johnnyh66
Scale Detail Engineering
damn your quick!
-
Welcome to RCCrawler Forums.
It looks like you're enjoying RCCrawler's Forums but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members, and much more. Register now!
Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.
Questions for Gun Control Advocates
- Thread starter The Violator
- Start date
binaryterror
I wanna be Dave
My state (Michigan), the process to buy a gun is very simple. And that's the same in the majority of states.
I can have never held, shot, learned about guns. All I do is fill out a form and hand over my license. That is then checked online or via phone system. So long as I don't have a Felony I can walk out that day with a brand new gun. I've done it plenty, in and out in 30 minutes. They don't care if I can shoot, am safe, willing to train. Nope I'm all set.
In my state you can carry pistols open. Again with no training or competency let alone safety knowledge. Though open carry is a terrible idea, can't believe people fight for that option. It's literally the most dangerous option of concealed, open, or not carrying.
binaryterror
I wanna be Dave
So you enjoy knowing most gun owners are untrained and unwilling to learn?
You honestly think forcing owners to take safety and firing competency training is too much? I don't think 50% of the current gun owners in the US should own a gun let alone carry one from what I've seen at ranges.
NoobCrawler
Rock Stacker
Oh wow, that is pretty easy. In CA, we have to take a test before we're issued licenses to purchase, much like a drivers permit. The questions, as I recall, were basic common knowledge gun safety for the most part.. There was a few good thinkers in there also. Don't remember the total number of questions, but there was a good bit.
I'm on the fence on open carry. In one sense, it could be a deterrent to someone acting out(say in a bank). But it could also bring a lot of unwarranted attention, mostly because a lot of the general public buy into the fear spreading about guns going on.
And that is only if you buy new from a retailer. You can pick up a second hand gun from any individual looking to sell, no questions asked (some might ask if you are a felon, etc, but not everyone), no background check or paperwork required. Cash and carry. You might even score some magazines and ammo in the deal. Pistols, rifles (hunting and assault), shotguns, whatever. It's super easy.
RANOVRU
Quarry Creeper
It's obviously different in different states. Here in VA you're not walking in and out same day of a dealer with anything more than a hunting riffle/shotgun.
For hand guns/tactical rifles/etc there's a waiting period, whether purchased locally or online.
Folks certainly aren't walking in and out with an semi pistol, AR or more the say day.
For hand guns/tactical rifles/etc there's a waiting period, whether purchased locally or online.
Folks certainly aren't walking in and out with an semi pistol, AR or more the say day.
RANOVRU
Quarry Creeper
I agree. I think training/education is just as if not more important than background checks.
Whether or not you want to interpret 'the people' as civilians or a group pf organized civilians they should be equally educated/trained if they are to hold a fire arm.
Back when the majority of folks taught their kids responsibility and proper handling of a gun, that was enough. That is obviously not the case nowadays.
Personally, I would feel safer knowing that people had to have an acceptable amount of education/ training before being able to carry or own certain guns.
HahnsB2
Quarry Creeper
Never said that :roll:
Firearm safety SHOULD be taught in schools. Those who own guns SHOULD educate themselves.
Mandatory class as a prerequisite for owning guns? Get bent.
Yes I do.
I don't think 75% of the people I see driving should be on the road, yet here we are.
While we're at it, lets install breathalyzers in every vehicle, you can never be too careful :roll:
Speaking of that. I hate drunk drivers, but I will never defend DUI checkpoints.
Immigration checkpoints are bullshit too.
Infringing on the rights of others because of your feelz is not a good reason.
Relevant to Helis post and made me lol
The term "well regulated militia" is mentioned immediately. I don't really consider a bunch of uneducated, inexperienced gun owners to be a "well regulated militia".
It's not about teh feelz, its about teh safety of the people.
The Violator
RCC Addict
Making gun laws tougher only hurts people who follow the laws. They use the actions of the lawless to clamp down on those who follow the laws.
Maybe a better angle would be to get tougher on those who commit gun crimes. I am all for the death penalty for anyone who uses a gun when committing a crime. Rob a store with a gun, get the electric chair. I bet that might slow down gun crimes.
Maybe a better angle would be to get tougher on those who commit gun crimes. I am all for the death penalty for anyone who uses a gun when committing a crime. Rob a store with a gun, get the electric chair. I bet that might slow down gun crimes.
Yes, but unfortunately you can only make it harder for the law breakers by making it harder for everyone.
5 years to life is what they'll get you now, and the incidents are already in decline.
Here's another interesting read...
In May 1967, two dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles to protest a gun-control bill, prompting then-Gov. Ronald Reagan to comment, “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”
The NRA once supported gun control - Salon.com
In November 1976, the NRA’s old guard Board of Directors fired Carter and 80 other employees associated with the more expansive view of the Second Amendment and implicit distrusting any government firearm regulation. For months, the Carter cadre secretly plotted their revenge and hijacked the NRA’s annual meeting in Cincinatti in May 1977. The meeting had been moved from Washington to protest its new gun control law. Winkler writes that Carter’s top deputy Neal Knox was even more extreme than him—wanting to roll back all existing gun laws, including bans on machine guns and saying the federal government had killed Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy as “part of a plot to advance gun control.”
Using the NRA’s parliamentary rules, the rebels interrupted the agenda from the floor and revised how the Board of Directors was chosen, recommited the NRA to fighting gun control and restored the lobbying ILA. Harlon Carter became the NRA’s new executive director. He cancelled a planned move of its national headquarters from Washington to Colorado Springs. And he changed the organization’s motto on its DC headquarters, selectively editing the Second Amendment to reflect a non-compromising militancy, “The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.”
