compromises in gun laws

[Carl N. Brown]

Post #45 said: Last year the NRA sidded with the Illinois legislature AGAINST a county by county CCW in Illinois.

Before Tennessee and Virginia got state-administered shall-issue RTC, we had county-by-county discretionary permits (at discretion of sheriff in TN, at discretion of county judge in VA). It was a frelling mess of dren: no consistency, no equal justice or due process county-to-county, no standards. If the sheriff or judge was anti- the rubber stamp was "NO", if they were pro- the rubber stamp was "YES" and if they actually exercised judgment, they were taking time and resources away from more legitimate county law and justice functions. Given the history of county-by-county CCW, the NRA is right in insisting on standard state rules (VT and AK look like theirs has worked out well).

 

[berettaprofessor]

Given the history of county-by-county CCW, the NRA is right in insisting on standard state rules (VT and AK look like theirs has worked out well).

Like I said in some other post recently, I'm now an NRA-lifer because I may not agree with everything they do at first glance, but I'm coming to respect that they may have a broader view than I can see from my own little trench.

Keep up the good fight, Fiddletown. Education, reason, and logic are formidable forces.

 

[Big_E]

Umm, here's the only thing I am willing to compromise on, Background checks.

Yep, uh FA's I think I should be able to have them w/o registration, after all, the military has them as well as private security companies and SWAT teams, shouldn't I be as well armed when (insert enemy country) invades, or when the gov't is too corrupt?

No waiting periods, no registration, let me keep my AR's "standard features". you don't like it? Well just don't hang out with me. The country needs to be on a more "mind your own business, don't bother others" attitude.

 

[PCGS65]

Education, reason, and logic are formidable forces.

I haven't seen much of this in this thread.

Big_E it sounds like your referring to basic freedoms, which is what the constitution is all about. But not if we/the government ingnores it under the guise of "safety" or the collectivist rule of "it's best for the people/masses" but not us, meaning the government.

 

[happygeek]

Quoting myself here, posted this on a different forum awhile back

Long story short, the famous Brady Bill that mandated background checks wouldn't have stopped John Hinckley, Jr. From buying a gun. (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OpEds/Brady_falsehoods.htm) Hinckley is the man who attempted to kill Pres. Reagan and sadly hit Sarah Brady's husband in the head, paralyzing him. Sarah Brady became one of the major voices of Handgun Control, Inc., originally the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH), and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV). (Now goes by the name The Brady Campaign.)

Seung-Hui Cho, the infamous VT killer, passed a background check to buy the pistols he used. One of the survivors of Virginia Tech is now on the Brady Campaign's website arguing that "we should close the gun show loophole". However, Cho didn't buy his pistols at a gun show, for that matter neither did the Columbine killers. They used a straw purchase, someone who could pass a background check bought the guns for them. (The Columbine killers broke numerous laws before committing the murders: illegal possession of explosives, illegal possession of sawed off shotguns, using an illegal straw purchase.)

Nidal Malik Hasan, the infamous Fort Hood murderer, passed a background check to purchase his pistols.

I'm certainly not saying to get rid of background checks; they're a good idea, at least in theory. It's just that they often fail to stop mass killers for the simple reason that the killer showed no signs and had no prior criminal convictions beforehand.

Maybe we should get rid of the 4th Amendment, that way the cops can randomly search people's homes while they're at work? That might stop a few criminals.

A co-worker told me a week or so ago that there were a few gun control laws I agreed with, for example the felons not being allowed to buy guns. I told him that wasn't so much a gun control law as it is one of the many things felons aren't allowed to do. Not only that, but if those people aren't allowed to possess guns, they shouldn't be out of prison to begin with, making that law null anyways. By letting felons out on parole, but then prohibiting them from possessing firearms, you're basically saying "we think this guy is a danger to society, but only if he is allowed to legally buy a gun". Therefore, you're assuming that as long as he's not legally allowed to buy a gun, he won't murder anyone with a baseball bat, knife, his bare hands, a gun he bought from some dude selling them out the trunk of his Chevy, etc. The logic of that defies logical explanation.

Tragically, we see in the news rather often yet another murder committed by someone on parole. A few stand out more than others, for example the family burned in their home by two guys on parole (and all without the perps possessing a gun, legally or illegally).

Personally, I believe in criminal control. That, and weed should definitely be legalized. Black markets tend to breed violence.

 

[Big_E]

Big_E it sounds like your referring to basic freedoms, which is what the constitution is all about. But not if we/the government ingnores it under the guise of "safety" or the collectivist rule of "it's best for the people/masses" but not us, meaning the government.

Well then, its time WE show THE PEOPLE what has to be done and to be watchful of government action.

Happygeek, thank you for posting the facts about background checks. I know they are worthless, I just think its the most convenient method to give anti's some sort of safety net even though it does nothing. Eventually, we should be able to do away with these people, we just have to continue using good argumentation and show citizens the error of their ways.

I don't keep my firearms around to go looking for trouble, I keep them for when trouble comes looking for me.

**This is coming from someone who has lived in a nanny/socialist state for 20 years. I am so fed up with this BS in our laws, like oh you can't buy more then X amount of cough medicine or having to be 18 to buy a lighter. The state, and those who follow similar political principles need to see that its not the objects that need fixing, but the people who use them for wrongdoing. My dad believes that CA is not capable of being saved unless "extreme" measures are taken. I'll let you interpret what "extreme" is.