The Constitutionlity of Gun Control


PDA






Wildalaska
January 5, 2004, 03:58 PM
Time I guess to see where people stand

If you enjoyed reading about "The Constitutionlity of Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bruce H
January 5, 2004, 04:22 PM
I'm afraid you aren't going to like the answer.

Cosmoline
January 5, 2004, 04:29 PM
It's my understanding that the prohibition on felon ownership of firearms predates the Constitution and those laws were never elminated because of the Second Amendment. The problem is we have a lot more felony crimes now than we did then. A felony, properly understood, is a crime serious enough to carry the death penalty.

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 04:33 PM
I believe that Fed. 29 is pretty darn clear...plus that needling "shall not be infringed."

The whole 'reasonable restriction" thing is a can of worms.

Would it be safer to the ninnies to absolutely restrict the sale and ownership of arms? Maybe...but a certain Franklin quote comes to mind.

I believe that a certain dangers are part of the natural state of a free society.

Wildalaska
January 5, 2004, 04:42 PM
I'm afraid you aren't going to like the answer.

Why not?

WildcuriousAlaska

Wildalaska
January 5, 2004, 04:46 PM
Would it be safer to the ninnies to absolutely restrict the sale and ownership of arms?

Is it really necessary to call your fellow citizens who happen not to agree with you "ninnies"

I expect that out of the far left, and am always saddened to see it here

WildguessimaproudninnieAlaska

N3rday
January 5, 2004, 04:50 PM
I don't think we should allow machineguns except to those with the correct permits (class 3 gun dealer?)

It would be WAY too easy for someone to get their hands on an automatic.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 5, 2004, 04:58 PM
I chose option number 2. My opinion is that restricting firearms ownership during probation for violent felons is constitutional but not afterwards.

Non-violent felons should have no restrictions placed on their firearms ownership. That's a restriction on the 2nd amendment that shouldn't pass judicial review at the Supreme Court under a strict scrutiny standard.

spacemanspiff
January 5, 2004, 05:03 PM
if its "criminal" for a felon or mentally illl person to possess a firearm, it should also be "criminal" for them to possess an automobile, even a pair of scissors.

then again, if a person is convicted of a violent crime, such as rape/murder/assault, i dont think they should ever walk the streets or breathe oxygen anymore.

Telperion
January 5, 2004, 05:05 PM
So only the rich and well-connected should have machineguns, N3rday? :confused:

Langenator
January 5, 2004, 05:07 PM
I voted on the 'criminals and mentally ill prohibition only' line, but I'm a bit wobbly on the concealed carry. When the Constitution was written, it was considered that only a criminal or dishonorable man would carry a concealed weapon, and then for criminal/dishonorable purposes. Today, walking around with a gun on your hip in plain view is likely to cause a minor panic, so carrying it concealed, for self protection, seems a much better choice.

MicroBalrog
January 5, 2004, 05:14 PM
The above felon/mentally ill prohibtion, plus background checks are constitional, but nothing more

Here goes.

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 05:16 PM
It would be WAY too easy for someone to get their hands on an automatic

It would be WAY to easy for someone to get their hands on a .50 BMG.
It would be WAY to easy for someone to get their hands on a sniper rifle.
It would be WAY to easy for someone to get their hands on a large capacity magazine.
It would be WAY to easy for someone to get their hands on hollow point ammo.
It would be WAY to easy for someone to get their hands on a gun.

Sounds pretty familiar to me.

ReadyontheRight
January 5, 2004, 05:21 PM
Maybe someone more lawyer-ific than I can answer this, but doesn't the phrase "the people" eliminate some of the folks like criminals mentioned in the poll?

If not, I'd say that an infringement is an infringement. EIther way, I voted for the top line.

mpthole
January 5, 2004, 05:32 PM
All laws affecting firearms are unconstituional, except for criminal misuse That got my vote.

rock jock
January 5, 2004, 05:32 PM
I can defend Option 3. Anything past that is iffy.

Publicola
January 5, 2004, 05:54 PM
No surprise but I opted for the first one. I think the language is plain enough that it shouldn't be misunderstood.

BTW, to my knowledge felons weren't denied arms after their release until the 20th century (at least in this country) In fact Colorado was embarrassed as hell a few years back cause someone found a law on its books that required the state to provide a horse & a pistol upon his release to any convict who spent x amount of months or longer in jail.

& machine guns are easy to get now. Remember, laws only restrain people who would follow the law. They generally don't restrain people with harmful intent, otherwise a law banning possession of any arm would be made useless by the laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc... If a small percentage of people won't obey laws against harmful use, then what good does a law against mere possession do?

In any event the 2nd is pretty clear that no law interfering with a person's Right to own & possess & carry Arms is tolerable.

NorthernExtreme
January 5, 2004, 07:43 PM
It's funny how some people who "support" the 2nd Amendment somehow accept of give the same argument for " a felon or mentally ill person" that the Anti's use for the rest of us. "It's OK for some but not all."

With the Antis: some people (Police and Military) can/should have guns.

With the Pros: some people (every body but a felon or mentally ill person) can/should have guns.

I guess we're not all that different after all. :what:

I would have liked to seen a choice more like [restrict only those who have proven they are a threat to society in a violent way, all others are protected.] I think it would have been the clear winner.

My $.02 worth!

7.62FullMetalJacket
January 5, 2004, 08:04 PM
It is an absolute right. :D

biere
January 5, 2004, 08:31 PM
I like the first one since it treats all fairly.

nualle
January 5, 2004, 08:43 PM
Another vote for option one here. Not all felonies have to do with violence. Not all of the mentally ill are violent. Treat people according to their acts, not some category someone decides they fit in.

Werewolf
January 5, 2004, 08:48 PM
It would be WAY too easy for someone to get their hands on an automatic.

So????????

If someone wants to commit evil with a firearm they can do it whether the firearm is fully automatic or not. It'd just take longer with a semi or bolt action. On the other hand a guy with a scoped rifle capable of taking out targets at 600 to 1000 yards can do way more damage over the long run than a guy with a MG who's probably gonna get caught right away.

So I say It would be WAY too easy for someone to get their hands on a sniper rifle.

Let's not allow people to have them - oh wait - there's millions of 'em out there now in the hands of all those evil hunters and target shooters :what:. OH NO! Anarchy! The snipers are coming the snipers are coming - everyone run and HIDE! :neener:

ctdonath
January 5, 2004, 08:51 PM
What part of "shall not be infringed" do 30+% of the voters here have a problem understanding?

grampster
January 5, 2004, 09:07 PM
#1

Being that self preservation is the #1 job of the aware human critter in any shape or form, freedom to keep and bear arms actually should be a non issue, period.

Goblins are less likely to do crimes if their self preservation is threatened. Crazy people are crazy....armed or unarmed. Most are harmless except to themselves. Law abiding people are no threat to anybody except a stupid goblin or a crazy man intent on harming others. (disclaimer: The use of crazy here is not intended to insult any of youens that are.....merely making conversation politically incorrectly,but with clarity.)

I'm with Mr. Franklin regarding the safety vis a vis freedom issue.

Grampster

G1FAL
January 5, 2004, 09:07 PM
Werent felons prohibited from any further ownership, except after getting "relief from disability", by the GCA '68?

I picked the first one, also I agree Spacemanspiff and nualle. If a felon gets their right to vote back after they get off paper, they should also get their RKBA back at the same time. If they are still a threat to others, keep them behind bars. And just because someone has a felony doesnt mean anything. I've known guys that got popped for something really stupid when they were 18, 19 years old, and for the next 40 years, they MAYBE get a speeding ticket. They go to work, pay their taxes, and are good, productive members of society. And yet, they are still considered second class citizens, because of something that happened many years ago.

Maybe a good solution would be to have, say, a five year period after the felon gets off paper, and if they dont get any more charges aside from traffic stops, then they get their 2nd Amendment right back.

If its any consolation to the 30% of you, I also believe that the 1st Amendment means "Congress shall make no law....", exactly as it says. If you say something that is likely to provoke someone to beat your @$$, then you better be prepared to take your lumps.

I also dont believe that a broken tail light and being in the wrong neighborhood constitutes a 'reasonable' search of your vehicle.

Wildalaska
January 5, 2004, 09:09 PM
What part of "shall not be infringed" do 30+% of the voters here have a problem understanding?

I dont know what part of reality and constituional law do 65% of the voters here have a probklem understanding:neener:

WildtryingtofocusthedeabtehereratherthangettheusualmudslingingAlaska

ctdonath
January 5, 2004, 09:25 PM
Main problem with the "constitutional law" acceptance of restrictions on RKBA is that a long series of "reasonable" re-interpretations results in not having RKBA period.

