Gun control, let's call it what it is


PDA






FourteenMiles
October 5, 2010, 12:10 AM
-The denial of the self evident truth of the equality of all men, the alienation of rights, and the endangerment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

-The disruption of unity, justice, common defence, and general welfare of the people of the United States.

-Infringement of the Second Amendment and endagerment of the security of the free state.

-Unconstituional efforts to create an imbalance of power and an American nobility.

-Miscontruction and abuse of power in the foresakement of Article V of the United States Constitution, and underminment of the bill of rights and all amendments to the constitution.

Anyone have anything to add? Maybe critique the phrases I think we should start using to refer to what was once simply known as "Gun control". Maybe someting that rolls off the tongue a bit easier.

There is a lot of power in a name.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun control, let's call it what it is" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
meytind
October 5, 2010, 09:29 AM
-Victim Disarmament

MikeNice
October 5, 2010, 11:36 AM
I still love the one I saw on a t-shirt and posted here on THR.

Paraphrasing
Gun control is the theory that some how a woman found raped and strangled to death, with her own panty hose, in a dark alley is morally superior to the woman explaining how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

longhair75
October 5, 2010, 12:26 PM
I have no problem with the licensing process. The guy that taught my CHP class said that there were only three people who have failed his class. Two were unable to pass a 30 question, multiple choice test mainly on firearm safety and responsibility and one was so unsafe at the range portion of the class that he would not allow them to complete the firing portion. These three people probably should not be carrying.

I realize that we have an inherent right under the Second amendment to keep and bear arms, and I will do everything I can to keep that right alive.

However, I do not want free access to firearms by people convicted of violent crimes, people who have a history of domestic violence or people who have been judged as mentally ill or dangerous. I am not in favor of arming illegal immigrants.

We, as firearm owners, constantly say that gun control is aimed at taking guns away from law abiding citizens. We, as a group must do all we can to keep this from happening. In all honesty though, we must admit that a 19 year old gang banging drug dealer with a history of violent offenses going back to when he was 13 should not have free access to firearms.

At this time I admit that I do not know the answer to this question. The gang banger is going to have a firearm whether we like it or not. It is very unfortunate that the anti-gun community does not, as of yet, see a difference between this gang banger and those of us who are law abiding citizens. All they see is that both groups are armed. I do not know how to change that. I wish I did.

Just my ever so humble opinion

General Geoff
October 5, 2010, 12:41 PM
I have no problem with the licensing process. The guy that taught my CHP class said that there were only three people who have failed his class. Two were unable to pass a 30 question, multiple choice test mainly on firearm safety and responsibility and one was so unsafe at the range portion of the class that he would not allow them to complete the firing portion.
Rights depend on responsibility; not on being able to pass an arbitrary test.

However, I do not want free access to firearms by people convicted of violent crimes, people who have a history of domestic violence or people who have been judged as mentally ill or dangerous. I am not in favor of arming illegal immigrants.
The second amendment protects a right inherent to all people, not just citizens or even legal residents of the United States. Every single man, woman and child on the planet has the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment restrains the United States government from infringing on it. Illegal immigrants have just as much right to own guns as everyone else, and as long as they are in this country (legally or not), the government has no business infringing on that right. If you're not going to deport them, there's no reason to disarm them.
In all honesty though, we must admit that a 19 year old gang banging drug dealer with a history of violent offenses going back to when he was 13 should not have free access to firearms.
Anyone who is not a fugitive from justice should have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of past transgressions. If this 19 year old can't be trusted with a gun, he shouldn't be out of prison in the first place.

It is very unfortunate that the anti-gun community does not, as of yet, see a difference between this gang banger and those of us who are law abiding citizens. All they see is that both groups are armed. I do not know how to change that. I wish I did.
Emphasize that a gun is not a source of evil or malice; the nature of one's character is what determines a person to be good or evil, not the possession of a firearm.

Rshooter
October 5, 2010, 01:28 PM
However, I do not want free access to firearms by people convicted of violent crimes, people who have a history of domestic violence or people who have been judged as mentally ill or dangerous. I am not in favor of arming illegal immigrants.

This is a slippery slope.

Any divorce lawyer I know is going to ask for an order of protection for his client - rights gone.

A few years ago there was a stink about the possibility of making the V.A. report possible dangerous or mentally ill veterans. Any vet with PTSD could have fallen under that net.

Ike R
October 5, 2010, 09:10 PM
Being an illegal immigrant is a felony crime, felons can't own guns, problem solved.

I agree with the OP

Disagree with the Divorce Lawyers about automatically fileing a right of protection, its a means of chargeing more money for something that most divorces don't need. I disagree with most lawyers on principle though, they are the ones that ruined our second ammendment rights to start with. Before you flame, remember I said MOST lawyers, not all.

msb45
October 6, 2010, 12:37 AM
Gun laws are rooted in racism and prejudice. Licensing is a joke and a tax.

You don't need a license to excercise the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

If you had to get a license to post would that be OK?

Sky
October 6, 2010, 12:54 AM
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

1911Tuner
October 6, 2010, 08:44 AM
I have no problem with the licensing process.

