Where do you stand on the second amendment?
 

Where do you stand on the second amendment?

I think there should be no gun control at all, that means....

No regulations of a guns technical aspects.
No regulations on any aspect of ammunition.
No registration in any way shape or form.
No taxes on the purchase of firearms, ammunition, reloading supplies, etc...

I am fine with laws that define minimum safety requirements for firearms (like they don't go off when you drop them) and ammunition.

I am fine with laws the prohibit felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms.

I am fine with taxing the sale of firearms, ammunition, etc... (Keep the government interested it allowing them to be sold.)

Pretty much everything else I oppose.

I see the Second Amendment as the ultimate check by the populace on an overbearing and ever-expanding government.

I oppose taxes because it can be used as a way to basically control ownership of guns based on unreasonably high taxes. In 1934 with the NFA act you had to pay $200 for a tax stamp to legally own any weapon classified under the NFA laws. That $200 would be roughly $3200 in today's dollars

Maybe I should clarify.

I'm fine with charging "normal" sales taxes on firearms and related goods.

I oppose firearem-specific taxes.

Agreed, I don't like taxes but normal sales tax rates I can live with.

i think they should outlaw that sideways gangsta handgun shooting style. and bring back that damn minuteman hat!

I am fine with laws that define minimum safety requirements for firearms (like they don't go off when you drop them) and ammunition.

I am fine with laws the prohibit felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms.

I am fine with taxing the sale of firearms, ammunition, etc... (Keep the government interested it allowing them to be sold.)

Pretty much everything else I oppose.

I see the Second Amendment as the ultimate check by the populace on an overbearing and ever-expanding government +1

How do you feel about the Pittman-Robertson act/fund? It is what has bought public use land, paid for public ranges to be built, bought wildlife management areas, etc.

And it is a 11% excise tax on firearms, ammo, and some camping/outdoor supplies.

2nd Amend. allows chicks to protect themselves!
 

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1214922405.jpg:D

I think the second amendment wording is (1) pretty clear and (2) pretty much where my stance is.

Citizens without a history of criminal behavior or mental illness should be able to pretty much buy (and carry) whatever the hell they want. Just my $0.02.

You'd see a lot less crime if people out there were armed and didn't have their hands tied by a bunch of self-serving doofuses like politicians, bureaucrats, endless stupid legislation and a significant percentage of law enforcement. L.E. doesn't like the 2nd amendment because it undercuts their job security.

. All the LE that I know, and I am very closely related to one, fully support the 2nd Amend. Of course they are all street level . Usually as they rise in rank and their noses get browner, they sometimes veer off, like the FBI head ass----.They are the first to admit that there is no way that they can begin to control crime and that an armed citizenry is the best defense against absolute chaos.

I am OK with the restriction that people with a history of mental illness should not be allowed to own firearms, given that willing membership in the NRA be considered a form of insanity....

....just joking, but couldn't resist....

Dennis

I have never come across a cop who was anti-gun or at least not one who exhibited such sentiment when dealing with me, and I'm almost always armed. The fact that I didn't get arrested last weekend at the Phoenix gun buy-back proves at least the cops around here are very cool about guns.

Frankly, as long as you are fit, I see no problem with allowing people to buy tanks.

Maybe not the average run-of-the-mill cop, but certainly the upper echelon brass and guys like this FBI Director.

You are correct, most of the "average, everyday" cops I've met are pretty down-to-earth. Some aren't, most are.

Mueller was never a cop. He was a prosecutor and then a political appointee. FWIW, I saw him speak at the Nat. Press Club a few years ago and almost fell asleep.

If I were King -
- Gun owners would be required to pass background check (screen out felons, pending criminal proceeding, mental illness, not here legally, etc), over 21 y/o, take basic gun safety course (no "passing" required, just take it). Subject to these requirements, all persons should be free to purchase and possess guns. No state/local restrictions permitted. Private property owners free to restrict (e.g. landlord can prohibit guns in his rental property), but violation is a civil matter, not criminal.
- Gun and ammunition sales permitted in any area zoned "commercial". Gun manufacturing permitted in any area zoned "industrial". No local ordinances can selectively ban these businesses.
- Gun manufacturers, distributors, resellers not legally liable for shooting injuries/deaths unless gun was defective or sold without required checks.
- CCW license would require an advanced gun safety/use of lethal force course, demonstration of minimum proficiency (marksmanship), with refreshers every two years. Cost to the licensee capped. Subject to these requirements, all persons should be issued CCW permits upon request. No state/local restrictions permitted. List of public property where carry is prohibited would be very short. Private property owners free to post "no guns", but violation is a civil matter, not criminal, no impact on CCW license.
- Open carry prohibited, except in wilderness areas and shooting ranges/similar. Don't see the point of it, frankly. If you want to express yourself, wear a T-shirt.
- Automatic criminal and civil liability if a child, who lives in or was invited into the gun owner's home, is injured by a discharge of the gun. I.e. don't mandate gun safes/locks/storage, gun owner has to weigh the risks and make the right choice for his circumstances.
- No restriction on quantity or type of non-full-auto gun. Ownership of full-autos, grenade launchers, flamethrowers, etc - practically any small arm - is permitted, but under stringent rules.