SCOTUS just ruled that "Congress shall make no law..." means something other than what it plainly says. When the host of "constitutional law" results in interpretations that plainly and flatly contradict what the Constitution says, it ain't "constitutional law" anymore. RKBA isn't far behind Free Speech.

The Founding Fathers put those restrictions on government in there for very specific reasons. They left out varous "reasonable infringements" precisely because such talk gets morphed into total revocation of rights.

Ian
January 5, 2004, 09:33 PM
Sorry, WA, but no number of Supreme Court rulings can take away my ability to read simple English.

Justin
January 5, 2004, 09:39 PM
Prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from owning guns is constituional, but nothing more
Define mental illness.

What does that include?
Being psychotic?
Suicidal thoughts?
Post-traumatic stress disorder?
Depression?
Being Bi-polar?
Bulimia?
Avoidant personality disorder?
Attention Deficit Disorder?
Seasonal Affective Disorder?
Triskaidekaphobia?

:confused:

MicroBalrog
January 5, 2004, 09:41 PM
I suffer from personality disorders. (That's why I'm no longer an armourer). However, I can still carry a gun if issued one under the regulations.:D

grampster
January 5, 2004, 09:41 PM
I believe I was quite clear.....guns should be a non issue. The Federal Constitution is clear......."shall not be infringed". Non Issue!! No different than swimming pools or bubble gum...non issue. In fact the BoR does not mention gum or pools....it does mention firearms....double non issue. But pools and gum can be regulated as no mention of prohibiting regulating them exists in any Constitution I know of.
Is the BoR trumped by a state Constitution? We live in states. They have Constitutions as well. What state do you live in and what does your Constitution say? If your Constitution mirrors the Fed, then no laws shall be made infringing keeping and bearing arms in your state. But does a state Constitution that conflicts with the BoR trump the BoR? Trouble is, law makers violate the Fed Constitution and state Constitutions all day, every day with the support of the courts and the benevolent acquiescence of the people. Constitutions do not tell the people what they are allowed to do or not do. They are instruments defining, deliniating and limiting the power of government in the affairs of men. Laws may be made by elected officials and enforced only when not in conflict with the supreme law of the USA or the state where you live. Guns should never be a legal issue....an emotional one? Yep. But never a legal issue. It is because about 75% of the people in America who can be involved in their Republic either choose to be not involved or are ignorant of the issues of the day when they do become involved.

Ian
January 5, 2004, 09:42 PM
Define mental illness.
Also, how about:

Introversion?
Curmudgeonliness?
Unusual religious beliefs?
Minority political beliefs?
Funny-looking hair?

geekWithA.45
January 5, 2004, 10:15 PM
I used to be a member of the camp that thought it was OK for restrict RKBA for felons and the insane.

We should be, and formerly were a society organized around responsible adults. We're slipping more and more into being a society organized around children, the incompetent, and the criminal, at the expense of the responsible adults, who are footing the bill for these miscreants. There is no justice to be found in THAT.

You used to be able to argue me temporarilly into the notion that certain violent felons should be prohibited, but after seeing the damage done to responsible adults after decades of that slippery slope I'm no longer willing to have any part of it.


As for the insane:

If you're sane enough to be walking the streets, you should be sane enough to be armed.

If you present an immediate danger to yourself or anyone else due to a mental problem, (with or without a gun) that's the criterion for involuntary commitment, and since I don't think anyone is willing to seriously argue that the right of arms extends to the incarcerated, the problem is solved.

To a certain extent, when you argue for the disarmament of those with mental issues, you're effectively arguing that those who should be involuntarilly commited should not be, and by extension that the psych ward extends into the street.

brookstexas
January 5, 2004, 10:19 PM
"The problem is we have a lot more felony crimes now than we did then. A felony, properly understood, is a crime serious enough to carry the death penalty."

as of 2 weeks ago it's now illegal for anyone to say jack about a political candidate for 60 days before an election. If you do it's a FELONY.
Everything is a felony anymore and the bar is continually dropped.
I think the prison lobby (the new defense industry) is behind most of that.
BT

Bruce H
January 5, 2004, 10:40 PM
I knew Wildmywayorthe highwayAlaska wouldn't like it. Just what makes you qualified to tell me what to do? This is one area where it just is. Making rules reguarding who can and who can't is control.

standingbear
January 5, 2004, 10:43 PM
im a perfectionist and i loath spiders..does this make me...mentally ill?criminals will always be able to get a weapon.drugs will always be a problem-taking guns away from citizens will not solve these problems-it will in fact-create more problems.the constitution has been rewritten to be politically correct.ammendments here,ammendments there..where will we be when our grandchildren grow up.what kind of constitution will be left for them.what kind of freedoms will their generation have.what will become of the original document so many fought and died to preserve.

Wildalaska
January 6, 2004, 12:10 AM
I knew Wildmywayorthe highwayAlaska wouldn't like it. Just what makes you qualified to tell me what to do? This is one area where it just is. Making rules reguarding who can and who can't is control.

Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about.

WildlovethelackofcreativityinusingmynametomakeapersonalattackthoughAlaska

Wildalaska
January 6, 2004, 12:12 AM
To a certain extent, when you argue for the disarmament of those with mental issues, you're effectively arguing that those who should be involuntarilly commited should not be, and by extension that the psych ward extends into the street.

Huh:confused:

WildtellmethatoneagainAlaska

Wildalaska
January 6, 2004, 12:18 AM
Sorry, WA, but no number of Supreme Court rulings can take away my ability to read simple English.

Well heck there Ian, since its all so simple, why dont we just scrap the Sup Court and let us all act on what we think it says.

WildthatswhattheleftieswanttodoAlaska

Brian Dale
January 6, 2004, 12:22 AM
I voted '2' too quickly. I'll make it 1 and 1/2: Prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns while they are in prison or in locked psychiatric facilities is constitutional, but nothing more.

I follow the law, even when I believe that infringing laws are wrong. I also give a wide berth to any angry drunks that I see in public. My reason for both is the same: I don't choose to pay the consequences for doing otherwise.

Ian
January 6, 2004, 12:47 AM
Works for me, Wildalaska.

Does that make me a "leftie"?

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 6, 2004, 12:56 AM
Grampster:

But pools and gum can be regulated as no mention of prohibiting regulating them exists in any Constitution I know of

The government is only granted the authority to regulate those matters allowed it by the Constitution. It cannot regulate everything except for just what the Constitution prohibits it from acting on. Thankfully our government isn't supposed to work that way, although they certainly try to get their claws on everything under the sun via the Commerce Clause.

rock jock
January 6, 2004, 01:30 AM
The Federal Constitution is clear......."shall not be infringed". Non Issue!!
Soooo, incarcerated felons should be allowed to have firearms also, right?

Drjones
January 6, 2004, 04:35 AM
Here are my views since you asked:

I voted for the first line.

There is no gun control law, regulation, or restriction that is logically and morally justifiable in any way, shape or form.

Let's take background checks as an example, since these have been a sticky point for me; first, they remove the presumption of innocence. By their very nature, they imply that there is something wrong with me and I have to prove otherwise.

Second, what is it about firearms that is so sinister that they require some sort of examination and proof of innocence before I can own one? Anyone could go out right now, get blind drunk, get in a car, drive and kill someone (or multiple people), and when all is said and done, no one would dare question the logic or "safety" in allowing this person to purchase another car, nor would such a person be subject to any sort of background check or other verification of his innocence prior to being able to purchase another car with which he could very easily kill again.

People would sooner ban alcohol. :rolleyes:

On the subject of criminals, I'm ashamed to see here that people actually think that anyone here would honestly try to argue that a criminal has the right to own a firearm or other weapon while incarcerated.

Talk about taking things too literally... Sheesh...

I believe that when a person is released from prison, it is because their sentence is up. They have "paid their due" to society, as it were, and a condition such as "is now and forever ineligible to own a firearm, etc." is continuing punishment.

If someone is so dangerous that we think he ought not own a firearm, *** is that individual doing back out on our streets???

In closing, it seems that there are far too many people in this world, and most dishearteningly of all, here, who cannot read plain english.

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty darn clear to me, and english isn't even my first language...



I don't think we should allow machineguns except to those with the correct permits (class 3 gun dealer?)

It would be WAY too easy for someone to get their hands on an automatic.



You do know that butter knives have been used in far more murders than legally-owned fully-automatic firearms, don't you?

