do you think any gun laws help curtail crime?


PDA






natedog
December 27, 2002, 01:11 AM
do you think any gun laws help curtail crime?

If you enjoyed reading about "do you think any gun laws help curtail crime?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Blackhawk
December 27, 2002, 01:14 AM
Yep. For example, felons being precluded from possessing guns puts a few of them away every year thus preventing a crime or two.

Mark Benningfield
December 27, 2002, 01:18 AM
Hello All.

From Blackhawk:
Yep. For example, felons being precluded from possessing guns puts a few of them away every year thus preventing a crime or two.

I disagree, Blackhawk. This amounts to presuming guilt until proven innocent.

Blackhawk
December 27, 2002, 01:30 AM
Mark,

Law: A felon may not possess a firearm.

Situation: Felon caught possessing a firearm.

Prima facie case: Felon violated law.

Indictment: Felon caught with firearm in violation of law.

Trial: Guilty.

Sentence: Slammer.

Result: Felon unable to commit crime while in slammer. Statistically, a felon will repeat felonious behavior, so that felon's probable crimes will be curtailed while serving time.

Conclusion: The particular law curtails crime.

Mark Benningfield
December 27, 2002, 01:51 AM
Hello All.

Okay, Blackhawk:

Statistically, a felon will repeat felonious behavior, so that felon's probable crimes will be curtailed while serving time.

This is what I mean by presumption of guilt. To make it illegal for a convicted felon to own firearms presumes that he will commit crimes with it. Therefore, you presume him guilty before he has committed a crime (other than simply owning a firearm). To deny the RKBA to persons belonging to a group that has a statistically high rate of criminal activity is only the beginning.

Hkmp5sd
December 27, 2002, 01:52 AM
I agree with felons banned from possession of firearms, although not necessarily for life. They must have the opportunity to legally regain that right just as they can for voting, etc.

But up to that point, I see no reason for laws on guns. By definition, a criminal breaks the law, so the law only effect those that are not criminals.

Blackhawk
December 27, 2002, 02:09 AM
Mark,

The discussion isn't about whether the law is just or right or good on that score. Fact is that it's not a prospective law. It exists now and has for a long, long time.

The discussion is whether or not it helps curtail crime. The demonstrable fact is that it does.

My statement doesn't presume that any particular felon will have his criminal behavior curtailed, just that on the whole some will be. There's not a presumption of guilt anywhere to be found in that. It's just like being in a rain forest and saying that it will rain more than it will in the Sahara desert.To deny the RKBA to persons belonging to a group that has a statistically high rate of criminal activity is only the beginning. That beginning began long, long ago, and even when (if?) the SCOTUS restores the 2A as it's written, the felon bar to firearms will likely stand as a "reasonable" exception. Hopefully, however, some felons will be able to have their RKBA rights restored, especially non-violent ones.

Preacherman
December 27, 2002, 02:25 AM
do you think any gun laws help curtail crime?Yep - CCW laws! The more citizens and legal residents are authorized to carry the means to defend themselves against criminals, the more these gun laws help curtail crime! :)

Mark Benningfield
December 27, 2002, 02:31 AM
Hello All.

I think that it is a discussion about whether the law is right or wrong. The whole point of fighting for the RKBA is about opposing unjust laws, no matter whether they are proposed or enacted. I don't think that it matters any at all how long it has been on the books. If you would oblige me, take a look at this:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146207 and tell me what you think. Thanks.

WilderBill
December 27, 2002, 02:40 AM
I expect that laws that allow open carry would do even more than those that provide for concelled carry.
If you were gonna rob someone, would you go for the guy that might be armed or the one you know for sure is armed?

hansolo
December 27, 2002, 03:24 AM
I'm with you 100%! I have heard of a town where it is mandatory for every citizen over a certain age to carry openly; I believe it is in Texas. The rate of crimes against persons is ZERO!

I may need to live there someday! :D

ruger357
December 27, 2002, 07:10 AM
No.

stellarpod
December 27, 2002, 07:18 AM
I believe that laws which require swift, overwhelming punishment (i.e. extremely long manditory sentences) for crimes commited with guns can deter crime - at least crime carried out using firearms.

It's debatable whether or not it impacts crime in general.

stellarpod

dog3
December 27, 2002, 07:56 AM
> "do you think any gun laws help curtail crime?"

No.

David Scott
December 27, 2002, 08:12 AM
Consider one aspect of most CCW laws -- the requirement for training which includes the laws of deadly force. This requirement, I believe, helps prevent unintentional crimes. A person who carries really ought to know when they can shoot without going to jail for it.

I also agree that harsh punishments for violent crime are something of a deterrent, but they're not the magic solution some politicians think. No matter how tough the sentences, there will always be someone driven by greed or stupidity to try it anyway. Florida's 10-20-life law has put a lot of people away, but there are plenty more lining up to rob folks -- we had 3 armed robberies in one day's local newspaper last week.

As for denying guns to felons, I don't think it does that much good. I think we all agree that a person of ill intent isn't going to respect that restriction anyway. On the other hand, a former felon who has reformed may feel just as much need for protection as you and I do.

seeker_two
December 27, 2002, 10:18 AM
In addition to those listed above, I'll add this one to the mix....the NICS check system.

Why, you ask?

For one simple reason--it protects gun dealers from liability if they sell to someone who later commits a crime. I don't know a single FFL holder who wants to sell to someone w/ a criminal history, and NICS helps them to find out. This way, if someone tries to sue the dealer, the dealer has proof that there was no restriction on that person.

Should it be mandatory for a sale? NO. Should it include a waiting period? NO. But should FFL's have access to this as a protection for themselves? ABSOLUTELY!

(tugging at the waistband of his asbestos underwear...) OK, flame away..

John/az
December 27, 2002, 11:15 AM
Seeker_two,

If people were punished for crimes committed, and real felons were kept in jail for their terms of punishment, and had their rights restored at their completion, we would not need such a system to protect the dealer. Because the only people he could sell to would be people who have retained that right to keep and bear arms.

2dogs
December 27, 2002, 11:21 AM
Statistically, a felon will repeat felonious behavior, so that felon's probable crimes will be curtailed while serving time.

Blackhawk,

How about if we just skip the gun law part, and keep the felon in prison based on the "probable crimes".

Although statistically Mr. Felon might have gone on to break other laws, it is his inclination to break them that does him in. So why a gun law?

How about if we make it illegal for a felon to sneeze- that would make it even easier to prevent his future crimes.;)

Blackhawk
December 27, 2002, 11:25 AM
Yep - CCW laws! The more citizens and legal residents are authorized to carry the means to defend themselves against criminals, the more these gun laws help curtail crime! And Preacherman knocks one out of the park for a 4 bagger! :D

Absolutely right, Preacherman!

Blackhawk
December 27, 2002, 11:36 AM
2dogs,

You're missing the point.

"Any gun laws" implies that they already exist.

"Curtail crime" means prevent or reduce crime.

Of the 20k+ gun laws on the books, how many of them might possibly be Constitutional? Don't know, but I'll bet very few. But that's not the issue.

Obvioiusly, if a gun law existed that called for execution or life imprisonment of anybody having a gun on their person while committing a crime, that would curtail crime. There isn't such a law, AFAIK.

We're not discussing crafting prospective gun laws with the intent being for them to curtail crime, we're just talking about the single purpose effectiveness of preventing crime of any existing law, not whether any particular law that might be effective is just or right or good or Constitutional or just plain stupid. The Nazis' gun laws were effective in curtailing crime, but they also created "state approved" crimes in doing it.

MicroBalrog
December 27, 2002, 02:43 PM
...called the Second Amendment. Prevents 2,500,000 crimes per year + prevents genocide.

HS/LD
December 27, 2002, 02:48 PM
MicroBalrog beat me to it!!!



Where in the constitution does it say the right to keep and bear are shall not be infringed.(unless your a felon)


Give 'em all guns let god sort it out!:D

HS/LD

dd-b
December 27, 2002, 05:33 PM
Gun laws *create* crime -- by making criminals out of people doing otherwise reasonable things. It's just another example of a victimless crime.

Wildalaska
December 27, 2002, 06:01 PM
The Instant Check system prevents crimes, It prevents fugitives from obtaining guns. I have seen it happen.

and, get ready to flame away:

Of the 20k+ gun laws on the books, how many of them might possibly be Constitutional? Don't know, but I'll bet very few. But that's not the issue.

I beg to differ...I daresay that on a true constitutional level as consistently interpreted by the judiciary the vast majority of gun laws would be deemed constitional even under an individual rights determination of the Second Amendment. Remember, no right is absolute.

2dogs
December 27, 2002, 06:06 PM
You're missing the point.

Blackhawk


Yes, perhaps I am- I don't see the point in having gun laws in the hopes that a felon will break one of them and get sent to jail. If he is out of jail he belongs out, if not then send him back or don't let him out to begin with.

In your example, it only works if the felon gets caught- the existence of the law in and of itself does no good for anyone. You say by getting caught with a gun we have stopped his statistically likely future crime- and I think that is a ridiculous reason to have a law, and I don't think a felon should be barred from owning a gun- if he or anyone else commits a crime with a gun, then fry em. Otherwise we don't need no steenking gun laws.:)

Blackhawk
December 27, 2002, 06:39 PM
2dogs,

We HAVE the law.

We've HAD the law for decades.

There's nothing prospective about it.

Many felons have been jailed because of THAT law, and they were unable to commit further crimes while jailed under THAT law.

Those are the facts.

When we argue how stupid that law is or all the other things about it, we make ourselves fools in the eyes of the antis who KNOW the facts about this particular and a few other anti gun laws. They're convinced that gun laws curtail crime, and that's the banner they march under. If we deny the obvious in spite of the facts, we have NO credibility with them.

As PreacherMan pointed out, CCW enabling laws prevent crime. We all know that, but the antis deny it! They're the ones in denial! So we can't really use those laws in our debates.

Same way with the 2A itself. The antis claim it doesn't mean what it plainly does. They're in denial, and we can't use the 2A in debates either.

You simply cannot discuss things with people who have their minds closed!

The value of this thread COULD be to divide out the laws that do have some validity regarding lessening crime. That might be 1 or 2 or 10 or more out of the 20k ones there.

The point is, when your discussion "adversary" starts agreeing with you, he starts LISTENING to you.

I want to know what laws I can support, or at least admit accomplish their objective, in order to be able to agree with those antis I end up arguing with on some of the things they're saying.

It's a very disarming and effective debate technique. :D

Frohickey
December 27, 2002, 06:54 PM
Some gun laws might help in curtailing crime, but having those gun laws starts all of us, not just criminals and ex-convicts, but innocent and law-abiding citizens down the slippery slope of gun prohibition and tyranny/police state.

Before, when every able-bodied man was armed, prison populations were low, crime isn't rampant, justice was swift, and taxes were low.

Now, you have hardly any civilian citizens armed, prison population is high, crime is much higher, and justice is losing a footrace with subzero degree glaciers. Deathrow inmates die of old age on deathrow, instead of being executed. Ex-convicts and paroles are out on the streets committing more crimes. Taxpayers are saddled with $15,000+ to house/clothe/feed each new inmate in the prisons. Politicians and police administrators constantly have their hat in hand during election season asking for more money from taxpayers in order to combat crime. And yet, we still have more and more gun control laws being passed.

Wildalaska
December 27, 2002, 09:11 PM
Before, when every able-bodied man was armed, prison populations were low, crime isn't rampant...

Yeah like in NYC in the 1830s...real safe, low crime rate..and lots of guns..

Face it the crime rate is actually lower since the imposition of common sense laws...

Lets get real here guys..is anyone seriously advocating no control on firearms?

ms1200
December 27, 2002, 09:45 PM
no because a criminal will not obey the law

EnfieldIII
December 27, 2002, 10:16 PM
The only gun law that reduced crimes that I can think of is the one down south where every citizen of the town was required to keep arms. Seems like it was a small town in Georgia. The talking heads on TV did a piece on it some years ago. Seems that law had a major affect on crime, reduced it to zero as I recall. Laws only affect the law abiding, so by making it law that the towns people arm themselves they effectively reduced the number of available victims in that town. Very effective law IMO.

