View Full Version : Reasonable Gun Control Laws
I was watching Fox news today and they had a piece about the spike in gun sales (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/22/gun-sales-off-to-bang-for-election-year/).
They had two commentators on, one for each side of the debate.
The gun control guy made the comment to the effect of:
"lets have some reasonable gun control laws"
My first thought was that there are almost no reasonable gun control laws.
But that brings up a good question.
Are there any reasonable gun control laws?
Many people equate gun ownership with freedom.
So the question then becomes
"what are the reasonable controls on your individual freedom to live in today's society?"
The NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968, and concealed carry laws come to mind as the major issues.
I'd like to hear from you.
Try to include these things:
1) If any restriction(s) are reasonable
2) what those restriction(s) should be.
3) why.
There should be a law against shooting people who don't deserve it. That's as far as gun control should go...
Why do we need a damn law for every single aspect of our lives?
No mental incompetents, no aliens, no felons.
Aliens are elidgeable after they pass citizenship test.
Beyond that :shrug: if you can afford to buy a pistol/rifle/machine gun/RPG/flamethrower/tank/artillery piece/attack helicopter, then go for it.
No bleeding edge miltech and no nukes would be about it I would think.
No mental incompetents, no aliens, no felons.
Aliens are elidgeable after they pass citizenship test.
Beyond that :shrug: if you can afford to buy a pistol/rifle/machine gun/RPG/flamethrower/tank/artillery piece/attack helicopter, then go for it.
No bleeding edge miltech and no nukes would be about it I would think.
So if the VA declares 80,000+ combat veterans mentally unfit then it's ok to take away their guns? Just as long as it's not your guns am I hearing this right?
QuietShootr
03-23-12, 14:53
I say if you can afford it, you can buy it. If you buy it, you're responsible for using it safely.
People privately own artillery now. I don't really see that it's anyone's ****ing concern as long as they aren't shelling their neighbors, and I really don't remember the last time I heard of that happening. I would probably draw the line at nukes just because of the accident potential, but if you could produce a good reason to have one and could afford to properly secure it, then, whatever.
I think most people have forgotten that the original intent of this country was not to have the world's most powerful government, but to provide a place where free people could do pretty much whatever the **** they wanted. We're so ****ing far from that now we couldn't even take a bus back to the place where we got lost.
Belmont31R
03-23-12, 14:56
If you've been declared mentally incompetent by a COURT or are a minor.
I don't care about non-residents or felons/DV.
Reasonable is just a word used by gun grabbers to ban what they want and put on restrictions on carry so only the well off (aka people who make large reelection donations to those who decide who gets a permit) can protect themselves in public as well as banning most semi autos. They would love to ban all guns but try to sell stupid ass restrictions to where hunting with a bolt action or single shot is all you get to do, has to be stored in a manner that doesn't allow for self defense, and very people even bother to own a gun.
Semi auto's and concealed carry are the tip of the spear when it comes to main stream gun control initiatives. I am surprised they don't put more emphasis on NFA weapons but then they are so rarely used in crimes they can't dance in the still warm blood of victims to sell their ideology.
But...but....we HAVE to have gun control laws...to uh keep everyone safe! It's for the good of society! :rolleyes:
about as reasonable as i can get....
no GUNS:
declared mentally incompetent by a COURT.
under 18
non-residents
VIOLENT felons
I fully support legislation that keeps guns away from those that are mentally or criminally unfit.
That's about the only law I can think of I agree with. And when I say 'unfit', I mean, without a shadow of a doubt....NOT like some cases now where you get your guns taken away because a doctor said you might be depressed.
In a perfect world, you really wouldn't even need the 'criminally unfit' part, as those who have served their time should be allowed to own guns again, and those too dangerous to own them should not be allowed out of prison.
Oh, and as far as minors are concerned, I would like to see the age for long guns dropped to 16, and I'd probably extend that to handguns as well. My line of thinking is that if you can legally drive, and can legally hunt, you should legally be able to drive yourself to a hunting location with your own freakin' gun. I would possibly move handgun ownership out to 18 years old, to include the ability to carry at that point as well.
Any and each law is a seed for another.
The Second Amendment was ratified to prohibit the Federal government from interfering with the peoples God given natural rights to defend oneself; be it from a criminal, a bear, or the government.
It's amazing to me how successful the progressive movement has been it making the original intent of the Founding Fathers sound radical.
Other than prohibiting felons and mentally disabled there should be no Federal gun laws. And, being that we are talking about natural right of man, I don't buy into the idea that States should be able to make restrictive laws. In all the reading I have done on the writing of the Constitution, I can find no evidence that any Founding Fathers would have supported the ability for states to interfere with the peoples natural rights.
Moose-Knuckle
03-23-12, 15:42
No, there are no reasonable gun control laws. They are all tyrannical.
How about the laws already on the books for homicide? :jester:
Belmont31R
03-23-12, 15:45
Any and each law is a seed for another.
The Second Amendment was ratified to prohibit the Federal government from interfering with the peoples God given natural rights to defend oneself; be it from a criminal, a bear, or the government.
It's amazing to me how successful the progressive movement has been it making the original intent of the Founding Fathers sound radical.
Other than prohibiting felons and mentally disabled there should be no Federal gun laws. And, being that we are talking about natural right of man, I don't buy into the idea that States should be able to make restrictive laws. In all the reading I have done on the writing of the Constitution, I can find no evidence that any Founding Fathers would have supported the ability for states to interfere with the peoples natural rights.
14th Amendment.
My favorite is when the gun control groups say "we need compromise regarding guns". Well, its not compromise when only one side (gun owners) gives up something and the other side gives up nothing. :rolleyes:
14th Amendment.
Yes, that should take care of it but I'm talking about original intent. I don't feel we need the 14th Amendment to incorporate the States into the amendments of the Bill of Rights dealing with natural rights.
I also am quite confident that a man like Thomas Jefferson would believe fully automatic weapons should be legal.....especially Jefferson.
I fully support legislation that keeps guns away from those that are mentally or criminally unfit.
That's about the only law I can think of I agree with. And when I say 'unfit', I mean, without a shadow of a doubt....NOT like some cases now where you get your guns taken away because a doctor said you might be depressed.
In a perfect world, you really wouldn't even need the 'criminally unfit' part, as those who have served their time should be allowed to own guns again, and those too dangerous to own them should not be allowed out of prison.This.........
How about the laws already on the books for homicide?
That's completely unacceptable! If our elected "leader" weren't coming up with new laws how could they justify their employment?
DeltaSierra
03-23-12, 16:28
Oh, and as far as minors are concerned, I would like to see the age for long guns dropped to 16, and I'd probably extend that to handguns as well. My line of thinking is that if you can legally drive, and can legally hunt, you should legally be able to drive yourself to a hunting location with your own freakin' gun. I would possibly move handgun ownership out to 18 years old, to include the ability to carry at that point as well.
In other words, you want everyone else to follow whatever you think is best for them, even though it makes no sense at all. Congratulations, you and the Feds agree on that concept, even though you disagree on the specific regulations...
Just as long as it's not your guns am I hearing this right?
Not...even...close
That's completely unacceptable! If our elected "leader" weren't coming up with new laws how could they justify their employment?
funny, i think they should all be debating on why new laws are retarded, instead of trying to pass new ones as progress.
instead of saying i passed 42 new laws this year, it should read i voted nay on 42 retarded power grabbing laws this year.:jester:
funny, i think they should all be debating on why new laws are retarded, instead of trying to pass new ones as progress.
instead of saying i passed 42 new laws this year, it should read i helped repeal 42 retarded power grabbing laws this year.:jester:
Fixed it for ya! :)
I've long thought that Congress should be required to repeal 2 laws, each of equal magnitude, for each new law passed.
If they cannot find 2 laws of equal magnitude, then they have to repeal however many it takes to make up twice the magnitude of the new law.
If you want to count pages or words or whatever for magnitude, it has to generally be agreeable that it is the same magnitude.
--
OK,
it appears many here are proponents of personal responsibility
and prefer to restrict certain bad individuals rather than inanimate objects.
In order to restrict those bad individuals, What are the reasonable checks on people in relation to firearms?
If the only criteria for purchasing short barreled, full auto flame throwers is that the person must be an 18 year old citizen of sound mind with no felony record,
how should this initial purchase check be carried out?
-skip it
-instant check
-registration
-licence to operate
-records
What about subsequent checks, such as when stopped by LE for speeding while in proper possession of said device?
-quick check for no felony and "have a nice day"
What about an unrelated felony while not in possession of said device?
-all devices must be sold
-all devices must be turned in to local LE
-all devices should can be proactively seized ( only possible with records of ownership or blind search of residence based on felony alone)
How about things like it is unlawful to carry or possess with the intent to commit a crime. I am not sure of the wording, but that is the law in Vermont, more or less.
I see no reason to restrict a youth from owning or possessing a firearm. Parents would still be responsible for the youth's actions.
--
Reasonable gun control is gun control that isn't unreasonable.
Banning a particular weapon, feature of weapon, etc when there is no likelihood of having a noticeable overall positive effect on society (guns and features that are none issues, replaced with something else, or simply not go away via black market as examples) is unreasonable since there is no benefit. To give an example, bayonet lugs, when the hell was the last time someone was murdered with a mounted bayonet? and if one happens once a blue moon then would all the resources going into this law be worth the effort?
Honor system restrictions ("none-enforced" gun free zones as example) where it working relies on someone who is willing to break the most extreme laws will not break this law is unreasonable.
Not allowing guns in a highly sensitive area like a courthouse, jail, etc (places based around dealing with criminals) or areas targeted by criminals such as certain offices where the area in question is in fact secure (monitored entrances and exits, everyone gets screened, ample guard, etc) isn't unreasonable due to the nature of certain areas and the enforcement of safety.
Banning dangerous guns, defined here as pieces of crap whos construction is so bad your chances of losing fingers so far outweighs any potential of it saving your life isn't unreasonable like any product QC oversight.
Banning a gun that functions perfectly because some numb nut paralyzed them self when pulling the trigger with it being loaded is not reasonable.
QuietShootr
03-23-12, 19:19
OK,
it appears many here are proponents of personal responsibility
and prefer to restrict certain bad individuals rather than inanimate objects.