Do you know that since 1934, a civilian has never used their legally-owned fully automatic weapon to commit a crime? There are approximately 120,000 fully-automatic firearms registered with the BATF, BTW...

I do not think that there is a single other inanimate object in this world that has a better track record of safety than fully-automatic weapons.

Yet you want to ban them??? :scrutiny:

Ryder
January 6, 2004, 05:19 AM
There is no checkbox on a psychological evaluation form for "normal". Everyone evaluated can only be categorized in a bad light.

Being conviced of a felony is meaninless. I'm not going to tell my neigbor he can't hunt to feed his family because some cop was having a bad hair day. If a person is so violent toward others that ownership of a firearm is a concern he should not be free to walk among us. No restrictions needed since there are no guns in prison.

The constitution says no infringement. Voting that I recognize that is a no brainer. Hmmm, overlooking that fact is also a sort of no brain thing. :D

Seems controlling yourself isn't good enough for some people. They have an overpowering urge to control others too. Tough cookies, those type are free to choke on them, but they'd better not expect the Hiemlich from me.

Moparmike
January 6, 2004, 05:25 AM
I voted #1, with the stipulation that the mentally ill would still be locked up if they couldnt be trusted in society. Cars and butcher knives are easier to obtain than a firearm, and can inflict more damage if used properly.


1st off: Murderers and Rapists should get a long drop to the end of a short rope. That would eliminate the arguement about violent felons being armed.

People who are felons because of hot checks or white-collar crime (for example) dont deserve to have their rights taken away.


Geek, you must know far fewer 'crazy' people than I. I worry about some people. In my highschool, I could name a half-dozen people who had no business being within 12 nautical miles of a firearm.:eek:

voilsb
January 6, 2004, 06:10 AM
I voted for number two, for similar reasons Happy Bob did.

Mine are that there should be some restrictions, but incredibly minimal.

Mentally ill? No restrictions unless they're actively committed in a hospital.

Criminals? No restrictions unless in prison (all criminals). For violent felons, in addition to while in prison, it's reasonable for them to have restrictions for a probationary period (not to exceed 10% of prison sentence) after release. Also, the bar needs to be raised. Too many crimes are felonies these days. Both the sentences for felonies and the qualifier for what is a felony need to be increased.

stevelyn
January 6, 2004, 07:34 AM
I voted for preventing felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns. But understand that "felon" is being misapplied for victimless offenses that I don't believe qualify for the title. Violent felons need to remain locked up or have dirt shoveled on them.
However after reading both of grampster's posts, I'm withdrawing my vote and agreeing with the first option based on the above conditions.

stevelyn
January 6, 2004, 07:55 AM
Oops! Chain fire.

cracked butt
January 6, 2004, 08:03 AM
I voted the first option.

If a felon does his time, doesn't he have the right to be a citizen again?
I used to believe that felons should never have the right to own firearms again, until I met aa guy who did his time for felony drunk driving with his kid in his truck. He was very reckless in his 20's but after he got busted on the felony count and did his time, he really cleaned up his act. He took alot of us hunting on his properties even though he couldn't hunt because he could no longer possess a firearm. He finally had a hearing last year and a judge somehow reduced the incident to a misdemeanor in order to give him back the right to possess firearms.

Mentally ill...

If someone consults a doctor because they feel tired and sickly and the doctor diagnoses the patient as yhaving mild depression- would this not preclude future gun ownership? What about combat veterans who are treated for post traumatic disorder?

geekWithA.45
January 6, 2004, 09:58 AM
Does that make me a "leftie"?

Ahem: {on behalf of the southpaws}

You're a leftie only if you shoot, write, or do other everyday functions with your left hand.

I'm pretty sure you really mean leftist.

Bruce H
January 6, 2004, 10:05 AM
I guess we should all have PhD's in philosophy so we can discuss the meaning of is. Some of us can actually comprehend the written word without looking between the lines.

Jeeper
January 6, 2004, 11:06 AM
Can someone who picked number 2 tell me how to do that without a background check described in number 3? IMHO 2 and 3 are the same.

Augustwest
January 6, 2004, 11:22 AM
...but after seeing the damage done to responsible adults after decades of that slippery slope I'm no longer willing to have any part of it.

There's no better way than that that I could use to describe why I voted for #1.

I no longer find acceptable many things I once did about government because I've become aware of its inherent tendency to overreach, and ultimately ruin that which it's supposed to protect.

You're a leftie only if you shoot, write, or do other everyday functions with your left hand.

I write lefty/shoot righty. Does that make me a centrist?

Bill Hook
January 6, 2004, 11:27 AM
The former USSR made lots of folks "criminals" and "mentally ill." It's so much easier that way. :rolleyes:

Ed
January 6, 2004, 12:04 PM
If a convicted Felon is allowed to be free and walk the streets then he or she is deemed "cured" therefore they have done the time and been forgiven by the government. They should have the right to own firearms. If they are still to dangerous to be trusted with guns they should still be in jail.

zahc
January 6, 2004, 12:05 PM
I'm with Jeeper. The only wa to enforce #2 is with #3 and of course even that is silly becuase of private sales/anyone who wants to commit violence with a gun won't care about obtaining one illegally.


The only answer is roughly #1.

geekWithA.45
January 6, 2004, 12:21 PM
quote: To a certain extent, when you argue for the disarmament of those with mental issues, you're effectively arguing that those who should be involuntarilly commited should not be, and by extension that the psych ward extends into the street.

Huh

WildtellmethatoneagainAlaska


If a person is a danger to themselves or others, they need to be institutionalized.

If they aren't a danger to self/others, then restricting them from arms has no merit.

In order for restricting arms for the mentally ill to make sense, you have to argue that there is a classification of person who

A) IS a danger to self/others
and
B) Should be allowed freedom of the public streets.

If you do THAT, what you're really saying is that we need to make our streets safe not for responsible adults, but for dangerous mental patients, and thus, the streets become an extension of the psych ward.

Joe Demko
January 6, 2004, 12:27 PM
Let us assume, though we know what risk that carries, that the Constitution actually does forbid the enaction of any gun laws and that the Founding Fathers meant it that way. That forces me to ask "Why must we assume that the Founding Fathers were right to include such an ammendment when they were wrong about other things?"

Gordon Fink
January 6, 2004, 12:31 PM
We are all unapprehended felons and undiagnosed mentally ill. Regardless, we simply cannot prevent insane and/or violent criminals from arming themselves, so why punish the law-abiding citizen in an attempt to do just that?

It’s all about power …

~G. Fink

meathammer
January 6, 2004, 12:49 PM
geekWithA.45 said: If a person is a danger to themselves or others, they need to be institutionalized. If they aren't a danger to self/others, then restricting them from arms has no merit.

This is exactly how I feel, I voted number 1.

Justin
January 6, 2004, 03:48 PM
You're a leftie only if you shoot, write, or do other everyday functions with your left hand.

I'm pretty sure you really mean leftist. Well, Ian is a lefty at the range, so maybe that makes him a lefty leftist.

http://smilies.crowd9.com/contrib/corky/smilies15.gif <---Snickering at the idea that Ian's stance somehow makes him a leftist. Too funny!

BTW, I notice that my original query has remained unanswered.

Wildalaska
January 6, 2004, 04:12 PM
Hi Justin sorry and should have clarified, would have stopped some debate, I meant mentally ill as defined in the statute, ie, having been involuntarily committed or having been declared incompetant.

WildobscureAlaska

Obiwan
January 6, 2004, 04:15 PM
Keeping in mind that I am not a constitutional scholar

Anything other than #1 starts you down that slippery slope towards "reasonable restraints"

So....to be true to the contitution....you are pretty much left with.....

#1....Anyone can own anything..they suffer the consequences if they misuse them.

( If I stabbed someone....did my time....was released.....I could buy a new kniofe the same day)

Unless they have their rights taken away...which seems to me to be a case by case kind of thing...not broad brush decisions about groups.

Wildalaska
January 7, 2004, 01:21 PM
Unless they have their rights taken away...which seems to me to be a case by case kind of thing...not broad brush decisions about groups.

Just out of curiosity then Obiwan...would you limit RKBA to citizens or citizens/PRAs or everyone, including visitors

WildcuriousAlaska

ctdonath
January 7, 2004, 07:53 PM
EVERYONE has a natural right to self-defense, right? That (and other rights) is recognized in the Bill of Rights. Why then, other than specific individual cases where someone clearly is a threat to others, would you deny anyone the right to tools for self-defense?