I agree completely, with the small addition of an "use specific" tax to finance public hunting grounds, public shooting ranges and clubs be allowed. No monies collected could be diverted to other uses.

+1 to legion

Here is my stance:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1214934569.jpg

I support barring nuts and convicts from getting guns, and instant background checks to make sure they don't. I'm pretty sure i support the prohibitions of guns on planes too.(though i want the pilots to have them).

Beyond that, i don't support any gun laws.

I would add..

No age limit at all for buying any kind of gun. Children and adults alike.
All kinds of weapon available, also military issues like hand grenades etc.
All kinds of weapons should be available in any nearby convenient store.

Agree with most of the above and especially if someone is convicted of a violent felony or is mentally ill.

There does not need to be a law about firearms that go off when dropped. Do not believe that we have laws addressing this now. Its real simple... if a weapon does this the maker will correct it or no one will buy the gun and they go out of business!

Second, how and why can anyone equate to the same treatment for someone who for instance was convicted of fraud, or some other crime that is a felony but has nothing to do with violence?

I used to do some of the hiring at our airline. In the process I found out that there were more people than most would think working with us who were convicted felons. One of them was very senior and a check airman/instructor, a very high position in the company. He got busted with pot as a kid and took the hit, but really made the most out of his life after that. We lived in a state that restored his rights after his probation ended and I went out shooting with him often. Very nice guy and in no way did he deserve to have firearms restricted in ANY way in his life.

Instead of having a knee jerk reaction to things, maybe its time to think things over again.

Agree should be a distinction btwn violent and non-violent crimes.

But even for non-violent crimes, I can see prohibition against gun ownership for 5 years or so, *if* there's evidence that commission of a non-violent crime means one is more likely to commit a subsequent violent crime.

John,

Totally agree. Some accountant who fuched up the books and got nailed for a felony is not the same thing as a bank robber or someone who used a weapon in the commission of a violent crime.

I do not know the rules or regs but many states have laws that felons who have been off probation or out of jail more than 5-10 years have their rights restored. How far this goes I do not know.

Personally I would love to have someone like G.Gordon Liddy on my side as opposed to a bank robber. Both are convicted felons... but should not be treated as such in some areas.

Even though I don't personally own a gun I have no problem advocating the right to bear arms. That said I would also vote for harsher punishment to those who commit crimes with a gun - including the registered owner of said gun. My neighbor had a couple rifles hidden under his bed that were stolen when his house was broken into. Sloppy gun management in my book and thus if one of his guns get's ID'd in a crime he should also be partially responsible.

I don't agree with that at all.

They were hidden in a LOCKED HOUSE.

I know you were being sarcastic but I agree with all of that except the children part. :D

Thanks, Noah! I was afraid you would take me seriously. I am no American, I can not have a formed opinion on an issue in a country I don´t live in. I did not mean to offend anyone, but I could not resist the temptation either. :D

buy a .45, get a free Slurpee?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1214943474.jpg

No, buy a Slurpee, get a free .45

That would be a great deal. :)

but if you have a .45, Slurpees are always free I've found. it's a great deal!:D

Well, if you consider being incarcerated for armed robbery free...sure. :-P

I support background checks when you purchase a weapon.

I support a National Carry permit. One stop, pass a more intensive background check, fire arm safety class, much like the current carry permit and you can take a weapon with you anywhere but the Court, and on Airplanes.

Other than that I don't think we need anything. My understanding is that when you look at gun cases where a weapon was used in a crime the vast majority of them violate a existing gun law. Making new ones when we don't have enforcement on the existing ones is stupid.

I would also like add a restriction to illegal aliens and those who have overstayed their visas owning a firearm.

Joey....CA has a DROP TEST for Saturday Night Specials. It is just another ruse to make it more difficult to sell guns in the state.

What's wrong w/ a drop test for a firearm?

We establish certain minimum safety requirements for cars, motorcycles, airplanes, cellphones, etc - why not firearms?

Any quality firearm should pass a drop test. Any reputable manufacturer would not want to sell a firearm that didn't. And its not just cheap "Saturday Night Specials" that should be tested. E.g. Ruger, a high-quality manufacturer, has recalled some of their new SR-9 for this reason.

My beef w/ the California regulation is that, IIRC, each model of firearm must be re-certified every so many years, even if there have been no design changes. Some manufacturers don't bother to re-certify their older, discontinued models. This effectively reduces the supply of those older guns on the used market (since after a model drops off the certified list, those guns cannot be imported for sale into Calif). This tends to make the consumer purchase new guns. You can see why a manufacturer might like that . . .

I would agree with that one too, actually.

Strongly.

I don't really mind a drop test either. There's no reason that we need striker-fired weapons with no passive firing pin safety with today's technology. I wouldn't ban existing ones, by any means, but i don't see any reason why guns should be any different than cars wrt reasonable safety requirements.

You can't buy a gun legally if you're an illegal alien anyway. You have to be a citizen or have a green card. I'm not saying they really check into this, but the question is on the paperwork.