Some Wisconsin Gun Owners Think More Regulation Would Be OK.

[ButterBean]

They aren't silencers, they are suppressors. The only people that would be affected by my suggestions would be criminals trying to buy firearms and people trying to sell firearms to criminals.

Interestingly, one of the dates mentioned was 1986. That was the Firearm Owners Protection Act which enacted protections for gun owners — prohibiting a national registry of dealer records, limiting ATF inspections to once per year (unless there are multiple infractions), softening what is defined as "engaging in the business" of selling firearms, and allowing licensed dealers to sell firearms at "gun shows" in their state. It also loosened regulations on the sale and transfer of ammunition.

Other dates left out of that list were
2003 - The Tiahrt Amendment which prohibited the ATF from publicly releasing data showing where criminals purchased their firearms and stipulated that only law enforcement officers or prosecutors could access such information.

2005 - Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which prevent gun manufacturers from being named in federal or state civil suits by those who were victims of crimes involving guns made by that company.

I know I must be a traitor in many people's eyes and need my throat stepped on and a bayonet shoved in my face because I don't feel that felons, drug addicts, and the mentally unstable should be able to purchase fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, and land minds out of the back of Popular Mechanics and have it delivered directly to their homes via the mail without anyone knowing it and allowing them to carry those things into a school zone. I mean, what could possibly happen? I know I sound like a crazy liberal for thinking that way. I must have been raised wrong.

I am not saying there aren't any stupid, useless, feel good gun control laws that only affect law abiding citizens. The assault weapons ban is a prime example. I am saying not all of them are bad and were effective and the majority of people in the country agree with me. We can't address crime in this country because people are so worried that it might result in another gun control law so we can't even study it. They prefer that crime continue and we throw everyone in jail after they committed the crime. Just give everyone a gun, that should solve the issue. People want to point out the shootings in Chicago but God forbid we actually try and figure out why it is happening. We want to take the easy way and blame it on the fact that its run by democrats rather than actually look at what is happening there because we might not like the reason. The reality is that it will have more to do with poverty, overcrowding, and history than guns but we don't want to deal with that either.

The original patented was a "Silencer"

Accomplishments. Hiram Percy Maxim is usually credited with inventing and selling the first commercially successful firearm silencer around 1902, receiving a patent for it on March 30, 1909. Maxim gave his device the trademarked name Maxim Silencer, and they were regularly advertised in sporting goods magazines.

 

[Muddyboots]

All of this discussion is meaningless if you do not understand our Constitution and why our forefathers wrote in the 2nd Amendment right after the Freedom of Speech. The first battle of the War was over firearms and the freedom associated with them. My allegiance is to the Constitution which offends some people. Heads up, all government is sworn to defend and protect it as well. The problem is when government swears to protect and defend ALL of it, its lip service. When a citizen states the same, you are labeled a right wing constitution thumper.


You can state gun control laws, show me where any government has INCREASED penalties for felons committing crimes with firearms. I don't care of their environment, violence is still being committed time and time again by same felons. Lock them up or reinstate capital punishment.

Yes, I understand mistakes are made but letting felons back out is bigger mistake since more citizens are being harmed. I am big fan of Three Strikes and it takes care of a lot of social concerns. If you commit violent crime three times, you are put away for a long time. No excuses for three violent crimes. The felon is confirming violent crime is their choice.

Gun control is not crime control, it is citizen control.

 

[JimFromTN]

If the people have the right to keep and bear arms then it should not be limited to just law abiding citizens but all citizens, because the 2nd amendment does specify that and it was a gun control law that made it illegal for criminals to have arms, nor should it limit what kind of arms so in other words anyone should be aloud to own a machine gun, rocket launcher, tank, and even a nuclear weapon especially if the purpose is so that the government doesn't outgun the people so that the people can overthrow the government. If that is the purpose of the 2nd amendment then nuclear arms have to be on the table. Hey, what about biological weapons. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about biological weapons either. Buying a bomb should be perfectly legal and if they blow up a school then we will execute them to teach them and anyone else thinking of doing it a lesson, providing they don't kill themselves first. Capital punishment was never a deterrent and and we currently spend around $80 billion a year on prisons to house more criminals than any other country in the world. Maybe rather than killing and giving free housing to criminals, we should try an figure out why they are criminals. Surely, it can't cost more than throwing all of them in prison for life and paying to house and feed them. Executing them isn't free either. Interesting fact - Florida spends an average of $24 million per execution.

