[CentralTexas]

3 Men Charged in Fatal Texas Park Shooting 2 hours, 39 minutes ago

Three men were charged in a shootout that left one man dead and six people injured at a birthday party in a public park, police said.

Terrance Terrell Stephenson, 24, was charged with felony murder in the 2 p.m. shooting at Smith Park on March 26, police said Friday.

Jerry Brightman, 33, was charged

[TexasRifleman]

Come on folks, post the link when doing this....

Linky (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/National/Park_Shooting.html)

MARSHALL, Texas — Three men were charged in a shootout that left one man dead and six people injured at a birthday party in a public park, police said.

Terrance Terrell Stephenson, 24, was charged with felony murder in the 2 p.m. shooting at Smith Park on March 26, police said Friday.

Jerry Brightman, 33, was charged with felony deadly conduct and Ladarrean Leary, 25, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, police said.

An assault rifle was among several guns used in the shootout, which allegedly stemmed from an ongoing dispute between feuding groups. Police said Friday that detectives had recovered several weapons suspected of being used during the gun battle.

Lee Arthur McCowan, 29, of Marshall, died in the shootout.

Authorities continue to investigate the shooting.

Marshall is about 140 miles east of Dallas.

[beaucoup ammo]

More fuel for the fire. Background check on these guys. Any with CHL's? I'd bet not.

[TexasRifleman]

Well, this happened a week ago and it hasn't even made the local press.

This is Texas after all, so the outrage is properly aimed at the criminals and not the tools they used.

[wally]

Ladarrean Leary, 25, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon

Proves how anti-gun laws prevent crime, not!

I have noticed how every old SKS is now an "assult rifle" in the news. They won't let it go, we must keep our gaurd up!

--wally.

[Herself]

Denial -- not a river in Egypt!

This is Texas after all, so the outrage is properly aimed at the criminals and not the tools they used.
Oh really?
(Quoting from the Austin American-Statesman) An assault rifle was among several guns used in the shootout...
Bet you a cooky that "assault rifle" wasn't capable of selective fire!

Texas is a decent place and most Texans are fine folk. But the rot runs deep. We must be vigilant even when we believe ourselves to be in friendly territory.

In the Texas courts, this will in all probability play out much as the average THRer might hope: the bad guys will be duly convicted. But in the court of public opinion, there's people in the press out to get a "scary black rifle" lynched.

Yours is next. After, them Scary Assault Rifles is all alike. We gotta burn 'em out to save society an' goodness.

Don't we?

Blasted ijits!

--Herself

[Maxwell]

Sounds to me that people having an fude used illegal weapons in an illegal way, not an issue that gun control can solve or (it seems) was ever intended to solve.

It can be spun either way.

Consider the Lubys shooting. The only reason it became a turning point was because Ms. Hupp had brought the gun all the way as far as the car, left the gun out of reach due to the law, and then managed to survive the madmans shootout and give her testimony.

That situation could just as easily been spun into another gun control campaign without someone speaking up about the benefits of shooting badguys.
She represented the voters frustration with being made victems when they had the power and training to defend themselves, so it made a good election issue.

[TexasRifleman]

Bet you a cooky that "assault rifle" wasn't capable of selective fire!

Texas is a decent place and most Texans are fine folk. But the rot runs deep. We must be vigilant even when we believe ourselves to be in friendly territory.

Well, you are equating the "media" with "people". The media is always going to sensationalize everything, it's the job of thinking people to weed through it.

We do pretty well with that here.

[boofus]

Quoting from the Austin American-Statesman

Austin is a liberal <blight> on the red <tail> of Texas. Travis County was the only county in the entire state that voted for Kerry. It was the only county in the entire state that voted against the gay marriage amendment. So to see inaccurate anti-2a mishmash from Austin is no big surprise.

The felon shouldn't have been in possession of ANY firearm, regardless of what the liberal media decides to call it. But pass 1 more law, that'll make him reconsider his nefarious ways...

[robert garner]

deleted

[PlayboyPenguin]

I know I will get flamed for this but here goes.

I always find it funny that people make wide sweeping statements like "This shows how gun control doesn't do anything" when a criminal is found in possession of a firearm. Would it be fair to make a statement like "just goes to show that gun owners are going to shoot each other"?

Sometimes burglars get through deadbolts. Does this mean "deadbolts don't do anything to help secure your home"? If so we should just stop locking our doors? This is the same logic.

If reasonable gun control (in my opinion no violent felons, background check, no underage, and no mentally handicapped) keeps weapons out of the hands of just 50% of the people that would use them for evil deeds (and I am sure it actually does alot more than 50%) then it has succeded. It saved some lives and prevented some bad gun press. I just don't understand the "if one or two percent are going to be able to get them and kill innocents with them we might as well let them all have them" metality.

[casingpoint]

The point is violence in endemic in the State of Texas. I do not think is off topic to broaden the discussion beyond Marshall, Texas. That would serve a limited purpose. And then of course, there are my First Ammendment Rights, blah, blah. blah, an infium. There were some civil rights violations proceedings against HPD officers and some convictions, but no criminal charges were ever filed against LEOs in any of the aforementioned cases, to the best of my recollection.

**********************

Enjoy the Yellow Rose of Texas, but don't let yourself get started pushing up Daisies.

[Double Naught Spy]

You know what scares me more than the evil unarmed liberals who make broad generalizations are the evil armed conservatives who make equally wrong statements, using the same lack of information and same lack of insight in passing judgement on those without similar views.

Austin is a liberal <blight> on the red <tail> of Texas. Travis County was the only county in the entire state that voted for Kerry. It was the only county in the entire state that voted against the gay marriage amendment. So to see inaccurate anti-2a mishmash from Austin is no big surprise.


That is just an amazing statement, boofus, on Austin, the newspaper, and the people there based on a quote from the newspaper. Did you catch the name of the AAS reporter who wrote the story? No, you did not. Do you wonder why? It wasn't there. Do you wonder why it wasn't there? You should.

What makes this statement so unreasonable in this context is that the gross generalities claimed and attributed were not written by the Austin American Statesman or its staff. You can find the same article in Forbes on line. In both cases, the source is AP, not AAS.

Come on! Do you really think The Austin American Statesman paper would publish the article and not give credit to itself if it was the source for the story going out over the AP wire? They would not even attribute it to AP because they broke it. It is not the Austin American Stateman's story.

The Marshall News Messenger is running a similar longer story attributed to its staff. They work through AP as well. They are not citing AP for the story. Go figure.

It is sort of like getting a warrant served on the wrong house, boofus, and you are in the wrong house.

What you said about AAS might be true, but it is NOT true in relation to the context of this story.

I am all for keyboard commando kicking butt of Molon Labe enemies, but do it for justified reasons. There are more than enough justified reason without sloppily going out and finding unjustified reasons as an excuse.

[TexasRifleman]

The point is violence in endemic in the State of Texas.

Not more here than anywhere else. Violence always has, and always will, make it's appearance in a civilization. If it wasn't guns it would be sticks, and if not sticks then rocks. It has always been.

The mark of a great civilization is the recognition that such a thing will exist, and doing something about it, maybe even to the extreme.

I can't see a bunch of cavemen sitting around discussing a recent outbreak of violence and deciding to get rid of all the rocks.......they would more than likely bash in the heads of the offending parties and carry on. It is still to this day the best way to deal with this kind of thing. Severe penalties to the extreme, to make public examples of what will happen if you behave in this manner. We have lost the art of preventive punishment.

[Stevie-Ray]

I know I will get flamed for this but here goes.

