Ideas for reducing illegal guns

[Guest123018-4]

The term "illegal guns" makes me wonder what laws the guns broke.
I would think that there is a much bigger issue of not enforcing existing laws against criminal behavior in the use of a firearm.
I suppose that there are those that think we are protecting guns when the reality is that we are protecting our individual rights and liberty. Infringing on the means insured in our Constitution does nothing to stop the violence of the individuals that are want to commit crimes. Subjecting the citizen to laws that infringe upon the rights, not granted but insured in our Constitution is to violate the Constitution and a violation of the oath to protect it.

[Guest123018-4]

If the size of the magazine is an issue then should we not also limit the size of aircraft so that fewer passengers can be placed within them. This would eliminate a number of deaths n the event of illegal actions. We could also extend this to buses,cars, trains,
Perhaps we should limit the number of people allowed to gather in an area too.
Why don't we limit the number of cigarettes in a pack to say five.

The idea that the issue is the firearm is just another means to reduce the individual liberties insured by the Constitution.
I say we limit the press too and establish a national religion. Limit the right of people to peacefully assemble.
I am sure there are plenty of things that we could do to make government stronger than the individual and get it all done in one big motion rather than in the little increments that you all seem to swallow so easily.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I wanted to get to this earlier today but had to be somewhere. Your example of guns on a plane is not about gun laws but about airline regs. An airline could prohibit alcohol on a plane even your own. An airline could prohibit naked people on a plane. An airline can prohibit ugly people (sorry Whatzup) on a plane. And the airlines have prohibited guns on planes. I have seen airlines (not major of course) allow people to bring on guns as carry on items for trips to hunting sites. An airline could also allow nude people on planes and have done just that. Don't confuse gun laws with airline regulations. Now the government claims the airports as their property so they make the rules for the airports.

I disagree. To me, it is a regulation that violates the 2nd Amendment if you interpret the 2nd Amendment as allowing any person to carry any weapon any where at any time, as at least one person interprets it.

But if my example does not sit well with you, then how about this as an example. Should I as a homeowner have the right to say that no guns are allowed in my home? Should a company have the right to say that guns are not allowed in their building? These too are not "laws". They are regulations that the homeowner and business have established for what they consider to be a safer environment.

[essence]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

The term "illegal guns" makes me wonder what laws the guns broke.

Are you trying to appear a fool?

Illegal guns is just an abbreviation, I have already clarified that I am talking about illegal possession of guns, whether the guns themselves are legal or not.

There has been so much discussion about illegal guns in the last couple of months, how the statistics cover legal rather than illegal, how controlling legal guns does not affect the illegal possession...

So, let me clarify again - there are already plenty of laws concerning possession of guns, arms, knoves, etc.

So, I was looking for ideas, WITHOUT CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION OR RADICAL REWRITING OF LAWS, as to how the ciculation of guns which are in illegal possession, or which are in themselves illegal, might be reduced.

Because many of those who fight changes in law say it won't make a difference, let's see how a difference can be made WITHOUT a change in law.

Geddit now? Or do you want circulation of guns amongst criminals and mentally ill to continue?

I do understand there is a certain segment who do not believe in any restrictions in guns or possession thereof, to whom the concept of illegal possession is alien, but they can be easily dimissed with some diversions, they can;t run and chew gum at the same time.

[essence]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I think your idea of banning Tarantino movies is downright foppish.

As much as i agree with a recent reviewer who thought his latest was 3 hours of masturbation, I do not propose banning of Tarantino films. I merely put it on a list of possible ideas, for debate.

In the spirit of brainstorming, it is important to generate ideas which are left/right of field, because they may stimulate some more realistic ideas.

The issue of gun culture in the media has been discussed by others, whether film or music, and this debate has been going on for many decades, you might say since the dawn of culture. Just look at Titus Andronicus, and changing attitudes towards its violence.

It is a valid debate, and societal values change over time.

Whether depictions of violence in culture influence society, or are a reflection of society, I find it difficult to see whether it can be shown one way or the other. It can influence, or it can be cathartic.

Same with (going back to Tarantino), masturbation, pornography, and sexual crimes.

It's amazing when you look back at the last 40 years and see the changes. I watched a youtube the other day of a discussion about 'Life of Brian' and it was very surreal.