 

[Muddyboots]

You are 100% right on who should be able to bear arms but you can't ignore the need to put criminals away. Capital punishment doesn't have to be a determent since it removes the person from our society which is a determent to keep that person from harming anyone else ever again. Punishment will never be a determent to a criminal that chooses that way of life. The cost of punishment is irrelevant to the victims family.

We are already "outgunned" to use your terminology. But no government can ever defeat an armed populace no matter how much they have in weapons. BTW bombs were already used in Columbine High School, total of 88 different types were utilized, fortunately none were properly constructed. There might have been an entirely different perspective if they had exploded.

There are so many societal issues involved everything from family fabric, employment, housing, education, health care, accessibility to internet, racism et al that it can be overwhelming but if we don't start NOW, there will be no change in our society violence. The real question is "Why are people so violent?". The problem is NOT guns at all, if that was the case, why are there so many stabbings, baseball bats, pipes, strangulation's, beating senseless and so on?

I believe there is an anger of seeing middle class being out of reach and we have to make that bridge possible. If we start addressing these issues I truly believe a change can be made. BUT we cannot stop putting criminals away because we don't think it works. It doesn't matter if it doesn't work right now, as long as it stops innocent people being victimized.

I have always been an advocate to address the societal issues that may be root cause and we must extend a hand to help with ALL the resources we can bring to bear but the hand must be taken in kind.

Crime is easy, working 8-5 is not. We have to change the mindset.

 

[ButterBean]

If the people have the right to keep and bear arms then it should not be limited to just law abiding citizens but all citizens, because the 2nd amendment does specify that and it was a gun control law that made it illegal for criminals to have arms, nor should it limit what kind of arms so in other words anyone should be aloud to own a machine gun, rocket launcher, tank, and even a nuclear weapon especially if the purpose is so that the government doesn't outgun the people so that the people can overthrow the government. If that is the purpose of the 2nd amendment then nuclear arms have to be on the table. Hey, what about biological weapons. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about biological weapons either. Buying a bomb should be perfectly legal and if they blow up a school then we will execute them to teach them and anyone else thinking of doing it a lesson, providing they don't kill themselves first. Capital punishment was never a deterrent and and we currently spend around $80 billion a year on prisons to house more criminals than any other country in the world. Maybe rather than killing and giving free housing to criminals, we should try an figure out why they are criminals. Surely, it can't cost more than throwing all of them in prison for life and paying to house and feed them. Executing them isn't free either. Interesting fact - Florida spends an average of $24 million per execution.

 

[Deleted member 48126]

JimFromTN you answering your own question on gun control then?

"Maybe rather than killing and giving free housing to criminals, we should try an figure out why they are criminals. Surely, it can't cost more than throwing all of them in prison for life and paying to house and feed them."

I agree with this above 100%. So apply that same logic to gun control. How is adding anymore gun laws going to solve what's in bold? Across the US there are thousands and thousands of gun control laws at the Federal, state, and local levels. They aren't working. Our own federal government can't even back their own NICS checks and keep violent people from getting firearms. They can't do the bare minimum to protect us, and by law they have no duty or obligation to protect us.

I don't trust or respect our laws when our very own government gives out weapons freely to anyone we "think" might be a friend. I can't own a can, but we can give 10,000 rifles to Mexican drug cartels, supply the mujahideen, and give billions in "military aid" to "allies" across the world every year.

I just want to know from the articles the OP posted what additional measures we should support our opinionated brethren in creating / adopting that will solve our current issues in the US? AKA, make them happy and leave us alone.