I always find it funny that people make wide sweeping statements like "This shows how gun control doesn't do anything" when a criminal is found in possession of a firearm. Would it be fair to make a statement like "just goes to show that gun owners are going to shoot each other"?Yes you will. Gun control that is wanted by today's gun-grabbing darlings DOESN'T do anything, except keep honest law-abiding citizens in some areas from possessing firearms. Why would a criminal care, when he generally steals his firearms or buys stolen ones?

Sometimes burglars get through deadbolts. Does this mean "deadbolts don't do anything to help secure your home"? If so we should just stop locking our doors? This is the same logic. It's not the same logic. It's not even analogous. But since you asked, a deadbolt will not stop a determined thief. I know it wouldn't stop someone of my size. Deadbolts are mainly there to make so much noise when going through them, there is no question to the occupants or neighbors what is happening. Cat burglers or young toughs trying to be silent will generally move on to an easier mark.

If reasonable gun control (in my opinion no violent felons, background check, no underage, and no mentally handicapped) keeps weapons out of the hands of just 50% of the people that would use them for evil deeds (and I am sure it actually does alot more than 50%) then it has succeded. It saved some lives and prevented some bad gun press. I just don't understand the "if one or two percent are going to be able to get them and kill innocents with them we might as well let them all have them" metalityYou are dangerously close to being one of those "It's for the children" lackies. I don't think anybody will argue the above points, but the point is you can't just say "That's where it stops, OK?" because they will agree with you, and then not stop. Gun-grabbers are quick to say, "This is all we want," like Sarah Brady did during the Brady campaign. Then when it passed and she was being congratulated, she said, "It's a good start." The banning and confiscation of all firearms will probably save many children from death, from careless placement of firearms by honest citizen parents. But the lives saved will pale compared to the number of lives lost due to armed criminals dining on newly disarmed victims. But I'm sure it will have been "for the children." Think about it.

[Maxwell]

Consider for a moment that even in prison under the unblinking eye of the government, prisoners get weapons and gut each other regularly.

f reasonable gun control keeps weapons out of the hands of just 50% of the people that would use them for evil deeds then it has succeded.

If 50% of the criminals have been disarmed, why has the crime level not dropped by 50%? Why not even 10%?

How can you prove its kept weapons out of the hands of the people that shouldnt have them when the crime rate does not change in favor of the new law?
Why am I more likely to be assaulted or killed now than I was before we started this experiment?

Consider the number of legit citizens we know have been disarmed. Its alot higher than the population these laws were supposedly targeted at.
Despite the fact we're supposed to be "safe from guns" theres a terrible shooting every day and stories of mad gunmen taking out rooms of unarmed citizens.

Know what that says to me?
In a group of 50 people, the only one left with a right to bear arms was the madman.
Id beg pardon if it was just once or twice, but if Im not mistaken we're at a half dozen mass shootings this year. Just like last year, and the year before.

When confronted with the facts many anti-guns admit the law was never intended to make us safe.

...Gee, thanks.
Next time dont do me any favors.

[Standing Wolf]

...the shootout, which allegedly stemmed from an ongoing dispute between feuding groups.

Sounds more like gangs to me. Have gangs been promoted to groups lately?

[PlayboyPenguin]

Maxwell, are you assuming that "all crime" stems from handgun usage? Because that is the only way taking the guns out of the hands of half the people that misuse them would decrease crime by 50%.

[Maxwell]

If reasonable gun control keeps weapons out of the hands of just 50% of the people that would use them for evil deeds then it has succeded.

If it would...

If 50% of the criminals have been disarmed, why has the crime level not dropped by 50%? Why not even 10%?

I want to see results...

According to the medias statistics, a good many more than 50% of the crimes are carried out with firearms. This is after we've already taken many guns from "the wrong hands".
We are not at the beginning of gun control, its not a proposal. We've done it already and spent billions in the process.

Where are the payoffs?
Why is it not working?

Compared to the times before gun control was popular:
Ownership is down, dealer numbers are down and fewer citizens are packing.
Likewise crime is up, assaults are up, mass shootings are up and rapes are up.

These results prettymuch mirror forign countries like sweden, the UK, Brazil, jamaica, and mexico.

Its not working.

The problem?
Look whos been disarmed!
Law minding citizens that either dont care to bother with all of the governments restrictions, dont qualify for whatever reason, or just cant afford it all.

Criminals never listend to the law before, I dont know what makes you think they will listen now.
Even if you get rid of every last gun on the planet we just go back to the good old days, when badguys terrorized the peasants with swords and clubs.

[boofus]

If reasonable gun control (in my opinion no violent felons, background check, no underage, and no mentally handicapped) keeps weapons out of the hands of just 50% of the people that would use them for evil deeds (and I am sure it actually does alot more than 50%) then it has succeded. It saved some lives and prevented some bad gun press. I just don't understand the "if one or two percent are going to be able to get them and kill innocents with them we might as well let them all have them" metality


Blue state nonsense.

In the past 70 years since the 1934 National Firearms Act there has only been 1 recorded instance of a legally owned machinegun being used in a crime. The 'reasonable gun control' measures include approval and signature by the police chief/sheriff, approval of transfer of ownership by the ATF, FBI background check, registration and licensing, transportation restrictions, access restrictions, 3-6 month waiting period and at the time the law was passed a 150% tax on the effected firearms.

But in 1986 the gun grabbers banned them anyway. There is no such thing as 'reasonable gun control', in the end the complete ban is the only thing that matters to liberals. Gun bans have nothing to do with crime and everything to do with making people powerless and easy prey for victimization.

Of course what else do you expect from the Party of Jim Crow, George Wallace, and Senator Robert 'Grant Kleagle of the Empire' Byrd.

[TexasRifleman]

In the past 70 years since the 1934 National Firearms Act there has only been 1 recorded instance of a legally owned machinegun being used in a crime

And it belonged to a cop by the way, one of the "elite".

[Raph84]

Maybe I missed something, but I really don't find what playboy penguin said that divisive or surprising a coment. I don't think a felon should have a gun (unless he has had his record expunged. Some might say too many things are felonies...I agree, but that is an issue for the states to settle not the fed govt.) I agree that those under the legal age should not own a firearm (sorry too many parents don't raise kids right I think 30-40yrs ago we could trust parents to make the decision when timmy should own a shotgun but not anymore). I also think that people who are certifiably not in control of their faculties should not have a weapon.

It sounds like peoples real problem with the post is that he did not say "gun control is bad mkay"

Some gun control is bad, some is good. It just seems like people are reading into something that was not stated in bringing up the national firearms act and the '86 machine gun ban etc.

[Sgt.Slappy]

Some gun control is bad, some is good.

:scrutiny: :scrutiny: :scrutiny:

:barf: :barf: :barf:

Exactly how does any (spit)reasonable gun-control(spit) law, prevent a determined law-breaker from obtaining a firearm?

... a hint: It doesn't.

The infernal law machine has deemed Washington D.C. a "handgun-free zone", yet even the crack-smoking ex-mayor Marion Barry was held up at gun point. Poetic Justice? Good Gun control laws? The Stark Fist of Removal? Only Dobbs knows...;)

[drinks]

CP, PP Rp84;
Dear sirs, please go pee up a rope.
It would suit your accumen and lack of reason.
:barf:

[Maxwell]

I don't think a felon should have a gun (unless he has had his record expunged.

How do you know who is a felon and who is not?
How do you know if a felons record has been cleaned?

Here comes the bureaucracy!

Since we've decided that the feds needed to control everything for our safety, what has happend to our safety?
In some parts your chance of becomming a victem has quadrupled if not worse. Our personal security has not improved in recent years despite their active meddeling in daily affairs.

How many school shootings did we have before children were officially banned from owning guns? How many mass shootings occured before the mentally ill were also banned?
Both where extremely rare events, now their damn near weekly. 3 diner attacks in just one state in less than one month, almost as many "gun free zone" shootouts at the same time.

