If I were writing a new gun control bill...

[Casper]

No to everything.

Not one thing on that list would have stopped Newtown.

There is no need to punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty.

What?

The only punishment on that list is if you commit a crime, thus you wouldn't be innocent.

That list gives up nothing to anyone.

You don't want 50 state CCW reciprocity?

You don't want to eliminate gun free zones?

You don't want to make it easier for military and retired police to get CCW permits?

Etc, etc, etc.....

Did you even read what I wrote before you just said "no to everything"?

Better background checks are not a punishment. Offering more training to more people is not a punishment.

[Casper]

So much fail. That's exactly the talk of the anti's, when they're trying to reasonably chip away...and we've been there and tried it. The bans and restrictions don't do anything, we've seen it again and again.

The violence problem is almost entirely dependent on culture. Years ago when our laws were more lax, access to guns almost entirely unrestricted, we had very very little gun crime. So you think more restriction is going to do something? Seriously?

That's not convenient statistics, it's the historical truth, a matter of record. And to vilify guns as the catalyst for violence or crime is single-minded and wrong, and why we're constantly chasing the wrong boogeyman.

Just for fun, factor out gang-and-drug related gun crime and you see that America is on par with most countries that have a tiny fraction of our gun ownership and drastically heavier restrictions. Doesn't that tell you something? It's not the guns, it's other factors and if you reduce gun crime at the expense of normal people's "convenience" (which is a highly subjective matter of opinion) you'll just shift it to something else (see Britain and knife/club/fist) violence and murder. Not that it will matter anyway, there are 280,000,000 guns out there. You can't put that horse back in the barn. All you are doing is going further towards prohibition which doesn't impact criminals just you and I....and creates a black market industry where there shouldn't be one anyway. Stop vilifying the fucking guns.

It's not the guns.

Look at Detroit, at Chicago, at Washington DC. For fuck's sake, if you can't figure something out about those areas and gun crime I worry for you.

Compromise is bullshit.

That's all I read, because that's exactly what my proposal addresses. Nothing is banned. Nothing is harder to get. Guns are not the issue, bad people getting a hold of the guns and those bad people doing bad things with them are the problem. Hence, better background checks.

You really think I of all people want to see any gun ban enacted?

[Tonik]

So much fail. That's exactly the talk of the anti's, when they're trying to reasonably chip away...and we've been there and tried it. The bans and restrictions don't do anything, we've seen it again and again.

The violence problem is almost entirely dependent on culture. Years ago when our laws were more lax, access to guns almost entirely unrestricted, we had very very little gun crime. So you think more restriction is going to do something? Seriously?

That's not convenient statistics, it's the historical truth, a matter of record. And to vilify guns as the catalyst for violence or crime is single-minded and wrong, and why we're constantly chasing the wrong boogeyman.

Just for fun, factor out gang-and-drug related gun crime and you see that America is on par with most countries that have a tiny fraction of our gun ownership and drastically heavier restrictions. Doesn't that tell you something? It's not the guns, it's other factors and if you reduce gun crime at the expense of normal people's "convenience" (which is a highly subjective matter of opinion) you'll just shift it to something else (see Britain and knife/club/fist) violence and murder. Not that it will matter anyway, there are 280,000,000 guns out there. You can't put that horse back in the barn. All you are doing is going further towards prohibition which doesn't impact criminals just you and I....and creates a black market industry where there shouldn't be one anyway. Stop vilifying the fucking guns.

It's not the guns.

Look at Detroit, at Chicago, at Washington DC. For fuck's sake, if you can't figure something out about those areas and gun crime I worry for you.

Compromise is bullshit.

Did you read my post with Caspers list in mind? Because you have to, it is his list I am addressing. His list bans no guns, takes NOTHING away from us and in fact removes gun free zones and full CCW reciprocity.

Damn people, read and think before you go nuts. You all sound like the pro-abortion crowd. Bunch of raving loons.

[Casper]

Did you read my post with Caspers list in mind? Because you have to, it is his list I am addressing. His list bans no guns, takes NOTHING away from us and in fact removes gun free zones and full CCW reciprocity.

Damn people, read and think before you go nuts. You all sound like the pro-abortion crowd. Bunch of raving loons.

Yup. People saw "gun control bill" and freaked out yelling, "you ain't takin' ma guns!!! ahhhH!".

[crb]

The problem is they (the anti's) will see it as us being okay on #1 and skip the rest.

