What would be your choice?


PDA






jsalcedo
March 13, 2003, 06:47 AM
How many here would support elimination of all gun control in
America up to and including crew served weapons.

Remember this would remove all restrictions on who could legally carry, own, buy, transport, and use weapons in our society period.


Of course societal restrictions, harassment, disorderly conduct,
assault and other results from using a gun improperly would still be in effect.

I'm curious to see who would or would not have reservations
about living in a country with no gun control laws whatsoever.

If you enjoyed reading about "What would be your choice?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Esky
March 13, 2003, 08:35 AM
Right now I'm living in a country (Australia) where there's lots of gun control, and control of just about anything that can be used as a weapon- and it's pretty scary at times. Theoretically you can defend yourself, but the force used has to be proportional to that used by the BG; so unless you're a mindreader it's hard to know how much force can be used.

If you have a weapon ready to use, you won't get far in court pleading self-defence; I've been in the courthouse when a magistrate found a man guilty of having a weapon "contrary to the WA Weapons Act."

This guy had a baseball bat on the back seat of his car when he was stopped by the police for a "random breath check" (for booze.) The police asked him what the bat was for, and he truthfully replied that it was to defend himself "in case the 'hoons' down the road get rough".

The magistrate found him guilty of having a weapon contrary to the Weapons Act, fined him A$150, and told him that "this wasn't the Wild West in America." He went on to say that violence wouldn't be tolerated in West Australia, and that if anyone threatened the man he should call the police to deal with it.

So you can imagine what would have happened if this man had had a gun to defend himself!

On my way home I thought that it would have been really ironic if the guy got beat up by the 'hoons when he got home- but he wouldn't have been able to sue the magistrate if he had been.

So maybe I'm overreacting- but I think it would be great to live in a place where everyone that wanted to could be armed, and I agree with R.A. Heinlein: an armed society is a polite society (and a tip o' th' hat to the member using that as a sig)

Esky

David Park
March 13, 2003, 09:05 AM
So far, 5 yes and 5 no? Could the "no" voters please explain their answers?

(I voted yes.)

Rally Vincent
March 13, 2003, 09:20 AM
That one was a no-brainer. ^_^

Scooter .45
March 13, 2003, 09:22 AM
We dont need gun control, we need criminal control. Keep 'em locked up and abolish the endless appeal and parole process that turns repeat offenders back to the streets. That could also eliminate background check before gun purchase, because felons would be in jail where they belong.

rick458
March 13, 2003, 09:32 AM
I voted for some control
there are some people who are severely mentally challenged
that i would not be comfortable with them being armed
but the controls would be VERY minimal

Aahzz
March 13, 2003, 09:34 AM
I had to vote "No", for one reason alone - age limits. I don't want teenagers and younger to have unrestricted access to guns. By all means, they should be taught to shoot, and taught firearm safety from the time they're able to pick up a gun. However, I'd say 18 to purchase/posess without supervision is a good age.

Other than that, get rid of all the gun control laws.

Mastrogiacomo
March 13, 2003, 09:52 AM
I voted no. I think as with everything there needs to be balance. I feel there does need to be gun control to prevent abusers or career criminals from getting access to guns. However, I agree 100% that there needs to be reform in the gun laws. Law abiding citizens shouldn't need to jump through hoops to exercise our rights. I don't want to be compared with a criminal and should have more freedom with what I buy and be allowed to carry.:cool:

stevelyn
March 13, 2003, 09:57 AM
I voted yes. If you look back on our history, up until the NFA, there were virtually no restrictions on gun ownership. And until the 68 GCA you could mail order guns sight unseen. Yet during the time prior to these laws being enacted there was little violent crime in proportion to the availability and number of firearms the public had access to.
Two things happened to cause us to slide into the pit we now find ourselves in. The first has to be the changes in the way we dealt with criminals. There was a time that we did not tolerate criminal behavior and treated criminals harshly for their acts. Murder was still murder no matter how you looked it. The tool the murderer employed was but a minor detail and was only used to describe how the unacceptable act was carried out. It was the act itself in it's totality that was condemned.
Then the socialists lawyers gained control, high-jacked the criminal justice system, (which has since been rendered nothing more than a legal system w/o justice) and rather than holding criminals accountable for deploreable acts, started making excuses for criminal behavior. Unfortunately a majority of Americans failed to see through this non-substance smoke screen and started questioning whether their traditional values and thoughts on the matter were correct. Somewhere a feel good socialist decided that maybe if we take their tools away from them, they won't be so inclined to misbehave. That may work for children in a household, but it does not work in a free society, and especially does not work to deter the criminal deviant who like a predator, is always looking to gain an advantage over others. So that is where we find ourselve now.
The second event or evolution was the loss of our overall values as a society. No longer can we take a stand on anti-social behavior without offending someone. We are finding ourselves accepting things that 25-30 yrs ago were unacceptable. From what would seems like relatively minor things like the level of profanity and inuendo on network television and radio to the lack of decorum and decency we allow and accept in public. Our standards of behavior in general have declined.
Does this mean we have to return to Victorian times or beat everyone over the head with the religious handbook of your choice? Not at all. But we do need to get back to teaching the Golden Rule, responsibility, self-reliance, and some traditional values. And learn from our earlier history then apply it to todays world.
The bottom line is we have to set a standard of acceptable behavior. Not a sliding rule dependent on irelevant factors. Then deal harshly with those who violate those standards.
In no way should the laws iterfere with the freedoms and liberties of law abiding citizens.
The entire burden should be placed on the criminal's back.

Ian
March 13, 2003, 09:58 AM
I said yes. As for age restrictions, I would ask people to remember how many of the edler members here spent part of their childhood with a .22 rifle in hand and no parents in sight. As I recall from some threads on TFL, that sort of thing was pretty common.

Fair 'n Square
March 13, 2003, 10:17 AM
I also had to vote no. Completely unrestricted as to age, criminal history? No.

Of course there are too many restrictions right now, even in my gun-friendly state of Utah I think. And some states are down-right ridiculous in their laws. I think even persons convicted of a felony should have a way to regain their right to own and carry, based on what their crime was and subsequent behavior.

But the absense of ALL restrictions? Like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

TallPine
March 13, 2003, 10:41 AM
I voted for some control
there are some people who are severely mentally challenged
that i would not be comfortable with them being armed


Well, Sarah Brady and her Bunch would say that you must be mentally challenged for simply wanting to own a gun, and she doesn't "feel comfortable" with you being armed. :neener:



I feel there does need to be gun control to prevent abusers or career criminals from getting access to guns.

Didn't they used to call that "prison" ...?

:D

DeltaElite
March 13, 2003, 11:17 AM
No gun laws would be fine with me.
This does not apply to munitions, explosives, chemical or biological weapons. We don't need those for personal defense.

Tamara
March 13, 2003, 11:21 AM
Obviously the laws that prevent juveniles and criminals from having guns are very important!

One can easily see how important by the fact that no one under the age of 21 with a criminal record is ever caught with a gun... :rolleyes:

(BTW: I voted "Dump 'em all". The Constitution does not say "...shall not be infringed, except kinda in a reasonable low-key way that most people agree on.")

seeker_two
March 13, 2003, 11:26 AM
I voted "no" for one reason---the NICS check.

Now, while I don't believe it should be mandatory for all gun purchases, I do believe that it's a good resource for dealers. It gives them a way to see if the person they're selling to is not prohibited for some reason (felon, dishonorable discharge, illegal alien). It also protects the dealer from the idiotic lawsuits against them for selling to the wrong person.

Other than that, we can dump the rest of those :cuss: laws...

10-Ring
March 13, 2003, 11:35 AM
I don't like extremes in anything and having absolutely no restrictions just has so many unacceptable possibilities. What we really need is better enforcement of existing laws! :banghead:

Tamara
March 13, 2003, 12:03 PM
I don't like extremes in anything and having absolutely no restrictions just has so many unacceptable possibilities.

Here's a sensible restriction: "Don't go shootin' folks unless they need shootin'." Can we all get behind that one? That should be the only gun law necessary.

What we really need is better enforcement of existing laws! :banghead:

Coming from a Californian, that's downright chilling. You keep your "existing laws" out there, don't bring 'em near me.