I understand you feel that dangerous weapons are more dangerous in the wrong hands, but the cure here is worse than the disease.
A madman will find a gun, disarming everyone else only increases the damage he can do.

[baz]

CP, PP Rp84;
Dear sirs, please go pee up a rope.
It would suit your accumen and lack of reason.

Profound response.

I'm wearing flame retardant, so I'm not afraid to take sides with PP, though I might not agree with his reasoning. I have no problem with violent felons being denied the right to own firearms. It has nothing to do with whether or not they will follow the law in acquiring firearms. If it were the case that laws preventing violent felons from owning firearms did not stop a single one of them from acquiring a weapon illegally, it would no more affect the reasonableness of the law against them owning firearms than the reasonableness of other laws that are routinely broken. Since laws against murder are routinely broken, does it follow that such laws are senseless? Nor do such laws necessarily have anything to do with preventing crime. Murder is wrong, regardless of whether a law against it, or the threat of punishment, actually does anything to prevent it from occuring.

Similarly, some restrictions on the ownership of firearms may be reasonable quite apart from whether or not such restrictions prevent crime. Those reasons deserve reasonable consideration, not stupid remarks like peeing up a rope.

There are people we do not trust to drive cars. Since some of them are going to drive anyway; does it follow that we do away with licensing drivers altogether? Laws against drunk driving will not stop people from driving drunk. Does that mean we throw out the laws?

I don't know which is worse, rabid anti-gun nuts, or pro-gun nuts who just as unreasoning and unreasonable.

[Sgt.Slappy]

So... there are laws against murder, and you somehow equate this clearly pathological behavior, with laws and firearm ownership? How exactly did you come to this conclusion? This is a reasonable analogy to you?

Do you mean to tell me you believe firearm owners are murderers-in-waiting? :what:

Similarly, some restrictions on the ownership of firearms may be reasonable quite apart from whether or not such restrictions prevent crime.

April 1st has past, so I can only believe you actually endorse that flawed liberal clap-trap. You know you really want to say: "Laws against firearms ownership don't prevent crime, but since our ultimate goal is the complete banning of firearms ownership, these laws are good. Then we may impose our socialist agenda upon an unarmed peasantry." :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

Those reasons deserve reasonable consideration, not stupid remarks like peeing up a rope.

In light of what little you have to say about the merits of rights that are enumerated (NOT given by) in the Constitution, and our Bill of Rights... the above activities sound very reasonable for the likes of people who endorse victim disarmament. :neener:

Now, for crap's sake can we get back on topic? You know... the park shootout?

[rino451]

I think that the debate is that to some, the idea of gun control means limiting access to guns or a certain "type" of gun in general not just for a specific group. Issue should be felon control. I haven't seen anyone say that we should dump laws limiting a felon's legal ownership to a firearm. Unfortunately, lots of laws try to too broadly limit access to firearms (as opposed to regulating the legal ownership). The idea being that if in the US firearm A can'tne legally made, imported, sold, or owned, then how could a felon possibly get one and just maybe use one to commit a crime other than and including the crime of ownership. There, ya for us, we've just reduced crime.

Argh....

Randall

[Maxwell]

Yes its illegal to drive a car without a license, but what good will a longer registration line at the DMV with dozens of background checks ever do?
Do you want to be pulled over every 10 miles for the government to be sure your a legal driver?

Well maybe if it makes the roads 50% safer.
...but what if there are still just as many accidents, crimes, and illegal drivers as before?

The Government meddeling would be far worse than the "extra risk" of driving without their help. Most of us would rather take the risk of driving alongside an illegal driver than to be constantly harrassed in the name of the law.
-----------------


I was reading an interesting page on knife fighting the other day.
( http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/knifelies.html for anyone that fancies)
The author had some interesting conclusions... not all of them I agree with, but still interesting. One of which is that there has never been a "Stabbing in self defense". :uhoh:

Now personaly I know of a few knife brandishings that chased off badguys, but I had admit I could not immediatly think of any case were someone was hacked to death and their attacker walked on the grounds of self defense.

This says to me that anyone carrying a fighting knife is probly up to no good. Chances are great that if they actually use this weapon, its on a murder their gonna do serious time for.

Now do I use that theory to arrest everyone with an unregisterd knife?
...or would you rather live with the risk and keep the government out of your kitchen?

There are some laws we should try to enforce no matter what, and others that are simply pointless.
A criminals going to get a gun, why not spend the billions searching for them instead of blocking my access in the store or checking to see wheather my guns are legitimate?

[MechAg94]

Maxwell, I think that is exactly what baz was trying to say.

This whole thread seems to have turned into people who agree arguing over pointless details. It's like if a big grizzly bear is coming at you and you are arguing with your friend over whether to shoot it with 45/70 or the 12 gauge slug gun. Take of the bear (anti-gunners) first, then we can argue over the little things. (not that I advise shooting anti-gunners. :) )

[PlayboyPenguin]

CP, PP Rp84;
Dear sirs, please go pee up a rope.
It would suit your accumen and lack of reason.
It never ceases to amaze me how eloquent some people can be when defending their cause. :rolleyes:

It also never ceases to amaze me how some people feel that children and known violent criminals should be able to walk into a store and buy a firearm with no questions asked. Really makes it hard to win over a skeptical society when you have people like the ones who oppose the simplest safety measures running off at the mouth.

I guess my biggest question is what does it harm to prevent a violent felon from owning a handgun? Does it prevent there being a militia?

[Maxwell]

How do you tell who is a "rightful owner" or part of the militia?
Does that mean even more buearacracy?

I dont disagree that letting felons own weapons by law is a not great idea, but the current meathods to sort felons from regular citizens and deal with them has been more destructive to legit owners.
I would argue that we have stopped only the felons who wanted to go strait, and not the ones who dont give a damn for your laws.

For a militia to work, we need guns. Lots of people with lots of guns. Not just hunting rifles and pistols, but military grade and even mounted weapons. All sized of firearm and possibly even explosives.
We need to be able to take any gun we can get in a pinch, train someone to use it, and have them comfortable and ready to take that weapon to war.
You've seen what they give the soldiers, we need those kinds of guns in large quantities.

In our zest to make sure criminals were unarmed, we decided to sit on the source instead of the lawbreakers. We wrote a law that said all buyers must first prove their innocence. Then we wrote other laws to let states tac on as many more resrictions as they want.

So far for my 9mm cz Ive had to take a gun ownership course, fill out fed paperwork, get a background check...bad enough, now comes the local: I purchase the weapon (only one gun dealer left in town so I paid a premium, same as I pay $14 a box for 50 blazers to practice with) then I had to fill out local paperwork which means to gather signatures and phone numbers from friends as part of a further background inspection, collect a police report and file an affidavit (cause you need proof that you have reason to fear for your life to carry it anywhere besides the shooting range) and then I hand that all in and they can choose wheather or not I get the gun... yea and I get to pay a $30 fee every year to keep the weapon, one they can choose to "recall" at any time.

In the end I get to keep it in a locked box in my home, in a seperate container to the ammunition. Can I train with it? Yea... at the only indoor range.
So pray the enemy does not shoot from beyond 25 yards or we're all screwed.

Can we arm a militia here?
Unlikely since Im on month 3 of getting a simple handgun. My chances to own ANY military grade weapon are zero. Your average Iraqi is better armed than your average American, and we're the ones with a constitutional right to firepower.

I guess my biggest question is what does it harm to prevent a violent felon from owning a handgun? Does it prevent there being a militia?

In the act of trying to disarm felons, the ones our crime rate clearly shows have NOT been disarmed yet, we have disarmed and made ineffective any hope of raising a militia in this territory...which is rather sad because we used to have good sized one when under Danish rule.