Why waste time writing laws for people with no intention of following them, seems like a waste of paper and ink to me!:)

Double Naught Spy
December 27, 2002, 11:30 PM
Gun laws or any type of laws, they all have a very limited affect on non-law-abiding folks. Sure, some get caught and get put away and that is a good thing, but the people who get put away are the ones who have chosen to break laws. So, the laws themselves did not and do not stop that much crime in general.

Being from Texas, I have no problems with being the leading state in executing folks who are on death row. Does capital punishment deter crimes that might be prosecuted where the death penalty may be the end result? No, not that I can tell. All I do know is that those put to death will never harm anyone again. I fully comprehend the fact that the death penalty did not stop them from committing the crime in the first place. That is just an unfortunate limit of the system. Given the number of murders committed in our country, I am sorry that more folks found guilty are not put to death for the crimes they committed.

2dogs
December 27, 2002, 11:46 PM
Many felons have been jailed because of THAT law, and they were unable to commit further crimes while jailed under THAT law.

Blackhawk,

I'm willing to concede your point that there are x number of felons in jail for breaking a firearm law. However it is impossible to say that x number of future crimes were prevented, as this could never be more than a guess. It is also possible that Mr. Felon was a one time offender, who felt that it was still his right to protect his family, and had he not been arrested for doing so he may have never committed another crime in his life.

If he did he would go to jail anyway- so no I don't think there is any point in having a law that makes you a criminal for exercising a right. Since it is impossible to know that the felon would commit crimes in the future all your law has done is make him a felon again.

Except for crimes committed with a gun, no gun laws period- none, nada, zilch, zero, zip.

Blackhawk
December 28, 2002, 10:30 PM
2dogs wrote:However it is impossible to say that x number of future crimes were prevented, as this could never be more than a guess. Likewise with ANY law, which exposes the absurdity of the notion. It requires a conclusion that laws do not deter crime.

Jim March
December 28, 2002, 11:33 PM
The issue is this:

Active criminals (not necessarily "past criminals) gain more "economically speaking" from their guns than honest citizens do. An honest citizen with CCW may find themselves desperately glad they're armed maybe once a decade.

A real active criminal will "desperately need" a gun as often as once a week or less. And he'll gain financially from it.

He will therefore go to greater lengths to get a gun than an ordinary currently honest citizen will!

Why is this important?

It explains why every single effort to make access to self defense harder to get, including license fees/training/background check costs/waiting periods/whatever will have THREE main effects:

It'll make lawful self defense less common, it'll increase the disparity in arms between the law abiding and criminals, and it will increase societal violence.

Background checks might disarm a few poorly motivated criminals, but overall it does far more harm than good.

Wildalaska
December 29, 2002, 12:34 AM
Background checks might disarm a few poorly motivated criminals, but overall it does far more harm than good.

Id love to see some facts to support that assertion.....are there any?

MountainPeak
December 29, 2002, 12:35 AM
At what point will we have enough laws to protect us from ourselves. Every year politicians pass more laws, expanding state power, and limiting more and more who has a "right to bear arms". They keep chipping away at us and some gun owners actually support it. The "I have a right, but not those people", crowd will keep getting smaller. Sooner or later, you will be included in the "those people"! "They came for the____and I said nothing. Then the____and I said nothing. Then for me, and there was no one left to say anything". If someone knows the real quote please post it. It fits this thread.

Blackhawk
December 29, 2002, 01:10 AM
Well said, Jim!

G-Raptor
December 29, 2002, 01:33 AM
Hmmmm? Do gun laws curtail crime?

Well, there's been a law against murder ever since Moses came down from the mountain, but I don't think murder is going to stop any time soon...do you?

As to the "felon in possession" law, that one's a real hoot. Most felons are not violent criminals, they have simply been convicted of violating a particular statute. Therefore, re-arresting said felon for possession of a firearm does not correlate to reducing crime.

For example: In the state of Illinois, it is a felony for any person other than a police officer (or other government type) to have a loaded firearm on his person or in his vehicle. Therefore if Mr. Policeman pulls over Joe Citizen for a rolling stop at an intersection and discovers a loaded firearm in the glovebox, Joe gets a felony conviction. Joe is now prohibited from ever possessing a firearm.

The same could be said for the unemployed guy who overdrew his account and got busted for writing bad checks.

I think it's important to distinguish between "crimes" and "prohibited acts".

Kevinch
December 29, 2002, 09:45 AM
I think the argument here is over the text used in asking the question:

It reads:do you think any gun laws help curtail crime?

I say absolutely "YES!!"

but if the question read:do you thing any gun laws that restrict lawful access to firearms help curtail crime?

..that answer would have to be no.

griz
December 29, 2002, 10:44 PM
I don’t think the gun laws themselves have a big impact, but strict enforcement of laws, not just gun laws, does have a demonstrable effect. A lot of people think that a criminal will actually consider whether his actions will be in conflict with a new law. WRONG. A career criminal will however consider the risks (IE: capture, jail time) and modify his behavior accordingly.

Operation Exile, while controversial, showed that getting tough with gun crime does lower the amount of gun crimes. Of course the bad guys affected by this didn’t give up their lifestyle, they just stopped using guns, or they went to jail. I would argue that the lesson should be used more broadly: Violent crime of any kind should result in a long jail sentence. But then liberals complain that we have the highest rate of incarceration of any civilized country. Oh well.

Blackhawk
December 29, 2002, 10:59 PM
Very well said, Kevinch! :D

Art Eatman
December 30, 2002, 12:50 AM
Wright, Rossi and Daly, in their book "Under The Gun", came to the primary conclusion that no gun-control law passed by the Florida legislature had had any significant effect in reducing gun crime rates in that state. (Univ. of Fla. Press; ca. 1985; Amazon.com. Also by these authors, other writings on the subject.)

The authors admit to having been gun-neutral to mildly anti-gun before beginning their number-crunching of various statistics. They, like Gary Kleck, changed their views as a result of their own work. (Kleck was/is a self-professed card-carrying ACLU member, FWIW.) This proves that some people can indeed learn new views of reality. :)

Sure, prohibiting felons from possessing a firearm can reduce the misdeeds of some felons--but not enough to be of statistical significance as to a state's or country's overall crime rate.

Art

45-auto
December 30, 2002, 01:02 AM
Wildalaska said:

Lets get real here guys..is anyone seriously advocating no control on firearms?

With respect, yes, I would advocate for no control on firearms.

Government control of almost anything is pernicious to freedom.

To the point where a restaurant owner now has no part in the decision as whether his patrons may or may not smoke in his establishment. To the point where there are states where you may not own a particular semi-auto rifle. To the point where you cannot purchase some kinds of fireworks to celebrate the 4th of July in your own backyard.

There are an awful lot of places the government has exerted influence or control but it ought not to. Because it has no real charter and any action it takes damages liberty.

g32
December 30, 2002, 01:11 AM
Felons typically don't purchase their firearms through a legitimate FFL. Therefore gun laws related to the purchasing of firearms will not affect the typical criminal. Basically only really dumb criminals attempt to purchase firearms legitimately. Gun laws restricting certain types of weapons or laws that restrict magazine capacities do even less to limit crime. Last time I checked it didn't matter if the firearm used in the commission of a crime had 10 or 17 bullets in the mag.

SkunkApe
December 30, 2002, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by EnfieldIII
The only gun law that reduced crimes that I can think of is the one down south where every citizen of the town was required to keep arms. Seems like it was a small town in Georgia.

That town is Kennesaw, Georgia. Here's a link.

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/default.asp?COMP=HTML&Page={5A794CE9-66C8-11D5-8F77-00E0291018DF}&SessionId=&SiteId=35

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by 45-auto


With respect, yes, I would advocate for no control on firearms.

Government control of almost anything is pernicious to freedom.

. [/B]

Sorry my friend but no controls equals anarchy....now obviously governtment has no business poking itself into certain things...but really now....no controls on firearms..???

The 2nd Amend is not absolute, never was, never will be..same like the 1st amendment....for example, the long unbroken trend of English/US jurisprudence demonstrates the absolute propriety of banning the felon from posessing firearms. Similarly, a law which punishing posession of a firearm with intent to use same unlawfully against another is "gun control"...do you have a problem with that?

I think the time has come to change focus here....the vast majority of citizens in this great country are not to the left ogf the political spectrum, nor to the right..but rather..centrist..the gains the anti gunners have made are not because their positions are reasonable, but rather, because they seem reasonable in contrast to the extreme views of some of the pro gunners... unfortunately, our ranks are tainted by the lunatic fringe and that is OBVIOUS to the majority of centrist americans..meanwhile HCI or whatever its called sucessfully hides their lunatic fringe...

We do ourselves a great disservice with radical slogans and speeches....

PATH
December 30, 2002, 03:55 AM
Simply put. Not no way...Not no how....

Drjones
December 30, 2002, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by Wildalaska
[B]
The 2nd Amend is not absolute, never was, never will be..same like the 1st amendment....
Right. Like "my rights end where yours begin." Me owning an unregistered, full-auto whatever with 40,000 round mags doesn't infringe upon your rights in any way. My misuse of said weapon could, and THAT is where the punishment should be, NOT in the prevention of what I *COULD* do with it.

for example, the long unbroken trend of English/US jurisprudence demonstrates the absolute propriety of banning the felon from posessing firearms. What about non-violent felons? I hardly think it right to strip them of their rights to self-defense.

Furthermore, if a person (felon) is SO dangerous that we do not trust him with a gun, WHY is he on the streets again in the first place?? If you think he will commit more crimes, why did you release him? I should think that upon release from prison, an individuals rights have been fully restored to him. (Except for probation...) The RKBA is one of those rights.

2dogs
December 30, 2002, 07:43 AM
We do ourselves a great disservice with radical slogans and speeches....

God forbid we might sound like......................................the Founding Fathers.:p

Justin Moore
December 30, 2002, 08:35 AM
My misuse of said weapon could, and THAT is where the punishment should be, NOT in the prevention of what I *COULD* do with it.

Amen Brother! Apparently WildAlaska just doesn't get it. Suggestion, buy a copy of "Nation of Cowards" by Jeffery Snyder, and read until you understand it. Then read it again. As you fall asleep every night repeat the following phrase 100 times:

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting Alaskan Brown Bear.

Trust me, it will eventuall have a calming effect ;)

Gun laws are purely 'malum prohibitum'.

Malum Prohibitum

An act which is immoral because it is illegal; not necessarily illegal because it is immoral. See, e.g. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).

If there is no harm, there is no foul. Who is harmed by me owning whatever weapons I chose too? Anyone got an answer to that?

Concerning the 'centrists' view of 'common sense'. It used to be 'common sense' that the Earth was flat too ;)

JPM70535
December 30, 2002, 09:14 AM
Laws like Florida's 10-20-life work to reduce crime by insuring that the person (criminal) who commits a crime using a firearm will be incarcerated for a period of time sufficient to reduce his ability to ability to commit more crimes.

Other than laws that punish criminals for the misuse of firearms, I don't see gun laws having any effect on crime.

As to the restoration of a convicted felon's RKBA rights, that should be decided on a case by case basis.except for a violent felony conviction such as rape,armed robbery, carjacking, kidnapping, or murder which should result in lifetime loss of RKBA

P12
December 30, 2002, 09:34 AM
Yep - CCW laws! The more citizens and legal residents are authorized to carry the means to defend themselves against criminals, the more these gun laws help curtail crime!

I agree that CHL has curbed crime dramatically!

But,

CHL=Rights taxation receipt.

EnfieldIII
December 30, 2002, 11:27 AM
Thanks for the link SkunkApe, I was wondering if they still had the ordinance in effect. This is definitely a gun law I support.

Enfield

Drjones
December 30, 2002, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by JPM70535
As to the restoration of a convicted felon's RKBA rights, that should be decided on a case by case basis.except for a violent felony conviction such as rape,armed robbery, carjacking, kidnapping, or murder which should result in lifetime loss of RKBA

Yep. But with a few exceptions, as you say; what if said felon murdered his wife's rapist? Or his child's molester? You get the point...

