Does anyone support gun control legislation at all here?

[Hawkeye]

While browsing the never ending news cycle that features nonstop violence i began to wonder if better gun control laws would help allievate the situation at all?


Does anyone have any ideas on how to better prevent criminals and psychopaths from obtaining guns.

 

[Hawkeye]

Even Gen Petraeus supports tougher gun legilsation


David Petraeus, Mark Kelly launch gun control group - CNNPolitics.com


But this just seems to be aimed at veterans, which is...confusing.

 

[David]

Well thats a pretty tricky question. I think as Americans we are given the right to own firearms (shotguns, handguns, long guns, etc) and that people fought and died for that right. Just like they fought and died for other rights and liberties. To simply give it away through legislation to me is nonsense, and insulting to those who have sacrificed for it. I don't believe in giving any civil liberty up, I dont think my right to not get shot out on the street because of total gun control supersedes other Americans right to own guns.


I wouldn't compromise on free speech, or other rights I am given, so why compromise on this one? The only thing it does is open the door for compromise on other "rights" and placing more limitations and regulations on the individual population.

 

[~ZENAS~]

I don't support infringing on the 2nd amendment via gun control. Enforcement of laws that make it criminal for certain people to obtain guns is the proper way. We will never prevent bad guys/crazy people from getting guns. It's a fact we must understand. If guns exist (and they always will), people who shouldn't have them will find a way to get them. So gun control can only work to prevent the law abiding from getting them to defend themselves from lawbreakers who will inevitably find an illegal way to get them. Don't let the gun control people fool you with your agenda. "Reasonable gun control" will not keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.

 

[David (OHGO)]

I can't say that I support any laws that take away our abilities to choose, or place restrictions on freedoms.

 

[Randy (OHGO)]

can't say yes or no on this one, but any new law would need to be closely balanced with DUE PROCESS so if someone gets on some sort of "no buy" list wrongly it is fairly easy and extremely easy to get off of the list at NO COST

 

[Abraxialflame]

I can't say as I am opposed to a policy that realistically will curb gun violence without infringing on the rights of those who are not the cause of said issue, but, I have yet to see such a proposal, and when I do see it, it will probably be attached to a unicorn ridden by a leprechaun who will pull it out of Santa's sack.


Especially considering we have things that DO prohibit people from owning firearms, yet as we have seen with Operation Fast and Furious, that is obviously just a sham, and violent offenders who do try to purchase firearms do so with almost total impunity. No one likes to admit the fact that crime, especially gun crime, is at it's lowest point in, according to FBI numbers, 50 years or so?


Meanwhile, the solve rate for rape is at ~3%, and murder around ~60%, but yeah, lets focus on legislation that has never been proven to do anything other than impact law abiding gun owners, or a list containing children and people obviously not terrorists like congressmen and dignitaries. Because politics.

 

[Randy (OHGO)]

The question is a bit loaded with the word "Control" in it. There just might be a bill out there somewhere or sometime that we can all agree with. I have not seen one yet however I leave open to the possibility.

 

[~ZENAS~]

I don't really leave that open given the nature of constitutional rights to me.


Our society has it all backwards. The prevailing argument is that if we can come up with something that will save a few lives it will be worth it to infringe on the 2nd amendment. Whereas the thinking of the founding fathers upon which our system of laws is based and our freedoms are guaranteed is that the few lives that are lost are a small cost to live in a free society. I don't believe that belittles the lives of those lost to violent criminals, I just believe no individual's lives are worth the freedom of the whole.

 

[HOG2K]

I couldn't agree with you more T.L., BUT, I have no problem with people on terror watch lists, or people who have committed a crime where someone has died or they were put in jail. So, no terror, criminal or those deemed mentally unstable should be on a list and NOT allowed to own a gun.

 

[Abraxialflame]

My problem with these so called "watch lists" is that without due process BEFORE adding them to the list, regardless of who is in power at the time, they can be used to deny anyone they don't like their rights, regardless of any compelling reason to do so.


If someone has affiliations with known terror groups, I see no valid reason they could present to retain their right to obtain a legal firearm.


But then you can, and already have, people who attend a peaceful protest, or even public figures who express opposition to a policy, who end up on these lists as nothing more than retaliation.

 

[Bob Harris]

NOT ONE MORE!


Enforce what is on the books now. No law will stop criminals. They don't obey laws.


I curse the very first infringement as it opened the doors for all the rest.

 

[Nate (OHGO)]

Chicago has some of the strictest Gun Laws on the book. Look how well that's working out for them.


The "Terror Watch List" is a catch 22. If you go by things said by members of our Government, anyone Patriotic, Veterans, Gun Owners, members of Gun Forums.. are all potential Domestic Terrorists. So you would be included on the "List."


Are you OK with that?