[Sgt.Slappy]

I guess my biggest question is what does it harm to prevent a violent felon from owning a handgun? Does it prevent there being a militia?

It sure does... when our "representatives" take it upon themselves to monkey around with how we legally define certain things. Like "terrorist". The day may come*, when what we would normally call an American Patriot, or Militiaman... is now a "terrorist" (fascist, felon, boogie man, etc.).

Laws do not prevent anyone from obtaining anything. For example: drugs, cigarettes, child pr0n, bootleg recordings... The criminally determined are only temporarily inconvenienced, and stand to make even more money through a black market. Laws that seem (spit)sensible(spit) at the time, but can (have, and will always) be used to disarm the populace should be regarded with extreme caution and subject to the most exacting scrutiny.

*...may already be here.

[PlayboyPenguin]

So you are saying if you remove felons from the gun owner pool that there are not enough law abiding, responsible, gun owning citizens left? If that is not what you are saying then I repeat my question of "how does preventing violent felons from owning handguns hurt legal owners or prevent the existance of a militia?"

[Maxwell]

So you are saying if you remove felons from the gun owner pool that there are not enough law abiding, responsible, gun owning citizens left?

No, Im saying the meathod youve chosen to block the felons is actually preventing everyone else from accessing these weapons freely. Most likely while not hampering a single felon in the process.
What you get is an unbalanced power. The bad guys still have them, granny and pops dont.
Another law still wont stop the bad guys and even if it did, your asking granny to wrestle to the death with an intruder 1/3rd her age because she certainly cant get a gun now and the cops have not gotten any faster.

In my territory blackmarket guns are common. I've had friends who owned illegally for years. We've got more than enough shootings to prove the wrong people can still find them easily despite all the limitations.
I choose the legal path and what do I get?
Frustration, fees, lines, legwork, and still no weapon in hand.
Why should I bother?

Now add to this the fact that after obviously failing to protect us from the evil bad boogymen with guns, they've blocked everyones access to any real military gear.

Your worried about finding people?

Im worried about buying enough basic hardware to match even the most rag-tag third world army in modern war. When you can find me ten thousand brand new select fire M-16's for a realistic price, we'll start talking about people to carry them.

[PlayboyPenguin]

Okay, I must be missing part of this argument. What part of not allowing people with a vioiolent felony record to buy firearms is preventing law abiding citizens from purchasing them?

[Coronach]

It is viewed as a slippery slope argument. If you can deprive felons of rights, you can then deprive others who fit narrowly-defined categories of rights, etc etc etc.

I am perfectly cool with violent felons losing RKBA and voting rights as conditions of their release. Their crimes must be violent, however, and must be felonies. Misdemeanor assault does not cut it, nor does felonious nonsupport if dependents.

Most people do not have a problem with violent felons losing RKBA, even those who oppose such bills/provisions. What they have a problem with is the precedent it sets.

Mike

[PlayboyPenguin]

Slippery slope arguments are wealk at best. I am afraid people will have to do better than that to convince me or ost of america why violent offenders should be allowed to purcgase firearms.

[1911Tuner]

Playboy...You're on a pretty slippery piece of real estate yourself.

Please explain how a few more "Reasonable" gun laws will affect a convicted felon's ability to obtain a gun if he is determined to get one. The same way that more laws against illegal drug use will somehow prevent drug addicts and abusers from gettin' their daily dose of happy? Or the same way that lowering the speed limit on a stretch of road will magically result in nobody speeding on that road? Please...:rolleyes:

Note that "everybody" just knew that gun ownership was strictly verboten in the former Soviet Union...yet when the wall came down, tens of thousands of
arms suddenly appeared out of thin air...from AKs to anti-tank weapons...and the carnage is still raging to this day. But...They had LAWS! Yep. Worked like a charm, didn't it? Really believe that all those rifles were stolen during raids on armories after the collapse? The tooth fairy will be along any minute now...

Want to know the secret to keeping violent felons from getting guns? Lock them up and melt the damned key, is how.

Nobody here...nor anybody that I know...would support the ability of a minor or a known violent felon to "walk into a gun store and buy a gun, no questions asked"
any more than we'd support consenting sex between adults and children. To suggest that we would is beyond absurd. But...do carry on.

[PlayboyPenguin]

Go buy a gun tomorrow illegally. I can tell you it is not as easy a task as some on here would have you think. In fact a local news station (where a friend of mine is an Emmy award winning cameraman) did just such a thing not to long ago to try and show that the "shall issue" and no wait period policies in Oregon would flood the market with illegal guns. They were unable to secure a purchase of an illegal firearm after trying for weeks. So in reality it is nowhere near as easy to get an illegal gun as it would be to walk into a gun shop and buy one if there were no restrictions.

Furthermore, I do believe that statistics have shown that most offenders obtain their guns through theft not buying them illegally. Therfore if they could not buy them and gun owners did more to make the ones they have secure then criminals would have a very hard time getting them

You will never win me or most any thinking person over with a "throw out the baby with the bathwater" argument like "since some criminals still get guns we might as well just let them buy them legally".

[MechAg94]

Please explain how a few more "Reasonable" gun laws will affect a convicted felon's ability to obtain a gun if he is determined to get one. The same way that more laws against illegal drug use will somehow prevent drug addicts and abusers from gettin' their daily dose of happy? Or the same way that lowering the speed limit on a stretch of road will magically result in nobody speeding on that road? Please...
We are not talking about a "few more gun laws". These laws already exist. If we had no laws, I can see your argument, but since that and many worse laws already exist, I don't understand where you are coming from here. No one is suggesting more laws, just a maybe a few that most wouldn't get rid of if given the choice.

[MechAg94]

Nobody here...nor anybody that I know...would support the ability of a minor or a known violent felon to "walk into a gun store and buy a gun, no questions asked"
any more than we'd support consenting sex between adults and children. To suggest that we would is beyond absurd. But...do carry on.
I read the same posts. I saw that very thing argued. What were you reading?

It was mentioned that laws restricting felons RKBA rights might be a good thing. A few posters argued against that. What exactly do you think the alternative is?

[PlayboyPenguin]

I agree. If we had no gun laws things might be worse then they are so you cannot say they "do nothing". That is a complete unverified statement. In fact most data shows gun violence declining. I know that is not necessarily a causation link there but it is likely.

I do not believe in outlawing guns obviously. That is just asking for trouble. We would all be overrun by mutated, tentecled Stewie hatchlings if we did that. <--Family Guy reference But I do believe that some measures are good for RKBA. Who wants every violent felon to be able to run out and buy a weapon the first time someone pi$$es them off? That would just be asking for bad press and a turn towards outlawing weapons period.

Therefore, I do believe that the limits should be simple, non-arbitrary and nationwide. No violent felons (and only specific violent acts should qualify...nothing like trespassing or child support issues), no underage, and no mentally incompetent. That is what we should be working for...not just trying to toss out the whole system. A fair and easy to use set of rules that are well established and nationwide.

[Sgt.Slappy]

Go buy a gun tomorrow illegally. I can tell you it is not as easy a task as some on here would have you think. In fact a local news station (where a friend of mine is an Emmy award winning cameraman) did just such a thing not to long ago to try and show that the "shall issue" and no wait period policies in Oregon would flood the market with illegal guns. They were unable to secure a purchase of an illegal firearm after trying for weeks. So in reality it is nowhere near as easy to get an illegal gun as it would be to walk into a gun shop and buy one if there were no restrictions.

This is your evidence that illegal firearms are difficult to obtain? Those slick newsboy infiltrators probably set off the "law detectors" of every criminal within a city block... that's a poor example to cite as a standard, PP.

