multiple rifles". In other words, they're doing their best to turn a right into a privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.


You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.


One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.


Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.


“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.


“Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing.


“Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”


The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times. But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”


The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win.


The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.


A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.


It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.


This case really happened.


On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.


In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire ?


It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.


This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.


Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.


Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man

with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.


When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.


The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)


Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.


For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.


During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.


Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”


All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no

fear of the consequences… Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars..


When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.


Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.


Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.




“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”


–Samuel Adams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

England is surely a dreadful place. I don't know how they are ever going to get it straightened back up again, or if they will


be able to.


The protection we have is our Constitution. We had some nitwilly superlib loudmouth come on here once, and start

smarting off nasty about how the Constitution doesn't say we can own our own guns.


Too bad he didn't have any nads to stay around, or drop back by. The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

said exactly what I said. Heyl, yes, we most certainly do, and we aren't going to give that up.


I don't really care if they outlaw magazines that hold more than 15 shots in the clip... EXCEPT, for their never ending

crusade to outlaw magazines that hold ten. Then, outlawing any double semi-auto shotguns.

Then all bolt actions, which can hold 12-whatever the number is, in the chamber. Then reduce it to eight for revolvers,

and my beautiful new H&R 9 shot would be against the law.


Our wonderful country is being hijacked by a gigantic liberal wacko homeowner's association.


If they don't like hunting and fishing, all mailboxes must not have any pictures of that on them. Mailboxes must all be

the same.


If that ho ass. (@@) pays for an outside company to do all their outside chores, then they will outlaw

everybody else having a lawnmower. "Noise pollution" they'll say. Never mind that the company that comes in,



None of that matters, and they hide behind their extreme hypocrisy, and stupidity, behind their secret desire

to make everybody, absolutely the same as them.


I can only figure, they don't like themselves, they don't believe in themselves, they have no principles and values to "cling" to,

but when they advocate to take away others' freedoms, and get some semblance of power to impose themselves onto

the lives of the rest of the Americans in their vicinity... they don't feel like wimpy losers anymore.


Liberals don't have to make sense, and they play by the rules, only as long as it gives them the upper hand.

Then, they will change the rules, or wait til some moment, some year, that something happens, and use that incident

as leverage to justify their sick demand to control.


Hey, they tried to control this board for awhile. About eight years of the Bush admin, actually.


But, when the shoe was on the other foot, and they couldn't control the other side from doing exactly what

they'd been doing for eight years...


they left the forum. They couldn't take not being in control of dissent, when it was originating from the other side.


Simply, they knew what they'd been doing. They claimed the 1st Amendment frantically and angrily, until they wanted

it to go away, and wanted to start CONTROLLING dissent.


Ah, just like on the national scene.


The homeowners association will try to remake history, rewrite the Constitution, to suit themselves.


They don't hunt, don't like guns, don't know about them, and by gosh nobody else should be allowed

to own guns, and the heyl with the Constitution and UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.


The homeowners association in American wants to rule, and they demand the power to make you just... like... them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and another thing. Not long ago, hoodlums broke into a house, and raped and beat the women in the house to death.


The father was forced to watch, after he was injured so badly with beatings, he couldn't do anything.


So, based on this incident, I suggest that all Americans of sound mind, with no criminal record, be forced to attend extensive gun


safety training, and be required to own at least one gun in their home, for self defense.


Failing to own a gun for self-defense, would be a felony, the refusal to use that gun to protect your family,


in your yard, and home, would be a felony, too.


After all, it won't be unConstitutional.. (wait, yes it would, but hey, in this instance, I wouldn't care, right?),


it's for your own good, and we must never again encourage one more attack on a family, by the irresponsible


rhetoric from liberals who wanted to ban guns. Because, lead pipes, knifes, airplances, and cars "kill people", too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...