Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Gun laws I would be willing to entertain in a sane country

Angry virgins weren't shooting 30 or 40 people at a pop before black rifles. I don't see how to put that cat all the way back in the bag. But if the price of freedom of civil suppressive fire is one of these every couple of months then halfway back in the bag is better than nothing.

I think that anyone who carries a concealed weapon needs to be licensed......and that license should be valid anywhere in the U.S. Pass a background check, take the training, and be good to go. Get caught carrying and not be licensed......go to jail. I also believe that a persons home should be their place of safety, and anyone infringing upon that is subject to be shot, no questions asked. Obviously, felons or anyone with a history of mental illness would be denied the priviledge of owning a gun.......and if caught with one, would spend many long years behind bars.


My problem with the laws of making it legal for anyone to carry concealed without a license, is that it results in people carrying that have no idea how to handle a gun, and allows criminals to carry as well.

Umm....no. This is why we'll ultimately lose this fight. Our background check system is a fraud, and I'm all behind making it more rigorous. If you've been adjudicated mentally incompetent...or you've been convicted of felonious assault or domestic violence of ANY KIND, you've pissed away your 2nd Amendment rights as far as I'm concerned. I want less government like most of the rest of us, but we can clean up the process a bit.

Well stated. I agree.

Well said. I agree with all of this. At the end of the day, if you're guilty of any of the above, your 2nd Amendment rights are forfeit.

This was the point I made to my wife last night. If you look at the last several mass shootings, 3 of the 4 that I know of were a result of failure to properly enforce EXISTING laws. I'm not a fan of new legislation when we're clearly failing to enforce existing legislation. New legislation is how legislators justify their reelection. No thanks.

I was in a heated debate with a liberal last October. After I blew up every old arguement she had and shot holes in every big idea for legislation she had that she thought would solve gun violence she finally lost it and let out of the bag that her real wish was to disarm us down to single shot rifles ,pistols and shotguns then to nothing if that didnt stop the violence. Therefore I dont think I would be in favor of giving one inch. They care nothing for the 2A so giving them anything at all will not stop them from wanting more.

My whole OP was predicated on this being a sane country. It isn’t sane and it isn’t gonna to become sane. Any new laws will be worthless in their effect and worse than worthless as any sort of meaningful compromise.

Which is all we can do for now. But ultimately it is a losing proposition eventually.

Now you're getting somewhere. What we need to do is make this country sane. How do we do that? Get insane off the streets to use a cliche from the gun ban crowd.

We should be repealing all the gun laws already on the books, not compromising with anyone for more, as they're all unconstitutional and hence in direct violation of the supreme law of this land.. If you don't like the freedoms enumerated in the bill of rights then please feel free to leave. I hear tell there are plenty of other Countries around the world where citizens don't have the right to be armed.

Well, the first thing you have to realize is that we aren’t a country in any sort of the traditional sense of the word anymore.

-James jr
not true, convicted criminals (felony) are already restricted from possession of a firearm and why do you think a criminal cares about whether they are allowed to carry? legal or not it won't matter.

The constitution says nothing about having skills/proficiency etc, it is a right, guaranteed to all citizens to keep and bare arms with no conditions. that means no restrictions on type of arms, no restrictions on where or when, and no restrictions on how (concealed or open). would you deny a woman who has never taken a training class the right to defend herself with a firearm if she were about to be raped? or if her children were being abducted? How about colonialist settlers who were previously masons or carpenters and had no firearms experience? Should they have been required to take a training before baring arms to support the colonial militia against the oppressive crown? I understand the concern with skill proficiency trust me I was a public range RO for years, but this is not a debate about skills, it is a debate about unalienable rights of American citizens. I don't need a permit to carry in ID which I am proud of my state for and believe all states should follow. Magazine bans, "assault" weapons bans and the NFA regulations are all unconstitutional, I support the idea of national carry reciprocity but it should not require a license.

Say what you want about the NRA, I think for the most part they try to do good things and I generally support them, if anything their message has been misconstrued at times and they have been weak on some issues, but I whole heartedly believe in the phrase "from my cold dead hands". that is not an emotional statement, its something I personally have spent some real time thinking about, as I believe we all should.

The bottom line is there IS NO DEBATE to be had concerning gun control, it is spelled out as plain as day in the constitution of our nation. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

No, Elmer...

If you are a danger to society, then you don't need to be turned loose in it.

Seems so simple, right? It's hard to explain anything, I've learned, to a group of folks who aren't even sure which restroom to use.

My answer to the OP’s title.......NONE!

A right can’t be taken away by politicians nor can it be restrained by the persistent fear of liberals.

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article170340652.html

I have no problem with the prohibited persons categories as it stands. But there needs to be a way off the list short of a pardon (I do believe in redemption). To be a prohibited person you have to be adjudicated so by a competent court. And so I have no problem with improving the NICS system. The problem is states are not required to report prohibited persons to the system (10th Amendment). In SD we can't afford to be 100% compliant, particularly cataloging and reporting mentally incompetent adjudications. We are a poor state struggling to keep taxes down.

In that regard improvement in NICS makes sense, and I forget who in Congress has a bill enrolled intended to help (haven't read it).

Gunshows - If a guy has a table I wouldn't be opposed to running sales through NICS. Wouldn't be hard except for the usual glitches, and possibly eliminate the 3 day wait in that circumstance. After all if a guy runs a table you're looking at volume sales to strangers. NOT the same thing as a private sale to a neighbor or acquaintance where you have a clue about whom you're selling to.

Can't think of anything else that might help without violating the Constitution and the above wouldn't help much. It's society that's changing and bringing this on. A loss of respect for human life. Find your own examples, pretty hard to miss.

A license means your ability to own a gun comes from permission granted to you by the decision and discretion of a bureaucrat/politicians. No thanks.

Read the Magna Carta, how it came to be, and then the Declaration of Independence and think about how and why it came to be.

Man up.

Really? Anyone who believes that should familiarize themselves with DSM V, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, which contains over 250 conditions which many would not recognize or consider mental illness. Anyone who thinks that mental illness just means obvious "nut jobs" could be in for a rude shock. Problems sleeping, anxiety, job stress, marital problems, and many other common conditions could be considered mental illness if DSM V were adopted as the legal standard, which is entirely likely. Any "history of mental illness" standard without qualification could open a huge can of worms, and play into the hands of the gun banners. Many veterans with mild PTSD, first responders following a harrowing event, to name just a few who could lose their gun rights under such a broad prohibited category.

Paul