Gun Control

commando said:
oh boy....this will rile up the NRA

https://wset.com/news/at-the-capitol/gov-northam-announces-gun-control-package-to-be-introduced-in-next-session
Click to expand...




I understand what the governor is trying to do, but man, most of that is a real slippery slope. (Admittedly, I own a lot of guns).

Extreme Risk Protective Order- Not only could I live with this, but I like it. As long as there is some real evidence that you are a danger, and not something as simple as a pissed off neighbor/co-worker calls the police and says he feels like he's in danger.

One handgun a month law- I don't like the government telling me how I can, and cannot spend my money. If I'm at a gun auction, or sale, and I see two guns that  I like, I should be able to purchase them both (or 3, or 4, etc.).

Preventing Children from accessing firearms- This depends on the language. Accessing, as in purchasing? I'm all in. Accessing as in using? No. If you're around adults with firearms, that is the best training you'll ever get in regards to safety, throughout your childhood.

Report stolen firearms/Background checks- I'm good with both of these, and if you're going to have one, you'll probably need the other.

Ban assault firearms- Nah. Again, I don't like the government telling me what I can, and cannot purchase. 99.9% of the people who own these types of weapons are responsible. And you never know (some will laugh at this) when you'll need something like that to protect yourself from a tyrannical government. I wouldn't want to rule anything out these days.

 
Your last point... Oy vey. Suffice to say your not stopping a tank with an AR. I'll just leave it at that, the discussion has been had many times and never leads anywhere. 99.9% of people don't use ammonium nitrate to harm people, but if you buy more than 25lbs you have to register and be screened...

 
ZRod said:
Your last point... Oy vey. Suffice to say your not stopping a tank with an AR. I'll just leave it at that, the discussion has been had many times and never leads anywhere. 99.9% of people don't use ammonium nitrate to harm people, but if you buy more than 25lbs you have to register and be screened...
Click to expand...


I'd rather have them, than not (apparently you're not aware of the varied uses of gunpowder :lol: ).... I wouldn't have a problem registering the assault rifles.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
I understand what the governor is trying to do, but man, most of that is a real slippery slope. (Admittedly, I own a lot of guns).

Extreme Risk Protective Order- Not only could I live with this, but I like it. As long as there is some real evidence that you are a danger, and not something as simple as a pissed off neighbor/co-worker calls the police and says he feels like he's in danger.

One handgun a month law- I don't like the government telling me how I can, and cannot spend my money. If I'm at a gun auction, or sale, and I see two guns that  I like, I should be able to purchase them both (or 3, or 4, etc.).

Preventing Children from accessing firearms- This depends on the language. Accessing, as in purchasing? I'm all in. Accessing as in using? No. If you're around adults with firearms, that is the best training you'll ever get in regards to safety, throughout your childhood.

Report stolen firearms/Background checks- I'm good with both of these, and if you're going to have one, you'll probably need the other.

Ban assault firearms- Nah. Again, I don't like the government telling me what I can, and cannot purchase. 99.9% of the people who own these types of weapons are responsible. And you never know (some will laugh at this) when you'll need something like that to protect yourself from a tyrannical government. I wouldn't want to rule anything out these days.
Click to expand...




I agree for the most part. But to add to your point about assault weapons, things are already further past the limits of what the American public should allow.

It's a noble perspective to want to remove the potential dangers from the equation, but none of us can see into the future. It's easy to debate on the side of "safety" in today's America, all things considered, we live really peaceful and safe lives. But what about 500 years from now? Forget a tyrannical American government for a minute, what does China or Russia look like 500 years from now? History is littered with instances of tyrannical empire building governments, it's not a big stretch to be worried about the long term ramifications of our actions today.

By the time I was 10 years old, I could safely use several firearms as well as any 19 y/o army brat - to remove that quality, familiarity, and education from the youth of America is a huge freaking deal..... Forget tyrannical governments, what happens when Yellowstone erupts - or insert any other unforeseen natural disaster? By the time I was 10, I could've supported my family by living of the land if push came to shove..... Even though we live convenient lives these days, we still need 10 year olds to be capable of those things - maybe not every 10 year old needs to be qualified for that, but a lot would be better than only a few.

 
Oade said:
I agree for the most part. But to add to your point about assault weapons, things are already further past the limits of what the American public should allow.

It's a noble perspective to want to remove the potential dangers from the equation, but none of us can see into the future. It's easy to debate on the side of "safety" in today's America, all things considered, we live really peaceful and safe lives. But what about 500 years from now? Forget a tyrannical American government for a minute, what does China or Russia look like 500 years from now? History is littered with instances of tyrannical empire building governments, it's not a big stretch to be worried about the long term ramifications of our actions today.

By the time I was 10 years old, I could safely use several firearms as well as any 19 y/o army brat - to remove that quality, familiarity, and education from the youth of America is a huge freaking deal..... Forget tyrannical governments, what happens when Yellowstone erupts - or insert any other unforeseen natural disaster? By the time I was 10, I could've supported my family by living of the land if push came to shove..... Even though we live convenient lives these days, we still need 10 year olds to be capable of those things - maybe not every 10 year old needs to be qualified for that, but a lot would be better than only a few.
Click to expand...


Yes, sir.  :cheers

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
I understand what the governor is trying to do, but man, most of that is a real slippery slope. (Admittedly, I own a lot of guns).

Extreme Risk Protective Order- Not only could I live with this, but I like it. As long as there is some real evidence that you are a danger, and not something as simple as a pissed off neighbor/co-worker calls the police and says he feels like he's in danger.

One handgun a month law- I don't like the government telling me how I can, and cannot spend my money. If I'm at a gun auction, or sale, and I see two guns that  I like, I should be able to purchase them both (or 3, or 4, etc.).

Preventing Children from accessing firearms- This depends on the language. Accessing, as in purchasing? I'm all in. Accessing as in using? No. If you're around adults with firearms, that is the best training you'll ever get in regards to safety, throughout your childhood.

Report stolen firearms/Background checks- I'm good with both of these, and if you're going to have one, you'll probably need the other.

Ban assault firearms- Nah. Again, I don't like the government telling me what I can, and cannot purchase. 99.9% of the people who own these types of weapons are responsible. And you never know (some will laugh at this) when you'll need something like that to protect yourself from a tyrannical government. I wouldn't want to rule anything out these days.
Click to expand...


Agree with you on all of these except the last one. The one handgun a month law seems odd, although I understand the intent. I just don't flat out understand the need or want for an AR and we've seen what they can do in the wrong hands, so we're flat out not going to agree on that.

But 4/5 ain't too bad when you're talking about agreeing with a flaming liberal, right? :lol:

 
Back
Top