I'm absolutely fed up with "post-ban", "pre-ban", "dealer sample", "hi-cap", "fake flash hider", "post-'86" and all the other inanity infesting every gun law since 1933. A 16" rifle barrel is okey-dokey, but a 15.5" barrel is a ten year prison sentence? This strikes no one else as completely frigging insane?

MoNsTeR
March 13, 2003, 12:14 PM
Only if there were also no drug prohibition. So much of our perceived need for gun control comes from the disaster of prohibition, that having the latter without the former would likely turn out very poorly.

10-Ring
March 13, 2003, 12:22 PM
Tamara, I'll whole heartedly agree that many of the gun laws in the Golden State are insane. But I'm not ready to give up on the state.

Soap
March 13, 2003, 12:33 PM
Tamara said it. What part of "...shall not be infringed." do you people not understand?

cratz2
March 13, 2003, 01:17 PM
I understand that we, as a group, like to throw around the quote, 'What part of "...shall not be infringed" do you people not understand?' and I have used it myself but I've seen people literally not intelligent enough to fill out the checklist when buying a gun. Call me an elitist but I don't think I'd be entirely comfortable knowing there are hordes of new gun owners not intelligent enough to answer if they are the actual buyer or not or why that makes a difference. You can ask any honest gun dealer and he will tell you that people fail the list all the time because of how they answer the questions. Answering a 'Yes' to an obvious 'No' question.

Not being able to read, I don't think should stop ownership, but when the person reads the question just fine then asks why that makes a difference and seems completely bewildered at the answer, I have an issue with. I don't think that person is capable of deciding whether to use lethal force or not.

Call me an elitist... :rolleyes:

Mute
March 13, 2003, 01:33 PM
I agree that I'd be more comfortable if certain people didn't have guns, but the history of this country (as well as any other) has shown to me that laws will not stop these people from getting guns anyway so what's the point.

A yes vote for me. No more gun laws. Period.

Soap
March 13, 2003, 01:44 PM
cratz2- The problem is, when you start restricting guns due to matters of intelligence, or more accurately, matters of competence, you are setting yourself up. One day, the politicians are going to point a finger at you and you're going to be deemed too incompetent to own a gun. Ask Josh Sugarman, Diane Feinstein, Sarah Brady, Henry Waxman, et al, ad infinitum what they think about the competence of Joe Citizen.

The entire gun control myth is founded on deeming certain segments of society incompetent to own guns. Just look at the statistics the antis bring up, many of them are structured to show how incompetent gun owners "really" are.

Besides, stupid people buy cars, which in today's car-centered world are far more dangerous to my life.

Chris Rhines
March 13, 2003, 03:40 PM
This is the most depressing thread I've ever read. :(

- Chris

TallPine
March 13, 2003, 04:00 PM
For you guys who want to control things, wouldn't it be better to have a law against "mentally incompetent" people having children? :D

That would solve a lot more problems than regulating guns.

geekWithA.45
March 13, 2003, 04:09 PM
If is my position that some VERY SLIGHT restrictions are reasonable for the protection of society at large.

They are:

-Demonstrated irresponsibility/sociopathy as proven by convictions for violent felonies. This disability must NOT be permanent, and a fair method for restoration of rights must exist. If you haven't crimed in 20 years, I think you're a safe chance to take.

-Mental illness, of the order of magnitude that the person presents a direct and immediate danger to themselves or other. For this, I use the EXACT SAME YARDSTICK that the law and medical professionals use to INVOLUNTARILY COMMIT someone to an asylum. Anything less than that is BS.

-Age: Parental discretion and accountability, after 18, anything goes.


-Weapon Type Restrictions: Any personal, aimed, non area effect weapons is allowed. (Bombs, gas and so forth are acceptable in a militia, rather than personal context, as they are not amenable to personal defense. )

-Carriage: If you can own a weapon, you can carry it as you see fit, because your right of self defense exists whereever you stand.



I think most of us would agree that this is the outer limit of what can be termed "Reasonable Gun Control", and there is a little bit of precedent in the Founder's writings, phrases such as "the right of citizens who are peaceable..." and the like.

There is, however, a hidden LAND MINE that hasn't been discussed yet, which is the mechanism of implementation.

If you have a system where you weapons ownership is divided into a prohibited/allowed class, there are 2 basic flavors of implementation, and these make ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.


