Lets do some serious talking about gun laws.

That means no snarky comments, no psycho chimps, no cartoon chimps, and no stupidity. I should ban Yssup for general principal but I'll give him a chance to redeem himself.

So here is the question; what are "reasonable or common sense" gun laws? It seems that everytime something like Orlando happens that the call goes out for one or the other. We know that this is not organic. When Mayor Bloomberg left office he established an team to think up strategies for every conceivable gun crime and how to take advantage when they happen.

When we gun owners hear "reasonable or common sense" we're starting thinking here comes the bullshit and propaganda from the gun grabbers. So if you want to use those terms (which is kind of lazy) then define exactly what you mean. Of course your position is going to be attacked and criticized. That's what debate is all about and it if the big people to engage in it. If you can't handle the heat then stay out of the kitchen. Otherwise, maybe we can figure out some common ground.

The Phrase (Gun Grabbers) The government is not trying to take our guns, and can we not Call the AR 15 an assault rifle. It is a semi automatic rifle that looks like an assault rifle. The clip capacity I will discuses. Although I do not see that limiting clip size will help. They will just carry more clips. First we close the gun show loop hole guns sales need back ground checks. People on a terrorist watch list should not be allowed to buy a gun, and people that let children get hold of their guns and kill themselves or other children need to be charged with negligence. Now the real problem how do we spot these nuts before they go on a killing spree. I am open to suggestions

Strange you did not propose yours first judy.
It is way too late for anything new,in the way of a law.

Okay, the first challenge; terminology.

Now you may want to say that this is nitpicking but imagine not being able to tell the difference in performance or operation between a carburator and a fuel pump. They are both part of the same system but both have different purposes.

Weapons use magazines to hold ammunition. They are not "clips". The term clips comes from the piece of metal that holds bullets before they are loaded into a clip. The clip is then thrown away usually. Going back further, some rimless pistol rounds were loaded into a half moon clip to allow them to be loaded into the cylinder of a revolver.

The "gun show loophole" does not exist as described. It is a myth. At a gun show there are dealers and private citizens. The dealers are looking to sell guns of all types. They are required in every state to do do a background check with the FBI and fill out the appropriate paperwork. If they get caught failing to do their due diligence, they loose their license. Private citizens is another matter. Two people can meet at a gun show (barbershop, flea market, VFW hall, etc.) and decide to exchange a weapon for money. This is not part of the gun show, it is a private business transaction. If you want to control this then you have to consider everything from used cars, garage sales, and lemonade stands to need government regulation.

People on a terrorist watch list should not be buying guns but the problem is those people have not had their due process guaranteed under the Constitution. They are on the list from a number of reasons that may have nothing to do with terrorism. Senator Ted Kennedy was on that watch list. He was put on by an airline where he got grab happy with a stewardess.

I propose that the FBI establish a clearing house for information about do not fly lists. A place where a person can prove that they are not a threat and can be removed from the list in hours and not years. I also propose that everyone on the do not fly list be notified within ten days after making the list so they can appeal. Further, anyone (or company) that wants someone on the do not fly list had better not be caught abusing the rules as they did with Ted Kennedy. Any action has to be terror or violence related.

As for EVA, I figured you'd be first. Command training says that when looking for answers you lay out the situation, list the assets and problems, and let everyone else make an unbiased comment before you weigh in. Once you've put forth your plan people have a tendency to follow rather than think. No, I'm not your commander but the theory is sound.

Now let me ask this. Why did you not put forth something before making a halfway snarky comment?

On the topic of gun laws, why generally think that there are already too many gun laws that are focused on people and not crime. That some sensible laws are not being enforced for reasons unknown to the common citizen. Let the people who want new laws have their say.

As long as we don't call a magazine a "clip"!

This is a "clip" ...



Ok?



This is not a "clip"!

"a half moon clip to allow them to be loaded into the cylinder of a revolver."

Now "speed loaders"!

The gun Show loop hole just describes the problem of private sales I have been to gun shows and have seen private citizens with more guns then dealers at the same show but I think any gun sales should have a back ground check so my be we could have a web site where responsible gun owners can go to do background checks and transfer title of their gun just like we do our cars I think if you have a gun I have shot guns for duck and dove hunting all in my name if I was to sell one I think it should be a legal transfer and I would not want the police coming to me 5 years down the road and I found out it was used in a crime so maybe we should call it the private sales loop hole

The gun Show loop hole just describes the problem of private sales I have been to gun shows and have seen private citizens with more guns then dealers at the same show but I think any gun sales should have a back ground check so my be we could have a web site where responsible gun owners can go to do background checks and transfer title of their gun just like we do our cars I think if you have a gun I have shot guns for duck and dove hunting all in my name if I was to sell one I think it should be a legal transfer and I would not want the police coming to me 5 years down the road and I found out it was used in a crime so maybe we should call it the private sales loop hole Originally Posted by tardo543

You should have had a period. <---this

My common sense gun law proposal: Gun owners are responsible for their guns. If they are negligent in securing their firearms, they are guilty as an accessory to anyone who commits a crime with that gun. Mandatory sentence extension of 5-10 years for any crime committed with a gun. This will require law abiding gun owners to secure their guns so no one can get them without their permission, and it will keep illegal gun users off the street longer, and hopefully act as a deterrent.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...ession-and-use

.