Heaven forbid if we should have a repeat offender who repeatedly murders rapists!!!:eek: :cool:

P12
December 30, 2002, 02:30 PM
I'm of the opinion that gun laws, about 99.999% of them create crime.

I say arm everyone.

I'm sure we would run out of bad guys before we ran out of bullets!

Everyone would be much more polite, don't you think?

Drjones
December 30, 2002, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by P12
I'm of the opinion that gun laws, about 99.999% of them create crime.

I say arm everyone.

I'm sure we would run out of bad guys before we ran out of bullets!

Everyone would be much more polite, don't you think?

AMEN AMEN AMEN!!!

Seriously man; I am a nice person. I harbor no ill will towards anyone. ('cept liberals...:mad: :mad: :mad: ) I have never committed a crime, nor do I want to.

If I never commit a crime, I will never risk getting shot by anyone whilst committing said crime, huh?

Sounds ok to me... :D :cool:

I've said it once before: It will be a wonderful day indeed when all would-be criminals freeze in their tracks for fear of getting shot!

MicroBalrog
December 30, 2002, 02:41 PM
...I propose that we:
a) Repeal GCA-1968, NFA, FOPA and AWB
b)proceed to reducing taxes to companies which manufacture military arms and weapons of self-defense
c)give out a 1911 to all highschool graduees who get good marks.
d)give out a surplus M16A1 to all college/university grads.

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Drjones
Right. Like "my rights end where yours begin." Me owning an unregistered, full-auto whatever with 40,000 round mags doesn't infringe upon your rights in any way. My misuse of said weapon could, and THAT is where the punishment should be, NOT in the prevention of what I *COULD* do with it.

What about non-violent felons? I hardly think it right to strip them of their rights to self-defense.

Furthermore, if a person (felon) is SO dangerous that we do not trust him with a gun, WHY is he on the streets again in the first place?? If you think he will commit more crimes, why did you release him? I should think that upon release from prison, an individuals rights have been fully restored to him. (Except for probation...) The RKBA is one of those rights.

WADR, your first stament shows a lack of understanding of our contstitution and what it permits and does not. The constituiton is a framework, definition and check on the government. It represents freedom, not license. The 2nd amendment, even under its most liberal view, does not prohibit the registration and taxing of machine guns.

I assume if you are arguing the "affect" theory of lawmaking, then you have no problem with hard drugs being legalized since they do not "affect" you.

As to felons, the government retains the right as a matter of law to decide what rights the felon loses. For us to be arguing that felons should own firearms is destrctive to the whole gun rights movement IMHO.

EnfieldIII
December 30, 2002, 03:48 PM
The 2nd amendment, even under its most liberal view, does not prohibit the registration and taxing of machine guns.

I must have missed that part, I guess I have an abridged addition of the BOR. My copy just mumbles something about infringed, I believe Shall Not is in there some where.:p

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by 2dogs
We do ourselves a great disservice with radical slogans and speeches....

God forbid we might sound like......................................the Founding Fathers.:p
I dont think the Founding Fathers advocated felons..

They did however advocate other positions which are as untenable as confiscating firearms, such as classifying African Americans and Native Americans as non citizens...

Merely spouting "well thats the way the founding fathers saw it" is not a very good argument, since evidence for the collective view of the Seconde Amendment can be found in thier writings...

MicroBalrog
December 30, 2002, 04:07 PM
hard drugs biochemically restructure the taker, thus taking away his freedom of choice, something machineguns never do. A man is not free to take his own freedom.

People have the right to do whatever they want if they harm nobody else. Heroin isn't included because it takes away their freedom, same as voluntary slavery shouldn't be legal. However, a person taking marihuana, watching porn and owning machineguns doesn't harm me. If he tries, he'll lucky if the police gets him. Because in a world without gun laws, I, too, shall have machineguns.

However, because I AM NOT qualified to speak about drugs, I will avoid stating an opionion on that particular subject.

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by EnfieldIII
I must have missed that part, I guess I have an abridged addition of the BOR. My copy just mumbles something about infringed, I believe Shall Not is in there some where.:p

Tell me how a tax and registration infringes your rights...

Then, using the strict scrutiny standard that applies to Bill of Rights cases, tell me whether a reasonable restrcition on the right conferred by the 2nd would pass constitutional muster..

Heres a starting point for your analysis..substitute 2nd for 1st..and extrapolate the infringing law..keep in mind that the 2nd has not yet been held as a) an idividual right and b)applied to the states.

STRICT JUDICIAL SCRUTINY - Not every governmental regulation implicating First Amendment or other fundamental rights is subject to strict judicial scrutiny. On the contrary, "[i]t is only when there exists a real and appreciable impact on, or a significant interference with the exercise of the fundamental right that the strict scrutiny doctrine will be applied. [Citations.]" (Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 33, 47.) "When the regulation merely has an incidental effect on the exercise of protected rights," the First Amendment is not implicated and the regulation need only be reasonable. (Ibid.; Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) 434 U.S. 374, 386-387 [54 L.Ed.2d 618, 631]; Gould v. Grubb (1975) 14 Cal.3d 661, 670.)

In order to satisfy strict scrutiny, a law must be neither vague nor substantially over- or underinclusive. (See Schad v. Mount Ephraim (1981) 452 U.S. 61, 71-74 [68 L.Ed.2d 671, 682-684]; City of Indio v. Arroyo (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 151, 157.) It must further an overriding state interest yet be drawn with narrow specificity to avoid any unnecessary intrusion on First Amendment rights. (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com., supra, 514 U.S. at p. ___ [131 L.Ed.2d at p. 440]; H-CHH Associates v. Citizens for Representative Government (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1193, 1207.)

In the United States courts exercise the power of judicial review over the actions of other governmental bodies. They may determine whether an act by the President, Congress, a national, state, or local administrative official, a state legislature, a local governing board, or a lower court is valid. They do not judge whether an act is wise or foolish, but whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional, whether it is permitted or null and void. The U.S. Constitution prescribes the legitimate powers of the national government, reserves others to the states, and protects individuals from governmental invasion of their freedoms of religion, speech, press, and other rights.

Based upon the interpretation of Article VI, clause 2, by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, (1803), judges may invalidate a government's action if the power for it is not prescribed in the Constitution, or if it conflicts with a right of the people. Of course the power does not have to be expressly delegated to the national government; it may be implied from Article I, section 8, clause 18, the "elastic clause." See Chief Justice John Marshall again in the opinion of McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819)

In Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association the question was whether the Forest Service had the power to build a road and execute its forest management plan, i.e., harvest timber, under the authority of Article IV, section 3, clause 2, or if such action conflicted with the rights of persons to the free exercise of their religion guaranteed by the second clause of the First Amendment.

The Court concluded that the road and timbering were internal government affairs that only incidentally affected the free exercise of religion. Therefore, the Court applied the so-called rational basis test of judicial review. That is, it upheld the government's action as a rational means of accomplishing a legitimate end. If, however, the Court had deemed there was a threat to a fundamental right, it likely would have increased its scrutiny of the government's action, requiring that the means be necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. In other words the Court in Lyng deferred to the government's use of National Forest property. It upheld the decision to build the road so long as it was a reasonable means to achieve a legitimate purpose. The road did not have to be necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. See footnote 4 in then-Associate Justice Harlan F. Stone's opinion of the Court in U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).
_______________end___________________________________

What disturbs me the most about some of the silly statements expressed here about the RKBA is that we, as gun owners, are at a criticaL point in the history of gun ownership...there is now a conflict in the Circuits about whether the 2nd is an individual or collective right..you are probably all aware of the doctrine of "slippery slope"...I can just see the antigunners arguing AGAINST an individual right by stating that if the courts frind an individual right, the next thing that will happen is felons will be allowed to have weapons, or all regulations will be deemed unconstitutional...this COULD provide a basis for the Court to rule AGAINST the INDIVIUAL right view....

If the Court does that..kiss your guns goodbye.........

On the other hand if we concede and unite on the position that REASONABLE regulation will pass constituional muster, then we will probably see an INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS decision. That saves our guns!

The debate here should be what is REASONABLE and likely to pass constitiional muster under an individual rights view of the 2nd that is applied to the states......

MicroBalrog
December 30, 2002, 04:30 PM
Okay, I'll bite: How did FOPA-1986 reduce crime?

G-Raptor
December 30, 2002, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Wildalaska
WADR, your first stament shows a lack of understanding of our contstitution and what it permits and does not. The constituiton is a framework, definition and check on the government. It represents freedom, not license. The 2nd amendment, even under its most liberal view, does not prohibit the registration and taxing of machine guns.


I'll agree with that when you register your computer and pay a "free speech" tax.

Registration and taxation of a right is an INFRINGEMENT of that right. The 2AM does not contain the words "IF", "BUT", or "EXCEPT"; it says "shall not be infringed".

Registration is an infringement of the right because failing to comply means losing the right under threat of force.

P12
December 30, 2002, 04:40 PM
Tell me how a tax and registration infringes your rights...

So let's compare it to the first shall we.

"A well educated electorate being nessecary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

Any books you would like to see taxed? Regulated? Licensed?

hhmmmmm!?

The Koran?



The Holy Bible?



Any others?

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by MicroBalrog
Okay, I'll bite: How did FOPA-1986 reduce crime?

Thats not really the issue at this point in the debate is it? Isnt the issue whether the GCA is reeasonable under the above standards....such an analysis may include "slippery slope" analysis, statistical analysis, and what ifs...

EnfieldIII
December 30, 2002, 04:47 PM
Tell me how a tax and registration infringes your rights

If I'm unable to pay the tax due to my financial status , is my right not infringed?

On the contrary, "[i]t is only when there exists a real and appreciable impact on, or a significant interference with the exercise of the fundamental right that the strict scrutiny doctrine will be applied.

Would not my reply above apply?

In order to satisfy strict scrutiny, a law must be neither vague nor substantially over- or underinclusive.

Would the assualt weapons ban qualify?

What disturbs me the most about some of the silly statements expressed here about the RKBA is that we, as gun owners, are at a criticaL point in the history of gun ownership

I guess my statements here are included and I'm sure I would qualify as a card carrying member of the Lunatic Fringe you mentioned earlier because I do not share your views.

I see your position as an attempt to compromise with the anti crowd in order to protect your gun rights.
When good compromises with evil what is the nature of the product of such a compromise? Maybe the Preacherman can answer this.

Enfield

stellarpod
December 30, 2002, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Wildalaska
Tell me how a tax and registration infringes your rights...


Hmmm... that's about like saying "How does a poll-tax infringe your rights?"

Both can and almost certainly will be used to keep the impoverished from participating.

Requiring the collection of a tax to participate in a Constitutionally guaranteed right (Bill of "RIGHTS", remember?) is the worst kind of government tyranny.

stellarpod

AmericanFreeBird
December 30, 2002, 04:59 PM
No.

Guns in the hands of the Law Abiding are such a deterent and also a recuring crime preventor that any law that causes the Law Abiding to be unable to get access to the firearms of their chioce, at the very moment when they have both the means and desire to aquire them is a "criminal protection law" not a crime prevention law.

In the above example:

1) Felon aquires a gun.

2) Felon attempts to use gun to commit a crime.

3) Armed citizen removes Felon from the gene pool.

4) No more Felon, no more crime from that Felon, Felon produces no more prodgeny predisposed to follow in dear ole Dad's footsteps.

5) Other Felons read about Felon shot dead trying to commit crime and they are deterred from doing the same.

MicroBalrog
December 30, 2002, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Wildalaska
Thats not really the issue at this point in the debate is it? Isnt the issue whether the GCA is reeasonable under the above standards....such an analysis may include "slippery slope" analysis, statistical analysis, and what ifs...
Well, "Slippery slope" analysis indicates that GCA caused FOPA.
But _that_ (whether FOPA reduces crime) is precisely the point. Do you support FOPA?

cuchulainn
December 30, 2002, 05:53 PM
Wildalaska:

Face it the crime rate is actually lower since the imposition of common sense laws...