Flavor A) People are PRESUMED TO BE PROHIBITED unless proven otherwise, and
Flavor B) People are PRESUMED TO BE ALLOWED unless proven otherwise.

Naturally, flavor B is the one that promotes maximum freedom for maximum people, and is also consistent with maxims of law and justics, such as "innocent until proven guilty".

Most of the problems we have around gun rights are largely about Flavor A, as practiced in NJ, CA, MA, MD, IL, CHI, NY, NYC, where a citizen must prove their eligibility before even being allowed to purchase. As much as I love my politically incorrect weaponry, (and they all are as unPC as legally possible) issues of flash hiders and boyonett mounts have to take a back seat to the fundamental issue of access to firearms of any sort.

States where flavor B is practiced, such as PA, NH, etc are much less problematic.

Philosophically, I don't like carry permits, per se, because they seriously threaten to convert a right into a privilege, as is the defacto case with mere ownership in this dark and blasted heath of a state, but that is a rant for another day.

jsalcedo
March 13, 2003, 04:14 PM
I guess I'll thrown my .02 in.

Undesirables who want a gun are going to get one from some source period.

Prohibition for these folks only supplies a violent and
dangerous underground gun market.

Just like alcohol prohibition. When it ended the black market for it ended.

Anytime something is restricted it only punishes the legitimate users.

Even gun control that would be considered sensible by most folks
puts us on the slippery slope that we are currrently on.

The roots of gun control are based in racism. Folks didn't want the recently freed blacks to own guns out of fear there would be
reprisals against their former masters misdeeds.

There was a time when guns were much less restricted and gun shop owners were self regulating.

In 1950 if a dirty half crazed heroin addict walked into a gun store he would be thrown out on his ear same goes for an obvious thug.

Today I see obvious gangbangers wearing "colors" pants falling down in my local shops handling guns turning them sideways etc..
If any one of them pass the Brady check then they walk out with their Glock.

I don't see gun laws helping keep the guns out of the wrong hands, I don't see gun laws stopping murders or keeping dumb
people from buying them.

Lancel
March 13, 2003, 04:22 PM
Since (a) gun control laws are only followed by the law abiding and (b) a criminal's gun use helps ensure a criminal's success, gun control laws are an exercise in futility.

Of course, parents still retain responsibility for the proper supervision and training of children. Matches, gasoline, guns, ammo, crossing streets, etc still require parental guidance and control regardless of the law.

Larry

rick458
March 13, 2003, 04:32 PM
Very Valid arguments for the no rules at all group

cratz2
March 13, 2003, 04:33 PM
Let me first start by saying that I don't believe that someone with a criminal record, even a serious one, should preclude gun ownership. It's complicated, but I do feel there need to be some laws relating to gun ownership.

To those of you that state that you feel there should be no laws at all, let me ask you this. Your mother works at a hospital. She has a violent patient that for whatever reason snaps and says he is going to hunt her down, rape her and shoot her to death. So, even though he has a violent past, say two convitions of battery against women, you honest believe that he should be able to march into a gun shop, tell the owner that he is buying a gun to go kill an emergency room nurse and should be able to walk out with the gun?

You guys are a lot more liberal than I am...

I agree that it is silly to have limitations such as 16" or 18" barrels, flash hiders, bayonets and lugs... those are idiotic. I don't understand them on any level. I understand, though certainly don't agree with the limitation on so-called high cap mags and I understand why full auto weapons are scary for many people but the other things listed... I just don't understand. I mean, who here would be comfortable with someone walking in a KFC or TaceBell holding an SAR-1 but would just flip out in the same situation where the gun had a bayonet attached? Ridiculous!

I just really dislike the reactionary response to certain incidents. Anyone that thinks that someone with a Remington 870 couldn't do a whole lot of damage in a shopping mall isn't too bright. Anyone that things that someone a hunting rifle in 30-06 or 270 Winchester couldn't do a whole lot of damage outside an office building is nuts. Neither of these are high on most people list of guns to ban. I guess this is truly reflective of the 'scary black guns' mentality of the antis.

rick458
March 13, 2003, 04:38 PM
I think the idea is that the murderous lunatic is gonna get it anyway but with no rules at least your Mom can cap the sucker

Jmurman
March 13, 2003, 04:44 PM
I voted for some control

I agree that some controls do make sense. However, that being said, I feel that the Govt and especially the INSANE STATE OF MARYLAND have gone way too far with this.

