Texas park shootout

Status
Not open for further replies.
The laws are already there. The answer isn't more of the same. The answer is to let the penalties be swift and harsh for he who commits unprovoked
acts of mayhem against his fellow man.
Click to expand...



Yes the laws are already there. Saying that you support the law is saying that you support some gun control. There are peopel involved in this thread that do not seem to think this minimal amount of gun contro is prudent and thus (apperently) support no restrictions whatsoever on gun ownership.

Also, as I said before the reasoning for adding charges is to keep every criminal from pleading not guilty (or any other plea which requires a trail). If every one that broke the law required a trail we would not have the necessary resources to prosecute all of them (they would not get a speedy trail and would all thus be released because their due process rights were denied them). It would destroy our legal system, I don't like it either but its what we got.
 
Law

Quote:

> Saying that you support the law is saying that you support some gun control.<
*************

Of course I do. I've already said that I don't cotton to the idea of a minor,
a person convicted of a felony crime of violence or one who has been institutionalized for mental issues/repeated substance abuse/addiction,including repeat drunk driving offenders...being able to walk into a shop, plunk their money down, and walk away with a selective-fire automatic rifle.

I'm also in firm touch with reality...and that reality is that if any or all of the above category decides that they want a gun, they'll get one. All it takes is cash and determination...and a high percentage of those can start early in the morning and score one before the sun goes down. These kinds of people have proven...multiple times in most cases...that the law doesn't mean any more to them than a dead rat on the side of the street. An inconvenience that they have to step over or walk around, and nothing more.

There are already a host of "Gun Control" laws in effect that cover the whole range from perfectly reasonable to silly...and they haven't prevented a thing, except to create a hassle for the people who do obtain their firearms legitimately and by due process. On the contrary, many of the "reasonable" gun laws have done nothing more than to give rise to a huge black market
for guns...even among the law-abiding. Simpler and easier to buy a gun without papers than it is to jump through the increasingly smaller hoops required in many states. The law-abiding gun buyers have become increasingly mistrustful of the BATF's meddling in their legitimate affairs, and are entering that market in droves...preferring to do business sub rosa rather than in the light of day.
 
If every one that broke the law required a trail we would not have the necessary resources to prosecute all of them
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with me and my gun?

Make the sentence for the original crime more serious if its carried through trial instead of plead. You can also streamline the system with other meathods to get more cases through every day.

A failure of the justice system to conduct timely trials should not be a burden on target shooters, gun collectors, cops, soldiers, hunters, or other citizens. The responsobility for this should be squarely at the judges feet. Let them suffer through the needed reforms.

Theres dozens of everyday things you can turn into crimes if the point is to trump up charges in hopes of a guilty plea, but thats not very fair to anyone involved. Stop wasting money and time on the things that dont work, spend it on those that do.
 
I am having a hard time understanding where everyone is coming from in this thread. It seems like some are saying they want NO gun control what-so-ever but then they say they support the current laws.

Maybe we are all on the same page but reading things a little differently. I was saying that I do not believe that restrictions should be stricter, I actually think alot could be lessened, but I do feel some restrictions are needed.

I think the way things are here in Oregon are a perfect example of how things should run. You can go in and pick out what you want. Fill out a form and then get an instant background check done. Then if you have no current felony record or warrants you can walk out with your purchase in less than 15 minutes. Then you can go down to the Sherrif's office and get a CHL with no hassle at all.

I am not into militry style weapons so I am not sure what restrictions are put on those so I am not sure where I stand on that.

I am not seeing how the system I just described in Oregon would interfere in a legal gun owner buying and using the weapon of their choice. Maybe I am missing something or people are talking from a standpoint influenced by the laws of their own states
 
Penguin...maybe you need to report to Brady, Schumer, Clinton, Clinton, Feinstein and associates that you've been made and it might be better if you aborted the mission. :D
 
I do feel some restrictions are needed.
Click to expand...

Needed for what?
I personaly think that the ills of society need solutions too, but I dont think the answer to every problem should begin and end at the gun store. Its not exclusively our fault and Im not the one who has to atone for anyone elses sins.

If you let a dangerous felon loose, it dosnt matter if you have a billion gun laws. Hes going to hurt someone.
Solution? Lock him up. Dont leave him loose to get a gun, dont let him out early.