Negative. It's the action I would restrict/punish, not the individual. IOW, as someone stated above, if you're enough of a ****head that you shouldn't have a gun, you're in prison. If you're not in prison, there are no restrictions on the OBJECTS, just what you DO with them. You think frags are fun? Knock yourself out. Hurt somebody or tear someone else's stuff up with them, you're in trouble.
In order to restrict those bad individuals, What are the reasonable checks on people in relation to firearms?
If the only criteria for purchasing short barreled, full auto flame throwers is that the person must be an 18 year old citizen of sound mind with no felony record,
how should this initial purchase check be carried out?
-skip it
-instant check
-registration
-licence to operate
-records
Driver's license. Prove you're of age, and you're down the road with your new toy.
What about subsequent checks, such as when stopped by LE for speeding while in proper possession of said device?
-quick check for no felony and "have a nice day"
Again I reiterate if you are too much of a ****head to be trusted with a weapon, you should be locked up/hospitalized/dead. Being stopped by LE should carry a prima facie assumption that you are NOT said ****head type, because you AREN'T locked up/hospitalized/dead. Deal with the reason for the stop, write the ticket, then move on.
What about an unrelated felony while not in possession of said device?
-all devices must be sold
-all devices must be turned in to local LE
-all devices should can be proactively seized ( only possible with records of ownership or blind search of residence based on felony alone)
None of the above. You can't take it into custody with you, but if you're trust-able enough to be let out, your rights are restored. Period. If you're not, then you stay locked the **** up.
See above.
Regrettably the only known cures for stupidity, criminality and insanity are doping, death, or dungeons.
Gun control is a waste of time... unless you own slaves.
If you cant be trusted with guns/weapons, you cant be trusted without them. Everyone in free society should be allowed to own anything firearms wise. If you shouldnt have it and/or infringe on another's rights, you need to be locked up/deported.
Unfortunately as we have discovered the left believes that no guns is reasonable, regardless of their lip service. As much as I believe in the Constitution and the 2nd we do have to some controls in place.
Define reasonable.
The problem is what is "reasonable" to you is not "reasonable" to others. Mitt Romeny thought his gun laws were "reasonable", however the citizens of Mass that he served disagreed. Bill Clinton thought his gun laws were "reasonable". Ronald Reagan thoughts his (Hughes) were "reasonable" he thought his support of the Brady Bill was "reasonable"...
See the problem?
In a perfect world, you really wouldn't even need the 'criminally unfit' part, as those who have served their time should be allowed to own guns again, and those too dangerous to own them should not be allowed out of prison.[/QUOTE]
^^^^^^^^
This would put and end to a large percentage of problems involving firearms
Felons
I don't believe felons should be allowed into general society if they can't be trusted with the rights of a general citizen.
Maybe a temporary probation period with intense monitoring after release, and if they violate the laws again they face punishment (death / life in prison / deportation)
If you can't be trusted with the rights of a citizen, you do not deserve to be allowed around other citizens.
buckshot1220
03-24-12, 10:29
I will admit I did not read every post before commenting.
The main problem with "reasonable" gun control laws is that everybody's idea of reasonable is different. I personally know many people who think that concealed carry is unreasonable, and view the people who carry as "paranoid" or trying to fulfill a role that only LEO should fill. My own parents don't understand why I carry, hell, I'm 26 and they still can't understand why I always have a knife clipped in my pocket:confused:
Just look at the varied responses seen here in this thread, on a very pro-gun forum, about where to draw the line for reasonable gun control laws.
Unfortunately, we will most likely always be fighting to keep the ground we have and trying to regain the ground we've already lost. We do, however, have in our favor the fact that there are many, many more gun owners today than there were say 10-20 years ago. The only issue is determining if those people feel strongly enough about the right to private ownership to vote that way that way in election years. Additionally, many more college-age students are being exposed to firearms in a positive light. Young Americans are very impressionable, as we all know, so this can be working for us. Maybe the NRA should put more effort into soliciting this target market.
"Reasonable gun control laws" is code for us losing our rights. Just like "common sense gun law". The antis use these statements all the time to win support.
Reasonable gun control is keeping your finger off of the trigger until a target is acquired.
Common sense gun law is the Second Amendment.
Heavy Metal
03-24-12, 10:57
The way to counter this is the following:
"Sure, I will discuss reasonable gun control with you, but first I want you to do something for me. List some of the over 20,000 gun control laws you think are unreasonable we can get rid of at the same time."
That will shut it down hard.
about as reasonable as i can get....
no GUNS:
declared mentally incompetent by a COURT.
under 18
non-residents
VIOLENT felons
To hell with that, any felon is out in my book. Very, very bad judgement (or multiple bouts of bad judgement) is needed to "earn" yourself a felony. These people do not need to own a gun ever. Don't want your right taken away, don't commit a felony. And some violent misdemeanors should come with gun ownership restrictions (maybe not permanent). I don't want the guy getting into bar fights every week or beating the shit out of his wife owning a gun either. Call me crazy.
The government has pretty much taken care of individual responsiblity every time a new law is created. It seems as though we are just not responsible enough as a society and therefore more laws are needed. We don't need to be responsible as long as there are laws that can keep us all in line under fear of prosecution and jail. :sarcastic:
Are there any reasonable gun control laws?
No. Any restriction that keeps them out of the hands of criminals keeps them out of the hands of those who need protection from criminals.
We need to control criminals, not guns. Laws that prevent only criminal access to guns are just fine.
No, there are no reasonable gun control laws. They are all tyrannical.
How about the laws already on the books for homicide? :jester:
This. So many here keep saying,declared by court mentally unfit , but with the complaints about the direction of courts these days why would anybody trust that. Someone else already mentioned a what if returning vets are deemed to be unfit because of PTSD? No I think we should punish those who commit crimes not restrict inanimate objects such as guns. People can still hurt and kill others through alternative means. One can use bare hands, knives, cars, belts ect. the list is endless.
To hell with that, any felon is out in my book.
Think about what you are saying. It is easier and easier to become a felon in today's society.With the laws and the penalties increasing, just about everyone has committed, or will commit a felony and not even know about it because know one was there to catch them. Most stated betting is illegal, but how many throw in on a Super Bowl pool at work? For those that have ever done a side job for a little extra cash just 20-200$ range did you report every dime to the IRS? Tax evasion is a felony. That is just the first two off the top of my head, there are many more that few know about. All it takes is for you to do it(not knowing it is a crime) and have someone else see it who does know, and it is all down hill from there. It is not necessarily the law you have to worry about, but how the government worker whose job it is to enforce it, interprets it that can cause the issue.
This. So many here keep saying,declared by court mentally unfit , but with the complaints about the direction of courts these days why would anybody trust that. Someone else already mentioned a what if returning vets are deemed to be unfit because of PTSD? No I think we should punish those who commit crimes not restrict inanimate objects such as guns. People can still hurt and kill others through alternative means. One can use bare hands, knives, cars, belts ect. the list is endless.
Think about what you are saying. It is easier and easier to become a felon in today's society.With the laws and the penalties increasing, just about everyone has committed, or will commit a felony and not even know about it because know one was there to catch them. Most stated betting is illegal, but how many throw in on a Super Bowl pool at work? For those that have ever done a side job for a little extra cash just 20-200$ range did you report every dime to the IRS? Tax evasion is a felony. That is just the first two off the top of my head, there are many more that few know about. All it takes is for you to do it(not knowing it is a crime) and have someone else see it who does know, and it is all down hill from there. It is not necessarily the law you have to worry about, but how the government worker whose job it is to enforce it, interprets it that can cause the issue.
Maybe you should start a campaign to put guns in the hands of felons and the mentally unstable. See how far that goes. That's some fringe extremist thinking man.
And yeah, facilitating a gambling operation and tax evasion can be felonies but how many folks with otherwise clean records have you seen CONVICTED of a felony for running an office pool or for missing a thing or two on their taxes? Bad examples in my opinion. Any even in the few cases where someone who lived a clean life got screwed with an unfair felony CONVICTION, maybe your efforts would be better applied to affecting change in the relevant laws rather than going with "well, all felons aren't really that bad."
And of course PTSD should NOT be an automatic disqualified. plenty of guys have symptoms of post and lead healthy and functional lives. Any legislation to take rights away from these folks should be handily defeated. Now there are a few guys who gave their all for our country and came back with post and/or tbi who have a very hard time dealing and functioning (a couple of the best friends I've ever had in this life have gone through this). On a case by case basis, some of these folks may need to have their right to own guns suspended until they are better. This is not only for their family, friends, and society but also for them.
I have a buddy in this boat and unfortunately he may never improve substantially. He suffered extensive tbi from an IED and he has serious issues controlling his agression and his mood can change on a dime. I'd rather my buddy get better and have his rights restored than him do something that will take him away from his family and friends forever. Yeah, he could do it with scissors but a gun makes it a whole hell of a lot easier. He doesn't drive either so don't go barking up that way.
QuietShootr
03-24-12, 22:26
To hell with that, any felon is out in my book. Very, very bad judgement (or multiple bouts of bad judgement) is needed to "earn" yourself a felony. These people do not need to own a gun ever. Don't want your right taken away, don't commit a felony. And some violent misdemeanors should come with gun ownership restrictions (maybe not permanent). I don't want the guy getting into bar fights every week or beating the shit out of his wife owning a gun either. Call me crazy.
You're tore up from the floor up. I'm not going to dissect the case for your sake, because you won't get it anyway, but if you ever handle or shoot a gun, you're one mechanical failure from being one of those "scumbag felons". There's a man reading this thread right now, one of my best friends, who is a is a felon now because of a broken 1911 disconnector. And I guaran-damn-tee you this man has more training and experience than 90% of the people posting in this thread, but one unexpected burst-fire put him in the position you're talking about. He got ****ed, just like you can get ****ed through no fault of your own. If I'm understanding you correctly, and you're saying he shouldn't have his rights restored, then I wish you a painful, slow death from anal cancer...in prison, so you have lots of time to contemplate the difference between justice and the legal system.
You're tore up from the floor up. I'm not going to dissect the case for your sake, because you won't get it anyway, but if you ever handle or shoot a gun, you're one mechanical failure from being one of those "scumbag felons". There's a man reading this thread right now, one of my best friends, who is a is a felon now because of a broken 1911 disconnector. And I guaran-damn-tee you this man has more training and experience than 90% of the people posting in this thread, but one unexpected burst-fire put him in the position you're talking about. He got ****ed, just like you can get ****ed through no fault of your own. If I'm understanding you correctly, and you're saying he shouldn't have his rights restored, then I wish you a painful, slow death from anal cancer...in prison, so you have lots of time to contemplate the difference between justice and the legal system.