Sam Adams
January 7, 2004, 07:57 PM
All laws affecting firearms are unconstituional, except for criminal misuse
That's the winner for me. I don't like the idea of mental incompetents and convicted violent felons having guns - BUT ... the violent felons that shouldn't have been released from prison in the first place (or, better yet, shouldn't be breathing) will find a way to get guns, no matter what the law says. The part of the 2nd line's restriction that I don't like is "felons" - as in "all convicted felons" as in "even non-violent people convicted of minor crimes that some anti-gun SOB's in Congress decide to call a felony." In other words, don't give the antis any means of slipping through a ban on gun ownership on the basis of "crime control."

The right to defense of self, family and liberty is about as absolute a right as one can have - because if you don't have the right to effectively defend yourself, you don't have the right to live - and I recoil at that notion for anyone other than murderers, war criminals and others guilty of really heinous crimes. If someone is currently serving time in prison or a mental institution, then it is fine by me to restrict their rights - after all, confinement itself is a restriction on rights, and it is being done for the protection of the rights of the rest of us. But if society says, by the act of releasing someone onto the streets, that their debt is paid or that they are no longer a threat, then what is the possible justification for keeping them disarmed? And if they are so dangerous, *** are they being let out in the first place?

Tamara
January 7, 2004, 10:57 PM
why dont we just scrap the Sup Court and let us all act on what we think it says.

There's no "think it says" to it. The 2nd is one of the most grammatically simple sections of the BoR; I submit that anyone who needs nine black-robed Gladys Kravitzes in some East Coast urban pesthole to decode it for them should probably be kept away from sharp objects and power tools. ;)

Tamdependsonwhatthedefinitionof"is"isara ;) :p

AZRickD
January 7, 2004, 11:11 PM
I don't know about you, Tamara. But *I* do not need nine Robed Ones to tell me that the 2A means what Madison and his contemporaries said it meant.

But, dang, it would be nice if 5 out of frickin' 4 of them knew their rears from a hole in the ground.

Rick

jimpeel
January 7, 2004, 11:16 PM
Time I guess to see where people standSince I'm on your ignore list you can't see where I stand, where I sit, or what I post. :neener:

The word for the day is: punctuation

Billmanweh
January 8, 2004, 12:30 AM
for people who voted for no regulations whatsoever, are you referring only to small arms?

jimpeel
January 8, 2004, 12:41 AM
Small arms, big arms, all arms.

We already have the right to have tanks, bazookas, hand grenades, rifles, cannon, Apache helicopters, etc. They are declared to be "destructive devices" by the BATFE and we now have to license them. Why would it be any different under a no license scheme where we can have everything we can have today?

Prior to the advent of the BATFE and NFA'34, there were no restrictions on arms.

The only ones abusing them were criminals.

Today, we have licensing, registration, permits, NICS checks, 4473s, ad nauseum to possess and own a firearm.

The only ones abusing them are criminals.

Nothing has changed but the paperwork.

Billmanweh
January 8, 2004, 12:47 AM
you can mount a legally transferred machine gun on a helicoptor or airplane?

you sure about that??

Wildalaska
January 8, 2004, 01:30 AM
There's no "think it says" to it.

Tam...Thats what you say..others say different...how are we gonna decide...a gunfight? :)


WildandyournameisnotasconducivetoeditorializingasmineisbecauseofvowelplacementAlaska

jimpeel
January 8, 2004, 01:45 AM
you can mount a legally transferred machine gun on a helicoptor or airplane?Movie armorers do it all of the time.

Did you realize that there are six -- COUNT 'EM, SIX -- fully operational Apache helicopters in civilian hands in this country?

Dateline NBC did a hand wringing, bed wetting report on "How could this happen" several years ago. It turns out that the government simply throws stuff on the scrap pile for salvage including the weapons systems for the Apache; and entire Apaches sans weapons systems.

Some enterprising cherry-pickers figured this out and started collecting parts and have assembled six, fully functional Apaches which they rent to the studios for stunts, etc.

So the next time you see an Apache -- or several Apaches -- in a movie, they did not make an arrangement with the military for them. They simply called some enterprising armorers.

Billmanweh
January 8, 2004, 02:28 AM
So are the weapons systems registered with the ATF just like other Class III stuff?

I still find it difficult to believe that isn't some sort of regulation in place that prevents you from flying your plane or helicoptor with weapons systems on board.

Anyone have a link to any articles about this? I've done a couple of quick searches and come up empty handed.

(Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread)

artherd
January 8, 2004, 03:38 AM
Felons also loose the right to vote, and if in prison, most if not all of their civil rights are suspended. It was their call to commit a Felony and violate the rights of another human being, not mine.


Caveat; there are some pretty silly felonys these days, that should not be felonys at all. Those laws need to be changed.

jimpeel
January 8, 2004, 03:54 AM
I tried a Copernic search for many combinations. Had the best luck with "apache helicopter studio equipment vehicle rental". The one site I got that shows how futile this search might be without having someone in the know to tell us is HERE (apache helicopter studio equipment vehicle rental). That is a list of the companies that rent or lease various goods, services, vehicles, props, etc. to the studios. E-gads!

Most of what I got back was gaming related so the search results were really cluttered.

I remember seeing the piece on Dateline NBC. I went to their page but their archive only goes back to 2003. The woman who did the report was the one who is the anchor with Stone Phillips.

G1FAL
January 8, 2004, 01:26 PM
I'm pretty sure felons get their right to vote back after they get off of probation/parole.

Bill Hook
January 8, 2004, 01:36 PM
Depends on the state.

Billmanweh
January 8, 2004, 01:41 PM
is there anyplace in the world that has tried this? no restrictions on arms of any kind?

that just doesn't strike me as being a good thing.

Obiwan
January 8, 2004, 03:01 PM
WildAlwaysCuriousALaska

I see the Constitution as applying to Americans.....Citizens.

But you raise a point for discussion...since I see it more as a list of things Government CAN'T DO ...rather than a list of things I CAN DO.

ObiWildAlaskaWannabee

Sorry...Tamara Started it...blew soda out my nose when I read hers!

jimpeel
January 8, 2004, 10:25 PM
is there anyplace in the world that has tried this? no restrictions on arms of any kind?Yes. The United States of America prior to 1934.

ksnecktieman
January 8, 2004, 11:52 PM
billman????? YES there is. They are the country even Hitler would not attack, if I understood my history lessons. Switzerland. They get shooting lessons in school, shooting is a national pastime. Their army consists of every able bodied man (and woman) in the country, and he keeps his weapons and ammunition in his home. It has been a long time since I have heard anything about them.

Wildalaska
January 9, 2004, 12:11 AM
I see the Constitution as applying to Americans.....Citizens.

Oh dear Obiwan, does that mean my wife, who is a PRA, has to return the pistol she just bought?

Wildjoiningmyfanclubeh?Alaska

Wildalaska
January 9, 2004, 12:13 AM
YES there is. They are the country even Hitler would not attack, if I understood my history lessons. Switzerland. They get shooting lessons in school, shooting is a national pastime. Their army consists of every able bodied man (and woman) in the country, and he keeps his weapons and ammunition in his home. It has been a long time since I have heard anything about them.

The Swiss have more restrictive "gun control" in mnay cantons than does Alaska. You need Cantonal permits to carry for example.

WildlovethatcountryanywaydespitetheiractionsinWW2andthereafterAlaska

Billmanweh
January 9, 2004, 01:36 AM
in some ways, the gun debate reminds me of the abortion issue. in both cases, I'm sure there is some reasonable common ground to be found. but the extremes on both sides have taken such an adversarial position that neither can give an inch. the pro life side doesn't want to even give a woman who's been raped or who's life is in danger the right to an abortion, and the other side wants a 12 year old to be able to get an abortion without notifying her parents. but there's really no point to giving an inch, because neither side is interested in a common sense solution. both want a 100% solution.

the people on the anti-gun side don't want moderation. they want all guns out of private hands. bottom line. so what's the point of offering nics, registration of machine guns, even things that are perfectly reasonable, because the end game is the same. they want them all. and what's the point of offering a compromise to the pro-gun side when what they really want is private ownership of nuclear weapons without registration. if we could all go out and buy our own rpgs, someone would then want a 20mm cannon mounted on their helicoptor.

it's obvious both sides are wrong. total bans on gun ownership have never worked anywhere in the world. and the idea of unregulated ownership of any type of arms you can afford is insanity.

any ideas?

:confused:

Tamara
January 9, 2004, 05:37 AM
and the idea of unregulated ownership of any type of arms you can afford is insanity.