Furthermore, I do believe that statistics have shown that most offenders obtain their guns through theft not buying them illegally. Therefore if they could not buy them and gun owners did more to make the ones they have secure then criminals would have a very hard time getting them

Criminals will do whatever it takes to obtain those firearms. Including fake I.D.s to complete falsely-"legal" transactions. Make a firearm "more secure" and you just may negate any defensive value it has... for example in a home-invasion scenario.

You will never win me or most any thinking person over with a "throw out the baby with the bathwater" argument like "since some criminals still get guns we might as well just let them buy them legally".

You are using precisely the same premise... and claiming an outrageous conclusion. No one here made any kind of argument to "just let criminals buy guns legally". To paraphrase more correctly, "No matter the severity of the laws, the implementations of these draconian codes by implacable enforcers, and cruel punishments promised to the "guilty", criminals will obtain the tools of their trade, and lawful men will be penalized. This is not justice. Where will it end?

[Fire4Effect]

Where do criminals get illegal guns? By illegal means... theft, falsified documents, or dare I say it, smuggled across a certain unsecured border in the Southwest... :eek:

[Maxwell]

You will never win me or most any thinking person over with a "throw out the baby with the bathwater" argument like "since some criminals still get guns we might as well just let them buy them legally".

When the babys name is "Batfe" I say "Heave-ho!" :rolleyes:
That agency has had nothing but mission creep since the day it was born.

The problem is that in preventing some criminals, you prevent many more legal purchases. Many people who could have effectively used cheap guns for self defense in places where us high class folks dont live.

At that the felons denied access to the gun store were not always denied the arms. They go to your local robber, straw purchaser, smuggler, or corrupt official and reward them for also breaking the law.

If you cant trust someone with a gun, letting them out of jail is a bad idea, their going to get one. If youve got a problem keeping criminals locked up you dont make it my problem with more gun control or constant background checks for me. You take the millions wasted on the atf and give it to local departments so they can enforce existing laws.

I think that bothering to settle with the anti-gun crowd on "reasonable gun control" is what got us to this point. Its turned out that they arnt too reasonable. The latest list of stuff they want to ban (evil black assault rifles, .50 bmg, "cop killer" bullets) has rarely been used in crimes to begin with.

Maybe Im far right of right here, but I feel as much as theyve pulled to ban all guns with a series of "Acceptable laws", we should be pulling just as hard for a 2a with absolutly no infringements.
In tug of war you have no chance of holding things in the middle by giving in to the opposition.

[1911Tuner]

Quote:

>Go buy a gun tomorrow illegally. I can tell you it is not as easy a task as some on here would have you think.<
****************************

You really don't get out much...do ya? :rolleyes: :D

[Raph84]

The issue is not what a determined criminal will do. The issue is what will any person with a fleeting thought of commiting a gun crime do.

There are plenty of under age individuals who might not be adult enough to realize that they could ruin thier lives with the pull of a trigger. Also there are many unstable individuals who if they could readily buy a gun would do bad things (either to themselves or others). These are the people that gun laws are meant to stop. People who will not go through the hassle or don't have the contacts to get an illegal firearm.

Also gun laws add a charge for a prosecutor to tack on (thus making more perpatrators plead guilty to a lesser charge, just robbery rather than robbery with 5 gun charges. If every person in the legal system went to trail the system would literally screech to a grinding halt so don't be to quick to scoff at the utility of this).

[1911Tuner]

Howdy Ralph.

Sorry...You seem to be missing the point, too.

The laws are already there. The answer isn't more of the same. The answer is to let the penalties be swift and harsh for he who commits unprovoked
acts of mayhem against his fellow man.

I have a few ideas on this, but it may be too much for some of the more
warm fuzzy types here to entertain, so proceed at your own risk.

Commit a crime with a gun...Add 10 years onto the sentence. No exceptions.

Be caught in possession of a gun AFTER your first conviction of a crime of violence...Go finish your original sentence with another 5 years tacked on, just to make sure you get it this time.

Hurt somebody with the gun during the commission of a crime...Life without parole.

Kill somebody with a gun during the commission of a crime...Adios, muchacho. It's been real. Grin and take the needle, or take a deep breath. It'll all be over in about 10 seconds, and you can have the answer to the great mystery. You've got one appeal for your life. Twice convicted...execution of sentence to be carried out 90 days from the date.

Note that I'm open for exemptions under certain circumstances for some felony convictions...such as no violence being involved in the crime and after a reasonable period of time has lapsed without any repeat offenses to offer evidence that the subject has learned the error of his ways and hasn't strayed from the straight and narrow. File an appeal to have your RKBA reinstated, and present your case. This is a one-crime deal. Repeat offenders need not apply.

Sound reasonable?

[Maxwell]

Sound reasonable?

Sounds good to me :D

A person with a fleeting thought of commiting a crime is most likely to use whatevers at hand. Which includes knives, baseball bats, and common chemicals like gasoline. If potential targets were more likely to be carrying guns, the advantage gained when a madman gets a weapon and works his way into a "gun free zone" would not exist.

As far as using gun laws to add on flexable charges, do you want:
A) To find yourself facing hyped up charges just because you own a gun, wheather or not your involved in a real crime?
I somehow doubt there will be any shortage of cops and judges when its time to run us through the wringer over nonsense like forgetting an empty magazine in your check baggage.

or

B) To have suspects who carried out serious crimes with firearms pleading to the lesser charges and doing less time, just to save money.
If you rob a store with a firearm and we can make you do 10 years, what does it solve to cut a bargain and let them out in 5?

Right now we pay somewhere between 500 and 800 million to run the batfe.
Do you consider the service they've deliverd to be worth that price tag?

If you need money to put criminals behind bars where they belong, I've identified a source.

[MechAg94]

Howdy Ralph.

Sorry...You seem to be missing the point, too.

The laws are already there. The answer isn't more of the same. The answer is to let the penalties be swift and harsh for he who commits unprovoked
acts of mayhem against his fellow man.

I have a few ideas on this, but it may be too much for some of the more
warm fuzzy types here to entertain, so proceed at your own risk.

Commit a crime with a gun...Add 10 years onto the sentence. No exceptions.

Be caught in possession of a gun AFTER your first conviction of a crime of violence...Go finish your original sentence with another 5 years tacked on, just to make sure you get it this time.

Hurt somebody with the gun during the commission of a crime...Life without parole.

Kill somebody with a gun during the commission of a crime...Adios, muchacho. It's been real. Grin and take the needle, or take a deep breath. It'll all be over in about 10 seconds, and you can have the answer to one of the great mysteries of life. You've got one appeal for your life. Twice convicted...execution of sentence to be carried out 90 days from the date.

Note that I'm open for exemptions under certain circumstances for some felony convictions...such as no violence being involved in the crime and after a reasonable period of time has lapsed without any repeat offenses to offer evidence that the subject has learned the error of his ways and hasn't strayed from the straight and narrow. File an appeal to have your RKBA reinstated, and present your case. This is a one-crime deal. Repeat offenders need not apply.

Sound reasonable?
I can agree with that. Laws against things are always an after-the-fact issue and should be treated that way. Prevention is possible, but can get out of hand fast if you are not careful.

As far as restricting gun purchase, there are different levels that apply I think:
1. No restrictions at all.
2. Show state ID, prove age, etc. Like buying alcohol or a little more. Prove you are who you say you are and your age. Not sure how violent felons can be restricted with that method maybe with notation on the license or ID. Maybe a prominent tatoo or brand would be appropriate.
3. Background check either before transaction or after (reporting purchase).
4. a purchasing license like some states do.