My God, it really is telling of intelligence when someone gets their panties in a bunch because of their inability to read.
I clearly stated that a few cases of such injustice exist. I proposed that rather than arm felons, we fight unfair laws. It may not be the perfect solution but it is better than giving a pass to all felons when only .001% are actually good people who got screwed over.
As for your friend, post a news story because I am not going to take your word for it. You have earned no credibility with your generally wacky posts. Post the story or stop using it as a defense.
As for wishing death on others for disagreeing with you, regardless of the fact that the fault lies with your lack of reading comprehension, that is juvenile and I question your judgement and character as a man.
I'd love to live in a society where the overall level of maturity of its citizens, coupled with harsh penalties for criminals, allowed for the responsible ownership of virtually any firearm. Unfortunately, our society of dependance and inconsistent enforcement of laws leads me to believe that our society is nowhere near ready for that level of responsibility.
Reagans Rascals
03-25-12, 01:33
I'd like to know the actual real statistics of violent gun crimes committed in California before and after their ludicrous anti-gun laws were originally passed.....
I'd like to see what actual perceived benefit they believe to have attained by not allowing NFA items or assault weapon with removeable mags or just hi-cap mags in general and so on and so forth....
I would wager a unicorns a dick that crime has increased despite their radical approach to gun control
Crimes can only occur when you do not allow those who are targeted, to defend themselves if the situation should so arise....
does anyone have any credible before and after gun crime stats? that would prove one way or the other?
Reagans Rascals
03-25-12, 01:48
and just to touch on what was being discussed here earlier....
The Justice system was instituted for just that reason, Justice. As in, righting the wrongs you imparted upon another.
Where our country got the idea in their heads that they have the legal right to arrest someone and actually force them to pay money, and also have the gall to say we as a country are taking years from your life, for completely victim-less crimes such as simple drug possession, or "a broken disconnector", is completely beyond-****in-me.
You cannot imprison someone for a crime they never committed, and therefore you cannot pass and enforce laws to do that and expect to have a "right and just" system.
Its called habeas corpus.... which literally translates to "produce the corpse".... as in... show me the ****in person I murdered or at least the victim of my crime..... having drugs in your possession is a victim-less crime, therefore there is no "corpse" they can produce, therefore that entire charge is moot. The law of not owning F/A and thus being charged with felonious possession and manufacture of a machine gun because of a broke disconnector is once again is moot because there is no victim in that crime, there is no corpse to produce, there is no wrong to right, so therefore IMO it is not a legally enforceable law...
Look at the new show on Discovery called Moonshiners....... that fat **** piece of shit ABC agent is hot on the trail of those guys because they don't pay taxes on the alcohol they make.... who is the victim in that crime? Who are they protecting? Its a ****ing racket, the State of Virginia (where I currently reside mind you), is violating the RICO statues in believing they have the rights to charge and convict someone of a victim-less crime simply because they didn't get their share of the vig.... that's racketeering 101. That fat bastard is actually willing to take another mans life, to ensure his state gets a cut...... my ****ing lord.
The justice system was not developed to prosecute those who commit "crimes against the state", such as doing things the state says you can't simply because its their prerogative.... which is why it is the bumble**** it is today... because I would bet more than 1/2 of the entirety of those within the Justice system right now today, have committed no credible offence agaisnt another individual, they just did something the gub'ment said they can't.
It all comes down to money... funny how suppressors are legal if you pay the gubment right? Heaven forbid you don't have that bookie ticket (tax stamp) in your hands....
Please explain what a suppressor by itself, can do to anyone.... I can go buy a gun anywhere in 15 minutes with just a phone call, but I have to wait 4-9 months if I want to make it shorter or quieter.... yeah that makes sense
Why is prostitution illegal? You can't make something illegal for the sheer possibility that I may kill the bitch after I give her a Laotian Lazy-Eye.... if I kill her... you then charge me with murder... you can't convict me before the fact... there is no such thing as preventative Justice.
Hitchhiking, wearing seat belts, helmet laws, NFA laws, prostitution, cutting down a tree or building a deck on your own property without a city permit.... all personal choices with no impact on anyone else... and all ****in horse shit laws... just the government wanting its cut...IMO....
If you could be arrested for not paying a double wipe tax after shitting... I'm sure there'd be a lot more felons running around today
Rant over.
My God, it really is telling of intelligence when someone gets their panties in a bunch because of their inability to read.
Maybe you should start a campaign to put guns in the hands of felons and the mentally unstable. See how far that goes. That's some fringe extremist thinking man.
A fine one to talk about someones inability to read, given I have never said that a campaign should be started to put guns into the hands of felons and the unstable. What I am saying is that not everyone is bad and deserves to have rights stripped for away forever on something so broad. Given I am a LEO, I see plenty of shit bags that should not be trusted with a paperclip, but I also see good people that screwed up or were wrongly prosecuted and do not deserve their rights to be stripped for life. Also in the right political climate you might find yourself in one of the two categories and still be the decent person you are currently. But hey you can sit in your smug all knowing arrogance and tell others how wrong or fringe they are. Personally I like Heidevolk's post:
I don't believe felons should be allowed into general society if they can't be trusted with the rights of a general citizen.
Maybe a temporary probation period with intense monitoring after release, and if they violate the laws again they face punishment (death / life in prison / deportation)
If you can't be trusted with the rights of a citizen, you do not deserve to be allowed around other citizens.
and just to touch on what was being discussed here earlier....
The Justice system was instituted for just that reason, Justice. As in, righting the wrongs you imparted upon another.
Where our country got the idea in their heads that they have the legal right to arrest someone and actually force them to pay money, and also have the gall to say we as a country are taking years from your life, for completely victim-less crimes such as simple drug possession, or "a broken disconnector", is completely beyond-****in-me.
You cannot imprison someone for a crime they never committed, and therefore you cannot pass and enforce laws to do that and expect to have a "right and just" system.
Its called habeas corpus.... which literally translates to "produce the corpse".... as in... show me the ****in person I murdered or at least the victim of my crime..... having drugs in your possession is a victim-less crime, therefore there is no "corpse" they can produce, therefore that entire charge is moot. The law of not owning F/A and thus being charged with felonious possession and manufacture of a machine gun because of a broke disconnector is once again is moot because there is no victim in that crime, there is no corpse to produce, there is no wrong to right, so therefore IMO it is not a legally enforceable law...
Look at the new show on Discovery called Moonshiners....... that fat **** piece of shit ABC agent is hot on the trail of those guys because they don't pay taxes on the alcohol they make.... who is the victim in that crime? Who are they protecting? Its a ****ing racket, the State of Virginia (where I currently reside mind you), is violating the RICO statues in believing they have the rights to charge and convict someone of a victim-less crime simply because they didn't get their share of the vig.... that's racketeering 101. That fat bastard is actually willing to take another mans life, to ensure his state gets a cut...... my ****ing lord.
The justice system was not developed to prosecute those who commit "crimes against the state", such as doing things the state says you can't simply because its their prerogative.... which is why it is the bumble**** it is today... because I would bet more than 1/2 of the entirety of those within the Justice system right now today, have committed no credible offence agaisnt another individual, they just did something the gub'ment said they can't.
It all comes down to money... funny how suppressors are legal if you pay the gubment right? Heaven forbid you don't have that bookie ticket (tax stamp) in your hands....
Please explain what a suppressor by itself, can do to anyone.... I can go buy a gun anywhere in 15 minutes with just a phone call, but I have to wait 4-9 months if I want to make it shorter or quieter.... yeah that makes sense
Why is prostitution illegal? You can't make something illegal for the sheer possibility that I may kill the bitch after I give her a Laotian Lazy-Eye.... if I kill her... you then charge me with murder... you can't convict me before the fact... there is no such thing as preventative Justice.
Hitchhiking, wearing seat belts, helmet laws, NFA laws, prostitution, cutting down a tree or building a deck on your own property without a city permit.... all personal choices with no impact on anyone else... and all ****in horse shit laws... just the government wanting its cut...IMO....
If you could be arrested for not paying a double wipe tax after shitting... I'm sure there'd be a lot more felons running around today
Rant over.
Didn't you get the memo that we've reverted back to the divine right of kings and called it progress?
Reagans Rascals
03-25-12, 05:37
Didn't you get the memo that we've reverted back to the divine right of kings and called it progress?
IIRC I don't remember ever voting for any of the current laws.... that's the issue with the representative form of democracy.... you vote in delegates to vote on behalf of yourself, and you just have to hope they have the same views as you.... when more times than not, they vote based on political alliances and spoils patronage... the ol' you scratch my back and I'll **** you over to remain in office...
just bullshit.... plain and simple
second to religion, politics are the bane of responsible governing
How many felons got probation or a few days/weeks/months in jail? I read the articles all the time. Of course all those folks with misdemeanor DV conviction didn't do much/any time. Now all they sudden the person is so dangerous they can't be trusted with "Rights." Anyone who argues simply being a felon disqualifies you from gun ownership certainly does believe gun ownership is a Right, but is a privilege.
There's a man reading this thread right now, one of my best friends, who is a is a felon now because of a broken 1911 disconnector.
As for your friend, post a news story because I am not going to take your word for it.
I am also interested in seeing the evidence behind such as case. Does anyone else know if a case where a single incident of a parts breakage caused a prosecution for a class 3 weapon. Provided that the owner did not continue to use said weapon or attempt to take advantage to the breakage, such a case would be a serious miscarriage of justice.
I'd like to know the actual real statistics of violent gun crimes committed in California before and after their ludicrous anti-gun laws were originally passed.....
I'd like to see what actual perceived benefit they believe to have attained by not allowing NFA items or assault weapon with removeable mags or just hi-cap mags in general and so on and so forth....
I would wager a unicorns a dick that crime has increased despite their radical approach to gun control
Crimes can only occur when you do not allow those who are targeted, to defend themselves if the situation should so arise....
does anyone have any credible before and after gun crime stats? that would prove one way or the other?
When you bring up California I can't help but think about the whole border war/guns thing. Is touted that gun shows, "assault weapon" availability, etc are the culprits but California which has banned private sales, requires a waiting period, "assault weapon" ban, etc ranks up there as one of the major players of US guns seized in and around Mexico and is one of the targets of that Demand Form requiring the reporting of multiple long gun sales.
