Skip to comments.Conservative Common Sense Gun Laws
Posted on 01/30/2011 5:06:22 AM PST by marktwain
As the phrase Common Sense Gun Laws has been so overused by the MSM as a means to try to enact every type of intrusive, incremental type of restriction and gun ban that the anti-freedom collective wishes to impose on free citizens, I thought it would be interesting to hear Freepers ideas on what real common sense gun laws would be. I have come up with a few ideas for starters:
1. Eliminate sales taxes on guns if the buyer shows that they have passed a gun safety course.
2. Eliminate the Federal restrictions on the sale and ownership of firearms suppressors, as a public health measure to reduce hearing loss and a way to reduce noise pollution.
3. Eliminate the prohibition on "short" rifles and shotguns. It makes no sense for common self defense tools such as a Glock with a standard magazine of 17 rounds to be Constitutionaly protected, but the simple possession of a single shot .22 rifle with a barrel of 15.9 inches is a federal felony!
4. Eliminate customs duties on firearms purchased outside the U.S. For private use.
5. Bring back the time honored tradition of war trophies so that U.S. Personnel serving overseas can bring back firearms obtained in the service of our country. This common practice was stopped by the first president Bush during the Gulf war.
ANOTHER reason I didn’t like the Bushes.
Forgot this one.
How about eliminating the BATFE (”revenooers”) altogether.
Now there’s some common sense for you.
Maybe they can exist as a research and forensic facility, with *NO* police, tax collecting, or regulatory powers, to aid local and state authorities with investigations.
And they should drop lcohol and Tobacco thing altogether. Who cares if Joe Sixpack is brewing his own in his bathtup or if farmer Jones is making Redeye behind the barn.
Guns are too the sencond amendment. As Newspapers,Bibles,Korans,TV,radio and political speed is to the first.
the first one needs modification.
no one should have the right to tell you how much if any training you should have.....
Commission of a crime using a firearm results in double the sentence.
“no one should have the right to tell you how much if any training you should have.....” WRONG!!!! Read the Second Amendment it says “a well regulated militia” I guess that right there in say that you CAN be told how much training you have/need.
They see every gain as nothing but an increment bringing them closer to the absolute prohibition they want.
If you start believing them when they talk about "reasonable gun control" they will roll right over you.
You are exactly correct. This was one of the things that I was trying to point out.
I'm kinda torn on this one. Overall, I think the letter and spirit of "Shall not be infringed" can be met, while at the same time ensuring that people who are excercising that right can do so without being a negligent danger to themselves and others.
I've taught a few new gun owners to shoot over the years. It's downright terrifying to me that they were otherwise just going to pick up their weapon and toss it in the nightstand. No idea how to handle it, maintain it, or fire it. I know a lot of us might bristle at the idea, especially for those of us that were taught firearm safety long before we knew how to drive. Still, there's lots of folks that really need some good fundamental training first.
no one should have the right to tell you how much if any training you should have..... WRONG!!!! Read the Second Amendment it says a well regulated militia I guess that right there in say that you CAN be told how much training you have/need.
Only if you are a member of the armed forces. You have a right to weapons without being a member of an organized force.
Eliminate the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, and any other federal gun laws. Then collapse the non-gun functions of BATFE into appropriate agencies, and disband the remainder. That would make a good start.
WRONG AGAIN...The Second Amendment was made because WE ALL were (and are) members of the Militia. YOU need to get involved in US Constitutional History.
The government cannot require training in order to exercise a fundamental right.
This is why I suggested that government supply and incentive for training by eliminating sales tax for gun purchases for those who can show that they have been trained. The government is not restraining your rights in that case.
I've been involved in the debate the last 54 years of my life, all the discussion becomes endless without all the cards on the table.
They will eventually ban pointed shish kebab sticks if they can, most of them are either evil, stupid or just plain crazy.
Yes, all people capable of bearing arms are members of the unorganized militia. That does not mean that they are all trained, or that training can be required of all of them. It simply means that they are available to become part of the organized militia.
I understand your concerns...I am a Single Action Shooting Society range officer...I was introduced to shooting 55 years ago at age 6 by my father, a WW2 Marine and a NYPD officer...and he tought me the basics...and I passed that on to my kids and newbies I take to the range, or hunting(some people never learn too...one friend owns the land I hunt on, and if he didnt own it...I would not shoot with him...).
but I believe if you put caveats on what and how you own, shoot, carry.....you have damaged the constitution...
Sure it can. Even the exercise of 'free' speech is taxed, licensed and regulated, depending upon the medium through which it is passed.
The idea of being part of a well regulated militia is the implied 'competent' bearing of arms.
A group of small children or autistic adults carrying weapons is not a militia. A group of able bodied adults who have weapons and know how to use them is a militia. Some level of competency at the use of arms is a fundamental requirement to meet the definition of 'well regulated militia'.
“The idea of being part of a well regulated militia is the implied ‘competent’ bearing of arms.”
A citizen is not required to be part of a “well regulated militia” in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is necessary in order to make the formation of a well regulated militia possible.