Wow, America before 1934 was one kooky place, huh? And before 1968, you could mail-order a 20mm cannon! Wack-o, baby!

dustind
January 9, 2004, 05:43 AM
Billmanweh: You almost answered your own question. Why compromise when you want everything? Well unless you are forced to, do not. Giving something away that you want is a bad way to get it.

I also think you are misrepresenting the nuclear debate as so many others do. As for other arms, you do know that cannons were not regulated until I am guessing 1934 or later. I know people owned their own war ships back when the country was founded, and did so for a long time. Many cannons and explosiveswhere privately kept and all unregulated. Many people in USA own real cannons, there are laws covering them. I have a friend that owns a black powder cannon, he uses it for killing masses of crows, fun, and the 4th of july or other celebrations. Can you give me a reason why cannons, RPGs or 20MM guns should be registered?

Billmanweh
January 9, 2004, 06:12 AM
let me ask what you think about this...

I'm not positive of the exact numbers (I'm not sure even the ATF knows the exact numbers), but aren't there something like 120,000+ registered machine guns in civilian hands in the U.S.? That's not counting all the other supposedly "evil" things like suppressors, cannons, destructive devices, etc. And correct me if I'm wrong, but a civilian has never committed a violent crime with one of these guns? So from '34 - '86, this system seems to be working pretty well (apart from the $200 tax). You could have pretty much anything you want, but you were also held responsible for owning these guns. You could own an M60, but you couldn't sell it to a stranger in the parking lot of a gun show (well, without the proper transfer).

This to me says, it's not the guns.

Now, how many unregistered machine guns are out there? Who knows. But when someone robs a bank with a converted AR, do you think they are using an $8500 transferrable, or a $600 Bushmaster that they converted in the basement? Well, for the last 70 years it's never been the transferrable.

So I really do believe the guns aren't the problem. But the fact that they are so closely registered and the fact that you must go through an FBI background check that takes a couple of months is contributing to the fact that no violent crimes are being committed with these guns.

I'm not saying to compromise at all. We can't. How can you compromise with someone who wants them all confiscated? You can't.

What I'm trying to say though, is that both sides are probably half right. We're able to safely own and use damn near any kind of small arms we can dream up, but it's obvious that the registration/background checks are what's keeping them from being used in crimes, falling into the 'wrong hands', etc.

Does that make any sense?

tyme
January 9, 2004, 06:38 AM
What I'm trying to say though, is that both sides are probably half right. We're able to safely own and use damn near any kind of small arms we can dream up, but it's obvious that the registration/background checks are what's keeping them from being used in crimes, falling into the 'wrong hands', etc.
I'm sure drug dealers and high value burglars/robbers would be interested to hear that automatic weapons are not available to them. At any rate, I suspect most criminals don't use automatic weapons because full-auto is monumentally stupid and wasteful in any situation short of being attacked by a dense mob. A variety of very informed people are of the opinion that full-auto weapons are less dangerous per-bullet than aimed semi-auto fire. Shouldn't the feds be begging criminals to use full-auto?
Does that make any sense?
No. :)

Billmanweh
January 9, 2004, 07:13 AM
my point has nothing to do with the usefulness of full auto fire

:p

Obiwan
January 9, 2004, 10:58 AM
WildCrazytoArmYourWIfeAlaska

When you say this woman is your wife I would assume 3 things about her;

1. Great taste in men

2. Strong sense of humor

3. US Citizen...if only by marraige

So I guess she can keep the pistol....I recommend level 3a body armor for you...or remove the powder from her ammunition:D

Bill St. Clair
January 9, 2004, 02:25 PM
I, of course, voted for number 1.

Felons and the mentally ill should be disarmed while incarcerated. If they are considered too dangerous to be allowed to own and carry self defense tools, they should not be let out of prison/hospital.

The proper punishment for a violent felon is to be killed by his intended victim at the scene of his intended crime.

Wildalaska
January 9, 2004, 02:42 PM
Obiwan

US Citizen...if only by marraige

The otrher parts being true of course, but one is not granted citizenship via marraige, one must be a PRA first...and of course there are other ways to get PRA..

So question..do PRAs get guns under the no law plan? Visitors?

WildquestioningAlaska

Bill St. Clair
January 9, 2004, 03:15 PM
My twelve-year-old son should be able to walk into any hardware store in America, lay down cash, and walk out with a fully automatic M-16 or AK-47 and a thousand rounds of ammo without answering any questions or signing a single scrap of paper. That's what "shall not be infringed" means.

Unless, of course, the store owner didn't want to sell it to him. Then he'd have to find another store.

If someone who couldn't speak English or who wore funny clothes, tried to do the same, it should be up to the store owner, and only the store owner, whether he wanted to do business with that person.

dustind
January 9, 2004, 03:16 PM
Billmanweh: I would have to say no, just because there is a legal class, and illegal class does not prove registration works. Criminals still use machine guns whenever they feel like it. If we registered all weapons then the 50+% of unregistered firearms would still be used by criminals. All registration does it make it illegal to own the tool to commit the illegal crime, since the crime is worse than the charge of an illegal weapon these laws do not work. If someone is willing to murder they are willing to use an illegal weapon, or to steal a legal one and use it. The only effect is one more law is broken in addition to the many others that the criminal does not plan to get cought doing anyway.

Billmanweh
January 9, 2004, 03:24 PM
Billmanweh: I would have to say no, just because there is a legal class, and illegal class does not prove registration works.


just so that I'm clear what you're saying...

the fact that 120,000+ legally owned and registered machine guns are in civilian hands and not a single one has ever been used by it's owner in a violent crime, and every machine gun used in a violent crime over the last 70 years has been an unregistered gun...

that's just a coincidence?

M1911Owner
January 9, 2004, 03:33 PM
Golgo-13 wrote:Let us assume, though we know what risk that carries, that the Constitution actually does forbid the enaction of any gun laws and that the Founding Fathers meant it that way. That forces me to ask "Why must we assume that the Founding Fathers were right to include such an ammendment when they were wrong about other things?"What exactly are you referring to about the Founding Fathers being "wrong about other things?" Given the context, I take it that you are referring to them making mistakes in the Constitution. The only mistake there that I am aware of is that they worded things to allow anybody to haul a sovereign state into federal court; this was fixed by the 11th Amendment.

I'll grant that one can reasonably argue that they were wrong to write slavery into the constitution. I would counter that, however, by arguing that they were right to do this, as it would have been impossible to get the constitution ratified otherwise. After all, they didn't write it in for perpetuity, just for 20 years, hoping that they could actually eliminate slavery after 20 years.

Other than these things, I see that the Constitution is a remarkable document, that quite precisely and accurately defined just exactly what needed to be defined.

Geech
January 9, 2004, 03:40 PM
just so that I'm clear what you're saying...

the fact that 120,000+ legally owned and registered machine guns are in civilian hands and not a single one has ever been used by it's owner in a violent crime, and every machine gun used in a violent crime over the last 70 years has been an unregistered gun...

that's just a coincidence?

More than anything that indicates to me that despite all the cost and hoops associated with automatic weapons, criminals will still get them when they want. I don't see how this proves that NFA 34 is at all effective in doing anything except hassling law-abiding citizens.

Publicola
January 9, 2004, 03:54 PM
Billmanweh,
I'm afraid your cause & effect is a bit confused.

Ya see, it's not because the 120,000+ machine guns are registered that their owners didn't use them in a crime - it's because those 120,000+ people didn't want to commit any crimes with them.

The registration itself does nothing other than register those people. It does not prevent someone on the verge of robbing a bank from doing so.

Neither does an unregistered weapon cause the owner to rob trains.

It's not a coincidence, but neither is it a causal relationship.

But the reason so many full auto owners do not violate the law is not because their squirt guns are registered & they couldn't get away with something (this would be fallacy - no way to trace a bullet accurately to a specific gun, & unles caught red handed the gun would not be very helpful in establishing guilt): it's simply because they have no desire or need to commit such violent crimes.

You seen the price for full auto guns lately? A grand might get you something cheap & homely. Mots full auto's are in 4 figures real close to 5 figures. Usually if you have enough cash to buy the things, then economics isn't going to be a compelling reason to rob a liquor store.

Not that it couldn't happen - but most violent crime committed with full auto weapons can be more readily attributed to a desire to steal money (or earn money through murder) than anything else - which will leave most people who can afford one or two or a dozen full auto weapons without the most common motive.

& this is just a guess - but I'd assume that there are at least as many unregistered machine guns as there are registered ones. Yet you don't hear about shootings with a full auto every day. In fact they're fairly uncommon nationwide. So for every unregistered full auto out there, I wonder how many there are whose owners don't have any violently criminal intent?