Florida: UPDATED: Sarasota City Commissioners want ‘military grade-high capacity magazine assault weapons’ ban
FRIDAY, JUNE 17, 2016
More


DATE:June 16, 2016
TO: USF & NRA Member and Friends

FROM:Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President


Posted on June 16, 2016 by Lee Williams

MARION HAMMER, executive director of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida, a past president of the National Rifle Association, and current NRA board member:

"Lee, you asked me to comment on the Sarasota Commission's proposed resolution to ask Congress and the Florida Legislature to discriminate against certain semiautomatic firearm because of the way they look.

Clearly, the Commission doesn't even recognize what they don't know. I guarantee you they don't have a clue what their contrived term "military grade-high capacity assault weapons" even means because I don't know what it means and neither will anyone else. It's an open door to ban any guns they choose.

In a speech to the Capital Tiger Bay Club a while back I attempted to clarify the issue of AR-15s and ammunition magazines. Those who didn't know anything about guns later told me told me they appreciated it because it gave them a better understanding of the issue. Here's that part of my presentation:

The Second Amendment doesn't say rifles or shotguns or handguns. It says ARMS. YOU get to choose what you want, what you can afford, and what fits you best.

And make no mistake, the Second Amendment is NOT about hunting. NEVER, at any time in our history, has it ever been about hunting.

It is and always has been about protection from tyranny. It is and always has been about protecting your right to defend yourself and your freedom.

The 2nd Amendment DOESN'T say the NEED to keep and bear arms – it says the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

Why do you NEED an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle instead of single shot bolt action rifle?

Well, why do you need a car instead of a bicycle? Or why do you need a car with an automatic transmission instead of a stick shift?

How many of you came here today on bicycles or in cars with stick shifts? You are making your own choices – gun owners want to make theirs.

All semiautomatic firearms, are functionally IDENTICAL. It is the same technology that has been used for over 130 years.

You can take the gun – the mechanism – out of a beautiful, traditional, magnificent grain, shiny wood stock and put it in an ugly black, plastic, adjustable stock, with a pistol grip, and a barrel shroud and it fires exactly the same. The only difference is the way it looks.

That is no different from a lady in an elegant dress, nylon stockings, Christian Louboutin high heel shoes and some expensive jewelry – changing clothes – into blue jeans, a sweat shirt, Nike's and a Timex watch. The only difference is the way she looks.

You might take that expensive gun in the traditional wood stock to a gun show to show it off but you don't want to take it to the woods hunting on a cool wet rainy day.

And you might take that elegantly dressed lady to dinner at a fancy restaurant, but you don't want to make her clean her house and scrub toilets dressed like that.

You have been willfully and intentionally deceived on the assault weapons issue.

Let talk for a moment about High Capacity Magazines – when you're out in the driveway working on your car, do you leave your toolbox in the garage so that every time you need another tool you have to get up and walk back into the garage to get it? Of course not! If you're smart you take the toolbox with you so it's there if you need another tool.

That's no different from trying to protect yourself while keeping your ammunition in your pocket so you have to dig it out and load a cartridge every time you need one. You want your ammunition where you need it. Modern technology makes that possible. There is nothing bad about that.

Would you rather have a car with stick shift and a 5 gallon gas tank? Or one with an automatic transmission and a 20 gallon gas tank?

The kind of car you drive doesn't mean you're going to use it to commit a crime.

It doesn't mean you're going to use it for a getaway car to rob a bank. And just because your speedometer registers up to 120 miles per hour doesn't mean you're ever going to go that fast.

What legitimate reason could anyone have to deprive law-abiding people of property they have every right to own?

Why pretend that taking YOUR guns will keep them out of the hands of criminals? You know it doesn't work that way.

Banning guns because of the way they look is political eyewash. It's nothing less than an attempt to make it look like they're doing something when they know they're not.

There is no such thing as an ‘assault weapon.' There are ‘assault people.' No gun ever walked into any place and started pulling it's own trigger and changing it's own magazines. Only terrorists and other evil people do that." (source)

My common sense gun law proposal: Gun owners are responsible for their guns. If they are negligent in securing their firearms, they are guilty as an accessory to anyone who commits a crime with that gun. Mandatory sentence extension of 5-10 years for any crime committed with a gun. This will require law abiding gun owners to secure their guns so no one can get them without their permission, and it will keep illegal gun users off the street longer, and hopefully act as a deterrent. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The law always refers to "reasonable" actions. How would you define reasonable? As I saw a few weeks ago, someone locked their guns in a gun safe and the entire safe was stolen with the guns inside. Is that person responsible for what the guns do? Actually, the guns don't do anything. It is the person holding them. Would you hold a car owner responsible for what their brother does the car he borrowed (or stole) from them?

The law always refers to "reasonable" actions. How would you define reasonable? As I saw a few weeks ago, someone locked their guns in a gun safe and the entire safe was stolen with the guns inside. Is that person responsible for what the guns do? Actually, the guns don't do anything. It is the person holding them. Would you hold a car owner responsible for what their brother does the car he borrowed (or stole) from them? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Use your head. There will always be a hearing. These are general concepts. You're as obtuse as the liberals.

Use your head. There will always be a hearing. These are general concepts. You're as obtuse as the liberals. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No, I am the DA. The law says what it says. If there was an exception it should have been written into the law.

Liability insurance could cover the situation where a gun is lost / stolen. I'm for this, and pretty much against everything else.