A fine one to talk about someones inability to read, given I have never said that a campaign should be started to put guns into the hands of felons and the unstable. What I am saying is that not everyone is bad and deserves to have rights stripped for away forever on something so broad. Given I am a LEO, I see plenty of shit bags that should not be trusted with a paperclip, but I also see good people that screwed up or were wrongly prosecuted and do not deserve their rights to be stripped for life. Also in the right political climate you might find yourself in one of the two categories and still be the decent person you are currently. But hey you can sit in your smug all knowing arrogance and tell others how wrong or fringe they are. Personally I like Heidevolk's post:
Fair enough, I meant to write nonviolent felons since you only included violent felons in the category of those who should lose their right to own a gun. I still think that's insane because there are lots of nonviolent felonies which are very serious and there is no reason to allow those convicted of such felonies access to guns.
Maybe we could agree that a process should exist (which it does in many states unless I am wrong) to reinstate the rights of a convicted felon based on the severity of the crime, their record prior, and their record since. But this is still a subjective process and more bureaucracy has rarely been a good solution. As I stated originally and most of you ignored, I know there are some (very few as a percentage) who got screwed and didn't deserve it; and yes, I realize that there is a very, very small chance that it could happen to me someday. I still stand by eliminating those laws which screw over good people with an unfair felony. I know it is a time and capital intensive process but it seems like a good fight to take on.
Putting guns in the hands of convicted felons still bothers me but I do agree that there may be some nonviolent felons who were prior to conviction and are now good people and got screwed over by some silly law and/or prosecutor.
So maybe we can find a point of agreement.
or laws on guns ..its never the the gun's fault but the mind set of who pulls the trigger ...evil is in the mind without respect of other's rights ,this is true with laws as well ...the same evil can be done with bad laws -both are action against rights and freedom ..
I am also interested in seeing the evidence behind such as case. Does anyone else know if a case where a single incident of a parts breakage caused a prosecution for a class 3 weapon. Provided that the owner did not continue to use said weapon or attempt to take advantage to the breakage, such a case would be a serious miscarriage of justice.
Not the same case, but nearly identical from what I can tell. This was huge news a while ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EGy5lpy9GY
Before you made this misinformed post- did you do any other background reading?
1. He was knowingly purchased a full auto parts kit and installed it in the weapon.
2. The weapon in fact "doubled" previously under his watch and yet he still allowed someone else to use it.
3. He knew what he was doing and played with fire- subsequently he got burned.
Not the same case, but nearly identical from what I can tell. This was huge news a while ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EGy5lpy9GY
Reagans Rascals
03-26-12, 07:06
Before you made this misinformed post- did you do any other background reading?
1. He was knowingly purchased a full auto parts kit and installed it in the weapon.
2. The weapon in fact "doubled" previously under his watch and yet he still allowed someone else to use it.
3. He knew what he was doing and played with fire- subsequently he got burned.
I think he was imprisoned for purchasing an Oly Arms in the first place....
Before you made this misinformed post- did you do any other background reading?
1. He was knowingly purchased a full auto parts kit and installed it in the weapon.
2. The weapon in fact "doubled" previously under his watch and yet he still allowed someone else to use it.
3. He knew what he was doing and played with fire- subsequently he got burned.
No, I did not know any of that. I saw this when it was hot shit on another forum and never read any of that. I've read a bit about it but not until AFTER you posted did I see there WERE in fact m16 fcg parts involved.
Thank you for correcting me, as all that makes perfect sense.
Disregard my previous post. Looks like I better research more before posting - DOH!
I think he was imprisoned for purchasing an Oly Arms in the first place....
lol
JBecker 72
03-26-12, 17:54
There's a man reading this thread right now, one of my best friends, who is a is a felon now because of a broken 1911 disconnector.
Bullshit! Every time someone comes up with one of these stories there is way more shady details involved than a single broken part on a semiautomatic weapon and a single burst of automatic fire.
Post up the case information and prove me wrong and I will gladly apologize, but until then I won't buy into this same old story that gets told on gun forums all the time. It always turns out to be a bullshit tale or some dumbass that got caught with his modified weapon.
CarlosDJackal
03-26-12, 19:14
...But that brings up a good question.
Are there any reasonable gun control laws?...
IMHO, I consider the law making it illegal for convicted VIOLENT felons to be in possession of a firearm reasonable. Other than that, I can't think of any other gun control law that I could even consider as "reasonable".
NFA items such as MGs and DD/AOW stuff I can absolutely see a need for - and I'm even for an equivalent background check for suppressors (but a lower cost tax stamp, since it's a hearing preservation issue for many).
As for the rest RR is right the f**k on. Seat belt laws are retarded - but now wearing seat belts is for retards, and parents who do not seat belt in their minor dependents should be regarded as negligent. That's just one self-contained rant from one of the many points brought up, the same minor impingement on liberty is identical in logic to one that means absolute tyranny - the only difference is time and apathy.
NFA items such as MGs and DD/AOW stuff I can absolutely see a need for - and I'm even for an equivalent background check for suppressors...
Outside of the probition era I can't think of any time where legally owned fully automatic guns were much of an issue and I think the whole thing is blown out of proportion and sensationalized by movies and TV. Apparently people in Ohio haven't realized that. I haven't seen any more recent data than this. Link to quote. (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html)
In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the ATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)
Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio.
In Targeting Guns, Kleck cites the director of ATF testifying before Congress that he knew of less than ten crimes that were committed with legally owned machine guns (no time period was specified). Kleck says these crimes could have been nothing more than violations of gun regulations such as failure to notify ATF after moving a registered gun between states.
Again in Targeting Guns, Kleck writes, four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.)
In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere. Kleck cites several examples:
Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.
A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.
16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns.
I read about Goldilock's gun restrictions and it went something like this... Some guns are too big for you civilians because they can defeat bullet proof vests. Some guns are too small for civilians to own and can be hidden in a pocket. Some guns don't have a "sporting purpose" for civilians and are considered "assault weapons" so you have no legitimate reason to own them. Some guns are too cheap for civilians, "Saturday Night Specials", meaning anyone can buy one!
Moose-Knuckle
03-26-12, 23:09
NFA items such as MGs and DD/AOW stuff I can absolutely see a need for - and I'm even for an equivalent background check for suppressors (but a lower cost tax stamp, since it's a hearing preservation issue for many).
As for the rest RR is right the f**k on. Seat belt laws are retarded - but now wearing seat belts is for retards, and parents who do not seat belt in their minor dependents should be regarded as negligent. That's just one self-contained rant from one of the many points brought up, the same minor impingement on liberty is identical in logic to one that means absolute tyranny - the only difference is time and apathy.
Wait a minute, WHAT. . . :confused:
You are for government regulation of NFA items but think seat belt laws are "means to absolute tyranny". . . :eek:
You do realize that there are nations in socialist Europe that don't regulate machine guns and suppressors right?
Again, what is wrong with a law like in Vermont, where it is illegal to carry with intent to commit a crime with the firearm?
No block to people who don't commit the crimes but if you do commit a crime with one, yet another book to throw at you.
--
Wait a minute, WHAT. . . :confused:
You are for government regulation of NFA items but think seat belt laws are "means to absolute tyranny". . . :eek:
You do realize that there are nations in socialist Europe that don't regulate machine guns and suppressors right?
Irony.
QuietShootr
03-27-12, 08:12
Bullshit! Every time someone comes up with one of these stories there is way more shady details involved than a single broken part on a semiautomatic weapon and a single burst of automatic fire.
Post up the case information and prove me wrong and I will gladly apologize, but until then I won't buy into this same old story that gets told on gun forums all the time. It always turns out to be a bullshit tale or some dumbass that got caught with his modified weapon.
What part of 'it's still ongoing' was I not clear about? I am under the instructions of the attorney to NOT post specifics until everything is settled. It is NOT the scenario you posted above, and that's all I'm going to say.
http://guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html
An interesting article that contrasts Swiss gun laws and culture with ours.
Some of the points seem key in the effort to make it all work.
JBecker 72
03-27-12, 12:39
What part of 'it's still ongoing' was I not clear about? I am under the instructions of the attorney to NOT post specifics until everything is settled. It is NOT the scenario you posted above, and that's all I'm going to say.
Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize you could be found guilty of a felony before being convicted of the crime you were charged with. And if it's not the scenario I posted it to be, quit making it sound like it is in your posts. :rolleyes:
QuietShootr
03-27-12, 12:41
Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize you could be found guilty of a felony before being convicted of the crime you were charged with. And if it's not the scenario I posted it to be, quit making it sound like it is in your posts. :rolleyes:
Oh, **** you. The criminal part is over.
Oh, **** you. The criminal part is over.
Damn man, relax. You posted something that you yourself can not substantiate, at least not at this time due to circumstances (if you are to be believed). I don't know what could be so super secret about the case that you can not reveal any information even though, as you put it, the criminal portion is over. But whatever man, it's not worth getting so fired up about. Take a deep breath, grab a cold one, and calm down.
JBecker 72
03-27-12, 14:45
Oh, **** you.
:rolleyes:
Aside from the four rules of safety I can't really think that laws regulating the possession, portage or use of firearms is needed. Last time I checked it was against the law to hurt someone or destroy their property, be that with a gun or bat or your limbs. What else is there that needs to be acted upon. Gun control has absolutely little to do with protecting people. It is ONLY about controlling those people who care about or bother obeying the laws. They do absolutely nothing to control the actions of those few among us willing to harm to others.
As far as I'm concerned if you're mentally unfit enough to not be trusted, or are criminally oriented you shouldn't be out and about among people at all. But them I'm often called an intolerant asshole.
CarlosDJackal
03-28-12, 08:21
No mental incompetents, no aliens, no felons.
Aliens are elidgeable after they pass citizenship test...
So in your short-sighted opinion those of us GREEN CARD HOLDERS should be allowed to put our very lives on the line as Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Law Enforcement Officers; but should not be allowed to legally own the very tools these professions require AND that we may need to defend our lives and the lives of our loved ones?
Basically you are saying that the US Constitution do not apply to all US Persons just because some of them have just began the road to Citizenship. And this is why some of those born in this country should not be allowed to vote. JM2CW
So in your short-sighted opinion those of us GREEN CARD HOLDERS should be allowed to put our very lives on the line as Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Law Enforcement Officers; but should not be allowed to legally own the very tools these professions require AND that we may need to defend our lives and the lives of our loved ones?
