National POLL: Support For Gun Control Measures

[trevi]

Understandably this is an issue for you, I get it. But, there is going to be a point when "hate speech" is going to become a hate crime and then what?

Well the poll specifically states "convicted of a hate crime" and not what led to said conviction. But, for hate speech i would not take too seriously because to me words are often just that - words.

 

[salmon creek gary]

Well, reading your poll and the replies is just about a waste of 10 minutes that I'll never get back again. How in the hell can there be any "perspective" when the only possible replies are affirmative? You have absolutely no way to compare the number of responses to the (uncounted) number of people who absolutely reject every single one of the only options you've provided.

ON EDIT: I just looked at the poll results. Holy crap! I vote that the entire thread be killed, deleted, and then all the ones and zeros shredded. Otherwise, there is no doubt in my investigative mind that those results will some day show up in some other forum as PROOF (even though out of context) that a population of gun enthusiasts (that is us, right?) have some degree of support, even strong support, for some of those offensive proposals. PERSPECTIVE my red bubblegum! That is totally contrary to honest polling (crap, another oxymoron, I know).

 

[Mikej]

I just looked at the poll results.

There were results? I'll be darned.

Wait a minute? Are those results from members of THIS forum?

 

[Frank RW]

i think i like my version better


Mandatory ownership of semi-automatic rifles (and/or shotguns) to civilians.

Reduce/eliminate gun purchase waiting periods.

Eliminate all national databases that would prohibit gun ownership for any reason.

Implement red flag laws at the national level for everyone running for office.

Implement universal background checks (and close "filibuster loophole") for the same.

Limited gun ownership ban for anyone convicted of a crime using a gun.

Require rifle magazines to be never confused with a "clip".

Limit sale of firearms to age 21 or over if you're buying beer at the same time.

Prohibit online sale of firearms if they don't accept PayPal.

Restrict firearm purchases to no more than one firearm per month unless you can afford more.

(oh, and you can only pick one.)

 

[Yarome]

I'm in the "none" camp and see the whole premise as invalid... and potentially dangerous. A "poll" with no balancing opinion is rubbish.

Kinda like doing a poll with the only option, "who likes anchovies", then extrapolating that to those that might view it as "100% of NWFA members like anchovies". Viewers both NWFA members and anyone with internet access that might care to assign any meaning to it. Derrrr......

Even a "none" option is skewed when mutliple selections are enabled since some may still select "none" AND possibly one other among the many. No control element.

Bad idea, IMHO.

 

[CountryGent]

I support the repeal of the NFA

The sooner, the better. A good first step would be repealing the Hughes Amendment to FOPA86. (Alas, both are as likely as me winning the lottery that I refuse to play because it is a waste.)

 

[Knobgoblin]

I vote #11
Abolish the alphabet bureaus, retract any gca's , retrieve all taxpayer owned equipment that has been " donated " to our peasant allies, and allow U.S.citizens to claim the physical property that we paid for.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Seeing as there was no option of "I DO NOT support any attempt at Gun Control" this poll is completely invalid and worthless!
The idea that we have to choose at least ONE compromise from the posted list is BULLSH!T

 

[wolfcreed]

My selection would be to opt for none of the above if it were in the poll.

I would support training of all citizens to know how to safely fire and handle a firearm. Make it the 5 R's: 4 R's Reading, Writing, Arithmetic and Right to Bear Arms. (Thanks for the correction @Yarome )

Criminals will be criminals no matter what restrictions/laws you have in place.

 

[Yarome]

Make it the 5 R's: Reading, Writing, Arithmetic and Right to Bear Arms.

Just to clarify, I think you meant the "4 R's" (not 5), right?

"Reed'n, Right'n, R'ithmatick, and Right to bear arms."

The "5 R's" is:

"Reed'n, Right'n, R'ithmatick, Right to bear arms and Reloadin"

Hate to be a stickler..... Just sayin....

 

[molotvepr]

Nope

 

[Member 53328]

I'd be ok with bumping the age from 18 to 21 to buy firearms. But I am strongly against red flag laws, mag bans, firearm bans, ammunition limitations, waiting periods, licenses to purchase, psych tests, etc.

 

[VanceInWA]

I took the ( or not ) out of the title...hopefully that helps here.
Andy

Thank you Andy, appreciated.

 

[Yarome]

IMO, 18 for long guns and 21 for handguns is just fine and already quite restrictive. Although, I can agree that not all 18yr olds have the appropriate maturity level for any type of gun ownership. That can easily apply to those anywhere from 21-90, too so... where do we draw the line?

Consider for many that we put large caliber long guns in the hands of our children at 12 to hunt with, expect them to be working and saving money between 16-18, but then expect them to wait an additional 3 years (21) before they can use their savings to purchase their own long gun? That seems extreme when they may already have 6yrs (at 18) handling large caliber long guns with minimal supervision under their belt. 9yrs waiting seems extreme.

Not to forget... at 18 they are already eligible to carry a long gun 24/7, serve, and risk their very lives for the sake of those freedoms.

On one hand, I "might" consider something like requiring parental consent between 18-21, but then again, that's just the selfish "parent" part of me that will always consider my children my "babies" no matter their age. My common sense steps through though and says NO way! If they can vote, self determine (or destruct), serve and possibly die... without parental consent, it's time to let them go and be free to choose their own long gun preference.

Maybe having to provide a gun safety certificate of completion between 18-21? Any concession is a slippery slope though.

If they aren't prepared for it quite yet, "we" have to accept some of that fault for not adequately preparing/training them for the responsibility.

Of course, I'm also of the mind that a child should be given as much age appropriate firearm reponsibility as young as they are capable. Typically, in our family that means a BB rifle at 4-5yrs old. It might sound young but let's face it, at 4-5, that only gives us 7-8 short years to work them up from BB's, to pellets, to rimfires, and then centerfires. Out of the blue at age 12 is no time to be tossing them a high caliber long gun for the first time and telling them, "go into the wilds and bring forth meat!" At 12 they should be 100% confident, proficient and SAFE.

I also firmly believe that giving a child some "adultcentric" responsibility (even if only perceived)... and opportunity to learn, demonstrate and maintain "trust" is very important. Never given that opportunity, how can they learn the value or show they are deserving of it?

I realize not everyone has that type of upbringing, or plans to provide it to their posterity, but you certainly don't turn them onto city streets with a vehicle without ensuring they are educated and prepared for the responsibility do you? If you can't personally then there are agencies and businesses that can provide that service for your children, right? Why should firearms be any different?

I also get that any law has to reflect a compromise across a wide cross-section of family values and preferences. I feel like "I" already did my part compromising though when I have to tell my kids, "NO.. you can't use your own money to buy your own rifle until you're 18. Especailly considering they already been packing long guns as long as they can remember... it's almost idiotic from my perspective.

IMHO, it goes back to any voluntary forfeiture of our right is just too dangerous. More emphasis and parental responsibility to ensure our chilidren are prepared and educated for the responsibility is the way to go..

 

[Member 53328]

IMO, 18 for long guns and 21 for handguns is just fine and already quite restrictive. Although, I can agree that not all 18yr olds have the appropriate maturity level for any type of gun ownership. That can easily apply to those anywhere from 21-90, too so... where do we draw the line?

Consider for many that we put large caliber long guns in the hands of our children at 12 to hunt with, expect them to be working and saving money between 16-18, but then expect them to wait an additional 3 years (21) before they can use their savings to purchase their own long gun? That seems extreme when they may already have 6yrs (at 18) handling large caliber long guns with minimal supervision under their belt. 9yrs waiting seems extreme.

Not to forget... at 18 they are already eligible to carry a long gun 24/7, serve, and risk their very lives for the sake of those freedoms.

On one hand, I "might" consider something like requiring parental consent between 18-21, but then again, that's just the selfish "parent" part of me that will always consider my children my "babies" no matter their age. My common sense steps through though and says NO way! If they can vote, self determine (or destruct), serve and possibly die... without parental consent, it's time to let them go and be free to choose their own long gun preference.

Maybe having to provide a gun safety certificate of completion between 18-21? Any concession is a slippery slope though.

If they aren't prepared for it quite yet, "we" have to accept some of that fault for not adequately preparing/training them for the responsibility.

