I’m growing concerned that the increasing use of the expressions “common sense gun laws” or “common sense gun reforms” can be used to further infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
These expressions seem overly broad and somewhat vague.
Can anyone describe in detail precisely what “common sense gun laws” actually means?
From where I’m sitting, any “common sense gun laws” are only increased infringements upon our 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms.
What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
That type of language is Leftist speak. Is this a Leftist org?
Sounds like it, if it’s chief is spouting this nonsense. Maybe I should just go to the other guys instead. The more I read about USCCA and the image it’s presenting, I find it tepid, lukewarm, like oatmeal that got forgotten.
The only Commonsense thing to do is tear up the NFA and GCA, disband ATF, and what I have in my safe is none of your business, what’s in yours is none of mine.
I don’t think we should let the left define the terms. All of the true common sense gun laws that I can think of already exist.
It is against the law to shoot someone who is not a clear and immediate threat.
It is against the law for violent criminals to own firearms.
It is against the law to threaten innocent people with a firearm by brandishing or otherwise threatening to shoot them.
These are all common sense gun laws that I think should be properly enforced. I am open to other possible common sense laws that stop violent criminals from harming innocent people. But those laws can’t infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens. And we need to start removing all the non sensible laws in return for any possible new sensible ones.
Unfortunately all the gun laws I see currently being proposed are based on fear not good unbiased science and certainly not on common sense. They will do nothing to stop violent criminals while significantly infringing the rights and endangering the lives of innocent people.
“Common sense” is fueled by cultural change. It’s kinda of like peer pressure, “the cool kids are doing it”. It just makes sense no armed American should have a battle rifle that can hold 30,40,60 rounds! Think of the damage they could do. It’s just common sense .
It’s a flawed argument, but it’s an effective one. When you are unfamiliar with guns, the idea of people having AR-15s seems wildly unnecessary. I’ve had arguments with 2A people say “it’s a better to make the argument the rifle is good for home defense. Don’t talk about the fighting Tyranny thing”. BUT the fundamental part of 2A is just that. For us to be free from potential tyranny, we have to have tools so we’re not helpless pawns.
The culture is pulling away from this. Anti Gun people own all the major institutions. Universities, big tech, corporations, and now most of the government. They don’t want the little guys to have power. They are the over lords. They control the media and education. The only hope for our nation is found with families passing on our American way of life. There’s a war on the Family too.
I agree, although I remain skeptical that any old laws will be removed from the increasing infringements upon the 2nd Amendment.
Ultimately, our so-called elected representatives make these laws.
Pardon me if I have doubts as to whether any of these existing laws or infringements will be rescinded or repealed.
It seems to me that any restrictions upon the 2nd Amendment are clearly infringements, and it appears to be a slippery slope towards a total ban on ownership of firearms and a resultant confiscation.
As far as I am aware, no such definition really exists. What most leftists mean by “common-sense gun reforms” is: “we want your guns and we’re going to get them.”
I am skeptical that the 2A won’t be completely gutted as the 4th and 1st are in the process of being. The supposedly pro 2A Republican Party has been in decline for a long time catering to an ever decreasing demographic. And that was before the current party split that could very well guarantee the Democratic Party maintains control for at least the next decade despite the radical left wing of that party taking it off the rails. Even if the 2A survives the next two years it is only a matter of time on the current trajectory.
The only hope I see for this country is for a truly common sense and non corrupt centrist coalition that reaches across party and racial lines to stand up and speak for the rights of all Americans not just the vocal special interest groups and corporate money bags yanking everyone’s chains. The silent majority can be a powerful force for good if they can be woken up before they follow the herd over the cliff. But baring that miracle I will settle for a coalition of pro 2A people reaching across party lines to preserve our right to self defense for as long as possible.
The phrase “common sense gun laws” is a deceptive means to frame the argument against pro-2A people. If you’re against what falls under that umbrella, you’re against common sense, right? And that also obviously makes you a gun “nut,” someone not to be listened to. It takes advantage of people’s unwillingness to look at the details of an issue, the title being enough to sway their feelings on the matter.
Common sense is not so common. Common sense is defined as," sound judgment derived from experience rather than study," Jumping off the roof of a house can cause physical damage. How is that known? falling down usually helps a person know that if you add height to this factor the injury may increase.
Personally, I find it funny we have to have laws for these such things, A sign stating, Jumping off bridge may cause death or injury. To me that is obvious! When it comes to common sense gun laws I will have to ask if Captain Obvious wrote these as laws. But we have to teach the golden rules of 1. Always treat your gun as if it is loaded. Never point your gun at anything your not willing to destroy. 2, Keep finger off the trigger at all times until your ready to shoot. 3.Know what is behind or around your targets. These common sense rules saves lives but. do we actually need a law for it?
Locking up your guns is the best way to protect your investment the same as locking up important documents that you need to have. So common sense would have it that you place these items in a safe protected place like a fire resistant safe. Do you really need to make a law about this? and at what point do you stop?
“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Infringed definition - to actively break the terms of a law.
Now, you want to talk law? What happens if you break the law? You get fined or go to jail. What happens if you try the make a law? ?, What happens if your law is unjust? wrong? or impossible to enforce?
Since the First Amendment exists to give us the ability to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. as well as, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, and freedom of the press. Yes, freedom of the press. The first two amendments are those to guide us with freedom. Free to worship. Free to have arms. Free to say what you want.
Nobody likes change. Especially when it makes you venerable. Worse than that, reform is a way to improve upon things accordingly and than we are back at common sense. As for banning guns, people have to realize that Japan would not invade the continent of the United States because behind every blade of grass is a person with a gun. Welcome to the wild, wild west!
Only since the 1938 FFA have felons been disbarred their rights - that is not common-sense, it is fear-mongering, just like all the other “gun control” laws enacted prior and since.
I don’t necessarily have a problem with former criminals who have served their jail time and probation getting their rights back especially if they have shown they are no longer a threat to society. But if they are a clear and present threat while awaiting trial or continue to show violent behavior in prison and after release then it seems pretty sensible to me to limit their threat to society as much as possible. I 100% believe they should get their voting rights back after serving their time.
I actually called the USCCA on the phone. About this very quote. The common sense gun reform allegedly being referred to by Tim is National CCL Reciprocity.
I will admit I was pissed when I read that. The point I made to the young lady that answered was that I wasn’t willing to make any more common sense compromises until they enforced existing legislation
He was making a clumsy play on the gun-grabbers’ own phrase to say that National Carry Reciprocity would be an actual common sense reform to federal firearms laws.
.