Care to back that up. Please describe:

1) What you mean by "common sense" gun laws.

2) Give examples of "common sense" gun laws.

3A) For each "common sense" gun law, give evidence of causative relationships between it and any lower crime rates. Please do not leave us with the post hoc logical flaw of assuming that correlation is causation.

3B) If you include the Brady law among your "common sense" gun laws, beyond the causative evidence your provide, please explain the flaws in the only study of its effects, which concluded there were no correlations (much less causations) between it and lower homicide rates (and the only correlation that anti-gun researchers Cook and Ludwig could find was with the suicide rates of those 55 and older). Abstract here: http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v284n5/abs/joc91749.html

MicroBalrog:

Okay, I'll bite: How did FOPA-1986 reduce crime?

Wildalaska:

Thats not really the issue at this point in the debate is it?

Actually that is the issue core to this thread, and a good-faith argument would respond immediately to a direct question on the core issue no matter when in the debate it occurred. Thus, I will take your answer to mean "I cannot show that it did."

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by G-Raptor
I'll agree with that when you register your computer and pay a "free speech" tax.

Registration and taxation of a right is an INFRINGEMENT of that right. The 2AM does not contain the words "IF", "BUT", or "EXCEPT"; it says "shall not be infringed".

Registration is an infringement of the right because failing to comply means losing the right under threat of force.

Sorry, but note that in analyzing the 2nd amendment, especially in the individual rights view and looking at the termof art"militia" (applying to the whole people) you also have the term "well regulated"...clearly under that term and the strict scrutiny standard it is not a constitutionally prohibited infringement to register firearms.

A "tax" on speech is clearly unconstitutional. O national tax on computers would not be, indee a tax on any commodity would not be.

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by P12
So let's compare it to the first shall we.

"A well educated electorate being nessecary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

Any books you would like to see taxed? Regulated? Licensed?

hhmmmmm!?

The Koran?



The Holy Bible?



Any others?

LOL..nice try :)

There is a fundamental difference between speexch and weapons in terms of our constitution, and the laws upon which they are based.

P12
December 30, 2002, 06:08 PM
There is a fundamental difference between speexch and weapons in terms of our constitution, and the laws upon which they are based.

Ha! Nice try my arse.

There is no diference between the two. Speech and arms are both rights held by the people.

Or are you one who difines "is" as dependant on what "is" is?

Define "well regulated" as it was during that period of time.

You've been sucked into the gun control spin.

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 06:09 PM
[quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me how a tax and registration infringes your rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If I'm unable to pay the tax due to my financial status , is my right not infringed?
Answer..not if the tax is reasonable, and is a revenue ,easure...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the contrary, "[i]t is only when there exists a real and appreciable impact on, or a significant interference with the exercise of the fundamental right that the strict scrutiny doctrine will be applied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Would not my reply above apply?
Answer, no because a reasonable tax, which can be related to the "regulation" of the militia, does not significantly interfer..put another way..suppose the goverment "gave" you a machine gun on the proviso that you maintain it and pay for ammunition every year..is that impeding your right....?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to satisfy strict scrutiny, a law must be neither vague nor substantially over- or underinclusive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Would the assualt weapons ban qualify?
Answer..no, if you are following my reasoning...any ban is unconstitutionl..the government cannot prohibit only reasonably regulate.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What disturbs me the most about some of the silly statements expressed here about the RKBA is that we, as gun owners, are at a criticaL point in the history of gun ownership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I guess my statements here are included and I'm sure I would qualify as a card carrying member of the Lunatic Fringe you mentioned earlier because I do not share your views.

I see your position as an attempt to compromise with the anti crowd in order to protect your gun rights.
When good compromises with evil what is the nature of the product of such a compromise? Maybe the Preacherman can answer this.

Answer..the mere fact that you classify your opponents as "evil" puts you in the same class as "right to lifers" who call abortion providers "baby killers", or "reproductive choice advocates" who call "right to lifers" murders of women...I just can view an american who holds a view different from mine "evil"
Enfield

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by stellarpod
Hmmm... that's about like saying "How does a poll-tax infringe your rights?"

Both can and almost certainly will be used to keep the impoverished from participating.

Requiring the collection of a tax to participate in a Constitutionally guaranteed right (Bill of "RIGHTS", remember?) is the worst kind of government tyranny.

stellarpod
The right to vote is not "well regulated"...

I cannot necessarily say that the imposition of a tax on a machine gun would under an idividual rights model would absolutely be constitutional, perhaps it is not..however it is reasonable enought to pass muster under strict scrutiny IMHO...in no fashion is a poll tax reasonable ab initio, except to prevent the lumpen from voting...

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by P12
Ha! Nice try my arse.

There is no diference between the two. Speech and arms are both rights held by the people.

Or are you one who difines "is" as dependant on what "is" is?

Define "well regulated" as it was during that period of time.

You've been sucked into the gun control spin.

Nope just a reasonable US citizen who enjoys the appropriate freedoms granted to me by the USCon.

Read the writings on the constitution to see the difference.

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by cuchulainn
Care to back that up. Please describe:

1) What you mean by "common sense" gun laws.

2) Give examples of "common sense" gun laws.

3A) For each "common sense" gun law, give evidence of causative relationships between it and any lower crime rates. Please do not leave us with the post hoc logical flaw of assuming that correlation is causation.

3B) If you include the Brady law among your "common sense" gun laws, beyond the causative evidence your provide, please explain the flaws in the only study of its effects, which concluded there were no correlations (much less causations) between it and lower homicide rates (and the only correlation that anti-gun researchers Cook and Ludwig could find was with the suicide rates of those 55 and older). Abstract here: http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v284n5/abs/joc91749.html



Actually that is the issue core to this thread, and a good-faith argument would respond immediately to a direct question on the core issue no matter when in the debate it occurred. Thus, I will take your answer to mean "I cannot show that it did."


Common sense guns laws, in my view, are ONLY those which are reasonably related to the health and welfare of the polity so as to justify the infringement of the RTKBA, viz...

Laws that regulate the carrying, concealed weapon, ie when or where.
Laws that prohibit persons who have lost their civil rights (felons, traitors, dishonorables) from possesing firearms.
Laws that prohibit non compos mentis persons from possesing during periods of disability.
Laws regulating the posession and use by minors.
Laws precluding transfers of firearms without "a personal appearnace" (relates to those above);
Laws which impose registration or tax on firearms.
Laws which impose a penalty for the misuse of firearms.

Conversely, any law which out and out bans the posesssion of a firearm (ie like the assault weapons ban), or requires licensing of a person to posess (like NJ, Ill, NY) fail to meet constitutional muster. To this extent, the "licensing" aspect, the NFA, may fail to meet muster.

There is no hard and fast "casutive" statistical analysis of how or which guns laws reduce crime. For every stat I quote you HCI has another, for everyone they quote I have another.

As to the Brady law, I have personall seen it prevent the sale of a firearm to a fugitive from justice...tell me first how that law infringes on your rights?
Finally as to the Jama study, are you contending that the minimal intursion of the Brady law (and I am referring to background check only, not the DV crap) is not worth the prevented suicides (assuming that the stat is accurate)

MicroBalrog
December 30, 2002, 06:43 PM
except registration, tax, and bans on the sale through mail-order.

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by MicroBalrog
except registration, tax, and bans on the sale through mail-order.


Im glad to see we are getting into the meet of this rather than just spouting "from my cold dead fingers"..

Why? What about background checks?

MicroBalrog
December 30, 2002, 06:50 PM
Please answer the question: How do these laws curb crime?
Otherwise, you are missing the point.

G-Raptor
December 30, 2002, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Wildalaska
Sorry, but note that in analyzing the 2nd amendment, especially in the individual rights view and looking at the termof art"militia" (applying to the whole people) you also have the term "well regulated"...clearly under that term and the strict scrutiny standard it is not a constitutionally prohibited infringement to register firearms.

A "tax" on speech is clearly unconstitutional. O national tax on computers would not be, indee a tax on any commodity would not be.

Note that the term "well regulated" does not refer to or imply "government regulation" of firearms. In colonial times it meant to operate in an orderly fashion, as in a "well regulated clock". Also note that it is the "militia" that is to be "well regulated", not their arms. A "well regulated militia" (i.e. a properly organized group of men operating in an orderly fashion) was determined to be preferable to a standing army. And their right to KBA shall not be infringed.

If a tax on "speech" is unconstitution, then so is a tax on the right to bear arms, as in the case of a fee for gun permit. The fee is a tax for exercising your right.

The firearm itself (like a computer) may be taxed at time of purchase just like any other commercial product, but the possession or bearing of that firearm (a constitutional right equal to free speech) cannot.

MicroBalrog
December 30, 2002, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Wildalaska
Im glad to see we are getting into the meet of this rather than just spouting "from my cold dead fingers"..

Why? What about background checks?


- Sale by phone - Because a basic background check can be run by using your Social Security/I.D. number
- Registration - leads to confiscation
- Taxation - leads to registration, makes them in practice unavailaible.

EnfieldIII
December 30, 2002, 07:01 PM
Would the assualt weapons ban qualify?
Answer..no, if you are following my reasoning...any ban is unconstitutionl..the government cannot prohibit only reasonably regulate.
Agreed


Answer..the mere fact that you classify your opponents as "evil" puts you in the same class as "right to lifers" who call abortion providers "baby killers", or "reproductive choice advocates" who call "right to lifers" murders of women...I just can view an american who holds a view different from mine "evil"
My bad, I failed to communicate
Good = Right to self-defence
Evil = Right to self-defence suppressed, would you agree?

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by MicroBalrog
Please answer the question: How do these laws curb crime?
Otherwise, you are missing the point.

Which laws in particular?

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by MicroBalrog
- Sale by phone - Because a basic background check can be run by using your Social Security/I.D. number
- Registration - leads to confiscation
- Taxation - leads to registration, makes them in practice unavailaible.

How can you have a phone transaction without some type of identity verification.

And registration..well if there is an indivvidual right, there cant be any confiscation can there...

MicroBalrog
December 30, 2002, 07:16 PM
I believe it should be possible to purchase guns throught credit cards/phone sales.

I believe registration is wrong because:
a)There's always people out there who hate guns, just like people who hate jews and afro-americans. They are just as bad as the other bigots, and gunowners should be protected from them
b)It doesn't work.


I oppose high taxation because, like in Israel:
a)It discourages their purchase
and
b) It creates a black market.

According to some sources, from 1 to 2 million machineguns where brought back from WWI, and a similar number from WWII.
There's 200,000 machineguns on the registry. Where are the other machineguns?

cuchulainn
December 30, 2002, 07:21 PM
Finally as to the Jama study, are you contending that the minimal intursion of the Brady law ... is not worth the prevented suicides (assuming that the stat is accurate)

The JAMA study did not conclude that the Brady prevented suicides, it said that the only correlation it found was in the firearm suicide rate of those 55 and older. Big difference. And since NICS checks do not pick up most mental health stuff, I doubt that there was a causative connection. And, in any event, a lower firearm suicide rate is not a lower overall suicide rate, necessarily. Big help to tell the kids that grandpa took a bunch of pills because he couldn't get a gun.

Common sense guns laws, in my view [include]:
Laws which impose registration or tax on firearms.
<snip>
Conversely, any law which ... requires licensing of a person to posess (like NJ, Ill, NY) fail to meet constitutional muster.

I'm really interested in how you conclude that licensing does infringe but taxes and registration do not. Perhaps we can discuss it someday in a thread where constitutionality is the topic.

tell me first how that law infringes on your rights?

Actually, I'm personally of mixed feelings about whether background checks infringe my rights, but that is irrellevant as to whether Brady works, which is the question at hand.

I have personall seen it prevent the sale of a firearm to a fugitive from justice...

That is an anecdotal argument and thus logically flawed. It proves no more than counter examples of a Brady related delay or prohibition that led to someone not having a gun for self defense and getting killed.