One last thing - of all the unregistered machine guns whose owners are charged with crimes, I'll again go out on a limb & wager that the majority (if not the vast majority) of those charges are merely for possession. To be more clear I'd assume that most people charged with crimes concerning unregistered full auto weapons have committed no other crime than possessing them contrary to the government's wishes.

Billmanweh
January 9, 2004, 04:29 PM
The registration itself does nothing other than register those people.

the tight registration is absolutely keeping those guns from being used in crimes.

the 120,000+ owners of machine guns aren't committing violent crimes, you're right. in fact, I would guess as a group they are some of the most law abiding people in the country. one way we know that is because they've been through a two month long fbi background check.

and secondly (and I think this is just as important), it holds you accountable for your gun. if your legally registered M60 is used in an armored car robbery, you can't just say "oh, that M60, I think I sold it some guy a while back" if your legally registered M60 is used in an armored car robbery, the atf/fbi is going to be crawling up your backside.

I'm saying that the title ii system proves both sides are partly right. it's the perfect microcosm to look at this issue. it's obviously not the guns, because there are tens of thousands of the nastiest, full automatic, belt-fed black guns that would make chuck schummer and hillary clinton pee their pants. and people are dropping like flies, right? nope, not a single violent crime committed with one in 70 years. but if you want one, you'll go through a two month long fbi background check and be held accountable for it's use 24/7.

I don't believe my cause and effect is confused at all, I think it's spot on.

(and the prices are irrelevant. the high prices have only come in the last 10-15 years, and only on full auto)

nualle
January 9, 2004, 04:34 PM
Billmanweh asked: is there anyplace in the world that has tried this? no restrictions on arms of any kind?

jimpeel answered: Yes. The United States of America prior to 1934.
Uh... that'd have to be some of the United States of America prior to 1934. Many states had gun-control laws long before then. No more just then than they are now.

Wildalaska
January 9, 2004, 05:13 PM
Billman dont be reasonable, thats not permitted in this type of discussion...

It upsets just the sheeple/blissninnies and the ninjaninnies...

WildwouldliketoseemorevotesAlaska

Publicola
January 9, 2004, 05:15 PM
Billmanweh,
Lemme try it like this:

The registered machine gun owners are not law abiding because they got registered. They got registered because they're law abiding.

Understand the difference?

& like I said - registration if any kind of weapon will not aide in catching someone who used it in a crime. well, not unless a witnessed snapped a pic of the gun's serial number.
No way to trace a bullet back to the gun 100% positively. & w/o the serial number then all you can do is narrow it down to registered owners of that type of weapon.

But generally speaking I doubt any of the registered owners of machine guns have thought about robbing banks but decided against it because they wer registered. They probably decided against it because they're moral.

& background checks simply mean you haven't been caught or you have been caught. they in no way give us any isnight into a person being trustworthy or good. Likewise a failed background check doesn't necessarily mean a person is not trustworthy or that he/she has a violent intent.

& again I must point out that the vast majority of unregistered full auto's aren't used in crime either (from my estimates that is).

& if I recall there were two crimes committed by those with registered full auto's. I can't recall the details but I do remember hearing about those two exceptions.

& expense is nto something recent. In 1935 it took a $200 tax to buy a $175 Thompson (or a $10 shotgun). That $200 was a lot of money back then. By the time it became more reasonable in relation to the prices of the items Congress screwed things up again.

But prior to 1968 it was legal to own a full auto as long as it was disassembled. No tac stamp or registration for a disassembled firearm. Common practice (from what I hear) was to keep it disassembled unless you were taking it to shoot, then if the cops came up you took it apart again. Kept you off the registry & kept 200 hard earned dollars in your pocket.

So there was a smaller number of registered full auto's prior to 1968 - which is consequently when the expense started going up on the items themselves.

In any case, registration is not a very effective deterent as those with harmful intent will simply not register - thus leaving the registered owners with an impeccable record of lawfullness.

Think of it like this: if you had to get a license for sex, would that stop people from cheating on their partners? If those so licensed had a high monogomy rate would you say it's because they would have been faithful with or without a license or would you think the license caused them to not stray?

registration has one purpose & one purpose only. It's very effective at that purpose but it absolutely sucks at all others. The one thing it excels at is making confiscation easier.

Geech
January 9, 2004, 05:15 PM
Billman, NFA may have kept those guns from being used in crime, but by your own admission it could not stop other automatic weapons from being used in crimes. Whether or not NFA 34 actually made is less likely for automatic weapons to be used in crime is anyone's guess, because we have no reliable evidence either way.

dustind
January 9, 2004, 05:42 PM
the fact that 120,000+ legally owned and registered machine guns are in civilian hands and not a single one has ever been used by it's owner in a violent crime, and every machine gun used in a violent crime over the last 70 years has been an unregistered gun... Lets change register to "thrown to the bottom of the sea"

the fact that 120,000+ machine guns are at the bottom of the sea in an undisclosed location and not a single one has ever been used in a violent crime, and every machine gun used in a violent crime over the last 70 years has been spared from destruction...

Sure registration (in some cases, not others) and destroying an object guarantees it wont be used in a crime. The fallacy is believing that because you have kept an object from being used in a crime, that you have prevented the crime. I could with 100% certainty guarantee that any object, be it gun, car, or knife would never fall into the wrong hands by either destroying it, or to a lesser extent by raising its value and making it hard to get.

If I took a desirable class of cars, and barred civilians from owning newly built ones, and made it difficult to transfer or own one, would that lower the number of cars used to flee banks after robberies? Yes if you are talking about the group that was restricted, no if you look at total cars in general.

Stinkyshoe
January 9, 2004, 05:57 PM
I don't agree with you. I think that the only restriction on guns should be age(referring to someone too youthful) Maybe your son is an exceptional young man who is responsible and thinks about how his actions affect others. But the fact is, most 12 year olds don't have the mental discipline to act responsibly(atleast most 12 year olds I've met). So should a 12 year(no referring to your son,but 12 year olds who never took hunter safety or went shooting with dad) that barely knows which end the bullet comes out of be given the same fully automatic as a soldier/police/responsible member of society. Children are the exception to this. Especially most children in this country. This kids raised my Batman, Ninja turtles, Britney Spears and Bill Clinton.

I made the mistake of allowing an a guy I know come to my farm to go shooting. The first thing his son did went they got out the van was stick a 30 round clip in "his" sks and start blasting off toward town. He was shooting into the ground and the bullets were bouncing off. Who knows how many other farm houses or farmers were out there that could have been hit. I was all I could do to keep from slugging the little ***** head and breaking off his trigger finger. They have not been invited back. This kid was about 12 at the time.

If this were a different day and age, where kids had to grow up faster and take on more responsibility, then maybe 12 year olds could have a FA. Until then, cross our fingers to keep the rights we do have as sane, patriotic, upstanding, and productive members of society.

tyme
January 9, 2004, 06:13 PM
bill,
"my point has nothing to do with the usefulness of full auto fire"

Oh, but it does. If full-auto weapons are not any more useful than semi-auto, then it's silly to breaking down stats using those categories and to say "Look at how great it is that registered full-autos aren't being used in crime."

And there are logic problems with even that statement taken alone, as has been pointed out.

Maybe we should register alcohol thermometers, then praise the registration system when nobody dies as a result of breaking them open and drinking the alcohol, even while people are dying from breaking open mercury thermometers and drinking that. And while unregistered alcohol thermometers are available on the black market and are still causing deaths.

See the problem?

Bill St. Clair
January 9, 2004, 06:36 PM
Stinkeyshoe,

Sounds like that guy with SKS was not a responsible gun owner. I submit that there is only a very loose correlation between age and responsibility. My son happens to have been brought up with the four rules since he first shot a BB gun at age 8 or 9. He now shoots traps with the rest of the guys and is as safe as anyone. Some people are never that safe. So picking an age out of a hat makes no sense. And having the government issue "safe gun owner" cards doesn't work either; too much opportunity for abuse of power. I maintain my position as stated.

Billmanweh
January 9, 2004, 06:43 PM
Oh, but it does. If full-auto weapons are not any more useful than semi-auto, then it's silly to breaking down stats using those categories and to say "Look at how great it is that registered full-autos aren't being used in crime."

I'm using full autos as an example because there is a clear subset of guns and owners that are tightly regulated, and then there is (possibly an equal number even) another subset which are illegal and outside of any control or regulation. It's irrelevant that they are full auto.

Billmanweh
January 9, 2004, 06:45 PM
Billman dont be reasonable, thats not permitted in this type of discussion...