I'm sure it can get worse from there. Personally, I like #2. I can live with #3 if it is not too much BS. There is also no reason why those can't be done using mail order either. The CMP manages to do it that way okay. Why not everyone?
#1 above would be nice, but I am not sure that would work in this country right now. Most places it probably would, many places it wouldn't. If we enforce laws similar to what 1911 mentioned above, it is possible it could work. Got to do that first though.

[Raph84]

The laws are already there. The answer isn't more of the same. The answer is to let the penalties be swift and harsh for he who commits unprovoked
acts of mayhem against his fellow man.



Yes the laws are already there. Saying that you support the law is saying that you support some gun control. There are peopel involved in this thread that do not seem to think this minimal amount of gun contro is prudent and thus (apperently) support no restrictions whatsoever on gun ownership.

Also, as I said before the reasoning for adding charges is to keep every criminal from pleading not guilty (or any other plea which requires a trail). If every one that broke the law required a trail we would not have the necessary resources to prosecute all of them (they would not get a speedy trail and would all thus be released because their due process rights were denied them). It would destroy our legal system, I don't like it either but its what we got.

[1911Tuner]

Quote:

> Saying that you support the law is saying that you support some gun control.<
*************

Of course I do. I've already said that I don't cotton to the idea of a minor,
a person convicted of a felony crime of violence or one who has been institutionalized for mental issues/repeated substance abuse/addiction,including repeat drunk driving offenders...being able to walk into a shop, plunk their money down, and walk away with a selective-fire automatic rifle.

I'm also in firm touch with reality...and that reality is that if any or all of the above category decides that they want a gun, they'll get one. All it takes is cash and determination...and a high percentage of those can start early in the morning and score one before the sun goes down. These kinds of people have proven...multiple times in most cases...that the law doesn't mean any more to them than a dead rat on the side of the street. An inconvenience that they have to step over or walk around, and nothing more.

There are already a host of "Gun Control" laws in effect that cover the whole range from perfectly reasonable to silly...and they haven't prevented a thing, except to create a hassle for the people who do obtain their firearms legitimately and by due process. On the contrary, many of the "reasonable" gun laws have done nothing more than to give rise to a huge black market
for guns...even among the law-abiding. Simpler and easier to buy a gun without papers than it is to jump through the increasingly smaller hoops required in many states. The law-abiding gun buyers have become increasingly mistrustful of the BATF's meddling in their legitimate affairs, and are entering that market in droves...preferring to do business sub rosa rather than in the light of day.

[Maxwell]

If every one that broke the law required a trail we would not have the necessary resources to prosecute all of them

What does that have to do with me and my gun?

Make the sentence for the original crime more serious if its carried through trial instead of plead. You can also streamline the system with other meathods to get more cases through every day.

A failure of the justice system to conduct timely trials should not be a burden on target shooters, gun collectors, cops, soldiers, hunters, or other citizens. The responsobility for this should be squarely at the judges feet. Let them suffer through the needed reforms.

Theres dozens of everyday things you can turn into crimes if the point is to trump up charges in hopes of a guilty plea, but thats not very fair to anyone involved. Stop wasting money and time on the things that dont work, spend it on those that do.

[AndyC]

Sound reasonable?
When are you running again ? :D

[PlayboyPenguin]

I am having a hard time understanding where everyone is coming from in this thread. It seems like some are saying they want NO gun control what-so-ever but then they say they support the current laws.

Maybe we are all on the same page but reading things a little differently. I was saying that I do not believe that restrictions should be stricter, I actually think alot could be lessened, but I do feel some restrictions are needed.

I think the way things are here in Oregon are a perfect example of how things should run. You can go in and pick out what you want. Fill out a form and then get an instant background check done. Then if you have no current felony record or warrants you can walk out with your purchase in less than 15 minutes. Then you can go down to the Sherrif's office and get a CHL with no hassle at all.

I am not into militry style weapons so I am not sure what restrictions are put on those so I am not sure where I stand on that.

I am not seeing how the system I just described in Oregon would interfere in a legal gun owner buying and using the weapon of their choice. Maybe I am missing something or people are talking from a standpoint influenced by the laws of their own states

[AndyC]

Penguin...maybe you need to report to Brady, Schumer, Clinton, Clinton, Feinstein and associates that you've been made and it might be better if you aborted the mission. :D

[1911Tuner]

ROFLMAO!!!

[Maxwell]

I do feel some restrictions are needed.

Needed for what?
I personaly think that the ills of society need solutions too, but I dont think the answer to every problem should begin and end at the gun store. Its not exclusively our fault and Im not the one who has to atone for anyone elses sins.

If you let a dangerous felon loose, it dosnt matter if you have a billion gun laws. Hes going to hurt someone.
Solution? Lock him up. Dont leave him loose to get a gun, dont let him out early.

If a kid is showing bad tendancies and actively shopping for firearms, a law against selling him one isint too effective. He can find a straw purchaser or take one from an adult.
Solution? Paddle little billys backside early and often. If you dont teach the child properly hes either going do something horrible one way or another.

If youve got illegal immigrants who want to own weapons for security, their going to go shopping and laws just benefit the illegal sellers.
Solution? Escourt the illegals out or make them legal.

In any case, its still not a problem to be dealt with at the gun store. We need citizens to have ready access to both personal and military firearms, a restriction there goes against our rights and still wont solve the other problem.

[PlayboyPenguin]

Who says it begins and ends at a gun store. It is all just a small piece of a bigger puzzle. Noone is saying gun laws will solve all crime. They are just saying they do some good if done correctly. Do we do away with all laws because none of them are a cure all for societies ills?

And noone is saying felons should be turned lose but the reality is you can't lock up every person that does something wrong for their entire life. It is just not logisticly possible. Prisons would be overrun and eating up most of the national budget.

I also do not believe a person should suffer their entire lives for one mistake. I believe people can change. Isn't that what most religion is about. I do not have a problem with them suffering the consequences of their actions though. If they did the crime they cannot vote, they cannot buy a gun, etc until they have had their record expunged.

I still have had noone answer my question of how do the simple restrictions I mentioned interfere with law abiding citizen's gun ownership. It seems to me like the stance some are taking is more about putting their own needs and wants above having to deal with simple and reasonable requirements.

[1911Tuner]

Well...Let's examine the restrictions that we alread have.

No conviced felons can legally buy...Check.
No minors can legally buy...Check.
No documented substance abusers can legally buy...Check.
Background checks before transfer...Got it.
One gun a month in many states...Check.
Waiting periods in many states...Check.
No full-auto weapons in Class 3 states without proper paperwork...Check.
No full-auto weapons in some states, period...Check.
No weapons mass destruction or destructive devices...Check.
No firearms on public school campuses...Check.
No firearms within 300 feet of public schools in many jurisdictions...Check.
No firearms at public gatherings...Check.
License required to hunt...Check.
And many more in various jurisdictions too numerous to keep up with.

Exactly how many more "reasonable restrictions" do you want?
Exactly how is it that all these regulations affect anyone except the law-abiding citizen who obtains his firearms within legal guidelines?
Exactly how will more restrictions prevent anyone from obtaining a firearm
unlawfully? Would you like to add a need-based restriction and put the burden of proof for need on the gun owner?

In case you haven't noticed, about 99% of the membership is here because they support 2A/RKBA/Responsible Firearms Ownership. Your arguments suggest that you'd like something more in line with Great Britain, Australia, and Canada...or maybe Japan would get you closer to Shangri-la. Emigration is an option. This is America. What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand.

Your slope is getting steeper and more slippery with every post, m'fren.

Regards...

[PlayboyPenguin]

I think I was very clear about what restrictions I believed in...

1. Noone with violent felony records
2. No minors
3. Noone mentally incompetent

Unless someone's argument is with one of those three I do not see where all the attacks a rightous indignation from some people is coming from.