Criminal control is a better idea...here in Maryland, they call "criminal control" racism...but again, EVERYTHING in Maryland that has to do with decent people vs the criminal element comes down to the race card.

denfoote
March 13, 2003, 05:16 PM
The 2nd Amendment says what it says!! The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!! To you all that believe that some gun control is necessary: What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand????!!!! :banghead:

Veritas
March 13, 2003, 05:28 PM
ditto to what tamara and Daniel said...

"what part of 'shall not be infringed' go you not understand?"

A license, by definition, is an infringement, restrictions are infringments.

I'm not sure what you meant by "crew served weapons."

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/fgd-guar.html
"The Second Amendment speaks not only of the right to keep arms, but to bear them as well, implying that the category of arms, the possession of which is protected, is limited to those arms that an ordinary individual can bear and does not extend to weapons such as cannons, trench mortars, and antitank guns, which cannot be carried by an ordinary individual"

The above statement can also be backed up by looking at how framers of the Constitution understood the word 'arms' (arms = hand held, operated by one person).

But note, the framers of the Constitution clearly meant that arms = firearms that are on par with military issue... that means full auto is allowed. Furthermore, it is very clear that they understood 'milita' to mean the average citizen... NOT a "National Guard."


I've been having a similar discussion with police officers over at GT http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=140836

Take a look and gain insight to the 'uniqe' view point of active LEOs

rick458
March 13, 2003, 05:32 PM
Cop talk has BY FAR the best LEO section
I have found I guess because half the police are packing Glocks
lot of good insight there

Veritas
March 13, 2003, 05:41 PM
The constitution is very clear on this issue....

The 2nd amendment clearly means that "no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson)

[VERY IMPORTANT FACT]
Here in the United States of America, it was not untill the GUN CONTROL ACT of 1968 that felons lost their *inaliable* right to own and carry a firearm.

This act was GUN CONTROL and part of an over all agenda of removing firearms from the hands of ALL FREEMEN. This is patently wrong because natural law dictates that "A free people ought [to have the right]...to be armed..." (George Washington)

This act also runs counter to the 2nd Amendment, AND it runs counter to the expressed wishes/intent of the founding fathers AND it runs counter to established precepts of common law AND it is ex post facto which automatically makes it illegitimate.

This kind of sums it up --
"CONGRESS shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion." (James Madison)

Personally... while I might have some fear about a bad guy shoving a gun in my face... What I fear more, so much more that it makes the fear of being accosted by a ne'er-do-well pale in comparison, is what Ayn Rynd predicts:

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." -- Ayn Rand

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson

"Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." - Walter Mondale, Former Vice President :what:

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Tacitus Roman senator and historian (a.d. 56-115).

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." - Thomas Jefferson

"Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
"M.T. Cicero" 1788

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Thomas Jefferson, 1791


The United States of America... the best country on Earth.

Lets all work on making it better... HELP BRING BACK THE CONSTITUTION!

This is all REALLY simple stuff guys, kindergarten level... the writing says 1 thing, it means 1 thing, the authors only meant 1 thing, ANY action not in accordance to the meaning is not legitimate.

schmo
March 13, 2003, 05:53 PM
Bureaucracy doesn't remove criminals from society; quite the contrary.

It ENABLES incompetent parents and proven sociopaths.

Parents shouldn't expect society to be a day-care center.

Judges and parole boards would be better off realizing that their releasees will be free to be armed.

Government is here to enforce contracts between autonomous citizens (in a free society).


Of course that sounds hardcore compared to the current reality. Forgive me for being so ridiculous.

beemerb
March 13, 2003, 06:15 PM
The shop I hang around at has a personal best of 7-4473's messed up by one person.I know this him and he is a educated person.(retired PO)I think he had a bad day or just could not get past the stupidy of no abreviations not even USA or AZ for Arizona.Now even the post office uses them so why can't they be used on a 4473??
My dad had a 3rd grade educaton.Paperwork was very hard on him.Does this make him a bad person who shouldn't own a firearm?He bought me my first rifle at the age of 7.He was a good and safe hunter and trained me well.Safter was paramont with him as it should be for everybody.
I haven't voted as yet as I see both sides of this one.I see people doing a renewal of a CCW that can't keep 5 rds in a 8x11 sq at 5 yards. They have to be worked with to pass the shooting part.Should that person get a gun?
Bob
Still undecided

geekWithA.45
March 13, 2003, 08:10 PM
Eff It.