If a kid is showing bad tendancies and actively shopping for firearms, a law against selling him one isint too effective. He can find a straw purchaser or take one from an adult.
Solution? Paddle little billys backside early and often. If you dont teach the child properly hes either going do something horrible one way or another.

If youve got illegal immigrants who want to own weapons for security, their going to go shopping and laws just benefit the illegal sellers.
Solution? Escourt the illegals out or make them legal.

In any case, its still not a problem to be dealt with at the gun store. We need citizens to have ready access to both personal and military firearms, a restriction there goes against our rights and still wont solve the other problem.
 
Who says it begins and ends at a gun store. It is all just a small piece of a bigger puzzle. Noone is saying gun laws will solve all crime. They are just saying they do some good if done correctly. Do we do away with all laws because none of them are a cure all for societies ills?

And noone is saying felons should be turned lose but the reality is you can't lock up every person that does something wrong for their entire life. It is just not logisticly possible. Prisons would be overrun and eating up most of the national budget.

I also do not believe a person should suffer their entire lives for one mistake. I believe people can change. Isn't that what most religion is about. I do not have a problem with them suffering the consequences of their actions though. If they did the crime they cannot vote, they cannot buy a gun, etc until they have had their record expunged.

I still have had noone answer my question of how do the simple restrictions I mentioned interfere with law abiding citizen's gun ownership. It seems to me like the stance some are taking is more about putting their own needs and wants above having to deal with simple and reasonable requirements.
 
Simple Restrictions

Well...Let's examine the restrictions that we alread have.

No conviced felons can legally buy...Check.
No minors can legally buy...Check.
No documented substance abusers can legally buy...Check.
Background checks before transfer...Got it.
One gun a month in many states...Check.
Waiting periods in many states...Check.
No full-auto weapons in Class 3 states without proper paperwork...Check.
No full-auto weapons in some states, period...Check.
No weapons mass destruction or destructive devices...Check.
No firearms on public school campuses...Check.
No firearms within 300 feet of public schools in many jurisdictions...Check.
No firearms at public gatherings...Check.
License required to hunt...Check.
And many more in various jurisdictions too numerous to keep up with.

Exactly how many more "reasonable restrictions" do you want?
Exactly how is it that all these regulations affect anyone except the law-abiding citizen who obtains his firearms within legal guidelines?
Exactly how will more restrictions prevent anyone from obtaining a firearm
unlawfully? Would you like to add a need-based restriction and put the burden of proof for need on the gun owner?

In case you haven't noticed, about 99% of the membership is here because they support 2A/RKBA/Responsible Firearms Ownership. Your arguments suggest that you'd like something more in line with Great Britain, Australia, and Canada...or maybe Japan would get you closer to Shangri-la. Emigration is an option. This is America. What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand.

Your slope is getting steeper and more slippery with every post, m'fren.

Regards...
 
1911Turner

I think I was very clear about what restrictions I believed in...

1. Noone with violent felony records
2. No minors
3. Noone mentally incompetent

Unless someone's argument is with one of those three I do not see where all the attacks a rightous indignation from some people is coming from.

PS- I do believe a recent poll on THR showed that the majority of people on here agreed with the very restrictions I just mentioned so I do not know where the 99% of people you mentioned is coming from either.
 
1911Tuner

Those_restrictions_are_already_there. Have been for years...
Click to expand...
And your point is????
The 2A is already there and has been for years but that does not stop someone for voicing support of it when it is challenged. The only issue anyone on here has taken is with the people that say there should be "NO" gun restrictions because they make baseless claims that they do not do anything.
 
The only issue anyone on here has taken is with the people that say there should be "NO" gun restrictions because they make baseless claims that they do not do anything.
Click to expand...

If your goal is to reduce crime overall then there are more effective ways to do that.

There are some estimates the murder rate (per 100,000) before prohibition and gun control was 1 to 2, more realisticly it was probly around 4-5. At present its hovering at 5 to 5.5 after coming down from a high of 10.
At best we've come full circle, At worst theres been an across the board increase. States with large bans are often reported as just as bad or worse than states without them. This is after we have spent billions on gun laws.

Would you say we have gotten what we paid for?
Whats more effective: Gun control or 16 million dollars put strait into your state PD?

Well lets think about this... the majority of crimes are commited by a minority of the population. If you applied the same resources and thinking it would be easier to track and control 3 million criminals than 60 million guns.
Im not for defending a felons right to carry. Its just a simple fact the meathods to catch and disarm him could be made alot more effective without the need to profile gun owners, waiting for one of us to commit a crime.
 
