Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NRA A Rated Missouri Rep Calls for More Gun Control

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Jeff White, Feb 16, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,649
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    This guy waves his "A" rating from the NRA like a battle flag as if it somehow justifies automatically disarming people who argue with their spouses.


    http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...73F0A973B7588361862571170001FD65?OpenDocument
     
  2. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Sounds like Liar Gore to me.
     
  3. Dannyboy

    Dannyboy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    867
    Location:
    South Jersey
    I think it's safe to say that his A rating just went down the toilet.
     
  4. mcooper

    mcooper Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    194
    I'm a ardent communist, but it is apparent that capitalism is just plain better.


    (note this comment is meant as a parody)
     
  5. pcf

    pcf Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    862
    Location:
    Arlington, TX
    I always hoped that we could move into the 21st century without discriminating against 3.2 million victims of violent crime.

    I thought politicians aspired to stop crime? I guess some people set lower goals than others.
     
  6. CaesarI

    CaesarI Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    408
    Location:
    KS
    Effect of such law

    Laws which make it illegal to own firearms if you have committed a particular crime have 3 possible outcomes:

    1. The former criminal obeys the law. Nothing happens. Best of all possible outcomes.

    2. The former criminal ignores the law (since it is in practice unenforceable) and shoots someone (in this case the estranged spouse) anyway.

    3. The former, or accused criminal, obeys the law and as a consequence of obeying the law and being disarmed is attacked by someone else and, unable to defend himself, comes to harm. Optionally the person's livelihood may be damaged by their inability to have contact with firearms such as if the person is military, or a gun dealer.

    The problem with all of these laws is very simple and we've been screaming it at the top of our lungs for decades now: Gun laws only disarm the law abiding.

    Ask yourself seriously if someone inclined to obey laws that make it a crime to own firearms is likely to commit violent crimes or not.

    Domestic violence *is* very sad, but anyone who has ever witnessed it will agree that the saddest part is that the victim:
    • Does nothing to stop the attacker.
    • Defends the attacker afterwards (often after calling police).
    • Is *very* likely to go back to the attacker.
    Laws preventing these attackers from owning firearms are completely and utterly useless.
     
  7. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,756
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    In other words we need to allow law enforcement officers to remove your constitutional rights without a trial and conviction.
     
  8. 3rdpig

    3rdpig Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    603
    One of the real problems here is that all a woman has to do is report to the police that "he threatened me and he's got guns". It doesn't matter if she's got proof, or if there were any witnesses or even if she's telling the truth or not. All she has to do is say "he threatened me" and your guns and your rights are gone. You may get it all back someday if she wasn't telling the truth, and then again you may not.

    This is the thing that scares me about laws that give cops the power of a judge, or give it to legislators such as in Jessica's law. I won't deny that there are bad judges, but that doesn't mean we should take their authority and give it to cops or legislators. Our justice system is broken, but taking away the power of the judge and giving it to someone less capable is not the solution.
     
  9. fistful

    fistful member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    872
    Location:
    Saint Ann, Missouri
    Since when does the lack of a firearm prevent a guy from hurting or killing his wife/girlfriend?

    How often are firearms used for this purpose?

    Why remove from the home the woman's best means of self-defense?
     
  10. Hawken50

    Hawken50 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    311
    Location:
    Western NY
    yeah this is a great idea. cops get called to a house for domsetic dispute. cops are "required" to remove all firearms from scene. cops kick the guy out of the house. cops leave. guy comes back with a tire iron. woman is now defensless. woman gets blunt object lobotimy.

    yep great idea.
     
  11. Kodiaz

    Kodiaz member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    680
    Location:
    Palm Beach County
    Sounds like it's time to make this guy a former state legislator who got voted out of office by angry citizens
     
  12. Reno

    Reno Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Location:
    Colorado
    Don't be so sure about that.
     
  13. Ezekiel

    Ezekiel Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    677
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    You forgot, or omitted, number four: a convict is in legal possession of a firearm.

    "Such is a bad, bad thing."

    Great rhetoric, but not inherently true. :banghead:
     
  14. sm

    sm member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    28,389
    Location:
    Between black coffee, and shiftn' gears
    Why I have been "annoyed" , over the 'Net -again!!

    From the bottom of the article originally posted, contact information . I mean that is what it is there for - right? ;)


    http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...73F0A973B7588361862571170001FD65?OpenDocument

    Sherman Thompson Parker, a Republican who represents parts of St. Charles County in the Missouri House of Representatives, is a regular contributor to the Commentary page.

    E-mail: sherman.parker@mo.house.gov

    900 N Tucker Blvd
    Saint Louis, MO zip code
    Phone: (314) 340-8500



    --Recall the latest warnings about "annoying" someone via Internet.

    --Suggest double checking the address I found using Teoma, if you would prefer to convey by letter just how "annoyed" this makes you feel.

    --err... don't forget a 2 cent additional stamp if you still have some 37 cent ones like *someone* I know. [I liked the antique car ones :p ]
     
  15. Spot77

    Spot77 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,221
    Location:
    MD
    Assuming the commentary didn't omit some important information, no actual gun crime was commited??? Only perceived as a "possible" future crime?


    She should've gotten her own gun if she was so scared.
     
  16. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,843
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    I'm totally against a ban of ownership/possession as a result of domestic stuff. The federal law, IMO, is a Really Bad Thing.

    But I'm not totally against some sort of "cooling down period" sequestration. Some sort of short-term reduction of availability of a firearm. It's already known that the most dangerous deal for most cops is a family squabble. Emotions are high and folks get out of any self-control.

    Husbands shoot wives; wives shoot husbands, cops get shot. I can see why somebody would try to make it safer for all concerned.

    Again, though, short-term. Not a ban, not a permanent take-away.

    Art
     
  17. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    Rep. Parker and many other defenders of abused women often ignore the fact that spiteful ones are not above claiming they were abused, when in fact they weren't. In too many instances restraining orders are issued against the man on the basis of a woman's unsupported claims. Thereafter the man's firearms are picked up until he can prove he's innocent. It would be interesting to see how Mr. Parker and others might address this issue in they're proposed law. :uhoh:
     
  18. Hawken50

    Hawken50 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    311
    Location:
    Western NY
    Art-

    i must respectfully disagree with you about a "cooling off period" if the cops take guns from a scene, they would have to take all the guns, his, hers, anybodys. thusly leaving the woman (who may already be in danger in the first place, after all, the cops are there) defensless.
     
  19. Merkin.Muffley

    Merkin.Muffley member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    158
    Hopefully the NRA will revaluate their "A" rating.

    Art - can you provide any statistics that demonstrate that these "cooling off periods" work? Without some supporting data, I believe you're wrong.
     
  20. ThreadKiller

    ThreadKiller Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    457
    Location:
    Nebraska
    Alcohol is an absolutely montrously HUGE factor in domestic abuse and has been for AGES!!!! If this guy is so concerned about domestic abuse, why isn't he campaigning for alcohol control?

    Hypocrite.
     
  21. Ezekiel

    Ezekiel Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    677
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    I agree with Art. Why? Because you argument contains therein a rather large fallacy: it presumes the man/woman would remain on the scene, and/or in the situation, after the cops leave.

    Hey, "that's his/her problem."

    Take the guns from the scene, enforce some sort of temporary seperation and -- if the IDIOT goes back -- it's "on them." :fire:

    They can have their toys back when they can act like adults.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page