PS- I do believe a recent poll on THR showed that the majority of people on here agreed with the very restrictions I just mentioned so I do not know where the 99% of people you mentioned is coming from either.

[1911Tuner]

Those_restrictions_are_already_there. Have been for years...

[PlayboyPenguin]

Those_restrictions_are_already_there. Have been for years...
And your point is????
The 2A is already there and has been for years but that does not stop someone for voicing support of it when it is challenged. The only issue anyone on here has taken is with the people that say there should be "NO" gun restrictions because they make baseless claims that they do not do anything.

[Maxwell]

The only issue anyone on here has taken is with the people that say there should be "NO" gun restrictions because they make baseless claims that they do not do anything.

If your goal is to reduce crime overall then there are more effective ways to do that.

There are some estimates the murder rate (per 100,000) before prohibition and gun control was 1 to 2, more realisticly it was probly around 4-5. At present its hovering at 5 to 5.5 after coming down from a high of 10.
At best we've come full circle, At worst theres been an across the board increase. States with large bans are often reported as just as bad or worse than states without them. This is after we have spent billions on gun laws.

Would you say we have gotten what we paid for?
Whats more effective: Gun control or 16 million dollars put strait into your state PD?

Well lets think about this... the majority of crimes are commited by a minority of the population. If you applied the same resources and thinking it would be easier to track and control 3 million criminals than 60 million guns.
Im not for defending a felons right to carry. Its just a simple fact the meathods to catch and disarm him could be made alot more effective without the need to profile gun owners, waiting for one of us to commit a crime.

[Delmar]

PP-you really should not be surprised at a lot of people screaming that gun laws do no good. Take a look at your own list. You have 3 groups which you would not allow firearms to.

Violent Felons
Minors
Mentally Incompetent

It is pretty much an established fact that there are over 20,000 gun laws in the USA. That means there are 6,600 laws covering all or part of what you consider "reasonable gun laws." I have to tell you that I can somewhat concur with what you are stating.

I believe what you are seeing is people tired of more restrictions on their rights with nothing to show for it. We know that mentally incompetent people probably should not have firearms. That has been discussed at length here, and there are laws on the books-do a search. Violent felons should not be among us, period. Minors should only be around firearms under responsible adult supervision-parents, scout leaders, whatever.

Funny-the Army had no problem handing me an M16A1 at the tender age of 17. My oldest son came back from Iraq last December, but after a year of combat, a purple heart, 2 arcoms and other awards, is "too young to buy a pistol" or a drink, but he can by-God bleed for us.

A lot of us are sick of the other 19,997 laws on the books. We just got past an "assault weapons ban" which had nothing to do with assault weapons. It had to do with evil black rifles in semi automatic form. No more dangerous than your dad's semi auto remington or browning - maybe even less dangerous! Even worse, the 10 shot restriction on pistols. Do the bad guys not hurt anyone until the 11th bullet? And what does that have to do with you or me?

I can no longer purchase a brand new full auto weapon. Why am I being restricted or punished? What good does that law do? I can't legally saw off my shotgun barrel, but if I did, all I just did is ruin a pretty good bird gun. It will not make you or me suddenly want to go and shoot up the town square.

Why should I have to wait, as an American citizen, for anywhere from 3 days to 2 weeks to buy a firearm in some locations? Why do I, as a law abiding American have to surrender or otherwise get rid of my pistols if I move to DC, San Francisco, or Morton Grove, Illinois? Those laws do nothing to protect my rights, let alone my life or family. They make me a victim.

In the end, law is paper. It has nothing to do with real life except in its enforcement. The gun laws in this country are so scattered, so stupid, and so comprehensive in so many meaningless ways that you could not drive from the west coast to the east coast without violating some stupid law or ordinance and become a felon or a person otherwise ineligible to ever own a firearm in your life.

When a politician makes a statement about "reasonable gun laws", keep your hand on your weapon and your wallet, because they are about to take some of both.

As to the doofi (multiple doofuses?) in Marshall, Texas...they are gonna get whats comin to them in a very big way. Unlike some locations across the country-mainly the big cities, small town folks don't speak legalese, but they know when to hold em under until the bubbles stop coming up. Common sense.

[1911Tuner]

PP...My point is that you keep talking about firearms restrictions that you'd like to see...that have been law since 1968...with more added over the years. I'm starting to wonder if you've ever filled out a 4473 form...or even seen one.

My other point is that restricting legal access to anything isn't going to solve
what is essentially a social problem, any more than speed limit signs keep people from ignoring and exceeding the posted limit.

C'mon...You can tell me. You're not really pro 2A, are ya? Sarah Brady sent you over here to plant the seeds of doubt in our weak little minds...didn't she?;)

[PlayboyPenguin]

They are not restriction I "would like to see". I have never said that at all. They are restrictions I "agree with" and would not like to see revoked. It makes me a little sick to my stomach when I see people on here say things like "there should be NO gun laws" and some that even say things like "it is safe to leave loaded guns around my young children cause I done taught 'em right" As a gun owner this is a mentality I do not want others associating me with at all.

[1911Tuner]

Refer to post #43:

Quote:

>Therefore, I do believe that the limits should be simple, non-arbitrary and nationwide. No violent felons (and only specific violent acts should qualify...nothing like trespassing or child support issues), no underage, and no mentally incompetent. ***That is what we should be working for***.<
*********************

Referencing the last sentence in your post, it seems that these things are what you are calling for...and_they're_already_there...and more. AND...These restrictions only prevent firearms transfers to those who seek to buy them through lawful means. They don't stop the man who wants to buy...nor the man who is willing to sell...without benefit of a federal firearms licensee being involved in the transfer.

"I wanna gun."
"I got one"
"How much"
Five hunna' dolla"
"Okay. "Here"
"Good deal. See ya"
"See ya"

See how it works?

I understand that some individuals want zero restrictions, as it was pre-68 Control Act, but...just like the drivers who want our interstates to emulate the German Autobahn...it just ain't gonna happen. And even then...no licensed dealer would sell to a minor or anyone who was intoxicated or obviously mentally impaired. None that I ever knew, anyway.

[PlayboyPenguin]

You are misinterpetting a simple sentence. What I am saying is any law or laws that are MORE severe than those should be parred down and simplified. The three criteria I mentioned are not the only laws out ther but in my opinion they could be the only ones and things would be fine. I am not calling for these to be instated. I am calling for laws beyond these to be simplified or done away with.

[Maxwell]

PP, I think the problem is your confusing a written law with enforcement of the law. You dont just want a pointless listing of possible crimes do you?
What we all want is to effectively punish someone for doing bad things.
Am I correct?

Well say the crime was robbing a store with a gun and shooting/killing several people. That person has broken the law against armed robbery, a law against assault with a deadly weapon, and the law against murder. Those 3 alone should be enough to put an end to him.
You dont need a law to prevent felons from owning a gun to disarm this one, He's too busy dangeling from the end of a rope.

Effectively deal with one criminal in hand and you prevent at least 2 to 3 future crimes. The cost savings alone would make processing fruitless background checks and stockpiling serial numbers look like woefully inadequate tactics.

It might be my odd view on things but if you prosecuted the law properly and spend the savings from gun control in catching, confining, exicuting or rehabilitatting your criminals on existing law, there would very little need for even those 3 basic gun controls you want to keep.
Parent leaves a child with a gun? thats endangerment.
Got drunk with your ccw in town? public intoxication and wrecklessness.
Felon with a gun? Hes either deemed trustworthy, on death row, or still in jail.
Legal mental incompetence brings a host of lost rights, they wouldnt have the freedom to be roaming around town looking for weapons.
Even if the felon should find a target, more relaxed gun laws suggest their next victem is more likely to be armed and able to resist.
Should they take out a criminal in self defense, it saves me more money.