There is no hard and fast "casutive" statistical analysis of how or which guns laws reduce crime.

So we should just keep them on the hunch that they work? The government has a responsibility to determine whether laws work. And doing that is possible; that's what the General Accounting Office does. Having a law that doesn't work is worse than not having a law; it redirects resources away from what works and thus contributes to crime.

I just can view an american who holds a view different from mine "evil"

But calling those who hold different views the "lunatic fringe" is OK? :rolleyes:

I assume you meant to write "can't."

unfortunately, our ranks are tainted by the lunatic fringe and that is OBVIOUS to the majority of centrist americans

Well, I'd venture to bet that those "centrist Americans" (who favor "common sense" gun controls, I assume) would consider the maker of any easily consealable, .457 or .50 caliber thingy to be a member of the gun culture "lunatic fringe" (cool gun, BTW), especially if he sold it under the name "Bushwhacker," a term to most Americans that connotes guerrilla-style sneak attacks under less than legal circumstances ... even more so if that person opposed licensing. ;)

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 07:23 PM
"My bad, I failed to communicate
Good = Right to self-defence
Evil = Right to self-defence suppressed, would you agree?"

To the extent that you define evil as that which causes harm....

EnfieldIII
December 30, 2002, 07:37 PM
To the extent that you define evil as that which causes harm....
The nature of the product of compromise between good and that which causes harm, is good, or does it cause harm?

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 07:38 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cuchulainn

"I'm really interested in how you conclude that licensing does infringe but taxes and registration do not. Perhaps we can discuss it someday in a thread where constitutionality is the topic."

OK, I love to debate that further.


"Actually, I'm personally of mixed feelings about whether background checks infringe my rights, but that is irrellevant as to whether Brady works, which is the question at hand."

Again we differ as to whether if something works is the second key..the first is whether it infringes rights...


"That is an anecdotal argument and thus logically flawed. It proves no more than counter examples of a Brady related delay or prohibition that led to someone not having a gun for self defense and getting killed."

I dont know of any example of any anecdotes of the Brady Law (ie instant checks) stopping a law abiding citizen from having a gun who was later killed..maybe waitng periods...but they are unconstituiopnal in my view...on the other hand my personal experience is not an anecdote, it is another example of how the Instant check weeds out the scumbags :)



"So we should just keep them on the hunch that they work? The government has a responsibility to determine whether laws work. And doing that is possible; that's what the General Accounting Office does. Having a law that doesn't work is worse than not having a law; it redirects resources away from what works and thus contributes to crime."

Thats fallacious, you can say that thousands of laws "dont work"...if it works once however is it worth it?


"But calling those who hold different views the "lunatic fringe" is OK? :rolleyes:"

Come on do you honestly think that the "on the fence" american is gonna look at someone who advocates no controls as anyhting but..

And unfortunately, the RKBA movements is ridden with such..oK Ill just call them "groups" as the John Birch Society, the militia movement, the far right fringe..those guys endanger our rights as much as HCI becasue of the examples they set in the minds of the undecided...


"Well, I'd venture to bet that those "centrist Americans" (who favor "common sense" gun controls, I assume) would consider the maker of any easily consealable, .457 or .50 caliber thingy to be a member of the gun culture "lunatic fringe" (cool gun, BTW), especially if he sold it under the name "Bushwhacker," a term to most Americans that connotes guerrilla-style sneak attacks under less than legal circumstances ... even more so if that person opposed licensing."

Perhaps they might, but it is nothing other than a LE weapon (:))
that is available to Class 3 dealers who may legally transfer them according to law....

Besides, every "common sense" guy I know wants one! I even had the BATF guys shooting it and you should have seen the grins!

My point is..we got to drop the rhetoric..we got to move to the center..we have to go mainstream...the next few years are critical...

MicroBalrog
December 30, 2002, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Wildalaska
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cuchulainn

"
"
"Well, I'd venture to bet that those "centrist Americans" (who favor "common sense" gun controls, I assume) would consider the maker of any easily consealable, .457 or .50 caliber thingy to be a member of the gun culture "lunatic fringe" (cool gun, BTW), especially if he sold it under the name "Bushwhacker," a term to most Americans that connotes guerrilla-style sneak attacks under less than legal circumstances ... even more so if that person opposed licensing."

Perhaps they might, but it is nothing other than a LE weapon (:))
that is available to Class 3 dealers who may legally transfer them according to law....

Besides, every "common sense" guy I know wants one! I even had the BATF guys shooting it and you should have seen the grins!

My point is..we got to drop the rhetoric..we got to move to the center..we have to go mainstream...the next few years are critical...

WHAT ARE YOU ALL TALKING ABOUT?:confused:

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by EnfieldIII
The nature of the product of compromise between good and that which causes harm, is good, or does it cause harm?

Sorry you are losing me....

EnfieldIII
December 30, 2002, 07:49 PM
My point is..we got to drop the rhetoric..we got to move to the center..we have to go mainstream...the next few years are critical...
Ever notice that the center is a moving target? Which way is the center moving? Do you really think we should follow?:eek:

cuchulainn
December 30, 2002, 07:53 PM
MicroBalrog: WHAT ARE YOU ALL TALKING ABOUT?

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=144329&highlight=wildalaska

Again we differ as to whether if something works is the second key..the first is whether it infringes rights...

I never said anything about what is more important. I merely noted that the topic at hand is whether they work.

Me: "So we should just keep them on the hunch that they work? The government has a responsibility to determine whether laws work. And doing that is possible; that's what the General Accounting Office does. Having a law that doesn't work is worse than not having a law; it redirects resources away from what works and thus contributes to crime."

Wildalaska: Thats fallacious, you can say that thousands of laws "dont work"...if it works once however is it worth it?

No, I said that the government can and does make determinations about whether laws work. Laws get changed based on GAO assessments of how well they work. I think it's horrible that there has been no GAO study of Brady, especially given the JAMA study two years ago that drew it into question.[


Wildalaska: on the other hand my personal experience is not an anecdote

Actually, by definition, an anecdotal argument is making general conclusions based on personal experience.

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by MicroBalrog
WHAT ARE YOU ALL TALKING ABOUT?:confused:

O he is teasing about this lunatic fringe rifle :) :
http://www.wildwestguns.com/Bushwacker/Bushwacker2.jpg

Its not centrist enough :)

cuchulainn
December 30, 2002, 07:56 PM
My point is..we got to drop the rhetoric..we got to move to the center..we have to go mainstream...the next few years are critical...

So when the centrist mainstream calls for licensing, you will stand aside, right? You'll drop the constitutional rhetoric for the better health and welfare of the polity, right?

EnfieldIII
December 30, 2002, 07:57 PM
Sorry you are losing me.... I'm good at that.:D
Maybe someone here more literate than myself can help me.:(
What I'm trying to say is that a little harm is still harm.

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by cuchulainn
I think it's horrible that there has been no GAO study of Brady, especially given the JAMA study two years ago that drew it into question.

I think there was talk about one this year (2003), I will call our Senators office to find out...

2dogs
December 30, 2002, 08:00 PM
I dont think the Founding Fathers advocated felons..

Wildalaska

I'm not sure who said anything about the Founding Fathers advocating felons (not I), nor do I.

However, it does seem that they most certainly advocated "radical slogans and speeches" and did not give the impression that they felt they were a "disservice". Neither do I. :)

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by cuchulainn
So when the centrist mainstream calls for licensing, you will stand aside, right? You'll drop the constitutional rhetoric for the better health and welfare of the polity, right?

Nope because licensing is unconstitutional..

Its not the centrist who will call for anyhting, its our job, as defenders of the RKBA, to define what is constitutional or not with an eye towards the Supreme Court...in other words dont give Sarah and her ilk the chance to say.."the radical right looks forward to an idividual rights view ruling so they can arm themselves as they please to overthrow the government"..

Dont put it past them. All the bogeymen to the average american are on our side of the fence...

EnfieldIII
December 30, 2002, 08:03 PM
Quit postin those pictures WA you've got me droolin on my key board!:D

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 08:18 PM
Thats how I win arguments I bamboozle you with hardware :)

cuchulainn
December 30, 2002, 08:19 PM
And unfortunately, the RKBA movements is ridden with such..oK Ill just call them "groups" as the John Birch Society, the militia movement, the far right fringe..those guys endanger our rights as much as HCI becasue of the examples they set in the minds of the undecided...

I'm sorry, I don't see how my opposing registration makes me a militia kook any more than your opposing licening make you a card-carrying Bircher.

I agree that we have too many people who fantasize about armed rebellion. I'm not saying that armed rebellion is always wrong (Warsaw ghetto), but that there are many who seem overly eager rather than seeing it as a last resort. I'd encourage them to read the words of that radical founding father Thomas Jefferson in the DoI:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. "

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by cuchulainn
I'm sorry, I don't see how my opposing registration makes me a militia kook any more than your opposing licening make you a card-carrying Bircher.

I agree that we have too many people who fantasize about armed rebellion. I'm not saying that armed rebellion is always wrong (Warsaw ghetto), but that there are many who seem overly eager rather than seeing it as a last resort.

The mere fact of your opposition/non opposition does not make you a kook...

But it is generally the "kooks" who take the most extreme view (and usually without any constituional basis other than "thats what the 2nd amendment says") that hurts us all...

cuchulainn
December 30, 2002, 08:44 PM
Oh, and BTW Wildalaska, if you want to convert more RKBAers to your compromise strategy, you really ought avoid raising red flags by using grabber buzz words like "common sense" while buying into the grabbers' ad hominem (militia kooks oppose registration, therefore we shouldn't oppose registration lest we look like militia kooks). ;)

cuchulainn
December 30, 2002, 08:45 PM
The mere fact of your opposition/non opposition does not make you a kook...

Right, but you seem to be saying that we shouldn't oppose registration so that we aren't mixed in with the kooks.

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by cuchulainn
Oh, and BTW Wildalaska, if you want to convert more RKBAers to your compromise strategy, you really ought avoid raising red flags by using grabber buzz words like "common sense" while buying into the grabbers' ad hominem (militia kooks oppose registration, therefore we shouldn't oppose registration lest we look like militia kooks). ;)

I am not so much worried about converting our people, but rahter those who form the great silent majority..common sense should be our word! Not the grabbers! They are the radical ones. we are the ones talking common sense :)

I never said nor implied that merely opposing a registration scheme ipso facto makes you a kook..rather, its the tar brush the kooks paint us with

Wildalaska
December 30, 2002, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by cuchulainn
Right, but you seem to be saying that we shouldn't oppose registration so that we aren't mixed in with the kooks.

Nope Im saying that we need to a) disavow the kooks with their talk of "from my cold dead fingers"..just illustrative btw) while at the same time forging a consensus on what is common sense...remember to me registration may be common sense..it may not..but surely it would pass constituional muster under an idividual rights view and we have to deal with that...in other words..mainstream oursleves....put the antis on the fringe

cuchulainn
December 30, 2002, 09:22 PM
I never said nor implied that merely opposing a registration scheme ipso facto makes you a kook..rather, its the tar brush the kooks paint us with

Exactly, I said you were buying into that tar brush by saying we should avoid it. Essentially, you are saying I should compromise my principles and drop my opposition to registration because the antis point out that the kooks also oppose registration and make ad hominem connections back to me (us).

But they also use the same tar brush to attack those who oppose licensing. By your logic, you are hurting the RKBA by opposing licensing -- you are giving the antis the opportunity to tie you and other RKBAer to the kooks (who also oppose licensing).

The problem is that by giving into the tar brush on registration, you make it stronger against licensing. The general public, if allowed to think that those who oppose registration are kooks, will think the same about those who oppose licensing (do they even know the difference) or bans on "weapons that only the military should have."

A better strategy would be to distance ourselves from the kookiness and point that out as much as possible. Is the kookiness a liability? Yep, it has been since Bill Clinton successfully tied the Oklahoma City bombing to the NRA, but that doesn't mean we should let that make us drop our principles.

cuchulainn
December 30, 2002, 09:27 PM
Obviously, my last post was being written without knowing that Wildalaska's last post was up -- while I was composing it, he posted a shorter post. Sorry if it looks like I didn't read what he said.