I've changed my position.

While my reasonableness as a decent human being motivates the few restrictions I've outlined earlier in the thread, I keep forgetting that not everyone is reasonable, decent, upright, and honorable.

Thus, even the minimal restrictions I outlined will form the nexus around which abuses will gather.

I therefore tear the lid off the thing, and hoist the Documents of Liberty (DOI, Constitution, BOR) as my flag, and kick the camel out fo the tent, nose and all:

The Right of The People To Keep And Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Not one bit.

Period.

End of Story.

Deal With It.

jimbo
March 13, 2003, 09:45 PM
I voted for no controls at all.

Honest people are self-regulating. The criminals don't follow the laws anyway. Ex-cons have paid their debt and have the same right to self-defense that I do and if they can't be trusted with a gun they sould be left to rot in jail anyway. The same for the mentally ill, if they are too mentally incompetent to be trusted with a gun, they should be in a caring institution. JMHO

Dave Markowitz
March 13, 2003, 09:50 PM
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; what would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty - so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator - and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

--Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments 87-88 (H. Paulucci transl. 1963).-- (Thomas Jefferson copied this passage in full in his Commonplace Book 314 (G. Chinard ed. 1926), which was "the source book and repertory of Jefferson's ideas on government." Id. at 4.)

Soap
March 13, 2003, 10:13 PM
cratz2- That is an unfortunate situation. But if you think that the psycho can't get a gun, you're kidding yourself. If you think that he can't hurt someone without a gun, you're kidding yourself. And if you think that a gunstore owner would sell someone a gun when they specifically say they are going to kill someone with it, you're kidding yourself.

With or without gun control, the woman would have to arm herself and be competent in self-defense...which is what we have been advocating all along.

goon
March 13, 2003, 10:23 PM
I voted against gun control.
I think that the only people who should be put in jail are those who can be rehabilitated.
I'm talking shoplifters, tax evaders, and other more than less non-violent criminals. There would be a waiting period after their release, and if they have behaved themselves, they get ALL of their rights back.
We wouldn't have to worry about sex offenders, murderers, etc anymore...
They would only be imprisoned until they had exhausted their appeals. Then they would be executed.
Why warehouse people who by definition cannot live in peace with other people?
It makes no sense.

S_O_Laban
March 14, 2003, 05:22 AM
Wow, I have to echo what C Rhines said earlier," depressing". I am somewhat saddened by the fact that 33% of "us" think that there is a usefull gun control law. Show me a gun control law and I'll show you " false security" The logic of this is clearly shown in previous posts. I think if most of you that voted yes will spend some time really thinking this through you see the error of false logic. That said, I guess this just shows were all at different points in our understanding of truth.

philupcolt
March 14, 2003, 08:33 AM
I didn't vote because I'm sitting on the fence, in an ideal sociaty I would prefere no gun control . I think you all can figure out that we don't live in the ideal sociaty. Unfortunately not everyone would abide by the common sense rules, and again, unfortunately the majority of people who formulate the various laws are not gun people. If you look at our sociaty , if someone is familiar with an item, then he's for it, otherwise he is either against it , or he just doesn't care what happened to it one way or the other.
How our sociaty perceives death is a big factor in gun control. To the non-gun person , a shooting incident is a tragedy and shouldn't be tolorated, so the reaction is to continue to make law after law against gun ownership.
Take the same sociaty about vehicle accidents , no matter how deadly or severe the injuries are , it is an acceptable way to die, or be maimed because everybody does it. Sociaty attempts to regulate driving, but you don't see anyone trying to do away with it. Just this past week in Colo. three teenagers died, and several others injured in a car accident due to speed. Not one person put any blame on the drivers parents because it might have been thier driving habits that caused her to speed. No one blamed the car manufacture for making a car that would go faster than 50 mph.
Gun control laws didn't evolve overnight, they have been steadily growing over time. Probably the first gun control was against shooting up the saloon, and bringing your guns into the church.