[crb]

Serious question: Under your proposed bill, what about firearms in a household if one spouse passes? For instance some of our firearms (that were lost in a fishing accident) are in my name and some are in my wife's name. How do we know who did the paperwork on which ones? If one passes does the other have to transfer all of the firearms? This is a situation that eliminating the "gun show loop hole" just doesn't make sense.

[Tonik]

Serious question: Under your proposed bill, what about firearms in a household if one spouse passes? For instance some of our firearms (that were lost in a fishing accident) are in my name and some are in my wife's name. How do we know who did the paperwork on which ones? If one passes does the other have to transfer all of the firearms? This is a situation that eliminating the "gun show loop hole" just doesn't make sense.

If I own a bunch of guns that have been backgrounded in my name if I die whoever they go to has to get backgrounded on them would be my read on Casper's proposal.

Caspers law says to transfer ownership the new owner must be backgrounded. Why or how the transfer is happening is not relevant.

[crb]

If I own a bunch of guns that have been backgrounded in my name if I die whoever they go to has to get backgrounded on them would be my read on Casper's proposal.

Caspers law says to transfer ownership the new owner must be backgrounded. Why or how the transfer is happening is not relevant.

That is the way I read it. I find it stupid for that instance right there.

[Tonik]

That is the way I read it. I find it stupid for that instance right there.

I had an uncle...actually my surrogate dad. He taught me how to hunt, shoot, fish and chase women. When he died his son the mental case on prozak and all kinds of shit got all of his guns because he was the sole heir.

[Scruit]

Maybe put a clause in your will that states that whoever gets yours guns have to be able to legally possess them, else they are to be appraised (how much a gun shop would pay for them) and sold either to another family member who IS allowed to possess them, (or to gunshop) and the beneficiary gets the cash instead.

[Strictly Street]

The goal isn't to just stop Newtown. It is to lower gun crime overall. And no one is being punished by Caspers list. Just minor inconveniences.

Something has to change. We can quote convenient statistics and quote neat little sayings but the bottom line is gun violence in this country is statistically much higher than most civilized countries. Much higher. Yea you can find a few exceptions here and there but the norm is we shoot the fuck out of each other far more than most anywhere else.

Registering every sale and/or transfer is a bad idea. It is the slippery slope. The scary media demon "Gun show Loophole" it is the very basis of our second amendment. The idea is that we as citizens are at least as well armed as the police/government and that they don't have a list of who we are.

Gun violence is no different from other forms of violence. What you are advocating is legislating an end to violence. You know that won't work.

Giving up an inch on this topic is giving up a mile. Don't give up anything!

Yea you can find a few exceptions here and there but the norm is we shoot the fuck out of each other far more than most anywhere else.

According to the popular American press which is not biased in any way this seems to be true. History however disagrees with this statement. In your lifetime entire populations have been wiped out.

Wikipedia - just one example from the last few years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

The killing was well organized by the government.[14] When it started, the Rwandan militia numbered around 30,000, or one militia member for every ten families. It was organized nationwide, with representatives in every neighborhood. Some militia members were able to acquire AK-47 assault rifles by completing requisition forms. Other weapons, such as grenades, required no paperwork and were widely distributed by the government. Many members of the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi were armed only with machetes. Even after the 1993 peace agreement signed in Arusha, businessmen close to General Habyarimana imported 581,000 machetes from China[15] for Hutu use in killing Tutsi, because machetes were obviously cheaper than guns

Machetes? Really? Yes, today there are no more Tutsi.

The popular idea that such thing cannot happen here overlooks some very basic history right here in this country.

At the beginning of WWII USA popular opinion was for Germany.

We had concentration camps for the Japanese right here in this country.

Etc, etc etc.

If the government has a list of all gun owners which politician do you trust to not use it against you?

Edited January 14, 2013 by Strictly Street

[Pokey]

I didnt say all, but did say most all. Am for reciprocity countrywide, am for retired military and law enforcement having automatic CCW, and am for gun free zones. However like Swingset already said....it is more about culture, plus gangs are totally out of control and honestly not jack shit is done about it. Drug related crime is also out of control, yes there are some very sporadic domestic violence and unfortunate slaughters, but they are very very minuscule when compared to the real problems. How can better or more extensive background checks work and actually be accurate, how long must a person wait for a firearm? This country is totally overrun by criminals, and it needs a serious enema. I still like the idea of our special forces folks having full reign to start taking these thugs and ganbangers out, can you imagine how quickly things could change should many know they are being hunted? Prisons are too full and filled beyond capacity, and we are all paying for these animals with life sentences to breath free air. Country is now run by a bunch of pussies, and the pussies are involved in every major organization and corporation, government agencies, law enforcement, military, and especially capital hill. In a nutshell.....we are fucked.