Basically you are saying that the US Constitution do not apply to all US Persons just because some of them have just began the road to Citizenship. And this is why some of those born in this country should not be allowed to vote. JM2CW
I think voting should be more restricted than guns. The same reasons we all here think it is stupid to pass bills restricting mag capacities or scary looking guns, applies to this discussion.
I think voting should be more restricted than guns. The same reasons we all here think it is stupid to pass bills restricting mag capacities or scary looking guns, applies to this discussion.
we wouldnt need voting restrictions if the government didnt buy votes. Welfare rewards bad descisions and lack of foresight, these same people are voting themselves, and us into a situation of large government making rules about things it was never intended to legislate. The same applies to guns, these same people live in fear of things they know nothing about. Same goes for a lot of things, EPA regulations, nuclear energy, drugs, etc.
Fed govt should regulate trade, interstate commerce, and defese, thats about it. Rest should be up to the states like stated in the constitution.
Outside of the probition era I can't think of any time where legally owned fully automatic guns were much of an issue and I think the whole thing is blown out of proportion and sensationalized by movies and TV. Apparently people in Ohio haven't realized that. ..
Hey now, dont lump ALL us Ohioans in the same catagory (though for the most part I do see where your coming from - stupid is fluid here).
Hey now, dont lump ALL us Ohioans in the same catagory (though for the most part I do see where your coming from - stupid is fluid here).
Really not my intention, they just seem to have a knack for committing crimes with full-auto guns. :)
CarlosDJackal
03-28-12, 10:26
To hell with that, any felon is out in my book. Very, very bad judgement (or multiple bouts of bad judgement) is needed to "earn" yourself a felony. These people do not need to own a gun ever. Don't want your right taken away, don't commit a felony. And some violent misdemeanors should come with gun ownership restrictions (maybe not permanent). I don't want the guy getting into bar fights every week or beating the shit out of his wife owning a gun either. Call me crazy.
I disagree. I know of a felon who is still doing time in Federal Prison for something he did not commit. What was his crime? He was a Gun Dealer whose employee was caught allowing Straw Purchases to occur (two recorded by camera during a BATFE sting). This same employee rolled on his boss to save his own worthless skin. But by all accounts the employee went through the required training but just did not put 2-and-2 together.
The FFL Holder and Class 3 Dealer and was never present on any of the incidents and had no knowledge of the crimes. He was a former Marine who had a regular job but also ran a Gun Shop from his basement to supplement his income. He ended up taking a plea bargain because the ATF wanted to drag his wife (and co-owner of the Gun Shop) into the crime which she also had no knowledge of.
There are a lot of felons who should never be considered felons because their crimes were not only of the non-violent nature; some were outright trivial (IE: bounced a $501.00 check). What can be gained by anyone for taking away the rights of such individuals to defend themselves and their families because of someone else's actions.
IMHO, anyone convicted of ANY violent crime, whether a felony or a misdemeanor should be restricted from ever owning a firearm. This includes Stalkers (which is only a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions).
CarlosDJackal
03-28-12, 10:34
I think voting should be more restricted than guns. The same reasons we all here think it is stupid to pass bills restricting mag capacities or scary looking guns, applies to this discussion.
I agree. IMHO, anyone who wishes to cast a vote should:
(a) Be required to apply do to on an annual basis and must meet the criteria below.
(b) As part of the application process, be able to answer General questions about our country and Constitution (the same questions Resident Aliens have to answer in order to get Naturalized).
(c) Be able to answer specific questions about the positions that they are voting on.
(d) Be able to provide proof that they have lived in the jurisdiction that the elections are affecting for at least 30-days (same as the requirement to establish Residency).
(e) Be able to produce a government issued picture ID in order to receive a Voter's Registration ID which itself will include at least a picture and possible a fingerprint.
QuietShootr
03-28-12, 10:48
I disagree. I know of a felon who is still doing time in Federal Prison for something he did not commit. What was his crime? He was a Gun Dealer whose employee was caught allowing Straw Purchases to occur (two recorded by camera during a BATFE sting). This same employee rolled on his boss to save his own worthless skin. But by all accounts the employee went through the required training but just did not put 2-and-2 together.
The FFL Holder and Class 3 Dealer and was never present on any of the incidents and had no knowledge of the crimes. He was a former Marine who had a regular job but also ran a Gun Shop from his basement to supplement his income. He ended up taking a plea bargain because the ATF wanted to drag his wife (and co-owner of the Gun Shop) into the crime which she also had no knowledge of.
Nah, **** him too. Hope he gets AIDS in prison and dies, like all felons deserve. Right, sboza?
Wait a minute, WHAT. . . :confused:
You are for government regulation of NFA items but think seat belt laws are "means to absolute tyranny". . . :eek:
You do realize that there are nations in socialist Europe that don't regulate machine guns and suppressors right?
I'm not saying it should be the NFA process it is now, just the same level of background check currently present, and MG/AOW/DD aren't in as much of a threat of mass confiscation or AWB retardation, and in the grand scheme of erosion of liberty I'd solve the red tape, election buying, and rampant cronyism long before spending huge amounts of political capital on one subset of firearms where overcoming the bias of an ignorant public is required.
Onto the swiss side, registration of arms and ammunition is a lot more plausible as a non-threat with a culture that reinforces the public militia as a bulwark of sovereignty, in the environment and designs of gungrabbing assholes, ammo registration can really only be viewed as a backdoor means of gun grabbing.
Nah, **** him too. Hope he gets AIDS in prison and dies, like all felons deserve. Right, sboza?
My God, why don't you go away until you can back up some of your BS as many forum members here have asked you to.
I don't know why you are such an angry little man. Seriously dude, I think you need to get laid. Nothing else explains this level of sillyness on your part.
I disagree. I know of a felon who is still doing time in Federal Prison for something he did not commit. What was his crime? He was a Gun Dealer whose employee was caught allowing Straw Purchases to occur (two recorded by camera during a BATFE sting). This same employee rolled on his boss to save his own worthless skin. But by all accounts the employee went through the required training but just did not put 2-and-2 together.
The FFL Holder and Class 3 Dealer and was never present on any of the incidents and had no knowledge of the crimes. He was a former Marine who had a regular job but also ran a Gun Shop from his basement to supplement his income. He ended up taking a plea bargain because the ATF wanted to drag his wife (and co-owner of the Gun Shop) into the crime which she also had no knowledge of.
There are a lot of felons who should never be considered felons because their crimes were not only of the non-violent nature; some were outright trivial (IE: bounced a $501.00 check). What can be gained by anyone for taking away the rights of such individuals to defend themselves and their families because of someone else's actions.
IMHO, anyone convicted of ANY violent crime, whether a felony or a misdemeanor should be restricted from ever owning a firearm. This includes Stalkers (which is only a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions).
At least you are intelligent which is more than can be said for quietshooter.
If you read my very first post, I did acknoledge that some folks are screwed unfairly. I proposed to fight unfair laws and in a later post even supported a process to reinstate rights (which already exists in many states). I'll forgive the incomplete reading.
I know good people get screwed over but the actual cases are few and far inbetween. So, to increase my own knowledge of such cases, I am going to ask you for some DETAIL. Quietshooter couldn't back up anything he claimed, hopefully you can.
1) Could you provide the name and/or news articles describing the events surrounding the gun dealer case? There are no super secret squirrel issues keeping you from posting this info.
2) I would like to know who was charged and convicted of a felony for bouncing a $501.00 check.
Please do this for the members here. It really not enough to say I heard from a guy trying to make a point on the internet about something and he either heard of or claims to have first hand info.
eta - Unlike quietshooters sketchy claims, I can actually picture the first case you describe. Usually there is a lot more to every story so it would be really nice to have more information. Please don't take this request as a challenge.
LISTEN UP. STOP WITH THE BULLSHIT PERSONAL ATTACKS AND NONSENSE. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE CLAIMS THAT YOU KNOW SOMEONE WHO IS INNOCENT, ETC...BE PREPARED TO PROVIDE SOME DETAILS OR BACK IT UP. IF YOU CAN'T THEN LEAVE IT ALONE.
ANYMORE PERSONAL ATTACKS AND YOU WILL GET THE HAMMER.
The info about Switzerland is dated and they have made quite a few changes to their laws- and not for the good. When I went there last in 1994 they still had the awesome laws.
http://guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html
An interesting article that contrasts Swiss gun laws and culture with ours.
Some of the points seem key in the effort to make it all work.
Anyone who believes there should be no gun laws is as dopey an ideologue as any libertard who believe all guns are evil.
Anyone who believes there should be no gun laws is as dopey an ideologue as any libertard who believe all guns are evil.
Why? The reason our country is where its at is because people ask "why not" when making laws instead of "why". There are no need for laws against things, just actions. If you violate someones rights, you reap the consequences. I should be able to own whatever I want gun-wise.
What gun laws are necessary and why? This is assuming violent criminals that cannot be trusted with guns are locked up(they cant be trusted without guns either). Maybe I'm missing something, but I have yet to hear one legit reason for regulation.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I have yet to hear one legit reason for regulation.
Then yes, you have missed something. However fortunately the common sense principal of common sense laws still rule the day for us regardless of individual viewpoints.
Also perhaps consider you are speaking to a New Jersey resident who resents being hindered by excess gun laws. Laws that unjustly and needlessly deny me my right to carry concealed while endangering myself and my family to serve a liberal cause.
That being the case, I don't want the violence prone nut job next door being armed. This would endanger my family even more and obligate me to have to possibly exchange fatal gunfire with him at some point. It's really not very complicated unless your simply being idealogical.
Then yes, you have missed something. However fortunately the common sense principal of common sense laws still rule the day for us regardless of individual viewpoints.
Also perhaps consider you are speaking to a New Jersey resident who resents being hindered by excess gun laws. Laws that unjustly and needlessly deny me my right to carry concealed while endangering myself and my family to serve a liberal cause.
That being the case, I don't want the violence prone nut job next door being armed. This would endanger my family even more and obligate me to have to possibly exchange fatal gunfire with him at some point. It's really not very complicated unless your simply being idealogical.
Ok, maybe Im just retarded. What am I missing? Also, your scenario does not apply if violent criminals are locked up.
So what exactly do you support regarding gun laws? What reason do you feel these law/laws are necessary?
Ok, maybe Im just retarded. What am I missing? Also, your scenario does not apply if violent criminals are locked up.
Listen buddy, you don't understand who you are talking to and what my background is regarding these issues. You are also continuing with the ideology. I'll go a little further with this and then you can believe what you will.
Your first mistake is to assume that all individuals known or otherwise likely to commit an act of violence are incarcerated. This is so far from accurate I won't touch it beyond that assessment.
Second, when I was 18 I was convicted of a felony involving a firearm and had my rights taken away for years. I served no jail time, but it was hell on earth regardless. All because I fired warning shots into the air at 3 thugs armed with various weapons who were on my property as a result of their road rage. I defended myself, my friend and my sister and paid a very high price for it because of the laws here and because one of the punks had a father in the State Police.
However my record was expunged over a decade ago and I own several firearms once again. The detective at my local police station who processes firearm ID's and pistol permits is a personal friend, so much so that he endorsed me for a position sitting on a board with the Burlington County Superior Court that I currently still hold. I have discussed this here before and really don't want to go any further with it at this time.
My point is that along the way I learned a lot about how the system works and who can slip through the cracks. Many are incarcerated for a time but are still damn mean and angry when they are paroled or otherwise released. Many have serious anger and physiological issues which (believe it or not) their time in prison did not correct.
There is a time and a place for everything, including laws. You may say "Well **** it, I don't care who is armed because I have all I need and am ready for them at any time". But that isn't the case for most citizens and as a father I don't want to have to be worried about winning the shoot-out with my crazy neighbor or whether one of his errant shots will kill an innocent to satisfy someone's ideology. Just like I don't like being unable to carry for the exact same reason.
The info about Switzerland is dated and they have made quite a few changes to their laws- and not for the good. When I went there last in 1994 they still had the awesome laws.
Thanks for the update 'Gunz.
For me, the most important part of that article was the inexorable linking of guns, personal/social responsibility, criminal activity and law enforcement.
Moose-Knuckle
03-29-12, 15:42
Anyone who believes there should be no gun laws is as dopey an ideologue as any libertard who believe all guns are evil.
So much for complying with the mod's request on personal attacks. . .:rolleyes:
Last I checked murder, rape, armed robbery, burglary, stealing, kidnaping, et al. . . .are all illegal.
We all know that gun laws are only heeded by the law abiding. So in fact it is a moot point as people who make the choice to commit crimes choose not to follow any laws to begin with so who expects them to follow laws in regards to guns? :jester:
How about we ban criminals? Why don't we execute people who prove to society that they will contribute nothing and only wreak havoc, mischief, and victimize the innocent?
If we took care of business we would not be having this discussion.
Laws do not prevent criminals, convicts or anyone else who's determined to get a gun from doing so.
So much for complying with the mod's request on personal attacks. . .:rolleyes:
What individual did I personally attack?
Last I checked murder, rape, armed robbery, burglary, stealing, kidnaping, et al. . . .are all illegal.
Me too, although what that has to do with anything I have no idea.
We all know that gun laws are only heeded by the law abiding. So in fact it is a moot point as people who make the choice to commit crimes choose not to follow any laws to begin with so who expects them to follow laws in regards to guns? :jester:
You sure are funny there jester, but even more so is your idealogical denial that giving lunatics legal access to firearms would make absolutely no difference compared to what is in place today. That mindset is so one-dimensional it forbids me from entering or commenting beyond this sentence.
Why don't we execute people who prove to society that they will contribute nothing and only wreak havoc, mischief, and victimize the innocent?
Sounds good to me. Tell us, whom might you like to see make these determinations? A legal system or yourself?
Really people, the no laws gun stuff is silly and makes us look bad as a whole.
Anyone who believes there should be no gun laws is as dopey an ideologue as any libertard who believe all guns are evil.
I have to agree with you. Anytime a person finds themselves on the absolute opposite side of the other (liberal) point of view, they need to check themselves. I don't think safety hit is talking about cartridge marking or safety locks. He's talking about what many here already believe: no guns for MOST convicted felons (he himself says he was convicted and it sounds unfairly and he fought to have his rights reinstated), the mentally unstable (this does not include those suffering from PTSD unless there are additional, very serious issues invilved for those of you who jump to conclusions), illeagal aliens, and maybe a couple other categories.
And yes, a determined bad guy will get his hands on a gun but it isn't that easy in all communities. Ever see ghetto guys come into a range and rent guns because they can't own them? Yeah, if they could just walk in and purchase, they would have one.
And it is also true that laws regulate law abiding citizens only. But how the hell does that apply to removing restrictions for felons owning guns? C'mon guys!
As for this pipe dream that we just lock up anyone who can't be trusted to own a gun and throw away the key, we have a constitution an decades of supreme court ruling that prevent this. I believe in the three strikes law but on a first offense for say aggravated battery, I don't think life without parole is gonna make the cut. Rather than take on establishe supreme court rulings regarding cruel and unusual punishment, we legislate to keep guns out of the hands of those who shoul not have access to them. Fight unfair laws, it's a lot easier than taking on the constitution and well establishe law. Push for a more fair process to reinstate the rights of those few good folks who have gotten screwed. These are doable things. Some of you folks need to come back to reality. If you want to rant about nearly impossible things on the web for kicks, have at it. But if you want to make actual change, take off the tinfoil and try to realize that in the real world, it isn't all or nothing.
I am starting to see why a lot of folks here generally stay out of gd. There are very angry and unyielding extremist viewpoints here. I hate that I got sucked into it and maybe this isn't the place for me. When a solid conservative can't fit in, maybe the discourse is a bit extreme.
Common sense people!
There are very angry and unyielding extremist viewpoints here.
Jefferson, Washington, Ben Franklin, etc.
Common sense people!
The battle cry of the Brady Bunch!
Well, I'm out children.
Speaking of childish behavior. Leaving a thread after posting a childish remark and personal attack certainly qualifies in my book.
Now, here we have a 10 year old child charged with a felony for stealing a tricycle today. Should his rights be taken away for the rest of his life? http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/03/29/cops-10-year-old-charged-with-felony-after-stealing-tricycle/
Jefferson, Washington, Ben Franklin, etc.
This is an interesting point you bring up. But I think...and maybe I'm a little out there...that the threat imposed by a single violent individual possessing even a semi-automatic weapon on his neighbors has varied a degree or two since the days of the flintlock rifle. Have you ever considered the concept of sensible adaptation in accordance with current circumstances?
The battle cry of the Brady Bunch!
Now wasn't that show fun to watch as a youngster?
Now, here we have a 10 year old child charged with a felony for stealing a tricycle today. Should his rights be taken away for the rest of his life?
Interesting, but proves all of nothing. Did I have my rights taken for life after my felony firearm conviction? If not, then why are we referencing a child stealing a bicycle being in jeopardy of such a fate while engaging in a serious discussion?
But I think...and maybe I'm a little out there...that the threat imposed by a single violent individual possessing even a semi-automatic weapon on his neighbors has varied a degree or two since the days of the flintlock rifle. Have you ever considered the concept of sensible adaptation in accordance with current circumstances?
I do understand what you're saying and agree to a certain extent. My earlier posts said I don't think people who have been diagnosed with dangerous mental issues or violent velons should own guns. I think we should have the least amount of restrictions possible.
Now wasn't that show fun to watch as a youngster?
I liked that version better than the current. :D
Interesting, but proves all of nothing. Did I have my rights taken for life after my felony firearm conviction? If not, then why are we referencing a child stealing a bicycle being in jeopardy of such a fate while engaging in a serious discussion?
Many people in this thread saying felons should not own guns, that's why. Just because you got your rights back doesn't mean that everyone who's deserving does.
QuietShootr
03-29-12, 17:00
This is an interesting point you bring up. But I think...and maybe I'm a little out there...that the threat imposed by a single violent individual possessing even a semi-automatic weapon on his neighbors has varied a degree or two since the days of the flintlock rifle. Have you ever considered the concept of sensible adaptation in accordance with current circumstances?
Absolutely. I think you should have the right to say whatever you want, as long as you don't use any technology that did not exist in 1787 to disseminate it.
Many people in this thread saying felons should not own guns, that's why.
I think if you dug a little deeper you'd find that viewpoint to be within a sensible context. In other words, not the bike stealing 10 year old child.
Just because you got your rights back doesn't mean that everyone who's deserving does.
Very, very true and a crime unto itself. Absolutely no doubt about it.
Moose-Knuckle
03-29-12, 17:36
What individual did I personally attack?
Well let's see here, by calling anyone who doesn’t agree with you on the subject "as dopey an ideologue as any libertard" is conveyed as a personal attack. At least that is how I interpret it when someone resorts to name calling.
Me too, although what that has to do with anything I have no idea.
Because if the laws that are already on the books do not work then how in the name of all things holy are more laws supposed to work?
You sure are funny there jester, but even more so is your idealogical denial that giving lunatics legal access to firearms would make absolutely no difference compared to what is in place today. That mindset is so one-dimensional it forbids me from entering or commenting beyond this sentence.
In my post I only referenced convicted criminals not those who have been diagnosed by a medical doctor to be mentally handicapped.
Sounds good to me. Tell us, whom might you like to see make these determinations? A legal system or yourself?
I think it's safe to say that our current "criminal justice system" is grossly ineffectual. And in no form have I advocated that I become “judge, jury, and executioner”.
Really people, the no laws gun stuff is silly and makes us look bad as a whole.
Really peeps, it makes us look bad as a democratic republic when our citizens call for more laws that equate to less freedom and strip away our constitutional rights.
I think the whole war on drugs (which is really a war on Marijuana) needs to come to an end. We can take all the resources from this idiotic money pit and use them to combat violent criminals, identity theft, human trafficking, etc... Instead of arresting and imprisoning people for possession of an herb that has more medical value than any other drug, use the man power for a better cause.
I once read an article that stated 80% of all prescription drugs could be made obsolete if medical marijuana was used to its full potential. So, instead of the Feds supporting the growth in the medical field, their raiding "medical clinics" and taking away a safe and sterile environment for patients to get their medicine. Not to mention making felons out of otherwise normal citizens who are following state laws and regulations.
I know of one dispensary in California that paid a total of 3 million in taxes in 2008 (2 million to the Fed. and 1 to the state of California.) Why can't the Feds allow legal use of a harmless drug and use the tax revenue on the education system or any of the other serious issues in our country.
I believe there are roughly 1 million people arrested and imprisoned every year for simple possession of MJ. Thats 1 million jail cells that are being occupied by non-violent "criminals".
