Q: For advocates of more gun laws, what gun laws do you want passed and why do you think they will be effective?

2016-06-16T11:42:27-04:00

Also, please partake in the survey.

2nd Amendment advocates, PLEASE do not shout them down however, well thought out, researched counterpoint is always welcome.

Response by MSgt Richard Rountree made Jun 16 at 2016 11:46 AM

2016-06-16T11:46:33-04:00

Constitutional carry

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2016 11:49 AM

2016-06-16T11:49:08-04:00

I vote to remove the restrictions on class III weapons.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Jun 16 at 2016 11:59 AM

2016-06-16T11:59:37-04:00

Chicago already has some of the strictest Gun Control Laws in the nation. Yet roughly every 2 and half hours a person is shot in Chicago. Roughly every 14 hours a person dies from a gunshot wound in Chicago. So by the gun violence statistics for Chicago, Gun Control Laws are not an effective tool to curb gun violence. Please do not take my word for it. Here is a link to the actual statistics.

http://heyjackass.com/

HeyJackass!

Illustrating Chicago Values

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made Jun 16 at 2016 12:31 PM

2016-06-16T12:31:36-04:00

Not everything in this reply applies to guns, so please bear with me and read the entire reply before commenting.

1. Fully fund mental health care. Mandate that Medicare/Medicaid and private health insurance cover all mental health activities, with no limits on number of visits. This, I feel, is self explanatory. Better mental health care = fewer whackos shooting up clubs and elementary schools.

2. Restrict magazine capacity to no more than 10 rounds. There might be some wiggle room on this one, but 10 seems like a nice round number. I have 2 reasons for this. In the Gabby Giffords shooting, the shooter was disarmed by an old lady who hit him with her purse while he was reloading. He had a 30 round magazine in a 9mm pistol. Imagine how much sooner he could have been disarmed if he was limited to only 10 rounds at a time. Also, if you need more than 10 rounds to hit an intruder, or bring down your game, then you need more time at the range, or in the case of hunting, maybe a bigger caliber.

3. Ban the AR15 altogether, and weapons like it. Try as you might to change the past, you can't. The AR15 came first, not the M16. The AR15 was designed to kill as many people as possible, in the shortest amount of time possible. It is not a weapon that should be in the hands of the average citizen. Same goes for semi-automatic versions of the AK, or any other military weapon.

4. Mandate all states contribute to a single database containing the names of convicted felons and domestic abusers. Mandate that all gun buyers, whether they be at brick & mortar shops, gun shows, or private sales, be cleared through this database. A single source of information would lessen the possibility of people falling through the cracks.

5. clean up policies and restrictions on the No Fly List and the Terror Watch List, so they could not be used as retaliatory devices by politicians and law enforcement, and to limit mistaken identification, add them to the above single database.

6. Strengthen liability laws. Make it a felony to store a weapon in such a was as to make it easily acceptable to minors. Too many children accidentally shooting each other, and their parents.

7. Mandatory insurance. Hey, if it's good enough for cars and health insurance...Maybe the added liability will make some think.

Now, I know that most of this list won't be very popular, and has a snow ball's chance of ever getting passed, but you did ask, and these are some of the things that have been rattling around in my head for quite a while. So all I ask is be gentle with you comments. No personal attacks. And if you would, maybe explain why some of these ideas would be, in your opinion, an infringement on your rights.

Response by CPO Frank Coluccio made Jun 16 at 2016 12:48 PM

2016-06-16T12:48:12-04:00

I want to see 100% enforcement of the current laws on the book before any new laws are added.
I want to see 100% of those that lie on their Background Check forms prosecuted, instead of the less than 2% that are.

Response by MSG James S. made Jun 16 at 2016 12:58 PM

2016-06-16T12:58:28-04:00

Guns do not kill people, a gun is an inanimate object that requires human interaction!

Response by SFC William "Bill" Moore made Jun 16 at 2016 2:40 PM

2016-06-16T14:40:52-04:00

The major problem is that we have allowed the last few generations to go without education in the use and proper handling of firearms! You can throw all of the laws you want at this issue, but, in the end, NOTHING WILL STOP A BAD GUY WITH A GUN,BUT A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN. Yeah, you can bring up the one or two cases where they were stopped "by an old lady with a purse." But, do you want that to be the norm when it comes to your family? Training needs to be brought back to the children, in the schools, on the use of firearms. This will lessen the accidental deaths, and subdue the curiosity. Per capita, I would believe there were as many firearms in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. In the 80's, firearm safety and hunters safety stopped being taught in the schools. When did we experience the surge in firearms accidents? It started in the late 80's and has continued to grow by leaps and bounds in the urban and suburban areas, it has grown in the rural areas as well, but, no where near that of the former.
Very little can be done regarding the bad guys, but I personally have trained my Son, Daughter and now my Grand Daughter in firearms safety. I do not want them to rely on the government, federal or local, for there safety and I damned sure am not going to put any faith in "some old lady with a purse." coming to the rescue! They also FULLY understand that the Second Amendment is their protection against ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