Well, I think part of my argument is that neither side can be reasonable. And for good reason, pardon the pun. If you made this same argument to a group that is anti-gun, they'd still say that no one needs a machine gun and they cause crime. Even when you clearly point out that it's not the case.

Geech
January 9, 2004, 06:57 PM
If you made this same argument to a group that is anti-gun, they'd still say that no one needs a machine gun and they cause crime. Even when you clearly point out that it's not the case.

One thing you haven't done is show that these regulations prevented crime, though. When you yourself admit that full auto crime still happens with illegal weapons, than what on earth are you trying to prove here?

biere
January 9, 2004, 06:58 PM
I have been doing some thinking while reading this thread. And what I have come to stands with my earlier post pretty closely. The federal government should not be able to restrict my ability to purchase firearms.

If certain states or cities wish to vote in restrictions, let them have all the sheeple they can handle.

As for visitors to this country, I think anyone on the soil of the USA should be able to call up a gun manufacturer and buy a gun. No need for an ffl since we are unloading restrictions. There will still be gun stores so someone can go in and look at different items and what not, but no paperwork needed to become a store that sells an inanimate object.

That is what I consider a gun. It is an object. All harm comes from the user.

Users need to be restricted, if they prove unsafe then lock them away until such time that they are either safe for public consumption or they are dead.

And that is all the restriction to users, either they are part of the public or they are locked up or they are dead.

Nothing that creates classes of people is acceptable when it is the government doing the enforcement. And don't that that statement to mean I think all should make the same amount of money. I simply dislike laws being applied in an unequal way because someone has a certain label.

jimpeel
January 9, 2004, 07:11 PM
just so that I'm clear what you're saying...

the fact that 120,000+ legally owned and registered machine guns are in civilian hands and not a single one has ever been used by it's owner in a violent crime, and every machine gun used in a violent crime over the last 70 years has been an unregistered gun...

that's just a coincidence?The fact is that the machine gun hobby is very closely held. The firearms cost in the tens of thousands of dollars and some cost over $1,500/min to run. They are not a cheap date.

Yes, we have wealthy people who abuse firearms, Menendez Bros., etc.

When was the last time you heard anything about the North Hollywood shootout between the cops and the bank robbers armed with real, honest-to-God AK-47s?

Another question for you:

Why haven't you heard anything about it?

The answer:

The reason that the anti-gun crowd does not mention the North Hollywood shootout is because that one singular incident exists as the most credible evidence of the failure of gun control.

Are AK-47 (Avtomatica Kalashnikova-47) sub-machine guns legal in America?

NO

Did those firearms come into America legally?

NO

Did those firearms come into America through a port-of-entry?

NO

Did those firearms come through customs?

NO

Did they pay a customs duty on those firearms?

NO

Did they pay the required $200.00 transfer fee, required since 1934, on those firearms?

NO

Did they register those firearms as required since 1934?

NO

Did they fill out any paperwork on those firearms?

NO

Did they go through a background check?

NO

Did they get them anyway?

YES

Why? because gun control is a failure and those who think that it is the answer are being duped by others or are duping themselves.

Billmanweh
January 9, 2004, 07:33 PM
The registered machine gun owners are not law abiding because they got registered. They got registered because they're law abiding.


Agreed.


& like I said - registration if any kind of weapon will not aide in catching someone who used it in a crime. well, not unless a witnessed snapped a pic of the gun's serial number.

I'm not talking about catching someone who used it in a crime, I'm talking about nipping it in the bud and it not being used in a crime to begin with. And in 70 years, registration has accompished that 100%.


But generally speaking I doubt any of the registered owners of machine guns have thought about robbing banks but decided against it because they wer registered. They probably decided against it because they're moral.

We agree again, 100%. I've already said I would bet title ii gun owners are among the most law abiding people in the country.


& background checks simply mean you haven't been caught or you have been caught. they in no way give us any isnight into a person being trustworthy or good. Likewise a failed background check doesn't necessarily mean a person is not trustworthy or that he/she has a violent intent.

We disagree here. How many people who walk into a bank with the intention of robbing it could pass the fbi's background check that's required for title ii ownership? Close to 0% would be my guess. I'm not saying background checks are foolproof, far from it. And I'm not even debating whether or not felons should be able to own firearms. But don't try and tell me that background checks aren't keeping criminals from purchasing guns through legal means.


& again I must point out that the vast majority of unregistered full auto's aren't used in crime either (from my estimates that is).

I completely agree, but the percentage is irrelevant to this discussion. Not one legally registered machine gun owned by a civilian has been used in a violent crime, and every violent crime where a machine gun was used involved an unregistered gun. We're not comparing minority/majority, we have a totality.


& if I recall there were two crimes committed by those with registered full auto's. I can't recall the details but I do remember hearing about those two exceptions.

One that I have ever heard of.

"On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies."

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

As a police officer, he would have unfettered access to machine guns anyhow, so it seems immaterial that it happened to be registered to him personally.


& expense is nto something recent. In 1935 it took a $200 tax to buy a $175 Thompson (or a $10 shotgun). That $200 was a lot of money back then. By the time it became more reasonable in relation to the prices of the items Congress screwed things up again.

What I was saying (I think) is that the really exorbitant prices are recent. Up until 17 years ago, a $700 M16 would cost $900. Pricey, but not ridiculous. But I agree with you that Congress screwed it up big time.


In any case, registration is not a very effective deterent as those with harmful intent will simply not register - thus leaving the registered owners with an impeccable record of lawfullness.

I don't think I completely agree with you. Having your gun registered and being responsible for it's whereabouts deters that gun from being used in a crime. Sort of like capital punishment may or may not deter anyone else from committing a crime, but it sure as hell deters the guy with the needle in his arm. But I agree that the guy who is getting his gun legally registered is not being "deterred", he's just less likely to begin with.


registration has one purpose & one purpose only. It's very effective at that purpose but it absolutely sucks at all others. The one thing it excels at is making confiscation easier.

Agree and disagree. In the real world, yeah, registration has been used as a precursor to confiscation. But other people in this thread have pointed to Switzerland as a gun haven because every household has an assault rifle. Check again on high tightly registered those assault rifles are.

Once again, 120,000+ legally owned and registered machine guns are in civilian hands and not a single one has ever been used by it's (ok, civilian) owner in a violent crime, and every machine gun used in a violent crime over the last 70 years has been an unregistered gun. All correlation and no causation huh?

Billmanweh
January 9, 2004, 07:43 PM
That is what I consider a gun. It is an object. All harm comes from the user.

So should we remove any restrictions on handling or disposal or radioactive material or hazardous waste? Punishment is nice, but wouldn't making sure they are handled safely to begin with be a better bet in the long run?

Geech
January 9, 2004, 08:39 PM
Once again, 120,000+ legally owned and registered machine guns are in civilian hands and not a single one has ever been used by it's (ok, civilian) owner in a violent crime, and every machine gun used in a violent crime over the last 70 years has been an unregistered gun.

But what does that prove?! The tax law hasn't stopped crimes from being commited with full autos, so what good is it? I can't believe how many times you've just ignored this point.

ksnecktieman
January 9, 2004, 10:05 PM
Bill? I am sorry that your brain was damaged, do you know when it happened? If you have been in a car accident in the last ten years you should hire a liar,,,, I mean a lawyer, to try to make you rich........... guns are just tools, fast or slow does not matter,,,,,, they have to have a MAN(WOMAN) holding them to hurt anyone. Guns are not evil, only people can commit crimes, with guns or knives or newsprint, the tools are only tools.

Gun control does not help with crime control, it only makes it harder for citizens to defend themselves, from criminals or government.

dustind
January 9, 2004, 10:05 PM
I don't think I completely agree with you. Having your gun registered and being responsible for it's whereabouts deters that gun from being used in a crime. And that makes the world a better place how?I'm not talking about catching someone who used it in a crime, I'm talking about nipping it in the bud and it not being used in a crime to begin with. And in 70 years, registration has accompished that 100%. That does not prevent crime at all, if you take away a firearm before someone can get it, they will get a different one. If I could go back in time to where you got your last firearm or car from, and buy it before you did, would be unarmed or without a car? I am willing to bet no, you would have gotten another just like it. If I go out and get a random firearm and destroy it I am not doing a thing to the crime rate at all.

Billmanweh
January 9, 2004, 10:21 PM
But what does that prove?! The tax law hasn't stopped crimes from being commited with full autos, so what good is it? I can't believe how many times you've just ignored this point.


It doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a fact that's part of a larger argument. No one here is going to prove anything, we're just discussing the issue.

And whether or not gun regulations are stopping crime in general has got nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Hypothetical. You manufacture 100 guns. 50 are sold to registered users who pass background checks and the other 50 are sold to anyone who has the cash. The first 50 are never used in a crime over the course of several decades and the second group are used to commit several violent murders. Have you proven that registering the first group has lessened the overall crime rate? No. Apples and Oranges. But would you just pass it off as a coincidence and continue to sell your guns to the unregistered group?

Billmanweh
January 9, 2004, 10:26 PM
Bill? I am sorry that your brain was damaged, do you know when it happened?


From the house rules;

4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Unless you can't attack my argument and must attack me personally to make a point?

Billmanweh
January 9, 2004, 10:28 PM
And that makes the world a better place how?


Who said anything about making the world a better place? Or lowering the overall crime rate? It wasn't me.

ksnecktieman
January 9, 2004, 11:32 PM
Bill? I apologise for my attack on you. It is my opinion that registering guns (fully auto, or otherwise) has no effect on crime. it is a control issue, of guns and citizens, not of crime. If someone is going to commit a crime with a gun, the possibility of the gun being illegal is trivial. How can it matter that a gun is not legal, maximum penalty five years, if someone wants to kill someone with it(maximum penalty 20 to the chair). You can lock up twenty people for breaking gun control laws, and not affect crime. If you lock up three career criminals (whether they use guns or not) that will affect crime. The fact remains, that criminals = people that break laws. Will one more law keep them from armed robbery, murder or aggravated assault?

Stinkyshoe
January 10, 2004, 04:53 AM
Bill S. C.
I think what you just said makes sense. You are absolutely correct that at the age of 25, some people are still unsafe with firearms. I think fundamentally we agree. I guess I'd be concerned if a 12 year old bought a FA without the permission, guidance and supervision of his parents. My father taught me to shoot at the age of 5, and kept an eye on me until I was 14. I really appreciate him teaching me gun safety and looking out for me. I not saying that a 12 year old shouldn't own something like that, I guess I just doubt the seriousness of most 12 years today.

"He now shoots traps with the rest of the guys and is as safe as anyone. Some people are never that safe. So picking an age out of a hat makes no sense. And having the government issue "safe gun owner" cards doesn't work either; too much opportunity for abuse of power. I maintain my position as stated."

I agree that age means nothing when it comes safety but are you saying that they should lower the age of purchasing shot guns, rifles and handguns? Should 12 year olds also be allowed to drive cars, or is the reasoning because the constitution doesn't say anything about cars, then it can be regulated?

Thanks for replying and discussing,
Ss

Bill St. Clair
January 10, 2004, 05:10 AM
Stinkyshoe:
I agree that age means nothing when it comes safety but are you saying that they should lower the age of purchasing shot guns, rifles and handguns? Should 12 year olds also be allowed to drive cars, or is the reasoning because the constitution doesn't say anything about cars, then it can be regulated?
I don't think there should be any legal minimum age for purchasing a firearm, just as there's no minimum age for purchasing a hammer or a screwdriver. It's a tool. If you abuse it, you suffer the consequences. No matter how old you are. That said, I would expect most vendors to hesitate should a five-year-old walk into the store and ask for an Uzi. Just as they'd likely refuse to sell a young kid poison. Liability problems...

It used to be (still is?) common in farm country for kids to drive tractors, sometimes into town. They're a bit easier to drive than a car, since the speed is usually lower, but the real problem with kids driving cars is reaching the pedals. If a kid is big enough to physically drive the car, and has demonstrated consistent safe driving, then I have no problem with it.

Personally, I consider driving licenses to have nothing whatsoever to do with how well people drive. I took a driving test in Wyoming when I was 16 and a motorcycle driving test in Boston at twenty-something (which I actually failed since I couldn't do a figure eight, but the cop passed me anyway). They check my vision when I renew my license. Does that mean I'm a safe driver at 47 in New York? I think the real reason for driving licenses, and car registrations, is to keep track of the herd.

Tamara
January 10, 2004, 08:04 AM
The problem with being reasonable and compromising on this is that we all know what the reasonable middle-ground compromise between "no registration" and "registration" is.

What's the proper compromise blend of beluga and botulinum for a good cracker spread, anyway?;)

jimpeel
January 10, 2004, 10:15 AM
Why is it that the Second Amendment is the only portion of the Bill of Rights that has an age limit to exercise that right? Rights are from birth, not a date certain.

I used to hitchhike with a Remington Nylon 66 when I was thirteen-years-old and never had anyone, including passing Sheriffs, think anything of it. This was when I lived in Calaveras County, CA.

Wildalaska
January 10, 2004, 03:52 PM
Tam

The problem with being reasonable and compromising on this is that we all know what the reasonable middle-ground compromise between "no registration" and "registration" is.

One could graft a constituional "gun control" scheme that would radically eliminate crime yet at the same time protect the rights of gun owners..in fact, later, I will float it for discussion..

It would entail however, still things like age limits and felon prohibtions...so probably would not be acceptable to the hard core who only apparently cosntitiute approximately 2/3 of 225 people on a gun board...I would conclude that the % is far less among the general populace.

WildieatfugubythewayAlaska

biere
January 10, 2004, 06:11 PM
So should we remove any restrictions on handling or disposal or radioactive material or hazardous waste? Punishment is nice, but wouldn't making sure they are handled safely to begin with be a better bet in the long run?

Above is a quote of a post from the previous page.


As for my being able to get the items, the night sites in my guns are listed with a half life so they must be a tad radio active. And the oil I drain from my car is also considered hazardous waste. I figure that once again it comes down to how I handle the items.

The 2nd part of the quote gets into trying to consider all guilty until they prove they are innocent.

I really can not ever accept this concept. One reason for this is that even with current 4473 useage there are still folks willing to do straw man purchases because they might actually not be honest when asked to fill out the form.

Or best of all, a criminal might steal a gun registered to someone. I believe this is how california has passed their lock up laws. In that state you are held partially responsable if your stolen gun is used in a crime because simply locking the doors and windows to your house is not acceptable. You must have a gun lock or an approved safe to prove you are a responsable gun handler.

Once someone proves they are not to be trusted, deal with the problem.

Do not drag me down to the lowest common denominator using laws just because you want to feel safe using words on paper.

This is sort of like trying to give the world the quality of life those in the USA have. No one can afford to do this, but by trying we are lowering our quality of life so that we are all closer to "equal".

ksnecktieman
January 10, 2004, 08:42 PM
ok, alaska, you are keeping us all in suspense here. What is your scheme, that has not been tried in the 20,000 laws we now have on the books?

I have a great one. If someone commits a crime while in possesion of a gun add ten years to his sentence, no plea bargain or parole or probation on this part of his sentence.

Tamara
January 10, 2004, 09:31 PM
I would conclude that the % is far less among the general populace.

I find myself unmoved by that argument as the percentage of folks among the general populace who seem to confuse COPS and Ally McBeal with edifying entertainment is quite high.

If popular consensus determined what's right and meet, you and I would both dine on pizza every night and we'd both be married to Mel Gibson (since women are a majority of the population...)

Thank Vishnu we have a Constitution to protect us from the tyranny of the majority, n'est ce pas?

ksnecktieman
January 10, 2004, 10:19 PM
Actuall I see the group in favor of no more gun control to be in excess of 95 percent here. I see the top three choices saying no more, and the top two saying none at all.

tyme
January 10, 2004, 10:36 PM
wildalaska,
It would entail however, still things like age limits and felon prohibitions...so probably would not be acceptable to the hard core who only apparently cosntitiute approximately 2/3 of 225 people on a gun board...I would conclude that the % is far less among the general populace.
Wonderful. So explain why "far less" than 2/3 means that the idea is unreasonable. Appealing to us in the minority that such ideas are "unreasonble" is not going to get very far if you only use the percentage of supporters as evidence.

Cabals, of any size, are an enemy of the Republic. In order to make forward progress, you have to make a reasonable case that your cabal's beliefs comprise truth.

Bruce H
January 11, 2004, 07:12 PM
What I derive from this is the fact 65 some odd percent understand shall not be infringed.

Dead
January 11, 2004, 08:42 PM
WAY TO EASY FOR SOMEONE TO GET THEIR HANDS ON A KNIFE, A CAR, A TRUCK, A PLANE, A BASEBALL BAT, A SCREW DRIVER, A HAMMER........

A gun is just an item that CAN be Intentionally miused like most any other item to inflict harm, or kill.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Constitutionlity of Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!