[Strictly Street]

What?

The only punishment on that list is if you commit a crime, thus you wouldn't be innocent.

That list gives up nothing to anyone.

You don't want 50 state CCW reciprocity?

You don't want to eliminate gun free zones?

You don't want to make it easier for military and retired police to get CCW permits?

Etc, etc, etc.....

Did you even read what I wrote before you just said "no to everything"?

Better background checks are not a punishment. Offering more training to more people is not a punishment.

Did you even read what I wrote before you just said "no to everything"?

Yes I did read it. My reasons are political based on the one main point of the background check. If it is open to all it will be required for all. No more private sales. No more gifts. No more inheritance. As soon as you do this they will be there to chip away at the opening you gave them.

It's the slippery slope, any compromise is bad. Offering anything to the anti-gun crowd just fans the flames and winds them up. They will want more all the time and never stop.

I don't believe we can give up one inch politically without starting a landslide of compromise and some politician somewhere will give just an inch more and then it's over.

If you feel you should have a background check before selling a firearm to someone nothing is stopping you from doing just that, pay the fee and get the check at you local dealer.

Another example might be Gun free zones are dropping like flies as school districts are arming their staff at parents request. Nothing needs to be done, it's taking care of itself. http://freebeacon.com/protecting-our-kids/

At one point in time military got a CCW without question or classes. If this has changed then demand it back.

The states are setting up reciprocity already. Slowly, but it's getting done.

Training is already available to anybody that wants it, so whats the big deal?

Politically speaking, most of the gun laws being talked about, Fienstein and the rest have about a zero chance in congress. Local knee jerk reactions will be overridden by state legislatures, state knee jerks by constitutional challenge. Remember the Columbus handgun ban? DC gun ban? Chicago is in court right now and New York looks to be next.

Even with the liberal Supreme court that is in session now the will to take a chance and get slapped down is not in the liberal mindset. They will back down and bide their time.

So I repeat, no, don't do anything. Don't give up an inch. Don't let them have anything. And most of all, don't let them think you are willing to compromise on anything.

Ben I know your heart is in the right place but you don't have the mind of a politician, thank God. They would turn your modest proposal into something you couldn't recognize. "Fast and Furious" Holder is on the Biden committee. Kinda says something right there.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Strictly Street
added a point or two.

[imaposer]

Here's my new gun laws-

1. Eliminate gun free zones unless they are truly gun free. Metal detectors, armed security, full control places like court houses and airports. A cheezy sign doesn't cut it. If I can't protect myself, whoever is forcing me to leave my gun behind better as hell be able to.

2.CCW should be expected and encouraged. No permits, no state to state variances, no fingerprinting, none of that crap. You only lose this right if you commit a crime and are serving your sentence for it.

3.Guns and Ammo should be tax free. Any firearms training should be tax deductible.

4.Non gun owners over the age of 18 should be taxed $2500/yr for the extra burden they put on the government for having to protect them, something they should be doing for themselves.

5. Repeal NFA. Silencers should be encouraged, not made such a pain in the ass to get. Full autos are fun till you add up the cost per minute of the fire rate. You are only going to turn that switch a couple times before it gets old.

6. Basic firearms training should be taught in schools. Introduce them at grade 6, work up to shoot proficiency tests before graduation. Every 8th grader should know how to tear down, clean and reassemble an AR.

All right. There's my starting points. I'm willing to negotiate a little with the Anti side if need be.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

^^^ Nice

[buildit]

The problem I see is the anti's keep making it about gun control not gun responsibility.

YOU are responsible for your firearms and their safe storage. If you don't have the gun(s) not being used in a Safe you are wrong and that kid who shoots itself or another is YOUR fault. Likewise if any authorized person (not a break in) takes a firearm for the use in a robbery, shooting, murder or any other firearm related crime committed with the firearm you lost control of because it was improperly secured. Sandy Hook was the mothers fault if she either didn't have those firearms secured or had disclosed the combination to her defective child.

You are responsible to behave and not limit your ability to properly judge or handle a situation with drugs or alcohol while in control of a firearm.

You are responsible to being considerate of others while in possession of a firearm and to handle it in a responsible fashion. Open carry is not a crime but pointing a gun at anyone not endangering you or another is a crime.

You also need to respect the rights of those who do not desire them on their property. In kind, anyone prohibiting firearms is responsible for the well being of all occupants of their property, such that if a shooting or robbery happens on their property and anyone was denied the right to self defense the property owner is an accessory to the crime. This applies to all government offices and buildings as well as military bases.

That's my opinion. Stop regulating guns, regulate people!