Response by SFC Alfredo Garcia made Jun 16 at 2016 3:27 PM

2016-06-16T15:27:04-04:00

Generally the public believes what they learn from the movies and Call of Duty franchise games. (I am so getting one of those laser rifles.). Most don't know the difference between an auto, semi, or a water gun. Most police, to no fault of their own, respond after the crime has already been committed. They cannot predict the future. If we are lucky they may be able to stop one in progress and hope for the best results. The ideal results is that cops have no job and no crime is ever committed. Well that is not going to happen. True assault weapons, full autos, etc. are ALREADY illegal. Gun-free zones do NOT mean that no guns will be there. It means that law abiding citizens will obey and not bring theirs. And the criminals are already intent on breaking the law. Leaving only those with no respect of the law to do as they please. So, if there is no armed security, I will not go to those establishments. We are finally finding that we do NOT live in a friendly utopia. Hardened criminals and terrorists will overwhelmingly choose the softest of targets. It has proven itself time and time again. Did we ban fertilizer after Oklahoma? Did we ban pressure cookers after Boston? The common denominator is NOT the gun. The common denominator is the predator, the coward, the crazy. Even a lioness or cheetah will go after the easiest, slowest, weakest. Why wouldn't the human animal do the same? The biggest damage done by guns are by those that are not supposed to have them. That is the a) mentally disturbed and b) the criminal that will STILL obtain or create weapons for maiming.

So to that actual question: Change how you do background checks. They should be able to find a way to see if the person has any mental issues or concerns without violating HIPAA. If you are on a 'no fly' list why should you be able to get a weapon? We do need to address the lack of due process however. The process is fine as long as they provide a way for you to EASILY be removed from list once you are vetted and in a expeditious manner. This has little to do with the 2nd amendment and everything to do with common sense.

Response by PO2 Kevin LaCroix made Jun 16 at 2016 3:39 PM

2016-06-16T15:39:24-04:00

We do not need more laws, but to revise and enforce what we have.

Response by MSG Jay Jackson made Jun 16 at 2016 5:38 PM

2016-06-16T17:38:43-04:00

Shame on anyone who would give up the hard won freedoms that our founding fathers paid such a high price for. When your born American you are born free. This freedom was not just given to us, it was won and has been defended with guns, boom sticks, arms or what ever you call them. If you don't want to own a gun, so be it! I will keep mine thank you. How can the government even try to preach to us when they have lost so many guns or allowed them to be shipped to other countries so they can come back here and kill our citizens. I will give a little though on this issue. Every weapon sold or traded needs a back ground check period. Plus enforce the current laws, not just the ones you agree with, all of them. As for the shooters, well folks their names are Mohammed, Omar and so on. Their names are not Mike Joe, or Jay. They prescribe to the faith of Mohammad, not the teaching of Jesus or Buddha. So I say profile, watch and use those tools you already have to find these bastards and eliminate the threat.
Until you can tell me who or how you get on the no fly list and how you get off the list they can kick rocks on this plan to. It's called Due Process folks. I am not a gun nut but I am a freedom nut. Guard you freedom closely my friends because there is always a politician out there that wants to you to trade freedom for security. It has never worked.

Response by SPC James Butler made Jun 16 at 2016 5:51 PM

2016-06-16T17:51:32-04:00

Gun ownership is a natural right; laws affect society's behavior but should not infringe on natural rights. My question is at what point does a "gun law" infringe on your natural rights? I'll be cleaning my M4 Sporter Carbine in the meantime.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jun 16 at 2016 6:08 PM

2016-06-16T18:08:08-04:00

Sorry MSG Private RallyPoint Member It appears that no one here can follow instructions very well. (I have the same problem on my posts) However, should anyone step up to your challenge, please ask them if it would help to see any gun laws they suggest tried in a place like Chicago or Detroit so we could see a practical demonstration of their efficacy

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2016 8:31 PM

2016-06-16T20:31:29-04:00

Do the words "Shall not be infringed" not mean anything? Also, if you will take the time to actually read the founder's writings on the subject, the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or even self-defense. It is about the PEOPLE holding the power to keep the government in check. We the People are the guardians of the Republic.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jun 16 at 2016 10:29 PM

2016-06-16T22:29:50-04:00

It is not the 2nd Amendment that is at fault, but rather that we have mentally ill individuals that need help and while there is lot of money for big pork projects these people that are on the brink do not get anything. Case in point Boston Marathon bombers did not use guns, yet there were enough people that were aware that they had issues, the same applies Colorado shooter, Sandy Hook Elementary and the guy arrested on Monday by the LAPD with guns, ammo, and bomb making material that no one is talking about.

Response by MSgt Gloria Vance made Jun 16 at 2016 11:58 PM

2016-06-16T23:58:39-04:00

Nope to all!!!

