Ten Commandments of Gun Ownership
- Thread starter 450 Dakota
- Start date
- Status
450 Dakota
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 42
The point is that the restrictions do not usually work--the law is irrelevant! Let me play devil's advocate here. If my wife or granddaughter were brutalized or murdered by a known perpetrator, there was no legal evidence other than my knowledge that the assailant actually did it, and I had reason to believe this individual would act again, I would have no crisis of conscience whatsoever wasting this individual and making him completely disappear. I would probably drug of poison him and then take him far away for the disposal. Being a chemist by education and knowing a LOT of rural territory, I would get away with it, too. No body, no evidence, no crime. My point? If you are a determined criminal (hungry, angry, desperate, vengeful, etc) the threat of losing your firearms rights is not going to be a deterrence at all. Sorry--this person is going to die a miserable death and then completely disappear--with or without a gun!
larryh1108
Member
Seriousy?
What is being proposed is a society without laws.
Why punish the few when everybody does it and gets away with it, right?
Ok, let's say that 1 in 10 rapists get caught. It may very well be that way because the victim is afraid, ashamed and a lot of other things. It may be a relative or family friend, etc.
So, because 10% are caught and convicted, that means 90% go unpunished because they are smarter or luckier.... So, since so many get away with it, why have the law in the first place? Right? The same for murders, domestic violence, etc. You get the picture. So, to follow this logic, ban all laws and save all the money we spend on prisons and housing prisoners. Right? Laws are dumb, anyways. Who needs them?
I think everyone here agrees that all laws passed that infringe on our gun rights are wrong and should be abolished. However, if you think all laws are stupid because only a small percentage of people are actually prosecuted.... well, I will strongly disagree.
If rape and murder weren't illegal, would we have even more? 2x more? 5x more? 100% more? Why not? Your wife irritates you so you just kill her and find a new woman. It's not illegal so why not?
Sorry, man has made laws necessary. There is an evil element out there. I have seen it face-to-face. Law abiding citizens may commit crimes without intent but those who are predators are evil and need to be locked up. The sad part is there are way too many out there that have not been caught. I believe it catches up with you in the end. What goes around, comes around. It may be an early, violent death at 38 instead of 78 or it may be an eternity in a very warm place but if you choose to break laws on a regular basis, your day will come.
450 Dakota
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 42
No one is suggesting lawlessness. Where did you get that. All crime needs to be punished. I am suggesting that permanently taking away natural rights is immoral and does not fit the crime. Prison for life, death penalty, caning, a specific sentence--whatever. Put them under the jail. Rights suspended while on probation or parole, but once the sentence is fully served, it is over. Full rights.
JRH6856
Member
So what are you saying? That because you are not deterred by the law, that if must follow that no one is? That seems to be your contention. I really don't think you can find much support for that position.
Or are you saying that because the law does not achieve 100% deterrence, it is a failure? It isn't. The purpose of the GCA68 law is to create a mechanism restrict 2A rights wherever possible. But it will only actually deter those people who value their 2A rights and have high respect for the rule of law. The danger from laws such as this is that they undermine respect for the rule of law in general which increases the propensitym not to intentionally violate the laws we live by, but to ignore them.
Or are you saying that because the law does not achieve 100% deterrence, it is a failure? It isn't. The purpose of the GCA68 law is to create a mechanism restrict 2A rights wherever possible. But it will only actually deter those people who value their 2A rights and have high respect for the rule of law. The danger from laws such as this is that they undermine respect for the rule of law in general which increases the propensitym not to intentionally violate the laws we live by, but to ignore them.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Me thinketh thou speaketh too much information for thine own good. Thou ought not make such claims, even as an "anonymous" individual on the internet...lest thee find thy anonymity to be somewhat less than desired.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
450 Dakota
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 42
LOL! Well said. However, the statute of limitations has long expired on these crimes or I wouldn't have mentioned them!Me thinketh thou speaketh too much information for thine own good. Thou ought not make such claims, even as an "anonymous" individual on the internet...lest thee find thy anonymity to be somewhat less than desired.