America is a nation build on the thinking of stingy capitalists. Militia and rkba are cost effective forms to keep the peace. I think if we let the system run as intended you can pocket the savings towards better things.

[1911Tuner]

PP...Maybe I did misinterpret that...but it's like Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain said: "The right word at the right time is like a thunderbolt." So it goes with the wrong word or phrase. It can make or break an otherwise sound argument.

I wouldn't look for the regulations added since 1968 to be rescinded though.
The politicians that are targeting lawful gun owners aren't about to relinquish the ground that they've gained. They're well aware that people are the true problem. That doesn't mean anything to them. They want the guns
gone, because it's not about gun control. It's about control, period.

As a Japanese general noted: (His name escapes me at the moment)
"Invading the American mainland would be suicide. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. (Or somethin' to that effect.)

The gun grabbers want to be rid of the guns because they know that without them, they could do pretty much as they damn please. They don't like the final system of checks and balances put in place by the Founding Fathers who knew too well the dangers of a governing body with too much power.

It ain't about crime and it ain't about savin' the children. They don't give a fat rat's patoot about our children. They want power...but a hundred million
gun owners are standing in their way of that utopia.

And now this thread probably belongs in Legal and Political...:rolleyes:

[R-Tex12]

Tuner wrote:

"The gun grabbers want to be rid of the guns because they know that without them, they could do pretty much as they damn please. They don't like the final system of checks and balances put in place by the Founding Fathers who knew too well the dangers of a governing body with too much power."

A big +1, Tuner! You nailed it square on the the ol' head. Gotta admit that's nothing new, though. :rolleyes:

These threads show additional verification/reinforcement of Tuner's comments.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=193226
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=193507

[PlayboyPenguin]

Actually I do not think it is the gun grabbers that want to be able to "do as they please". They are the ones really being duped. I feel it is more the corporate controlled conservative govt that wants the citizens disarmed. They just use the left wingers as pawns by playing on their overly developed desire of peace at any cost.

They talk a big game against the anti-gunnies but they do little to stop them. They really are the ones that have the most to gain by disarming the public. What do tree hugging, free love hippies have to gain really?

if the left ever succeded in removing our guns they would quickly discover how it was an armed middle class societ that stood between our democarcy/republic and a totally corporate controlled system where the money made the rules and people were an expendable commodity.

[Raph84]

Left wing extremism is just as bad as right wing extremism, and it comes from the same place.

A desire to regulate personal behavior to bring it in line with what they believe is the right way to live.

Each extreme has plenty to gain from a disarmed and docile public (whether it be Hitler and Stalin or Mussolini and Castro) and plenty to fear from a well armed resistant public

[1911Tuner]

PP stated:

Actually I do not think it is the gun grabbers that want to be able to "do as they please"./I feel it is more the corporate controlled conservative govt that wants the citizens disarmed.
***********************

Dunno if that's it, thought there are surely some....like Soros...who are solidly behind it. Maybe the politicos are pandering to the leftist corporate bigwigs
for the money to further their agenda in return for a taste of the pie.

Someone once said, that..."When you have so much money that you couldn't conceiveably spend it all, the only thing left to covet is...power."

Maybe I was a little hasty Penguin. After reading some of your posts...carefully...it seems that I have been. Apologies.

[beaucoup ammo]

Having gutted, eliminated jobs and placed many things out of reach of the Middle Class, November, IMO, will reflect this country's displeasure with the Corporate ties so blatantly flaunted by this Administration.

However, the Democrats offer little in way of relief, as both parties are basically the same...play identical games. Only the slogans are different.

When the last resort... mass protest.. rolls around, resistance from tax paying Americans fed up with being on the working end of a screw driver For Playing By The Rules is the last thing Corporate America wants.

They'd prefer to roll over us without any "speed bumps."

[TexasRifleman]

They'd prefer to roll over us without any "speed bumps."

And they were right, most Americans already have.

[Maxwell]

I would think that if you fear a full ban on the leadup to tyranny, the idea of any restriction would be repulsive.

If the limit is age, they will raise it.
If the limit is not being a felon, its simple enough to make more felonys out of misdemeanors.
If its "mental illness", you can write a law vague enough to do that too. After all, someone must be crazy or paranoid to want a gun in such a "peaceful" society.

Once you put the government in that position of control, its not a far step from limited freedom to total lockdown.

Back to my analogy with freedom of speech. Why go so far just to prove the constitution wrong when you can use another law to punish evil-doers while protecting the sanctity of our rights?

[beaucoup ammo]

Are you saying most Americans have already been "rolled over?" My gut says no..then I view the apathy at election time (mere fractions of eligible voters showing up..allowing anti's to be placed in office), the preoccupation with just "getting by" deverting attention from corporate malfeasance, Katrina opening our eyes to the enormous number of people who expect tax payers to do everything...I mean everything..for them, a Military Industrial Complex that Ike warned us about thriving over 50 years after he gave us a heads up.

Maybe I just have more time now to think things over... so many here (THR) are light years ahead of me in this regard. The thought of moving to Utah, Montana, etc. (away from the BS) is very appealing. I could swing it if I liquidated everything. Every day spent in "The City" (any city) just brings more cars with amplified bass, more police choppers over head looking for a scum bag that's knocked over a bank and is running through the neighborhood searching for an open garage door or unlocked window. More bad news on the tube and in the paper, more 18 year old amputees coming home from Iraq (we should have gone after the f****** where they were..Afghanistan.)

This rant will get me knocked off so I'll quit. But, seriously, having gone from Republican to Democrat to Republican to Independent and not finding anything but agendas working against Middle Class Americans..it's freaking depressing! And EVERY time I hang up from a conversation with my son in Bahrain..I hear an audible "click" or "frying" sound. Paranoia? Maybe, but why? No one here but us hard working, tax paying, freedom loving Americans.

I'm 140 miles from the Rio Grande. I travel and visit friends. There have been times when, in the early evening, driving through Brooks or Jim Hogg county I've seen more people running through the brush than white tails. Local LEO'S in the valley actually fear for their lives.

Whatcha gonna do? I'll head for the range and feel better when I get back. Very therapeutic!

Take Care

[PlayboyPenguin]

Maybe I was a little hasty Penguin. After reading some of your posts...carefully...it seems that I have been. Apologies.

No need to apologize. I never mind someone challenging what I think or say. Challenges always either strengthen your opinion or cause you to rethink your stance. Neither is a bad thing. :)

leftist corporate bigwigs

Is that something from a Dr. Suess book? I am not sure I have ever seen one of those in real life. :)

[1911Tuner]

Well...The gun control issue is just a hot button with me. I tend to get prickly when it comes up.:scrutiny:

Bigwigs...Go search George Soros. The epitome of The Fat Cat in the Hat. If he gets his foot in the door, he soon owns the house and tosses the rightful owner out...and feels that it's his entitlement.

:fire:

[Maxwell]

Are you saying most Americans have already been "rolled over?"

I only suggest that the stuff you need to roll them over has been developed and installed with our blessings. Now your just waiting for someone to drop the hammer.
So long as you have a meathod and authority in place for gun control, your a memo away from losing everything.

What worries me is that even if we could find a way to remove these systems, people would resist it. Fearing the danger of living without a benevolent government to make decisions for them...Thats not too far removed from stalinism.

You can punish criminals without firearms laws. You can have a violent offenders gun rights (or any other right for that matter) selectively stripped by the judge on his conviction, and if an officer catches him armed you can throw the book at this felon.
You can do it properly instead of tossing responsobility for the constitution to some low level buearucrat with a stamp.