PP-you really should not be surprised at a lot of people screaming that gun laws do no good. Take a look at your own list. You have 3 groups which you would not allow firearms to.

Violent Felons
Minors
Mentally Incompetent

It is pretty much an established fact that there are over 20,000 gun laws in the USA. That means there are 6,600 laws covering all or part of what you consider "reasonable gun laws." I have to tell you that I can somewhat concur with what you are stating.

I believe what you are seeing is people tired of more restrictions on their rights with nothing to show for it. We know that mentally incompetent people probably should not have firearms. That has been discussed at length here, and there are laws on the books-do a search. Violent felons should not be among us, period. Minors should only be around firearms under responsible adult supervision-parents, scout leaders, whatever.

Funny-the Army had no problem handing me an M16A1 at the tender age of 17. My oldest son came back from Iraq last December, but after a year of combat, a purple heart, 2 arcoms and other awards, is "too young to buy a pistol" or a drink, but he can by-God bleed for us.

A lot of us are sick of the other 19,997 laws on the books. We just got past an "assault weapons ban" which had nothing to do with assault weapons. It had to do with evil black rifles in semi automatic form. No more dangerous than your dad's semi auto remington or browning - maybe even less dangerous! Even worse, the 10 shot restriction on pistols. Do the bad guys not hurt anyone until the 11th bullet? And what does that have to do with you or me?

I can no longer purchase a brand new full auto weapon. Why am I being restricted or punished? What good does that law do? I can't legally saw off my shotgun barrel, but if I did, all I just did is ruin a pretty good bird gun. It will not make you or me suddenly want to go and shoot up the town square.

Why should I have to wait, as an American citizen, for anywhere from 3 days to 2 weeks to buy a firearm in some locations? Why do I, as a law abiding American have to surrender or otherwise get rid of my pistols if I move to DC, San Francisco, or Morton Grove, Illinois? Those laws do nothing to protect my rights, let alone my life or family. They make me a victim.

In the end, law is paper. It has nothing to do with real life except in its enforcement. The gun laws in this country are so scattered, so stupid, and so comprehensive in so many meaningless ways that you could not drive from the west coast to the east coast without violating some stupid law or ordinance and become a felon or a person otherwise ineligible to ever own a firearm in your life.

When a politician makes a statement about "reasonable gun laws", keep your hand on your weapon and your wallet, because they are about to take some of both.

As to the doofi (multiple doofuses?) in Marshall, Texas...they are gonna get whats comin to them in a very big way. Unlike some locations across the country-mainly the big cities, small town folks don't speak legalese, but they know when to hold em under until the bubbles stop coming up. Common sense.
 
Point

PP...My point is that you keep talking about firearms restrictions that you'd like to see...that have been law since 1968...with more added over the years. I'm starting to wonder if you've ever filled out a 4473 form...or even seen one.

My other point is that restricting legal access to anything isn't going to solve
what is essentially a social problem, any more than speed limit signs keep people from ignoring and exceeding the posted limit.

C'mon...You can tell me. You're not really pro 2A, are ya? Sarah Brady sent you over here to plant the seeds of doubt in our weak little minds...didn't she?;)
 
They are not restriction I "would like to see". I have never said that at all. They are restrictions I "agree with" and would not like to see revoked. It makes me a little sick to my stomach when I see people on here say things like "there should be NO gun laws" and some that even say things like "it is safe to leave loaded guns around my young children cause I done taught 'em right" As a gun owner this is a mentality I do not want others associating me with at all.
 
re:

Refer to post #43:

Quote:

>Therefore, I do believe that the limits should be simple, non-arbitrary and nationwide. No violent felons (and only specific violent acts should qualify...nothing like trespassing or child support issues), no underage, and no mentally incompetent. ***That is what we should be working for***.<
*********************

Referencing the last sentence in your post, it seems that these things are what you are calling for...and_they're_already_there...and more. AND...These restrictions only prevent firearms transfers to those who seek to buy them through lawful means. They don't stop the man who wants to buy...nor the man who is willing to sell...without benefit of a federal firearms licensee being involved in the transfer.

"I wanna gun."
"I got one"
"How much"
Five hunna' dolla"
"Okay. "Here"
"Good deal. See ya"
"See ya"

See how it works?