450 Dakota
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 42
And this is my main contention!
Red Wind
Member
Yeah, Dakota, he agrees with you completely. Good job of conversion!
JRH6856
Member
Better job of confusion than of conversion. If that was the main contention, you both did a really good job of hiding it. :banghead:Yeah, Dakota, he agrees with you completely. Good job of conversion!
450 Dakota
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 42
I don't see any confusion at all. We just found some common ground is all. Your first few words said it all: "The danger from laws such as this........". And that is our point. Laws like this are dangerous, but they are also irrelevant as Sam 1911 previously pointed out and do not usually fit the crimes. Suspend rights during the punishment phase. Restore them when the punishment is over.
Red Wind
Member
Amen. Sam was on the money in his post. The wisest post on this thread. And the most humane. Thanks,Sam.
larryh1108
Member
Losing them is part of the punishment. It is a deterrence. I'm sure quite a few of us, here, have not acted on something that could put our rights in peril because of the thought of losing those rights. I know I have. We are all men (mostly, lol) and some times testosterone speaks loud and clear. Thinking about losing our rights to have our guns can turn a situation or decision into a smart choice.
Let anyone who has finished his punishment a guarantee to have his rights reviewed upon completion. If not granted, allow a hearing every 3 years to show progress to earning the rights back. Yes, earning. You lost them when convicted. You have to prove you deserve to get them back. Prove you are not the same person you were convicted of being.
Yes, everybody deserves the right to defend himself and his family but we also all have the right to not be victimized by criminals who feel that their needs supercede yours. My right to stay safe and be free of being robbed, beaten or killed is more important than your desire to take what's mine because you want to. You give up your rights when you decide you want what's mine.
jcwit
member
Lots of Passion regarding this, on both sides, with that said I'm sure glad there are some here who are in no position to amend or make the rules & laws in our society.
larryh1108
Member
True.
So I guess the guys who are empowered have no passions and do a much better job?
So I guess the guys who are empowered have no passions and do a much better job?
jcwit
member
Show me where I said that in my post, or is it as you claim, guessing?
Red Wind
Member
This issue does bring out the passion. We can still be gentleman though.
Last edited:
larryh1108
Member
Yes, "guess" is the key word.
It's sometimes called "tongue-in-cheek".
It's sometimes called "tongue-in-cheek".
JRH6856
Member
^^^THIS! The presumption of innocence only applies at trial. Once convicted, that presumtion and its benefits, dissappears for that crime. You are known to have been and presumed to still be the person who committed the crime, even though you may have paid the penalty for doing so. You should have the opportunity to prove otherwise, but not the presumption of it.
^^^and THIS! As described, the rights of the many trump the needs of the individual. When the individual ignores that and values his needs above the legitimate rights of others, his own rights are forfeit. And until his values change, his rights remain at forfeit.
Most states have a procedure for petitioning the court for the restoration of rights. The current problem with the loss of rights is that, at the federal level, there is no procedure for restoring lost rights due to a federal conviction other than Presidential pardon or act of Congress.
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
Laws are irrelevant? So, the Constitution, federal law, state law, etc. have no impact on anyones behavior?
Pretty sure you are 100% wrong.
NavyLCDR
member
Laws which punish acts that should be criminal are just fine. The problem with gun control laws is that 90% of them punish acts which should not be considered criminal. You want a good gun control law that you can use as an add on charge? How about making it a separate crime equal in severity if you use a gun during the commission of a crime. Punish the criminal with extra punishment rather than making all these laws that are only going to have 90% of their effect on the law abiding citizens.
450 Dakota
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 42
Nope. Just the Felons with Firearms law. Thats the only one we are talking about
NavyLCDR
member
The very first pistol permit law was enacted in 1911 in New York by Big Tim Sullivan. It was enacted to disarm the immigrants who had started shooting back at the organized mobsters. That is why the permit required a judge to issue it at his sole discretion.
The history of gun control also has deep roots in disarming minorities, especially freed slaves.
The history of gun control also has deep roots in disarming minorities, especially freed slaves.
- Status