45-auto
December 30, 2002, 10:36 PM
Long, long ago. . .about four or five pages, but less than 24 hours, I answered Wildalaska by posting:

With respect, yes, I would advocate for no control on firearms.

Then I hit the sack, slept, got up, did a day's work, came home, checked into the thread and found out you guys have been busy.

I believe that the government does not, under the BoR, have the authority to regulate what weapons I carry or where I carry them. Nor what I can say. Nor how I worship, if I choose to worship.

Everything the government regulates is, in my view, pretty much screwed up.

Laws against armed felons? Gee, those work well, now don't they.

Federal regulation of schools? A fine example of efficiency in teaching and learning.

Radical? Yeah, probably. But I'm in good company. Jefferson. Adams. Henry. Madison.

Sorry, but there is no such thing as a "common sense" gun law.

Registration? I don't wanta pay for the bureaucracy, which will only mess things up.

Taxes and fees? Show me what I or anyone else besides a government employee will get out of that.

Reasonable restrictions? Whose definition of "reasonable"? In California it's gonna be Diane Feinstein's idea and, frankly, she's crazy as a rat in a drainpipe.

So again, repectfully, there are no good gun laws.

Preacherman
December 30, 2002, 11:24 PM
With the greatest of respect to all posters on this thread (which has been very interesting, BTW), I think we need to get some real clarity as to the foundations of this issue. With your permission, I'd like to submit the following points as "foundational", and then - if you agree - the discussion could proceed. However, if the foundations themselves are not solid, the house can't stand...

1. What does the Constitution actually mean? This is obviously of critical importance. The Second Amendment is part of a string of articles in the Bill of Rights directed at individual rights - I don't think anyone could suggest that whereas all the others were directed at individual rights, this one was really meant to address group rights. Also, the meaning of "regulated", as mentioned earlier, was not meant to imply regulations governing the RKBA - in context, in its times, it meant "well-trained" or "efficient" or "orderly". Points like these are crucial. Only when we have an exact and precise understanding of the 2A can we proceed further with the implications of the 2A for RKBA and lawmaking.

Regrettably, the SCOTUS has failed to define the meaning of the 2A in any previous case. I suspect the time is drawing nearer - and with the conflicting opinions expressed by the 5th and 9th Circuits, may be at hand - when it will have to take a stand and define precisely what it means.

2. What did the Founding Fathers say the 2A meant? There are abundant documentary sources outlining the view of the FF's on the 2A. It cannot be read in isolation, without referring to the view of its framers. (This is enshrined in jurisprudence concerning current laws, BTW: the SCOTUS has often asked, or ruled, about the intentions of Congress in the wording of a particular law.) We cannot interpret the 2A in the context of modern political, social and legal circumstances: it is a product of its times, and must be read as such.

3. Having accomplished (1) and (2), what do these mean for us in modern society? I agree with WildAlaska that the courts most certainly do have the authority to interpret and apply constitutional principles: but I also agree with others that the 2A, as it stands and in the light of its authors' intentions, is fundamentally opposed to legislation restricting its application, whether by licensing and registration, or by prohibition.

It may be that a large proportion of our citizens want to have some form of legislative or regulatory control over firearms in society. That being the case, what are their options? IMHO, the only way in which this can be accomplished is to pass a constitutional amendment, modifying (or removing) the 2A. This is, of course, a perfectly legal and appropriate avenue to follow for opponents of the RKBA: and it's equally legal and appropriate for us who defend the RKBA to work against the adoption of any such constitutional amendment. In fact, we might choose to sponsor our own amendment, clarifying and reinforcing the 2A in the context of modern challenges to its meaning.

All of the arguments voiced in this thread thus far have hinged on responders' interpretations of the 2A and relevant constitutional issues. Unfortunately, in the absence of the juridical clarity we need on this topic, they remain speculation. I submit that these arguments also illustrate the conflict between those who regard the Constitution as a yardstick, fixed in stone, against which to test any legislation or regulation, and wish to discard anything that does not meet the standards of the Founders, and those who regard it as a more "fluid" standard, a "living document" (to quote Hillary and her ilk), which may be reinterpreted without requiring an actual constitutional amendment. I'm in the first camp here, and I think most of us are: but there are plenty of others who take the opposing view, and as WildAlaska points out, if we simply rant on about how wrong they are, we won't win any arguments - we'll simply antagonize them further. IMHO, this would be as dangerous to the RKBA, in the long run, as ignoring their efforts.

May I respectfully suggest that we "Constitutionalists" (to use a somewhat controversial term) are often guilty of taking our pro-2A views to extremes? WildAlaska is quite right in saying that the courts have consistently held that regulation of a constitutional right is not, in fact, a denial of that right. The most famous example, perhaps, is the dictum that the right to free speech does not imply a right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In the same way as the First Amendment is subject to reasonable regulation, so is the Second. This does not mean the imposition of fees and taxes to the point where these make it impossible for some to "keep" or "bear" firearms - that would be clearly in violation of the 2A. But restrictions on where one may "bear" arms, the nature of the arms one may "bear", even the number and/or kind and/or type of arms one may "keep", do not, in and of themselves, terminally violate the 2A, and I don't for a moment believe that any court will say that they do. There is a huge amount of juridical precedent on this point, and if we try to deny or ignore this, we're living in a fool's paradise! I know that many will object violently to this point, but it's the simple, factual truth, and I don't believe the SCOTUS will even consider, much less rule on, any challenge to this position. It's just too well established in US constitutional law.

I respectfully submit that our approach needs to be to object to any and all restrictions that fundamentally affect the application of the 2A, whilst agreeing that the application of constitutional precedent in terms of reasonable, rational and legitimate restrictions on where and when we may "bear" arms, and on the kinds of arms we may "keep", is not unconstitutional. I, for one, am willing to accept a complete ban on private ownership and "bearing" of tactical nuclear weapons, grenades, high explosives, bazookas, cannon, etc. On the other hand, I would regard it as extremely unreasonable (indeed, un-Constitutional) to prohibit the ownership of small arms, even if this were restricted to all or most of a particular category of small arms such as assault rifles or handguns. In the same vein, I can accept reasonable regulation of the RKBA via mechanisms to ensure that those who keep and bear arms are law-abiding and "safe" (for example, not mentally defective) citizens who pose no obvious danger to the community. Conversely, I could not accept these measures if they were so restrictive and onerous in their requirements (or were accompanied by "user fees" or "license fees" or "registration costs" that were so expensive) as to make it difficult, if not impossible, for some to keep and bear arms at all.

Sorry if this has been a bit long-winded, but I've been trying to get off the "emotional response" kick and back onto a logical, rational, and legally sound approach to the issue. Has this helped? I hope so... please feel free to respond.

45-auto
December 30, 2002, 11:55 PM
It's a slippery slope.

The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto realized it, but too late.

And remember, Germany was a highly civilized nation, renowned for culture, great universities and an educated populace. Krystalnacht was not that long ago.

Then, the restrictions on rights proceeded and eventually some people went to the labor camps, the gas chambers and the ovens.

The thug with the gun sometimes works for the government.

The founding fathers understood this.

They conducted a successful revolution, beginning with treason and ending with the BoR.

Never forget: the British marched on Lexington and Concord for one reason: to seize the arms of the colonists.

You cannot trust ANY government to regulate anything just a little bit.

"Shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me.

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

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees"
- William Jefferson Clinton 8-12-1993

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people."
-William Rawle, 1825; He was offered the position of the first U.S. Attorney General, by President Washington.

Wildalaska
December 31, 2002, 12:00 AM
Bravo!:D :D :D

Keep this in mind too...in determining the reasonableness or rationality of a restriction, the Court MAY, IF NECESSARY, send the case back down to the lower courts for factual finding!

That calls for TESTIMONY being taken...where the statisticians can argue..and the antis can rqaise all sorts of claims about assault rifels in the hands of gangbangers, militias, aryan nations, etc.

We have got to take the wind out of their sails now!

G-Raptor
December 31, 2002, 12:04 AM
Amen Preacherman!!

What appears to be lost in this discussion is a simple fact: This country, and the states comprising it were established as a Republic(s) not a Democracy. The majority cannot "vote away" the rights of the minority.

The RKBA is no more a collective right than the right to have a Bible and pray, and is equally exempt from regulation. The regetable fact that certain politicians and judges do not recognize that right does not make it any less valid.

"Gun laws" do not curtail crime, they are simply a mechanism used by the government to infringe on the right of the people to live their own lives.

Zander
December 31, 2002, 12:30 AM
The discussion is whether or not it helps curtail crime. The demonstrable fact is that it does. Nonsense...it doesn't curtail crime in the least. The federal prosecution of felons in possession is at best an afterthought and is implemented when a state case is so weak that it is likely to result in a 'non-guilty' verdict. And that's not supposition...it's supported by actual indictments and convictions. The first thing plea-bargained away is a possession charge.

Felons, by definition, don't obey the law. To suggest that a possible additional sentence, for committing a serious crime while in possession, is a serious deterrent defies basic logic.

I don't agree with enhanced prosecutions/sentences for felons possessing firearms...and I don't care what the federal or NRA stance is on 'Project Exile'.

EnfieldIII
December 31, 2002, 10:41 AM
Preacherman

"It may be that a large proportion of our citizens want to have some form of legislative or regulatory control over firearms in society. That being the case, what are their options? IMHO, the only way in which this can be accomplished is to pass a constitutional amendment, modifying (or removing) the 2A. This is, of course, a perfectly legal and appropriate avenue to follow for opponents of the RKBA: and it's equally legal and appropriate for us who defend the RKBA to work against the adoption of any such constitutional amendment. In fact, we might choose to sponsor our own amendment, clarifying and reinforcing the 2A in the context of modern challenges to its meaning"

I hate to nitpick, but the BoR is a list of fundamental liberties of the people. The BoR also forbids the government to violate these rights. I would assume that this would mean that the BoR was off limits to the amendment process.
If this is not correct please enlighten me.

Thanks,
Enfield

2dogs
December 31, 2002, 11:05 AM
It may be that a large proportion of our citizens want to have some form of legislative or regulatory control over firearms in society. That being the case, what are their options? IMHO, the only way in which this can be accomplished is to pass a constitutional amendment, modifying (or removing) the 2A. This is, of course, a perfectly legal and appropriate avenue to follow for opponents of the RKBA:

Preacherman

An erudite fellow as yourself must know that the 2nd Amendement, indeed the entire BoR, does not "confer" rights.

And that the repeal or amendment of the rights delineated in the BoR would have no relevance to my rights as granted by God to free speech, nor the "uninfringed" right to defense, etc as protected by the BoR.

There should (ideally) be no law against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater- a responsible citizen would not do that unless there were a fire- and someone who did it as a prank and caused panic, pain, fear, death or whatever could have such conduct punished after the fact. A criminal who commits a crime with a gun, that causes an actual harm to another individual should be punished for the harm he causes- it is wrong and immoral to place a "prior restraint" on the exercise of a right by a law abiding citizen.

So there may be some gun laws that provide a certain amount of real or imagined safety to the public- so what? A law against eating would nearly eliminate choking deaths.

As Franklin indicated- give up a little freedom and you will get a little safety, give up more freedom and get more safety- and eventually you will have a society which is deserving of neither.

That is where the "reasonable" gun laws are taking us. To a society that arrests 6 year old boys for playing cops and robbers on the playground, using their fingers to go "pow pow".

I've said it before and I'll say it again- no gun laws that prevent any law abiding citizen from having access to, or bars the moral use of firearms. And I really don't care what the "majority" in this country feels my rights should be- and neither did the Founding Fathers (with their "radical slogans and speeches") who gave us a Republic, if we can keep it.



:banghead:

2dogs
December 31, 2002, 11:09 AM
#100

Although 99 seems to have done it.:D

griz
December 31, 2002, 12:32 PM
AW, regarding your comments about a reasonable tax:

Before machineguns and "other weapons" were "taxed", many firearm manufacturers produced and sold short barreled shotguns. They were not sawed off, they were made that way. Since this was the early part of the last century they sold for maybe 20 or 30 dollars. The law was passed and a tax of $200 per transfer was charged for the previously legal short barreled shotguns. The manufacturers quit making them since the demand for LEGAL short barreled shotguns was no longer there.

Doesn’t that constitute banning something through taxation?

Wildalaska
December 31, 2002, 01:02 PM
Before machineguns and "other weapons" were "taxed", many firearm manufacturers produced and sold short barreled shotguns. They were not sawed off, they were made that way. Since this was the early part of the last century they sold for maybe 20 or 30 dollars. The law was passed and a tax of $200 per transfer was charged for the previously legal short barreled shotguns. The manufacturers quit making them since the demand for LEGAL short barreled shotguns was no longer there.

Au contraire, Mossberg and Remington make SBS, as do a number of other custom manufacturers. The tax has not affected that

BTW, the tax of $200 in the 30s was clearly punitive.....now its just equal to a good dinner at a resteraunt..notice it hasnt increased?

AmericanFreeBird
December 31, 2002, 01:03 PM
EnfieldIII,

I'm not sure if the BoR is amendable or not BUT!!!, the federal constitution would not have been adopted by many of the several States without it.

To change the basis for the Republic's creation would invalidate the continental congress' work, thus destroying the Republic (legally) until a new one could be created via the same process as the old one was.

In a nut shell, the federal government would (or should) cease to exist.

Now, a lot of things happen these days because everyone just accepts the status quo and the federal government would probably continue on it's merry way until defunded and/or shut down by The People or the State's Governors/Legislatures.

It is very much the same as contractual law, change the original premise of the contract and you need to have a new contract signed to give the contract force. Failure to sign a new contract would simply cause the original contract to be destroyed or "null and void".

Personally, I vote for a new continental congress after an intense, 10 year, education period so that all Americans actually know what Freedom and Liberty are.

Preacherman
December 31, 2002, 01:38 PM
EnfieldIII, 2dogs, and AmericanFreeBird: I can only answer you with a "yes and no"... Yes, you are all entirely correct that the BoR recognizes the existence of certain rights, rather than conferring them: but no, you are not correct that the BoR (or individual clauses of it) can't be modified. The existence of these rights is a given, and I'm very much on your side in all this. However, our constitution specifically includes a mechanism to allow it to be amended: and this mechanism (a constitutional amendment) can be applied to any and every part of the constitution. It was approved this way by the original states, and part of the safeguards to prevent misuse of this provision was to require approval by a significant majority of the states in the Union, as well as passage by Congress, before an amendment could take effect. This was deemed to safeguard states' rights as well as those of the people. Therefore, if an amendment to the Constitution should modify or eliminate the 2A, it would not nullify the Constitution or BoR as a whole. Neither would it be grounds to assume that:To change the basis for the Republic's creation would invalidate the continental congress' work, thus destroying the Republic (legally) until a new one could be created via the same process as the old one was. AmericanFreeBird's example of contractual law does not apply if the contract contains provisions allowing for its amendment - which the Constitution clearly does! Constitutional law is a very well-established field, rich in precedent, and those precedents are legally binding unless and until the SCOTUS makes a decision that nullifies the precedent - the Dred Scott case is an excellent example.

As I said in my earlier post, unless and until the SCOTUS clearly defines the meaning and interpretation of the 2A, we are basing our arguments on assumptions, not legal fact. What is needed in this debate is not passionate defense of positions that most of us (including myself) share - it's rather an examination of the legal issues confronting us, and how to use these in defence of our rights (just as our opponents are doing precisely the same analysis in seeking to curtail, restrict, amend or even abolish those rights). We need light, rather than heat!

AmericanFreeBird
December 31, 2002, 01:52 PM
Wildalaska, these three English statements all have the same meaning but give three different reasons for it:

1) Because ships float in the sea and paper is made of wood, The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed.

2) A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed.

3) Because people eat too much pizza and not enough vegetables, The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed.

If you know anything about the English language, and I hope someone who is appointed as a federal or state Judge does, then you know that the first part of any of the above statements simply tells you why I said "The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed." The why does not matter unless you're just curious and has no effect on the what, the what is still "The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed". Regardless of why I said it the fact still remains I said "The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed".

Any questions?

2dogs
December 31, 2002, 02:13 PM
http://http://ballew.org/amend2.html



Bill of Rights: AMENDMENT II
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFINITIONS (from The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition):
MILITIA. A citizen army as distinct from a body of professional soldiers. The armed citizenry as distinct from the regular army. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. The whole body of physically fit male civilians eligible by law for military service.
RIGHT. Refers to a just claim, legally, morally, or traditionally: the right of free speech.
THE PEOPLE. The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. The citizens of a nation, state, or other political unit; electorate.
KEEP. To retain possession of; to have as a supply; to store; to maintain for use or service; to save; to continue or do; to have something in one's possession or control.
BEAR. Carry.
ARMS. Weapons, esp, firearms.
SHALL. Used to express determination or promise, or inevitability. A directive or requirement.
INFRINGED. Violated, encroached, defeated, invalidated.

VIOLATED. Broken, disregarded, injured, harmed, desecrated, interrupted.
ENCROACHED. To intrude gradually upon the possession or rights of another. To advance beyond proper or prescribed limits.
DEFEATED. To annul or make void, thwart.
INVALIDATED. Nullified.
NULLIFICATION. The refusal or failure of a state to recognize or enforce a U.S. law within its boundries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd Amendment translated into Current English usage with dictionary definitions:

Well trained armed citizens, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of citizens to possess and carry weapons, esp, firearms, will not be violated, encroached, defeated, invalidated, nullified, or infringed in any way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every person (this includes every government official) who, under color of law, deprives any Citizen of Rights, Privileges, or Immunities secured by the United States Constitution is subject to civil and/or criminal penalties pursuant to Title 42, UNITED STATES CODE, Section 1983, 1985, and 1986 and/or Title 18, UNITED STATES CODE, Section 241 and 242. Penalties include up to $10,000 fine and/or 10 years in prison, or both, and up to life imprisonment, if death results."
- American Pistol & Rifle Association, Box USA, Benton, TN 37307
All acts or laws which require registration, permits, fees, or which place restrictions on Citizen's Arms are unlawfull and unconstitutional. Unconstitutional laws are null and void as though they did not exist. Any person, especially a government employee or agent, who attempts to infringe upon the Right to possess and carry firearms is acting unlawfully and is subject to punishment.



:banghead:

2dogs
December 31, 2002, 02:25 PM
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/henry/edcc082500.htm

"From time to time the anti's propose repealing the Second Amendment. Should you find yourself facing a left-wing, warm-and-fuzzy bedwetter espousing this view, educate them to the fact that the entire Bill of Rights is immune from such action, since the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was a prerequisite for nine of the thirteen colonies ratifying the new Constitution in the period 1787-1791. But for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, there would be no Constitution.

If the whiner persists in this vein, just tell him that you would agree to amending the Second Amendment so as to make it consistent with the doctrines and beliefs of the Founders, to wit: "Save for lunatics and violent felons, as so adjudged by a competent court of jurisdiction, the right of the people individually and collectively to keep and bear arms for any purpose whatsoever is and shall remain inviolate. This amendment applies to weapons of any form, and specifically includes such weapons as are currently in use by the military forces of the United States or any other sovereign state."

This rewording is completely in accord with the views of the Founders. When you hear that Jefferson, Madison, et al could not have intended for citizens to own machine guns because such things didn't exist in their time, ask the speaker if his thinking also applies to the banning of radio and television from protection under the First Amendment for like reasons.

Of course, we all know that trying to win this argument with logic and facts is like wrestling with a pig; you can't win, you will get filthy, and the pig likes it."


:banghead:

2dogs
December 31, 2002, 02:33 PM
http://http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/news/EmersonLetters.htm

"First of all, she describes me as a liberal. In fact, I'm a socialist.

Second, she calls me a "gun-control advocate." In fact, nowhere in my Harper's article, "Your Constitution is Killing You," did I specifically argue in favor of gun control; all I said, rather, is that if that is what the democratic majority wants, that is what the democratic majority should get, Second Amendment or no Second Amendment.

Third, she says that I argue in favor of "amending the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment." Not so: I devoted much of it to pointing out that the amending process is quite useless in this instance. Under the terms set forth in Article V, as few as 13 states representing less than 5% of the population can block any change desired by the remaining 95%. Given that no one would have any trouble drawing up a list of 13 rural states in the South or West states for whom repealing the Second Amendment would be akin to repealing the four Gospels, the amendment is, under anything like present conditions, invulnerable. Even though polls indicate that a majority of Americans do not want an individual right to bear arms, a Constitution made in the name of the people says that is what the people must have whether they like it or not.

This is anything but democratic. Rather than amending the Constitution, my position is that we should toss this antiquated document and create a new plan of government from scratch, this time one based on strict majority rule."



Good commie reasoning.

Keep voting these Commies in and one day you will be digging your own 6 foot hole in the woods before getting a bullet in the back of the head.




:banghead:

2dogs
December 31, 2002, 02:48 PM
Whew, OK I feel much better now.

Thanks.:o :)

P12
December 31, 2002, 02:52 PM
:banghead:

In the words of the late Professor Roy Copperud:

The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

:scrutiny:

2dogs
December 31, 2002, 03:04 PM
http://http://www.darkicon.com/Library/letter1.htm

Sorry, but one more for humorous effect. Just tell me when to shut up...............:D

"Thank you for repealing the Second Amendment and removing the specter of guns from our society. Our streets, schools and homes are much safer than they must have been in your time. It is so much easier to identify criminals now...just look for people with guns! When we see someone with a gun, we simply avoid them and call the police. How much simpler and safer can it possible be! Why, just last week we saw for ourselves that honest citizens do not need weapons. Mother and father successfully defended our home from an armed intruder using only a coffee mug and a rolled-up newspaper. Father should be out of his coma soon, and the doctors say that he should be almost the same as he was before since the bullet missed some of the vital areas of his brain. I thank the State-Approved, NonDenominational Deity Of My Choice that father did not have a weapon, or the intruder could have felt threatened and something very, very bad could have happened. If he decides to come back for the rest of our government-issued furnishings, we will be ready. I have my box-cutter tucked under my pillow, and the phone number for the police hanging on the wall right next to the state-monitored videophone. I rest easily knowing that help is only 15 minutes away. "



:banghead:

Preacherman
December 31, 2002, 03:56 PM
I'm getting a little tired of this... Guys, do you actually read what has been posted? 2dogs, some of what you've posted is blatantly, flagrantly INCORRECT! Example:All acts or laws which require registration, permits, fees, or which place restrictions on Citizen's Arms are unlawfull and unconstitutional. Unconstitutional laws are null and void as though they did not exist. Any person, especially a government employee or agent, who attempts to infringe upon the Right to possess and carry firearms is acting unlawfully and is subject to punishment.Nonsense! Various State and Federal courts have pronounced on a whole passel of gun-control laws, from NYC's Sullivan laws to various state and federal initiatives, and they have mostly been found to be legally and constitutionally valid. If you tell a "government employee or agent" enforcing these laws that he/she is "infringing your RKBA", and is therefore "acting unlawfully and is subject to punishment", you will almost certainly render yourself liable to arrest for the obstruction of justice. If you try to offer resistance, you might just end up as another criminal statistic!

As I've said before, we have a very well-developed body of constitutional law and judicial precedent in this field. Anyone who believes that that doesn't count is living in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land! We may well disagree with some, or even most, of it, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists and is legally binding upon us. We may choose to ignore it, and disobey the relevant laws, but we will also have to bear the consequences, in the form of fines and/or imprisonment, and probably the loss of some civil rights as well - including RKBA - for the rest of our lives.

