Jim in Anchorage Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I am not posting this in a response to any pending bills. Just trying to get a pulse on this issue. A- We have enough gun laws .Enforce the ones on the books and thats all we need. B-We need fewer gun laws. I would repeal this/those laws. [use examples] C-We need more gun laws. I would put the following restrictions on gun ownership-[fill in the blank] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) I'm in the first group. Although I wouldn't be in the least bit upset to see some of the laws repealed, I'm more or less satisfied with the federal law as it stands (and I don't live in a restrictive state). I've always believed that 'gun control' is more about the person than the firearms. Either a person is responsible enough to own them or they aren't. Passing restrictions on the weapons themselves approaches it from the wrong angle and accomplishes little except to remove the rights of those who are guilty of nothing. Edited October 30, 2014 by Brandon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) I am not posting this in a response to any pending bills. Just trying to get a pulse on this issue. A- We have enough gun laws .Enforce the ones on the books and thats all we need. B-We need fewer gun laws. I would repeal this/those laws. [use examples] C-We need more gun laws. I would put the following restrictions on gun ownership-[fill in the blank] I'd say it would probably be reasonable to ban private ownership of claymores, surface to air missiles, chemical and nuclear weapons, and other similarly purposed weaponry. Short of that? No restrictions of any sort, save for convicted felons (who should be able to earn back their right to own) and mental illness. Edited October 30, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 B, but with the twist that the existing laws are a cockeyed mess, and could be replaced with a better legal framework that would achieve the current state of gun "control" more simply and at lower cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I'd say it would probably be reasonable to ban private ownership of claymores, surface to air missiles, chemical and nuclear weapons, and other similarly purposed weaponry. Short of that? No restrictions of any sort, save for convicted felons (who should be able to earn back their right to own) and mental illness. my sentiments, but better worded than if I had said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I'd say it would probably be reasonable to ban private ownership of claymores, surface to air missiles, chemical and nuclear weapons, and other similarly purposed weaponry. Short of that? No restrictions of any sort, save for convicted felons (who should be able to earn back their right to own) and mental illness. Party pooper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts