03-07-2018, 12:16 PM
(03-07-2018, 10:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: Then why did you care what I posted? (Hint: I know why.)
Oh my, do tell. I am on tenterhooks.
Quote:This made no sense...but it is very early in CA so you get a pass.
Have you reached you "I have to tell him he's wrong/stupid" post limit for the day?
It makes perfect sense. As for your last question, it depends how often you end up posting today.
(03-07-2018, 11:34 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: My take on the Gun Control controversy has been the same over the past few years: guns should be regulated like automobiles with licensing, training and testing requirements, but also mental health screenings. And to varying degrees across the country, there are these types of regulations.
Which, to a degree, would be reasonable. But you have to acknowledge you're putting further restrictions on a constitutional right. I thought the exchange between hollodero and myself unearthed an interesting parallel, that of having a license to own a gun and having to show a valid ID to be able to vote. As he said, and I completely agree, you can't logically oppose one and be for the other. Both add a cost, however small, to exercising a constitutional right.
Quote:But I may be a bit more radical than some. I think a person should be able to own whatever firearm that they want: semi-auto, full auto, .50 cal, "...phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range" (technically, not a fire arm I suppose), etc. I just believe there should be a level of increasing licensure and restriction consummate with the type of weapon. And, once again, I believe this already exists to a certain degree.
This, also would be reasonable, to a degree. Of course who determines what line for what weapon for what degree of restriction is going to be a huge mountain to climb.
Quote:There just isn't a lot of consistency with existing regulations from place-to-place. I tend to agree with SSF that a lot of regulatory controls already exist, but they need to be gone through, amended, updated, repealed and replaced, etc. The one place where consistency in regulations could be created and enforced is the Federal government. Unfortunately, the level of distrust with the Federal government is too great. Hence, places like California will have crazy strict anti-gun laws and other places like in the Deep South will have almost none. That is our reality.
You touch on perhaps my biggest gripe about this issue, politicians asking for more regulations when the ones in place aren't being enforced. Both the Florida kid and the church shooter should not have been able to purchase a firearm. If you get down to it, the Orlando shooter, with his history, should not have as well. While I have a very hard time laying any blame at her feet, if the women he used to abuse had actually gone to the police, instead of just leaving him, he could have had a DV conviction and been a prohibited person as well. There are so many checks and balances in the system and they fail due to human error. The answer isn't going to be more regulations when the regulations you have in place aren't even being enforced as they should.
Quote:If we want some consistency and continuity with regulations, it has to come from the Fed. For that to happen, we have to show them a little trust (i.e. realizing that "they" are "us"). Some of us also have to realize that bans aren't going to work.
Agreed. The patchwork nature of state to state gun laws creates nothing but confusion. The Dems have crapped their pants over national reciprocity for concealed carry licenses, fearing everyone will fly to Utah go get a CCL. The reality is such laws will prevent a law abiding citizen in Pennsylvania with a CCL from potentially going to prison if they accidently cross the state line into New Jersey. Good on then governor Christy on that one, btw.
Quote:As for assault gun-style weapons, I don't believe they need to be banned. That said, I have no problem if a community or state wanted to limit their open carry policy on these weapons based upon the fact that they incite a certain degree of intimidation and terror among the populace.
You've heard me consistently rail against the concept of open carry. It's pointless, makes people uneasy and actually achieves the reverse of its stated purpose. Open carry is an invitation for a criminal to rob you of your firearm. As you cannot open carry in a ready position you will most likely be unable to react to a person unexpectedly pointing a gun at your face and demanding your weapon.