I know this isn't directly related to gun control laws or anything, but I hope you can see my point.
polydeuces
03-29-12, 19:04
While we here are theorizing abut what laws are acceptable and reasonable, fellow shooter in other countries are getting screwed by their gubbement in ever increasing and extreme ways.
Take for instance the Netherlands, where just in the last few days the "well-meaning" politicians in their infinite wisdom trying to protect the herd....(hurgh....)... decided to outlaw any rifles that (and I quote) "look aggressive"- I shit you not!!!, and all dynamic shooting activities.
This means any and every AR-style rifle. And moving while shooting.......
VER-BO-TEN!!!!!!!
All because some 'tard went bonkers and shot some people with a .22.
Could never happen here, right?
Worst part - it was the Dutch equivalent of the NRA that pretty much handed it over on a silver platter. Beyond my comprehension.
Sooooooooo........ next time we talk about "acceptable legislature" - look elsewhere and count your blessings.
You give them an inch, they WILL take everything.
Heavy Metal
03-29-12, 19:42
Could never happen here, right?
That is why you stay on the offensive and never hold ground. Never even cede the concept of such a thing as 'reasonable' gun control.
Make them fight for every inch, bleed them monetarily over every peroid, comma and dash.
Overall, we are winning. Except for a couple of states, we are forcing the anti's to fight a really shitty rear-guard retreat.
We came back from the cliff's edge and now have the upper hand by fighting back hard and not falling for their calls for 'compromise'.
We have made the AR-15 from a novelty into a commodity found in every Fudd store and even Wal-Mart. Bigest selling rifle in America.
Almost every state now has must Issue CCW. Handgun ownership is skyrocketing.
When did they ever compromise with us? NEVER! They were out to destroy us politically and we should do the same to them.
When did they ever compromise with us? NEVER! They were out to destroy us politically and we should do the same to them.
As it was mentioned earlier, you can't "compromise" on something when only one side is giving something up.
While we here are theorizing abut what laws are acceptable and reasonable, fellow shooter in other countries are getting screwed by their gubbement in ever increasing and extreme ways.
Take for instance the Netherlands, where just in the last few days the "well-meaning" politicians in their infinite wisdom trying to protect the herd....(hurgh....)... decided to outlaw any rifles that (and I quote) "look aggressive"- I shit you not!!!, and all dynamic shooting activities.
This means any and every AR-style rifle. And moving while shooting.......
VER-BO-TEN!!!!!!!
...and so on....
You speak as though sensible gun law advocates have no clue whatsoever about what has transpired overseas, not to mention Washington DC or Chicago. Let's step out of that narrow first dimension and try to offer relevant suggestions, shall we?
DeltaSierra
03-29-12, 20:10
You speak as though sensible gun law advocates have no clue whatsoever about what has transpired overseas, not to mention Washington DC or Chicago. Let's step out of that narrow first dimension and try to offer relevant suggestions, shall we?
You are really off base here.
First, I'm personally in favor of strong firearms laws. I don't want just anyone to be able to get their hands on a weapon, but I realize that regulating firearms doesn't work, as the criminals are going to get whatever they want anyway. Making it illegal for a felon to possess a firearm doesn't mean that felons across the country won't have firearms - all it means is that the felons that are trying to make a life for themselves will be deprived of the ability to defend themselves, while the scumbags are going to have whatever they please.
Like chadbag said, the system in Vermont is the way to go. I've lived in Vermont. The system there works. The crime rate is insanely low, and permit-free carry policy works.
That being the case, I don't want the violence prone nut job next door being armed. This would endanger my family even more and obligate me to have to possibly exchange fatal gunfire with him at some point. It's really not very complicated unless your simply being idealogical.
Because we all know they listen to laws.
Heavy Metal
03-29-12, 20:28
Saying you don't want a violence prone nutjob to have a gun is like saying you don't want an arsonist to have gasoline and matches. In theory , it sounds reasonable till you realize how absurd a proposition it is.
The only way in both instances it to lock the nut and the arsonist up someplace where they cannot easily access either technology. Anything else is idiocy.
the threat imposed by a single violent individual possessing even a semi-automatic weapon on his neighbors has varied a degree or two since the days of the flintlock rifle. Have you ever considered the concept of sensible adaptation in accordance with current circumstances?
Every time I hear this I am amazed that so many lack the context. For its time flint lock rifles were cutting edge weapons that were used in battle. So yes a semi-automatic is far more advanced but then so are the threats, so you have to keep up. It is all relative. You also argued about how you are tired of the overly restrictive laws but are OK with others, could that be because since you are used to so many, a few sounds more OK, but those of us who dont have the restrictions you have see it differently because our climate is more hospitable to begin with? Just a thought.
You are really off base here.
First, I'm personally in favor of strong firearms laws. I don't want just anyone to be able to get their hands on a weapon, but I realize that regulating firearms doesn't work, as the criminals are going to get whatever they want anyway.
No brother, unfortunately it is you who, like several others, are way off base here. An individual who is forbidden by law to possess or purchase firearms can not "get what they want anyway". Again, more radical idealism mirroring that from the left.
They would have to make due with whatever piece of shit they are fortunate enough to obtain through their illegal contact. So with that they would be by far more likely to procure a single Kel-Tec, High Point or antique firearm than they would any of the multitude of variations of reputable weapons available to them as a legal purchaser. Factor in the ability to make multiple such legal purchases at will and we go to another level all together. Is this scenario guaranteed, no. But if I had to bet the odds based upon established fact...
Add in the complications of obtaining any significant quantity of reputable ammunition and you are really reaching. These desperate and usually destitute individuals will be forced to buy whatever crap is available to them specifically. Add it all up and you have someone with a single, crappy or overused weapon that is likely to fail at a critical moment.
Common sense people. Utilize it, think it and prosper.
Saying you don't want a violence prone nutjob to have a gun is like saying you don't want an arsonist to have gasoline and matches. In theory , it sounds reasonable till you realize how absurd a proposition it is.
The only way in both instances it to lock the nut and the arsonist up someplace where they cannot easily access either technology. Anything else is idiocy.
I know you are a good guy and we are all on the same side, so conflict with fellow members such as yourself is not what I seek here tonight. But unfortunately this comment is extremely vulnerable to legit criticism. Rather than elaborate myself (and since I'm a little tired), I'll quote this very well spoken gentleman who joined the discussion earlier...
As for this pipe dream that we just lock up anyone who can't be trusted to own a gun and throw away the key, we have a constitution an decades of supreme court ruling that prevent this. I believe in the three strikes law but on a first offense for say aggravated battery, I don't think life without parole is gonna make the cut.
Rather than take on established supreme court rulings regarding cruel and unusual punishment, we legislate to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have access to them. Fight unfair laws, it's a lot easier than taking on the constitution and well established law. Push for a more fair process to reinstate the rights of those few good folks who have gotten screwed.
These are doable things. Some of you folks need to come back to reality. If you want to rant about nearly impossible things on the web for kicks, have at it. But if you want to make actual change, take off the tinfoil and try to realize that in the real world, it isn't all or nothing.
If this doesn't spell it out for you then nothing will. Have a great evening all.
polydeuces
03-29-12, 23:30
You speak as though sensible gun law advocates have no clue whatsoever about what has transpired overseas, not to mention Washington DC or Chicago. Let's step out of that narrow first dimension and try to offer relevant suggestions, shall we?
I sincerely hope the joke is on me, but I have this dark-brown suspicion it is not.
"Sensible Gun Law Advocate....." Isn't that like......Compassionate Conservative? Another treasure.
Is my observation correct in that you are in New Jersey?
"New Jersey issues Permits to Carry to both residents and non-residents, who must submit applications to the chief law enforcement officers of their municipalities, or the State Police, respectively. By statute, New Jersey is a may-issue permit system, in which authorities are allowed discretion in the approval and denial of applications. It has seemed to be the policy of many permit-issuing authorities that the carrying of a handgun on one's person ought to be limited to armed professionals (private security officers, law enforcement officers, etc.). Many applicants have reported difficulty in obtaining New Jersey Permits to Carry, especially non-residents."
Reference Wikipedia.
It appears NJ has plenty of experience with "sensible" gun-laws and broad minded well informed gun-law advocates. As does DC and Chicago (Illinois).
Kind of wondering where my observation was one dimensional - and totally agree that those politicians wanting to do away with anything reeking of 2nd amendment are learning every lesson they can from overseas....LOTS of sensible gun laws there......as was my point.
We can have a very in-depth multi-dimensional discussions about this anytime, as I have dialogue, hear and read the woes from people getting screwed by "reasonable gun-laws" in Holland, Germany, Belgium etc. which I'd happily share with you.
The only Relevant Suggestion I have is this: The Right To Bear Arms. Not negotiable. Ever.
Because that is what painful experience, bad examples and very narrow victories have taught us.
Are we forgetting how close the votes were, only very recent? Let's not be too confident.
Sensible Gun Advocates.....:shout:
DeltaSierra
03-30-12, 00:38
An individual who is forbidden by law to possess or purchase firearms can not "get what they want anyway".
Hahahahahahahahaha....
Whatever...
I can already see that trying to have a logical discussion with you is going to be impossible, so I guess I'll just kick back and enjoy the dog and pony show...
Unfortunately, there are no "sensible" gun laws. They do nothing but disarm the law abiding.
Those are the facts, jack.
----
Listen buddy, you don't understand who you are talking to and what my background is regarding these issues. You are also continuing with the ideology. I'll go a little further with this and then you can believe what you will.
Your first mistake is to assume that all individuals known or otherwise likely to commit an act of violence are incarcerated. This is so far from accurate I won't touch it beyond that assessment.
Second, when I was 18 I was convicted of a felony involving a firearm and had my rights taken away for years. I served no jail time, but it was hell on earth regardless. All because I fired warning shots into the air at 3 thugs armed with various weapons who were on my property as a result of their road rage. I defended myself, my friend and my sister and paid a very high price for it because of the laws here and because one of the punks had a father in the State Police.
However my record was expunged over a decade ago and I own several firearms once again. The detective at my local police station who processes firearm ID's and pistol permits is a personal friend, so much so that he endorsed me for a position sitting on a board with the Burlington County Superior Court that I currently still hold. I have discussed this here before and really don't want to go any further with it at this time.