[Scruit]

The problem I see is the anti's keep making it about gun control not gun responsibility.

Problem is that we know who to blame for the Newtown shootings - Adam Lanza, and possibly his mother. That does not help anyone, though, considering they are both dead, along with 27 innocents. Having someone to blame is no consolation to them. That is why they are grasping at the false promise of gun control, thinking it will help.

[Gump]

To elaborate on the # 6 from Posers post. I'd like to see the DNR have access to or work in conjunction with NICS and the DNR would provide the safety education part of their hunter safety education program, which is already free, be part of school curriculum (not likely to happen). Along with requiring proof of attendance and passing the course once to be able to purchase a firearm at any age. It would make the general population safer and cultivate a more pro-gun society. Although it would do little to help fight crime.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Gump

[buildit]

Problem is that we know who to blame for the Newtown shootings - Adam Lanza, and possibly his mother. That does not help anyone, though, considering they are both dead, along with 27 innocents. Having someone to blame is no consolation to them. That is why they are grasping at the false promise of gun control, thinking it will help.

The same can be said for gun control. It wouldn't have changed what happened either. Only another person with a gun could have stopped that defective murderer. Actually murderer isn't good enough, he has elevated to the level of terrorist with help of the media and government ambulance chasers.

[Scruit]

The same can be said for gun control. It wouldn't have changed what happened either. Only another person with a gun could have stopped that defective murderer. Actually murderer isn't good enough, he has elevated to the level of terrorist with help of the media and government ambulance chasers.

Politically speaking, you are on the wrong side of the argument. That is, the majority of Americans support gun control. Anyone who refuses to compromise may find the antis just flat-out getting what they want.

[imaposer]

Politically speaking, you are on the wrong side of the argument. That is, the majority of Americans support gun control. Anyone who refuses to compromise may find the antis just flat-out getting what they want.

I'll be damned if I can find it now, but an hour ago I was reading an article saying the most recent poll showed 38% were for stricter gun laws, 45% were happy with them as is, and 5% wanted less restrictive laws. So yeah, just saying the majority support gun laws may be true, heck, even I support some gun laws, but thinking the majority want MORE gun laws isn't necessarily true.

Edit- found it. HERE

Edited January 15, 2013 by imaposer

[Scruit]

Not accurate huh?

This page: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/14/poll-gun-control-that-americans-support/

Links to this study: http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/14/in-gun-control-debate-several-options-draw-majority-support/

Which says:

Two-thirds of people questioned in the survey say they support creating a federal database to track gun sales, but there's a partisan divide, with 84% of Democrats and only 49% of Republicans favoring the proposal.

Fifty-five percent favor a ban on assault style weapons, 54% back a ban on high capacity ammunition clips, and 53% support a ban on on-line ammunition sales, but again there's a wide partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans on these proposals.

According to the poll, nearly two-thirds support putting armed security guards or police in more schools, but only four in ten say arming more teachers and school officials with guns is a good idea.

By a 51%-45% margin, Americans say it's more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun rights. This is virtually unchanged from Pew poll that was conducted in the days following the Newtown, Connecticut shootings.

Every study we come up with to show that gun control is not wanted, they will come back with one that shows it IS.

[Pokey]

Problem is that we know who to blame for the Newtown shootings - Adam Lanza, and possibly his mother. That does not help anyone, though, considering they are both dead, along with 27 innocents. Having someone to blame is no consolation to them. That is why they are grasping at the false promise of gun control, thinking it will help.

There is allot more to the story that we are not hearing, and we may never know the real truth. There are too many things about the whole shooting and how it was handled that just isn't adding up. The total confusion or "lying/cover-up" about weapons used, people interviewed, 2nd shooter possibility "guy in the woods", Adam's brother, how Adam got the ID, where is the Father, the lack of EMT/Paramedics on scene, Facebook donation pages, the medical examiner acting "very strange", interviews with parents on TV.....etc. I am thinking coverups and smoke and mirrors tactics being used, why the purpose of that is what really bothers me. Today is the big day when King Obama gets to review the weapons bans, we shall see how that all plays out much sooner than later.

[ReconRat]

Washington Post quote of the day:

COHEN: Why the gun control debate isn’t about guns, but government. “It’s about the government in two respects. The first is the conviction that guns are needed to protect Americans from their own government…The second way the gun-control debate is about government relates to crime — the belief that the government is either unwilling or unable to protect us.” Richard Cohen in The Washington Post.

[wht_scorpion]

9. Mass shooting equals public hanging. Just as it says. Bring back public hangings for those who commit these heinous crimes. I vote for that