Oh, I do. While I understand the importance of keeping guns out of the wrong hands, the licensing process isn't the answer. "Wrong hands" will always find a way. Look to the Volstead Act and its modern equivalent...the war on drugs for evidence of that.

I have a moral issue with asking permission and paying a tax in order to exercise an inalienable right that is recognized and guaranteed...not granted...by the Constitution of the United States.

The acceptance of licensing is acceptance that a right has become a privelege...and a privelege can be revoked at whim.

VinnAY
October 6, 2010, 08:49 AM
I have no problem with the licensing process. The guy that taught my CHP class said that there were only three people who have failed his class. Two were unable to pass a 30 question, multiple choice test mainly on firearm safety and responsibility and one was so unsafe at the range portion of the class that he would not allow them to complete the firing portion. These three people probably should not be carrying.

I realize that we have an inherent right under the Second amendment to keep and bear arms, and I will do everything I can to keep that right alive.

However, I do not want free access to firearms by people convicted of violent crimes, people who have a history of domestic violence or people who have been judged as mentally ill or dangerous. I am not in favor of arming illegal immigrants.

We, as firearm owners, constantly say that gun control is aimed at taking guns away from law abiding citizens. We, as a group must do all we can to keep this from happening. In all honesty though, we must admit that a 19 year old gang banging drug dealer with a history of violent offenses going back to when he was 13 should not have free access to firearms.

At this time I admit that I do not know the answer to this question. The gang banger is going to have a firearm whether we like it or not. It is very unfortunate that the anti-gun community does not, as of yet, see a difference between this gang banger and those of us who are law abiding citizens. All they see is that both groups are armed. I do not know how to change that. I wish I did.

Just my ever so humble opinion


Pretty much the only post in this thread that I can agree with. I think gun control is a good thing, its the application of it that I think every one of us has some issue.

oldfool
October 6, 2010, 09:40 AM
Well I have no real big problem with a "licensing" policy, per se
("licensing" ought deliver something extra of value to the payer; what that something might be, well, that is not so easily defined)
I agree with objections to a "permit/permission" process, re: paying a fee for the free exercise of guaranteed rights
The problem being, I think, that they are generally construed as being one and the same, to the point that there is no clear distinction between the two.

It is intuitively appealing to read "rights" as having no lawful restrictions on them whatever, but nonetheless naive (shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, all that sort of thing)
In any lawful and well ordered democratic republic, individual rights exist only so long as the overwhelming majority of citizens are fully willing to respect and defend all rights of all others; individuals are naturally obliged to yield at least some autonomy, in return for the (real or perceived) security and convenience of living with the herd.

Easy to see what's "not right" about what we have in place now, but clearly defining just what really ought be, there's the rub.
Also easy enough to name a few things that would be less onerous ("shall issue", no restraints on OC vs. CC, etc., but that does not address the core question of what ought be.

We spend a lot of our time protesting "not right", and a lot of our time complaining about the devilish details "as written'. But what would we choose the law to be, if we truly had the power to dictate the law in words of our own choosing ?

What would your version of that be ?
(think we, as a special interest group could come to any consensus on that, you know proactive vs. reactive ?)

Downr@nge
October 6, 2010, 09:45 AM
Gun control for the most part is pure stupidity. It does nothing to stop violent and ill intended criminals from obtaining guns. It actually punsihes law abiding citizens because we are talking only ones that abide by gun control laws.

Old Fuff
October 6, 2010, 10:10 AM
Weapon control laws (to of course include firearms) have never prevented the criminal element from obtaining whatever the “controled” weapons are. I cannot understand why some people believe that those who are legally prohibited from having arms will respect any laws and follow whatever they dictate.

Tuner is right. When something is controlled or prohibited by law - be it alcohol, drugs or weapons – all that is accomplished is that those that are law abiding follow the requirements of the statute, while criminals and other prohibited persons turn to a black market or other illegal sources. There is no better example then the current “war on drugs,” where certain substances cannot be manufactured, imported, sold, possessed, or used; at least legally. But because there is a substantial demand for these substances a market exists, and is obviously being filled – laws or no laws.

Can anyone believe that 19 year-old gang members cannot obtain firearms because there is a law that constrains them from possessing firearms?

In the U.K. they have passed laws that effectively prohibit anyone from owning personal handguns. So while law abiding subjects are left unarmed, criminals continue to be armed by illegal sources. So much for gun control laws.

longhair75
October 6, 2010, 01:24 PM
Friend Mike Nice,
I still love the one I saw on a t-shirt and posted here on THR.

Paraphrasing
Gun control is the theory that some how a woman found raped and strangled to death, with her own panty hose, in a dark alley is morally superior to the woman explaining how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

I found the source for that quote and ordered my wife half a dozen tee shirts:
I found t he source for the quote here (http://www.wagc.com/)
Tee Shirts (http://www.zazzle.com/gun_control_the_theory_that_a_woman_found_dea_tshirt-235953795859975864)

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun control, let's call it what it is" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!