Of course, I'm also of the mind that a child should be given as much age appropriate firearm reponsibility as young as they are capable. Typically, in our family that means a BB rifle at 4-5yrs old. It might sound young but let's face it, at 4-5, that only gives us 7-8 short years to work them up from BB's, to pellets, to rimfires, and then centerfires. Out of the blue at age 12 is no time to be tossing them a high caliber long gun for the first time and telling them, "go into the wilds and bring forth meat!" At 12 they should be 100% confident, proficient and SAFE.

I also firmly believe that giving a child some "adultcentric" responsibility (even if only perceived)... and opportunity to learn, demonstrate and maintain "trust" is very important. Never given that opportunity, how can they learn the value or show they are deserving of it?

I realize not everyone has that type of upbringing, or plans to provide it to their posterity, but you certainly don't turn them onto city streets with a vehicle without ensuring they are educated and prepared for the responsibility do you? If you can't personally then there are agencies and businesses that can provide that service for your children, right? Why should firearms be any different?

I also get that any law has to reflect a compromise across a wide cross-section of family values and preferences. I feel like "I" already did my part compromising though when I have to tell my kids, "NO.. you can't use your own money to buy your own rifle until you're 18. Especailly considering they already been packing long guns as long as they can remember... it's almost idiotic from my perspective.

IMHO, it goes back to any voluntary forfeiture of our right is just too dangerous. More emphasis and parental responsibility to ensure our chilidren are prepared and educated for the responsibility is the way to go..

I agree. The only reason I say 21 is because the maturity level of "men" and "women" in this country has declined drastically as each generation comes and goes. But like you said there are plenty of immature 21 year olds and up. There's no real hood solution unless we won't to address the true issue of evil and the mental state of Americans. By only argument in regards to the 18 year olds who willingly choose to offer their lives by carrying a rifle or pistol is that they are at least getting a bare minimum training and understanding of the gravity that the tool they are holding. I don't really care about what age someone is when they purchase a firearm as long as they have the maturity and respect that goes along with the responsibility of owning a firearm. Unfortunately there is no age limit for that.

 

[American123]

Where is the "enforce the second amendment as written and intended" option?

All of the above are infringements.

Looking at the vote tally, I'm disgusted with the level of infringement some people are stating they are comfortable with. We are definitely not "on the same team."

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Something to consdier here in regards to the purposals in the poll :
If any of those can be done to one Amendment....what is to stop that from being done to all of the others...?
Andy

Edit to add :
All of the options in the poll are about taking something away....
Since only those who ain't the problem will be following any of the options...
None of the options are taking away anything or affecting those that are the problem.

 

[Yarome]

...they are at least getting a bare minimum training and understanding of the gravity that the tool they are holding. I don't really care about what age someone is when they purchase a firearm as long as they have the maturity and respect that goes along with the responsibility of owning a firearm. Unfortunately there is no age limit for that.

Completely agree. By extension... if we aren't providing the teaching and learning opportunities to our younger generations that cycle will continue to the point where there really are no bounds on how high that age limit may need to be set to reach an arguably "uniform" age of "maturity".. with regard to firearms.

I think that's why I could see having a certified training requirement between 18-21 (or even older). I could probably live with that without "too" much complaining, but raising the age across the board I just can't. I know our family type is not unique. Certainly fewer as the generations pass, but not unique and "our" perspectives should be considered as well.

21 for a long gun would just be CRAZY old considering, by then, almost half their time on earth they've been carrying and using high caliber long guns responsibly. Certainly more safely than what any "Joe" can pick up in a few hours of a gun safety course.

They can vote so why should their rights be infringed, becomes the question.

I compltely understan the other side of the coins view too. AR's are scarier than handguns so why can you buy an AR at 18 and only handguns are 21? Right?

Another way to see that... "Hey! We got away with 21 for handguns... let's go get long guns bumped too!! (Then we'll go back to hanguns in the media, rinse and repeat)"

 

[CountryGent]

If any of those can be done to one Amendment....what is to stop that from being done to all of the others...?

Well said.

 

[wolfcreed]

Just to clarify, I think you meant the "4 R's" (not 5), right?

"Reed'n, Right'n, R'ithmatick, and Right to bear arms."

The "5 R's" is:

"Reed'n, Right'n, R'ithmatick, Right to bear arms and Reloadin"

Hate to be a stickler..... Just sayin....

Oops - good catch!