BRC's propsed gun control legislation

[BigRedChief]

I'm a known Obama supporter on here. I also have a long standing belief that gun control legislation usually doesn't work and besides...and this is not a small thing in the discussion..........the constitution is clear, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. Thats why even though I don't own guns or hunt that I've been a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. The constitution is clear.

I understand that the constitution is also very clear on free speech but we restrict free speech in some circumstances (libel, yelling fire etc.). Thats the test that I've always used in evaluating any gun control legislation. If we allow and support the real ugly and reprehensible parts of free speech such as the Nazi's marching in a Jewish neighborhood then the Democrats must do the same with allowing gun owners that freedom guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Republicans have to be open to some limitations on gun control along the same lines as the limits we put on free speech.

The compromise:

1. Forbid the mentally ill to own guns of any kind.
2. Forbid those who have been found guilty of violence against fellow citizens from owning guns.
3. Make illegal the purchase and ownership of armor piercing bullets.
4. Make illegal any ammunition clips greater than 10 rounds. (Exception could be in place for gun ranges)
5. Make laws that punish gun owners if their own registered guns are used to commit crimes.
6. Closing the gun show loophole.

#1 and #2 are easy. No one should be against those proposals.
#3 There is no need reason for an individual citizen to own armor piercing bullets.
#4 This is the key. The Ft. Hood, Va. tech, Gabby Giffords shooter were all stopped when their ammo clips ran out and they stop to reload. We can limit the body count if they have to stop to reload a clip even if it takes only 3-5 seconds.
#5 Gun owners should already be securing their firearms so that kids, mentally ill, suicidal people don't have access to their guns. This would have prevented Shady Hook.
#6 You buy a gun at your local shop they perform a background check but buy at a gun show they don't? Thats idiotic. If there is a background check, it applies to gun shows.



What got left off the table:

• Assault weapons ban. It was already in effect for 10 years. It didn't lower crime. It doesn't meet the first amendment Nazi's marching test. The constitution is about the rights to own guns, not how many bullets that gun can fire.
• Mental illness legislation. A different discussion.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Not you but a mentally ill person, maybe.

If you're not concerned about stripping away rights then just focus on the smaller population. Start institutionalizing these people and lower the at for involuntary institutionalization. Also plug them all into an interactive online map so neighbors know when a mental case prone to violence is living near them.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Did you not propose #4 as a compromise?

It's funny isn't it? All "compromises" he offers are things the Left wants. I don't see anything going back in return that the Right wants.



The compromise:
Forbid the mentally ill to own guns of any kind.
Forbid those who have been found guilty of violence against fellow citizens from owning guns.
Make illegal the purchase and ownership of armor piercing bullets.
Make illegal any ammunition clips greater than 10 rounds. (Exception could be in place for gun ranges)
Make laws that punish gun owners if their own registered guns are used to commit crimes.
Closing the gun show loophole.

[RaiderH8r]

How about whatever gun control measures are put in lace also apply to law enforcement. If I don't need more than 10 rounds to protect myself from an imminent threat they sure as hell don't when they show up to mop up the bloody mess that was me and my family.

[frazod]

Here's one - if somebody is found to be buying guns for the express purpose of selling them to criminals, we could simply HANG THE ****ER ON THE SPOT.

I assume our liberal friends won't go for that, though. Wouldn't want to infringe upon anybody's rights or anything.

Except law-abiding gun owners, of course.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by frazod

Here's one - if somebody is found to be buying guns for the express purpose of selling them to criminals, we could simply HANG THE ****ER ON THE SPOT.

I assume our liberal friends won't go for that, though. Wouldn't want to infringe upon anybody's rights or anything.

Except law-abiding gun owners, of course.

How would you prosecute that? You'd have to prove that the seller had intent and knowledge of what the perp would do - and then the perp would have to do it. That's a nightmare prosecution.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

How would you prosecute that? You'd have to prove that the seller had intent and knowledge of what the perp would do - and then the perp would have to do it. That's a nightmare prosecution.

I get the feeling that prosecution would be entirely optional in this scheme.

[Ace Gunner]

get the **** out my wallet & foot locker BRC or you get the business end

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

How would you prosecute that? You'd have to prove that the seller had intent and knowledge of what the perp would do - and then the perp would have to do it. That's a nightmare prosecution.

Especially when it comes to gangs, the cops know who they are. They're just so bogged down by liberal bullshit when it comes to dealing with them that they're hands are tied. This is what needs to change, not the second amendment.

[Ace Gunner]

srsly -- prohibitive rules do not work because there is nothing proactive included. It's like don't ask, don't tell.

It's real simple here, folks. there are professional mental health experts readily available, and many of them would CCW given that charge. But what is important about including mental health experts in elementary grades is, well, this is the stage where mental health develops perhaps the quickest in our stages of life.

Think about it, folks. Think about the first bully. Ya. Elementary school.

You want results, you put pros on it at that early stage of human development. End. Of. Story.

It's never going to catch 'em all, but fergodsakes folks, prohibition alone is a waste of $$ & it creates more black market avenues.

It's like that ol' midas commercial.. "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later". The ladder being far more expensive both finacially & mortally.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

I get the feeling that prosecution would be entirely optional in this scheme.

Yep.

When it comes to violent crime and violent offenders, my views are fairly extreme. One might say Draconian, even. Especially when the government shits on my rights instead of taking care of business.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by petegz28

It's not reasonable to tell someone how many rounds their magazine can hold since the government cannot predict the situation you may find yourself in when it is time to defend yourself. The idiot governor over NY can say "it doesn't take 10 bullets to kill a deer" and while he is right it has absoluetly nothing to do with the 2nd nor how may bullets it may take to defend me and my family.

Someone should send Cuomo this picture.

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by frazod

Here's one - if somebody is found to be buying guns for the express purpose of selling them to criminals, we could simply HANG THE ****ER ON THE SPOT.

Whose definition of criminal? If someone was buying and selling guns to the "criminals" guilty of possessing a 30rd mag in NY , I'd give them a medal.
Posted via Mobile Device

[frazod]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

Whose definition of criminal? If someone was buying and selling guns to the "criminals" guilty of possessing a 30rd mag in NY , I'd give them a medal.
Posted via Mobile Device

I'm talking about real violent criminals, not law-abiding citizens whose rights have been shat upon by an elitist tyrant ****.

[KILLER_CLOWN]