As for the precise wording and meaning of the 2A, I don't think there is any dispute over what it says. Even the anti's have woken up to this fact. Quoting reams of opinions on what the 2A really means is redundant here. What is important is how the 2A is to be applied in practice. The ONLY opinion that will make any definitive legal difference here is that of the SCOTUS. Once they have defined the meaning of the 2A (which hasn't happened yet), that will be the end of the argument. Of course, if either pro- or anti-RKBA groups don't like that decision, they will be free to campaign for a constitutional amendment to re-state the 2A as they wish to have it applied: but this is something for future reference, if and when needed.

Wildalaska
December 31, 2002, 04:46 PM
If you know anything about the English language, and I hope someone who is appointed as a federal or state Judge does,

Hi I can assure you that I know quite a bit about the English Language, and am confident that most Federal Judges do too (or at least their law clerks do).

Based on the foregoing, I respectfully submit that your analysis of the 2 amendment is incorrect.

EnfieldIII
December 31, 2002, 05:04 PM
Sorry to be grating on your nerves Preacherman. I really appreciate you taking the time to help me understand this.
I just have a problem reconciling these two:
The government is forbidden to violate fundamental liberties.
The government can remove fundamental liberties through amendment.
I know I'm just hardheaded.:)
Enfield

Preacherman
December 31, 2002, 05:11 PM
EnfieldIII, it's not a question of "removing" liberties. These CANNOT be removed, by BoR definition. However, regulating liberties is not the same as removing them. For example, we have numerous laws against "hate speech" in the USA at this time. These would appear to be in contravention of the 1A: but they exist, and are being argued through the courts. They may be modified or overturned by the SCOTUS, but this remains to be seen. In similar vein, there's a constitutional protection against "unreasonable search and siezure": but this has become watered down in recent decades, as the concept of "reasonableness" has been re-defined. With regard to the 2A, there is no way that any government can forbid US citizens the right to keep and bear arms: but there is no prohibition against telling them how to keep them (e.g. locked in a gunsafe, or using a child safety lock, etc.); where to keep them (e.g. out of the reach of children, etc.); or how many or what kind of "arms" may be kept. We also can't object to a fair and reasonable fee for the administration of programs dealing with these areas: after all, if the fee is not unreasonable, it's regulation rather than prevention. If the fee were so high as to be too expensive to allow many to keep and bear arms, this would obviously be unconstitutional.

Obviously, from our point of view, the fewer restrictions and regulations concerning the 2A, the better. From our opponents' point of view, the more, the merrier! We'll just have to keep on fighting...

Wildalaska
December 31, 2002, 05:14 PM
"All acts or laws which require registration, permits, fees, or which place restrictions on Citizen's Arms are unlawfull and unconstitutional. Unconstitutional laws are null and void as though they did not exist. Any person, especially a government employee or agent, who attempts to infringe upon the Right to possess and carry firearms is acting unlawfully and is subject to punishment.

Staements like that are exactly what I am talking about. With all due respect, you are not the one who decides what the law is.

Positions like that, together with the radical positions that accompany it, are the real danger to the RKBA...

Wildalaska
December 31, 2002, 05:29 PM
What is important is how the 2A is to be applied in practice. The ONLY opinion that will make any definitive legal difference here is that of the SCOTUS. Once they have defined the meaning of the 2A (which hasn't happened yet), that will be the end of the argument

Got to disagree with you there just a little Preacher...once the Court determines the meaning, AND whether it applies to the states, then the next question is the PRACTICAL effect of gun laws..

For example..assuming an individual right one thing I have yet to see here is an argument of HOW the NICs system infringes on the RKBA...

Similarly, how does registration infringe on the RKBA?

Blackhawk
December 31, 2002, 06:25 PM
2dogs,... it is wrong and immoral to place a "prior restraint" on the exercise of a right by a law abiding citizen. From memory, it seems that you thought felons being prohibited from possessing firearms was a "prior restraint." But now, you're limiting the prior restraint as applying to law abiding citizens.

Am I to conclude that you consider felons to be law abiding citizens, or have I misunderstood you?

othermarc
December 31, 2002, 06:40 PM
I'm not sure i want to hop into this... but oh well, what the hey. right/wrong/indifferent- isn't it all defined by what the collective majority agrees?

anything and everything that one does that is "right" is as so defined by their own opinion, and if most people living under the same gov't agree, then it will probably be a law. Think of all the silly laws out there- like bar closing times. That has nothing to do at all with right or wrong- it's the consensus of the locals on what's right or wrong. Same goes for Gun laws on a state and national basis- they are there cause the majority felt those laws were right and are helpful. From what I can tell, those laws are just popular interpretations of what's right or wrong- not necessarily based on facts (or not all the facts). So let's get off this thread and go convince some others that RKBA is "right" with our own facts.

Happy New Year!

2dogs
December 31, 2002, 07:09 PM
Preacherman

Wildalaska

Blackhawk

We have politely agreed to disagree. Now I am done with this thread.

Have a Happy and Safe New Year, all.:)

EnfieldIII
December 31, 2002, 07:59 PM
Excellent first post othermarc and right on target.
"Posts Gone Wild! On Fox this Thursday!":)
I wish to apologies to you natedog for my part in dragging this thread off-topic. I also want to thank you for posting this thread that IMO made a lot of us think a little harder about our positions on the 2A and gun control in general.
The very best to you and yours in 2003 and concongratulations to THR for living up to its name.

EnfieldIII

45-auto
December 31, 2002, 08:30 PM
Lots of this thread seems to have devolved down to "whatever a court says about 2A is what the law is."

Nonsense.

Two words: jury nullification. The people, not the courts, are the supreme sovreign here.

We are supposed to be a free people. We have not really been so since around the time of the Civil War.

But we may be again.

Preacherman
December 31, 2002, 08:44 PM
I think we've said all we can say at this point. Let's leave it there, rather than risk it degerating into a slangfest.

GuyWithQuestions
May 18, 2007, 03:49 AM
Okay, now that everyone's had almost five years to cool down (sorry it's just late at night and I'm using the search function so that I don't make duplicate threads), why not try this thread out again?

I took a basic gun class and I learned that research from Washington DC, not the NRA, found that most of the gun laws out there haven't made much of a difference from before they were enacted to way after they were put in place.

Geister
May 18, 2007, 03:52 AM
For example, felons being precluded from possessing guns puts a few of them away every year thus preventing a crime or two.

Well, with that logic, you could just as easily state that we should throw all *insert ethnic group here* into jail since they are statisically more likely to commit a crime and thus you are preventing crimes.

It's dangerous to start throwing people in jail in order to "prevent."

QuickRick
May 18, 2007, 05:18 AM
Whenever you insert the word "any" in a question like this the answer has to be yes. That said, I feel that most gun laws actually PROMOTE crime. I do agree with Blackjack's reasoning regarding jailed felons although one could argue this is a penalty as opposed to a law. I use a similar argument in favor of the death penalty. Show me one person, successfully executed, who has ever killed again. I don't agree that all ex felons have a lifetime ban on firearms possession. This should depend on the nature of the crime they were incarcerated for. I don't see G. Gordon Liddy for example, as being a threat if allowed the RKBA again.

ozwyn
May 18, 2007, 09:09 AM
crime reduction is far better achieved through effective prosecution of laws and sentencing that is both carried out completely and applied consistently.

Crime reduction also needs an environment where non criminal means of employment exsist in abundance: in other words a healthy economy and job market.

That's all there is to it: good alternative to crime, and enforcement/punishment that is EFFECTIVE and CONSISTENT.

gun laws don't mean a damn thing to it, the idea of gun laws as a aid to curtail crime is little more than a justification for banning weapons to empower criminals to better assault their victims.

If the base infraction (theft, assault, robbery, murder) is properly enforced and jail time served to the full extent, then you don't NEED to add "with a gun" laws which are rarely properly prosecuted or enforced anyway.

gun laws are a politican feel good measure at the best case and a slippery slope towards tyranny at their worst.

wjustinen
May 20, 2007, 04:51 AM
What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?:rolleyes:

wjustinen
May 20, 2007, 05:17 AM
By the way, "well regulated" in 2A modifies "militia," not "the right to keep and bear arms."

Perhaps we could set something up for a north/south exchange where those who are happy to accept "reasonable restrictions" would change places with those of us in Canada who accept the 2A at face value.:fire::fire:
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

eric_t12
May 20, 2007, 05:22 AM
...how many of them would be constitutional? i'll bet not many

if they are federally enforced laws, then none. even the Supreme Court agrees "sometimes" the constitution only applies to the Feds.

Any federal law 'infring'-ing on our right to bear arms is unconstitutional.

Should states have the right to do so? i suppose... the constitution doesn't necessarily 'regulate' them, but it IS supposed to be the supreme law of the land, and when a state signed on to the union, they signed on with THAT CONSTITUTION in effect.

so yes i think it also SHOULD apply to them.

I just don't see how the majority of gun BANS work, some gun LAWS, yes, but gun BANS only ban the lawful from carrying them AT ALL. I think everyone of age should be allowed to carry, and not lose that right unless they are involved ina violent felony, and would be able to earn their rights back when they finish their sentence. The sentence is - after all - the punishment for the crime, and nothing more. once the sentence is complete they are again full-citizens and should be treated as such. If they get caught again for another crime punish them for it.

and do away wtih the 'life' in prison, what's sthe point? they'll die there anyway. just get it over with... humanely of course. I think carbon monoxide/dioxide poisoning or oxygen depravation would be the most humane... you would just die in your sleep.

my .02

Diamondback6
May 20, 2007, 05:25 AM
Do I think any gun laws help curtail crime?

Yes. Two words:
"Vermont Carry."

ServiceSoon
May 20, 2007, 10:30 AM
Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide? (http://www.garymauser.net/pdf/KatesMauserHJPP.pdf)

jpk1md
May 20, 2007, 10:33 AM
UK Stats http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/
US Stats http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/

Texasbagman
May 20, 2007, 12:15 PM
Interesting to read some of the replies on a gun forum to this question.

Felons that have served their sentences being denied their rights is a fairly recent thing.

The Constitution doens't grant anyone rights. It is a rule book for how our government is run. Nothing more. And it does not give our govenment the right to regulate firearms.

Having no gun laws is not anarchy. Having no government is anarchy.

And to the question the thread was started on, 4.5 years ago...

No, gun laws do not prevent crime. They can cause crime though.

Carl N. Brown
May 20, 2007, 12:20 PM
Gary Mauser and Don B. Kates

In 2004 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its
evaluation from an review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43
government publications and some empirical research of its own.
It could not identify any gun control that had reduced violent
crime, suicide or gun accidents.{15}

The same conclusion was reached in a 2003 study by the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control's review of then-extant studies{16}
(The CDC is vehemently anti-gun and deemed its results to show
not that the more guns = more death mantra is erroneous but only
that the scores of studies it reviewed were inconclusively done.)

________________________

{15}Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie
(eds.), FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE: A CRITICAL REVIEW (National
Academy of Sciences, 2004). It is perhaps not amiss to note that
the review panel, which was set up during the Clinton
Administration, was almost entirely composed of scholars who, to
the extent their views were publicly known before their
appointments, favored gun control.

{16}"First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for
Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws" (CDC, 2003)
<cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm>

gyp_c2
May 20, 2007, 12:49 PM
...nope...http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif
I'm still clinging to the idea that criminals should be held responsible for their actions...and that there are enough laws already being selectively enforced...
I don't need a nanny for myself or my kids...thankyouverymuch...

Yes some things appear to affect statistics...but, I still don't think a weapon that cost 200. ought to have a market of 20000 or so...IOW...yes, I think that some of our laws are a definite prohibition to most of us that would like to purchase the few, the fast, the expensive...because of the so-called common-sense approach to lawmaking...http://emoticons4u.com/violent/sterb003.gif

Kim
May 20, 2007, 12:52 PM
NO. There is no evidence that it does. This has been known for hundreds of years. Some are just to ignorant to acknowledge their political IDEOLOGY is wrong. Of coarse most who talk gun control know this but their ideology is NOT to prevent crime.

If you enjoyed reading about "do you think any gun laws help curtail crime?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!