My point is that along the way I learned a lot about how the system works and who can slip through the cracks. Many are incarcerated for a time but are still damn mean and angry when they are paroled or otherwise released. Many have serious anger and physiological issues which (believe it or not) their time in prison did not correct.
There is a time and a place for everything, including laws. You may say "Well **** it, I don't care who is armed because I have all I need and am ready for them at any time". But that isn't the case for most citizens and as a father I don't want to have to be worried about winning the shoot-out with my crazy neighbor or whether one of his errant shots will kill an innocent to satisfy someone's ideology. Just like I don't like being unable to carry for the exact same reason.
I had some large post written, but deleted it since you are not even providing a discussion. You've answered none of the questions I've asked repeatedly, nor can you provide support FOR gun laws. I do "understand who [I'm] talking to." Fact is you are not supporting your own "ideology." In fact, you supported mine(see bold?) We all understand shit happens. There is always a chance your gonna die. There will always be crime/violence. It boils down to schools of thought.
A. regulate things, violate peoples rights as defined by the consitution, and see how far it goes.
B. Let people live their lives, stay out of it, and keep people who violate other's rights out of society.
Or maybe, its stupid to even discuss this. There is so much involved with it. Im against any MORE laws, but at the same time, we cant abolish the ones we have without FIRST overhauling our legal system, and our country in general.
I think we are pretty much ****ED!:suicide:
Im outta this one, as its not going anywhere. On second thought, where could it go? Its not like we are actually accomplishing anything.
Laws do not prevent criminals, convicts or anyone else who's determined to get a gun from doing so.
Very true - it is the enforcement of laws that does the trick. That is why you will rarely hear about a shooting on a plane or in the White House. Gun regulations at such sensitive areas are enforced with an iron fist at great cost to personal liberty. So, it really boils down to how much of your liberty are you willing to sacrifice to limit gun violence?
Now, I'm not in favor of draconian laws, forced searches, or gun seizure - far from it. I am pointing out that enforcement of regulation has some negative effect on the absolute prevalence of firearms in a criminal population (other factors including demand, ease of production, etc.). The magnitude of that effect, and its worth in actually limiting violence, is an entirely different debate.
Absolutely. I think you should have the right to say whatever you want, as long as you don't use any technology that did not exist in 1787 to disseminate it.
You say that as if technology hasn't resulted in the explosion of regulations in the dissemination of speech. Does the FCC ring a bell?
Whenever technology has magnified the potential for widespread destruction from abuse of one's rights, be it mass murder with a machine gun or mass slander on the airwaves, society has responded with regulations that attempt to limit those rights.
QuietShootr
03-30-12, 06:51
No brother, unfortunately it is you who, like several others, are way off base here. An individual who is forbidden by law to possess or purchase firearms can not "get what they want anyway". Again, more radical idealism mirroring that from the left.
They would have to make due with whatever piece of shit they are fortunate enough to obtain through their illegal contact. So with that they would be by far more likely to procure a single Kel-Tec, High Point or antique firearm than they would any of the multitude of variations of reputable weapons available to them as a legal purchaser. Factor in the ability to make multiple such legal purchases at will and we go to another level all together. Is this scenario guaranteed, no. But if I had to bet the odds based upon established fact...
Add in the complications of obtaining any significant quantity of reputable ammunition and you are really reaching. These desperate and usually destitute individuals will be forced to buy whatever crap is available to them specifically. Add it all up and you have someone with a single, crappy or overused weapon that is likely to fail at a critical moment.
Common sense people. Utilize it, think it and prosper.
Way, way, way wrong.
New Jersey has so stunted your thinking I don't think you can be saved.
QuietShootr
03-30-12, 06:52
Hahahahahahahahaha....
Whatever...
I can already see that trying to have a logical discussion with you is going to be impossible, so I guess I'll just kick back and enjoy the dog and pony show...
Yeah, kinda this. Actually, I have two new candidates for my ignore list. Love that feature.
QuietShootr
03-30-12, 06:57
You say that as if technology hasn't resulted in the explosion of regulations in the dissemination of speech. Does the FCC ring a bell?
Whenever technology has magnified the potential for widespread destruction from abuse of one's rights, be it mass murder with a machine gun or mass slander on the airwaves, society has responded with regulations that attempt to limit those rights.
Yep. And they're all wrong. It's as simple as that.
If you have a right to X(bear arms, assemble, speak freely, etc.), the minute you put a condition on that, it's no longer a right. Period.
That being said, the current state of the system is that we have no rights left as enumerated in the Constitution. Some, like our well-indoctrinated Jersey crew who think they're free, but actually insist that they be limited to pace back and forth within the limits of their cage, are okay with that. Some of us are not. Being okay with it or not doesn't change it, though.
Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and parts of Montana.
I was just down in Arizona and spoke to several police officers at length on the same subject. They were 100% for Constitutional Carry and weren't worried in the slightest. Quoting one Sgt. "It's Arizona, everybody's got guns!"
Very true - it is the enforcement of laws that does the trick. That is why you will rarely hear about a shooting on a plane or in the White House. Gun regulations at such sensitive areas are enforced with an iron fist at great cost to personal liberty.
Those are more policy enforcement than gun law.
--
Interesting story... Read more here: http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/80-year-old-illinois-man-told-his-life-not-worth-defending
An 80-year-old man who was arrested after shooting a burglary suspect in his South Side home brought renewed attention Tuesday to Illinois gun laws, this time involving whether an elderly resident with weapons convictions from decades ago should have the right to use a gun to defend himself.
Neighbors of Homer Wright, who was described by friends as a "pillar of the community," rallied behind him, calling for prosecutors to drop charges against the senior citizen who shot and injured an intruder who had broken into his Englewood home as Wright and his wife slept.
No one questions Wright's claim of self-defense--his problem is his felon status, stemming from the decades-old weapons convictions. Living as he does under Chicago's ultra-restrictive gun laws, of course, "weapons convictions" are very easy to come by. In this ABC News video, Professor Richard Kling, of the Chicago Kent School of Law, outlines the absurdity of the law (emphasis added):
He had an absolute right to defend himself; had he not been convicted of a felony, he would have had an absolute right to shoot the person dead. His problem was not the shooting; his problem was the fact that he possessed a gun which he was not allowed to do because of his prior record as a felon. He certainly could have used a knife; had he used a knife, there would have been no charges. Had he used a bludgeon, there would have been no charges.
I'd like to take the absolute rights position when it comes to the US Constitution. After all, there is something inherently wrong with the notion that certain Amendments are to be interpreted literally, while others can be regulated for our protection. For example, does anyone really want to argue that the 13th Amendment's prohibition on slavery is open to "regulation"? Where is it said which Amendments are absolute and which are open to regulation?
On the other hand, I suspect that our Constitution would look vastly different had SCOTUS taken the absolute rights position to every Amendment. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, I'm confident that it would not exist in its current form had there been a ruling that all firearms and destructive devices are legal and unable to be restricted in any way. Such a SCOTUS decision would be met by such a public outcry that a clarification Amendment would easily pass either amendment process, thus removing or severally restricting the Constitutional protection of arms. I can't imagine that more than 10% of Americans would tolerate their neighbors stockpiling M107 HE after a city block goes bye bye from an accidental detonation, or allowing truck-mounted M134's after the first domestic jihadi clear cuts a Jewish community center.
Another issue with absolute rights, particularly when it comes to free speech, is that the Constitution does not address the issue of fraudulent speech - particularly when there is no direct victim. Thus, there is an argument to be made that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional (an issue that is currently being litigated). The issue becomes more clear when the fraudulent speech is coupled with other illegal actions such as collection of money so as to create a victim. However, it gets murky when we deal with isolated individuals who wear a green beret in a bar simply to improve their chances of getting laid.
Those are more policy enforcement than gun law.
--
No, they are laws that are spelled out in federal code. Policies are rules that do not carry the threat of incarceration. You will not be charged with violating a policy when police or the USSS put the handcuffs on for attempting to take a gun past a checkpoint. See below:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/930
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/man-arrested-by-tsa-in-sacramento-charged-with-taking-weapon-on-an-aircraft/
You don't face 10 years in federal prison for violating "policy"
No, they are laws that are spelled out in federal code. Policies are rules that do not carry the threat of incarceration. You will not be charged with violating a policy when police or the USSS put the handcuffs on for attempting to take a gun past a checkpoint. See below:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/930
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/man-arrested-by-tsa-in-sacramento-charged-with-taking-weapon-on-an-aircraft/
You don't face 10 years in federal prison for violating "policy"
The policy may be codified in the law. But they are still more policies in that they affect specific circumstances only -- in the WH, or on a plane. They are not general infringements on the RKBA. They are specific and narrow for specific purposes.
--
Way, way, way wrong.
New Jersey has so stunted your thinking I don't think you can be saved.
Golly, but is that coming from a member here who, like the other no gun law advocates, is well known for extremist, goofy and flat out embarrassing views? One taking sides with (or perhaps even being one of) those that believe that 9/11 was an inside job? Yes, I believe it is.
Don't worry about me pal, I'm not down to your level yet. But I do appreciate the concern.
QuietShootr
03-30-12, 20:47
Golly, but is that coming from a member here who, like the other no gun law advocates, is well known for extremist, goofy and flat out embarrassing views? One taking sides with (or perhaps even being one of) those that believe that 9/11 was an inside job? Yes, I believe it is.
Don't worry about me pal, I'm not down to your level yet. But I do appreciate the concern.
First, I think you just called me a truther, and for that, I would like to invite you to go **** yourself.
Second, I understand that freedom looks scary to a Yankee who was raised in a cage. We'll try to be gentler with you from here on out...but there's a big world out here past the borders of the land of lush black moustaches (on the women).
Gents - Ease up so this thread doesn't get closed.
The policy may be codified in the law. But they are still more policies in that they affect specific circumstances only -- in the WH, or on a plane. They are not general infringements on the RKBA. They are specific and narrow for specific purposes.
--
No, these laws affect almost every federal building in the nation, and they are vigorously enforced. Try to bring a concealed handgun into your local FBI district office, federal courthouse, Federal Reserve Building, etc. and see what happens to you when you step-up to be wanded. This is why only a tiny fraction of DC's gun-related homicides occur IN federal buildings, and why a similar phenomenon exists for state buildings with similar enforcement.
Now, please explain your point. Are you taking exception with my statement that vigorous enforcement of laws (often at the expense of personal liberty) results in less crime?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.