Dorrin79
March 14, 2003, 09:55 AM
better none than just a little

because a little becomes a few

then a few become several

then several becomes many...

and before you know it, you'll be experiencing what our friends Down Under and in Her Majesty's Isle have gotten to experience.

The only restriction I favor on gun purchasing is the age limit, which should be equal to the age limit for voting, etc.

But I would gladly throw that out to get rid of the rest as well.

jsalcedo
March 14, 2003, 10:11 AM
The first gun control laws were to keep guns out the hands of the recently freed slaves during reconstruction.

The wild west really wasn't.

They had fewer shootings per capita than we do now and the Hollywood portrayals of shooting up bars and high noon
shoot outs in the middle of the street was just dime novel nonsense.

Gun control is about fear and people control.

The sullivan law in New York City was created at the turn of the century to keep guns out the hands of the large number of recent immigrants. The corrupt city government at the time was aftraid
of armed reprisals and wanted to make sure the peasants couldn't fight back against institutionalized violence and oppression.

The term Saturday night special which is so popular in the gun control circles was originally coined "N***** town Saturday
night special. Blatantly announcing that it was unnaceptable for
poor blacks to be armed. This racist policy is one of the main reasons for the big city gun bans in the North East, registration
and the issuance of CHL to only "acceptable people"

We are now reaping the rewards of sensible gun control.

What was sensible yesterday has become what we deplore today.

cordex
March 14, 2003, 10:32 AM
Hmmm ...
Assuming there were no laws governing firearms, what makes you think that every wide-eyed madman and 8 year old psychopath are going to walk into a gun store with a grubby, blood-soaked wad of cash and walk out with a gun?
I'd be happy with no gun control. The industry can police itself to the extent that is possible. Sellers can choose not to do business with someone that they're uncomfortable with. As other have pointed out, there are now and always will be people willing to circumvent the law to supply weapons to those that commit crimes. Just because there is no law that states that a given person can't own a gun doesn't mean that every gun store has to hand 'em a rifle as they walk by.

If the gov't wants to provide a list of violent felons for the dealers to voluntarily check against, that would be fine with me ... as long as it could pay for itself.

A lot of this "common sense" that I'm hearing in this thread sounds quite a bit like Sarah Brady's brand.

Sean Smith
March 14, 2003, 10:52 AM
Even in an ideal Constitutional republic, rights aren't absolute. Otherwise, you could have no punishments for crimes, since all punishments are based on the restriction or denial of rights. You would have 10-year-olds exercising the vote. And so forth. Thus, a strict Constiutionalist can support a very minimal level of gun control based on this test. Put another way, since we deny the totality of Constitutional rights to criminals, children, and the insane (as was done back in 1788), we can legally restrict their access to firearms without smoking the Bill of Rights like a doobie.

Is any other sort of restriction permissible? I'd say no, at least not if you accept the Constitution at its word, and the common usage of who it applied to circa 1788 (when presumably the Founding Fathers knew what they meant, since they just said it). Actually, I'm proposing a BROADER application than the founders meant, since I'm including adults of all races and both sexes. So yeah, in that sense I'm NOT a "Strict Constitutionalist." :p

Note that by my standard, every place in America has too much gun control by a gigantic margin. But if you want to get depressed because I'm a pro-gun control sheep in wolf's clothing, go for it. :rolleyes:

Small side note: invoking the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy by definition. Making a law that says, "You cannot own a firearm legally if you bugger small children" isn't automatically "wrong" (morally or Constitutionally) because someday, somebody might make a law that says, "Posession of any sort of weapon will result in immediate execution by Big Brother."

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ss.htm

Having said all that, I would strongly favor "Absolutely no gun control" over "Almost any kind of gun control you can think of."

Blackhawk
March 14, 2003, 10:59 AM
We don't have fist or rock control laws where I live, and thing seem to work out fine for all of those who don't use fists or rocks for criminal purposes. Generally, those who use fists on somebody else get less severe punishments than those who use rocks. Seems to work... :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "What would be your choice?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!