Reasonable Gun Laws

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Sep 1, 2016.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://igeek.com/3428
    [​IMG]

    we are no longer complying with CA stupid feel good laws.
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  3. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #3
    Well this isn't able reasonable gun laws at all. :(
     
  4. Khalanad75 macrumors 6502

    Khalanad75

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2015
    Location:
    land of confusion
    #4
    The one thing I would argue with your graphic.... that's not a pistol by the definitions.


    There is no way something with the barrel that long is designed to be fired one handed.


    But yes, there are a lot of stupid gun laws in the books. I would be for getting rid of some of them and instituting others.
     
  5. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #5
    While I believe some guns should just be flat out off the street, or at the very least a special permit to own, we need criminal justice reform. We need to stop locking up petty non-violent drug offenders and come down HARD on people who possess guns when they shouldn't, straw purchasers, and gang members.
     
  6. daflake macrumors 6502a

    daflake

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #6

    It is and can easily be fired one handed in that configuration. It is also pretty accurate at pistol ranges as well.

    There are a lot of worthless laws that don't do a damn thing for anyone that should be removed. However, I am for better background checks etc... It should be a little harder to obtain a firearm in most cases and I support that. However, banning a rifle because of how it looks is just silly.
     
  7. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #7
    A great deal of the complexity in firearms regulation comes down to the fact that we are a Federal system. And that we grant individual states the right to regulate (to a certain extent) the types of firearms that citizens can own and carry in those states.

    If you want to argue that we should do away with most State gun-specific firearms regulation and replace it with a common Federal policy - you'll get no argument from me. But I somehow suspect most States-rights people would disagree with that.

    Secondly, I'll agree that many of the regulations do seem overly complicated and illogical. I can understand where some of the rules came from: A lot of the "Short-barrelled rifle" laws were designed to make sawn-off shotguns illegal. Why? Because, arguably at least, a sawn-off shotgun serves no reasonable legal purpose. Its one way a criminal can turn a perfectly reasonable sporting gun into an easily concealed pocket cannon. And a lot of the regulations center on the distinction between handguns and long guns. A distinction that has been considerably blurred, especially with the introduction of semi-automatic "assault rifle" weapons, which typically use smaller calibre rounds more usually associated with pistols. Silly? Sure. But that's the result of changes in the way guns are designed just as much as silliness or ignorance on the part of legislators.

    In general, I'm more concerned about who gets guns, rather than what sort of guns are legal and otherwise. I'd gladly do away with silliness about suppressors, vertical grips, bullet buttons, and the rest - in exchange for universal background checks and a Federal-mandated firearms license that included proficiency testing and a medical/mental health check.

    I do think that the Government has an interest in prohibiting truly dangerous weapons: flame-throwers, mortars, hand grenades and the like. But I'll guarantee you one thing: Try to write a law banning hand-grenades, and somebody, somewhere, will come up with a device that manages to work like a hand grenade, while still saying technically legal. That's how we end up with silly weapons laws.
     
  8. daflake macrumors 6502a

    daflake

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #8
    ^ I think that is pretty well said. As a firearm owner with a big black scary gun, I actually can agree with this. That being said, there will be folks that simply won't support any government telling them what they can and can't have.
     
  9. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    YOU lost me at medical/mental check.
     
  10. daflake macrumors 6502a

    daflake

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #10
    Yeah, that one was/is a little hard for me to swallow as well. Too many ways for that information to be misconstrued and used in the wrong manner.
     
  11. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #11
    Simplest and most rational solution is to add clarity by outlawing all of them.
     
  12. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    cops/military & those protecting the president go first ..
     
  13. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #13
    Why is that?

    Most states check your vision before getting a drivers license. And in most jurisdictions anyone suffering from a stroke or seizure is supposed to lose their driving privileges until they get medically cleared.

    I'm not suggesting that anyone wanting a gun has to sit on a shrink's couch for a few hours. Maybe it's nothing more than a line on a form that the firearms instructor fills out: Applicant appears mentally and physically capable of responsibly owning and carrying a firearm. Yes ▢ No ▢

    That's not going to stop every tragedy. But it's just one more step that might prevent a few of them. Most firearms instructors I've met seem like responsible people.

    Maybe it's not even that. Maybe it's a centralized database where anyone legally committed for mental health issues has their name entered.
     
  14. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    slippery slope, YOU sound a bit reasonable, but we have all these stupid laws because politicians are NOT reasonable, hell the guy I debated wanted DUI ignition switches in ALL cars, it did NOT matter if you had ever been convicted of a DUI , that is an extreme level of stupid right there.
     
  15. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #15
    Technology and circumstances change.

    Look, it is technically possible, right now, to embed alcohol sensors in the rim of automobile steering wheels that would be able to determine whether or not the driver was legally intoxicated or not. The driver would not even be aware that check was going on.

    Right now that technology is cost-prohibitive. But what argument would you have to its deployment if say ten years from now it could be done at negligible cost?
     
  16. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #16
    why not go one step further and implant a chip on peoples butts to make sure they are ALWAYS following the law? they would not even know they are being checked on................

    no thanks.
     
  17. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
  18. BernyMac macrumors regular

    BernyMac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Location:
    USA
    #18
    Would you be okay if you get a chip on your car that monitors you for any traffic infraction? I mean, you know, just for safety's sake?
    How about your computers just to ensure you are not going into questionable websites? Safety against terrorism and all that.
     
  19. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #19
    Those aren't reasonable gun laws. They're stupid laws made my pencil pushers without any knowledge of the subject.


    Reasonable gun laws wouldn't address types of guns, they'd address ways to prevent people who shouldn't have them from getting them. (And yes I am aware that you can not prevent all of them, but we can most definitely reduce the occurrence.)
     
  20. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #20


    Yeah, well almost any argument fails the reductio ad absurdum test. But that's not we're talking about here.

    You say you don't want to be tripped by B/S laws that govern technical minutiae of the sort of firearms you own, that you might want to modify, or collect.

    Fine. I agree with you. I think that 99.99% of responsible gun owners aren't going to misuse their flash suppressors or vertical grips; their 20-round magazines; or their folding stocks. But we're talking about some tiny hoops to jump through in exchange for that freedom.

    There are hoops to jump through if you want to cut people's hair. If you want to install light switches. If you want to fly an airplane. If you want to do people's tax returns or race your car at Daytona Beach.

    Most people who participate in those activities don't really mind the "hoops." Because it sets them apart from every idiot out there. That it makes the sport, or the profession, or the hobby just a little bit more exclusive. That it makes their enjoyment of that activity a little bit safer. That garners them a certain level of respect.

    Owning a firearm is a responsibility. It confers on the holder of that gun the awesome ability to snuff out dozens of human lives in a matter of moments.

    I don't think it's asking too much that people wanting to do that should fill out a bit of paperwork, and prove to a qualified instructor that they are up to the task.
     
  21. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #21
    with politicians, that is where things head into. we have too many hoops already as shown my friend.
     
  22. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #22
    I want suppressors readily available without the $200 tax stamp and months long wait and artificially high prices. Some European countries you can get them for $100. Not here.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 1, 2016 ---
    No more hoops. Period.
     
  23. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    I can't even have a hand gun with a threaded barrel here.
     
  24. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #24
    I have an FNX-45 Tactical that I want to order a non-threaded barrel. I was told to tell them that I am moving to California.
     
  25. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #25
    You should contact Leland Yee (once he gets out of prison).
     

Share This Page