Response by Capt Michael Greene made Jun 17 at 2016 1:37 AM

2016-06-17T01:37:38-04:00

I'd like to reduce needless death by just one percent. That's all. Someday maybe another two percent. Eventually, it adds up. Perhaps we can get a little improvement from expanded background checks, or registering all transfers, or getting a background check on every private transfer, or maybe restricting the sale of high cap mags.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 17 at 2016 3:07 AM

2016-06-17T03:07:33-04:00

This is clearly a push poll - the only answers suggested hold that the Second Amendment needs to be changed and ignores the fundamental reason we have the right to bear arms in the first place.
I do not believe the Second Amendment needs to change; human nature has not changed over the past two centuries.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Jun 17 at 2016 10:14 AM

2016-06-17T10:14:29-04:00

The only restriction I would ever impose on the 2nd Amendment is that if you were ever convicted (not accused) of a violent crime, you should probably forfeit that right.

Response by SFC Alfred Galloway made Jun 17 at 2016 10:20 AM

2016-06-17T10:20:43-04:00

Enforce the current gun laws. Share intel between law enforcement and the intel community. Get people to report suspicious activity, actions, and social media. Let the LEO community do its job without PC getting in the way.

Response by SFC Alfred Galloway made Jun 17 at 2016 10:31 AM

2016-06-17T10:31:10-04:00

Everyone:

There are sheep, there are wolves and there are sheep dogs. Sheep dont want or own guns, Wolves are bad actors who have guns that are willing to do bad things for illegal reasons (mass murder, murder, robberies etc), and there are sheep dogs who will protect the sheep, they guard against the wolves, this includes LEOs, and private citizens who own weapons with the intent to protect themselves, their property and their families.

Which are you?!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2016 12:41 PM

2016-06-17T12:41:59-04:00

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Jun 17 at 2016 1:23 PM

2016-06-17T13:23:11-04:00

Guess I shouldn't even be responding because I don't think there should be more gun laws. As many have pointed out the gun laws we have either don't work or are not enforced. What is needed is an unemotional look at what the 2nd amendment means. The founding fathers were writing to the way the people defended themselves at the time. Standing armies didn't exist in the colonies, but almost every state or county could muster a militia. Since there was no army or budget it was out of necessity that citizens needed to have the right to bear arms because if they didn't bring their own weapons any militia would be unarmed and worthless.
Fast forward to today, we have standing armies and militias (Guard & Reserves) that have budgets and provide weapons, so the need that the founding fathers were addressing really doesn't exist. Of course we also have all sorts of extremist militias who by the letter of the 2nd amendment can legally have weapons, however the regulated militia wording comes into play here. IMO the founding fathers were addressing arms that would be used to defend the colonies and not granting blanket ability for anyone to have a weapon for any reason.
That said I believe that in todays society anyone has the right to have a gun if they choose, just not the kind that are used in defense of the country. Hand guns, hunting rifles, single or dual shot anything are perfectly acceptable for the general population. Anything automatic or semi-automatic belong only in the hands of those defending the country. The gun laws that we have on the books now can pretty much do this if enforced. If any additional gun laws would be necessary they should focus on prohibiting high powered automatic weapons, but reinstating the ban on these weapons that is already in the books would do the same.

Response by SPC Daniel Joslin made Jun 19 at 2016 9:04 AM

2016-06-19T09:04:01-04:00

I read a quote by someone the other day, can't remember who said it but is was something like this. You can take all the guns and place them in a big pile on the Mall in DC and they would do nothing but stay in a big pile until they rusted to nothing, without ever killing anyone. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If you were to use the logic of gun control advocates, than cars, alcohol, bricks, screwdrivers, and knives would all have to be outlawed as well because they all kill more people annually than guns do

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Jun 20 at 2016 1:52 PM

2016-06-20T13:52:56-04:00

I'd leave the 2nd Amendment alone. I would require training, testing, and rigorous background checks. No waivers. It does mention a "well regulated" militia. Every adult in the United States could conceivably be part of the 'militia'. I believe that you should be required to qualify for this and training, testing, and proficiency is the way to do it.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Jun 20 at 2016 3:06 PM

2016-06-20T15:06:26-04:00

Not any good choices on that poll. However if we must limit ourselves to choices that infringe on people's rights I would ban gun ownership by those who register or vote as democrats. That would help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Response by SFC Alfred Galloway made Jun 30 at 2016 1:10 PM

2016-06-30T13:10:26-04:00

Enforce the laws on the books and ensure prosecution of those who break the law, thats the only way you will reduce the violence, too may times someone broke the law and was no pursued and you end up with more violence.

Also as soldiers you vowed to protect and defend the constitution of the USA, what part of denying someones due process in regards to the 2A do you not understand ?

Response by SFC Alfred Galloway made Jun 30 at 2016 1:10 PM

2016-06-30T13:10:40-04:00

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2016 8:58 AM

2016-07-08T08:58:13-04:00

Why do we need new laws, if we don't enforce all the laws on the books right now?