In May 1967, two dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles to protest a gun-control bill, prompting then-Gov. Ronald Reagan to comment, “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”
The NRA once supported gun control - Salon.com
In November 1976, the NRA’s old guard Board of Directors fired Carter and 80 other employees associated with the more expansive view of the Second Amendment and implicit distrusting any government firearm regulation. For months, the Carter cadre secretly plotted their revenge and hijacked the NRA’s annual meeting in Cincinatti in May 1977. The meeting had been moved from Washington to protest its new gun control law. Winkler writes that Carter’s top deputy Neal Knox was even more extreme than him—wanting to roll back all existing gun laws, including bans on machine guns and saying the federal government had killed Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy as “part of a plot to advance gun control.”
Using the NRA’s parliamentary rules, the rebels interrupted the agenda from the floor and revised how the Board of Directors was chosen, recommited the NRA to fighting gun control and restored the lobbying ILA. Harlon Carter became the NRA’s new executive director. He cancelled a planned move of its national headquarters from Washington to Colorado Springs. And he changed the organization’s motto on its DC headquarters, selectively editing the Second Amendment to reflect a non-compromising militancy, “The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.”
Last edited:
The Violator
RCC Addict
How hard is it to buy an illegal gun? I am sure in the ghetto people are buying guns everyday. Does anyone really believe that these people will say
" oh shit dog, I cannot sell this gat to you because you failed the background check"
So incidents are in decline as is. Where is the problem then?
Plus I never said 5 years. 5 years is probably out in 2. And little ( Tyrone, Juanito, or Jimbob ) just learned how to be a better criminal when he was in.
The death penalty. No 3 strikes. You shoot someone, you get a needle in the arm. At the very least with every new law tightening gun sales, there should be one increasing punishment. So everyone loses, not just the law abiding citizens.
It should actually be an amendment to the constitution. Reciprocal laws. Tighten one, increase the punishments on the other. NO WAY a liberal votes yes on anything that puts more of their constituents in prison.
WHITE-TRASH
I wanna be Dave
Criminals don't buy guns legally. Mentally ill or disgruntled citizens however do buy them legally. That is closer to the issue but to say all these gun control laws have any effect on the criminal element is a load of crap.
5 months to a year is closer to the reality. I'm with uncle Ted on this one 100%. "I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders." For every successful rehabilitation story concerning the US justice system there are 100,000 repeat customers. Let's just start culling the herd already. Everyone makes mistakes in their youth, some obviously more severe than others. It is always generally pretty obvious who is going to turn things around and who is going to become a repeat customer again and again so let's just stop the problem with the first violent crime conviction already.
NoobCrawler
Rock Stacker
In theory, that does make sense, but I think reality days otherwise.
Now, I know it's a broken record sound but, Chicago. The bad guys are getting guns somehow.
CA, we have so many cities that have rampant gun problems.
There was a cop shooting in Philly a few days ago. The dude didn't buy the gun legally, he stole it. Incidentally, from a cop.
I see they made the new background checks in order to try to keep guns out of the hands of these would be mass shooters, since thats all they ever talk about, but looking at a few of the recent ones, the SB couple bought handguns legally, the kid in charleston, legally, the reporter in VA, legally. I'm not seeing how background checks being done more is going to change anything.
I agree something needs to be done. But they need to focus on the problem, when it reveals itself. There a new law here in CA, where cops can come in & take the guns of someone that somebody thinks may be unstable. Now, I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that.
Looking into the law, it was made in response to a kid, Elliot Rodger, that went on a spree in '14 he killed 6 & injured 14. Hs own. Om was worried about him, after seeing some of his YouTube videos. She contacted mental health officials, Sheriff was sent out. Did nothing. Didn't take him away for evaluation. The Sheriiff didn't even search the place. They said he seemed "quiet and timid...polite & courteous".
Had they taken him away it would've been prevented. If they searched his place after that should be take away they would've found his guns & likely, had they searched his computer-given the moms concerns about YiuTube videos- they would've found his 137 page manifesto.
So, instead, their inaction lead to that shooting. I'll have to dig around & see what they do about the person who gets phoned in about & their guns taken. But, if they dont take the person in fir a long time & actually determine their threat level, the new law does nothing. Which, after this side tracked rambling is my point. Ignoring the problem, the people, in favor of new laws that will do very little...it just doesn't work.
If he hadn't yet committed a crime, there is nothing the cops could have done. They can't search without probable cause.
Yeah, this isn't so much about the existing and repeating criminal element, this is about 1st offenders that go on shooting sprees. The biggest problem with doling out punishment is that 9 times out of 10 they end up dead so that there is no judicial punishment, which was probably just fine with them and maybe even part of their plan. It's hard to deter people from doing those things when their own death is an acceptable outcome.
NoobCrawler
Rock Stacker
And that's the problem. Besides, the moms concern & the proof, the videos, should've been enough for them to take action. That's what angers me the most when they keep shoving new laws in our faces. Inaction. Just like the neighbors in San Bernardino. The beloved 'see something, say something' being touted by Obummer after the fact clearly means nothing. His mother both saw & said something. Nothing. That couple didn't come forward because they didn't want to be labeled. Even of they had, chances are nothing would've came from it, & the outcome would've been the same.
If there is a legitimate claim, like the mother, that should well enough be probable cause for the evaluation & search. The mother knew her son had problems.