I understand that some individuals want zero restrictions, as it was pre-68 Control Act, but...just like the drivers who want our interstates to emulate the German Autobahn...it just ain't gonna happen. And even then...no licensed dealer would sell to a minor or anyone who was intoxicated or obviously mentally impaired. None that I ever knew, anyway.
 
1911Tuner

You are misinterpetting a simple sentence. What I am saying is any law or laws that are MORE severe than those should be parred down and simplified. The three criteria I mentioned are not the only laws out ther but in my opinion they could be the only ones and things would be fine. I am not calling for these to be instated. I am calling for laws beyond these to be simplified or done away with.
 
PP, I think the problem is your confusing a written law with enforcement of the law. You dont just want a pointless listing of possible crimes do you?
What we all want is to effectively punish someone for doing bad things.
Am I correct?

Well say the crime was robbing a store with a gun and shooting/killing several people. That person has broken the law against armed robbery, a law against assault with a deadly weapon, and the law against murder. Those 3 alone should be enough to put an end to him.
You dont need a law to prevent felons from owning a gun to disarm this one, He's too busy dangeling from the end of a rope.

Effectively deal with one criminal in hand and you prevent at least 2 to 3 future crimes. The cost savings alone would make processing fruitless background checks and stockpiling serial numbers look like woefully inadequate tactics.

It might be my odd view on things but if you prosecuted the law properly and spend the savings from gun control in catching, confining, exicuting or rehabilitatting your criminals on existing law, there would very little need for even those 3 basic gun controls you want to keep.
Parent leaves a child with a gun? thats endangerment.
Got drunk with your ccw in town? public intoxication and wrecklessness.
Felon with a gun? Hes either deemed trustworthy, on death row, or still in jail.
Legal mental incompetence brings a host of lost rights, they wouldnt have the freedom to be roaming around town looking for weapons.
Even if the felon should find a target, more relaxed gun laws suggest their next victem is more likely to be armed and able to resist.
Should they take out a criminal in self defense, it saves me more money.

America is a nation build on the thinking of stingy capitalists. Militia and rkba are cost effective forms to keep the peace. I think if we let the system run as intended you can pocket the savings towards better things.
 
Laws

PP...Maybe I did misinterpret that...but it's like Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain said: "The right word at the right time is like a thunderbolt." So it goes with the wrong word or phrase. It can make or break an otherwise sound argument.

I wouldn't look for the regulations added since 1968 to be rescinded though.
The politicians that are targeting lawful gun owners aren't about to relinquish the ground that they've gained. They're well aware that people are the true problem. That doesn't mean anything to them. They want the guns
gone, because it's not about gun control. It's about control, period.

As a Japanese general noted: (His name escapes me at the moment)
"Invading the American mainland would be suicide. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. (Or somethin' to that effect.)

The gun grabbers want to be rid of the guns because they know that without them, they could do pretty much as they damn please. They don't like the final system of checks and balances put in place by the Founding Fathers who knew too well the dangers of a governing body with too much power.

It ain't about crime and it ain't about savin' the children. They don't give a fat rat's patoot about our children. They want power...but a hundred million
gun owners are standing in their way of that utopia.

And now this thread probably belongs in Legal and Political...:rolleyes:
 
Tuner wrote:

"The gun grabbers want to be rid of the guns because they know that without them, they could do pretty much as they damn please. They don't like the final system of checks and balances put in place by the Founding Fathers who knew too well the dangers of a governing body with too much power."

A big +1, Tuner! You nailed it square on the the ol' head. Gotta admit that's nothing new, though. :rolleyes:

These threads show additional verification/reinforcement of Tuner's comments.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=193226
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=193507
 
Actually I do not think it is the gun grabbers that want to be able to "do as they please". They are the ones really being duped. I feel it is more the corporate controlled conservative govt that wants the citizens disarmed. They just use the left wingers as pawns by playing on their overly developed desire of peace at any cost.

They talk a big game against the anti-gunnies but they do little to stop them. They really are the ones that have the most to gain by disarming the public. What do tree hugging, free love hippies have to gain really?

if the left ever succeded in removing our guns they would quickly discover how it was an armed middle class societ that stood between our democarcy/republic and a totally corporate controlled system where the money made the rules and people were an expendable commodity.
 
Left wing extremism is just as bad as right wing extremism, and it comes from the same place.

A desire to regulate personal behavior to bring it in line with what they believe is the right way to live.

Each extreme has plenty to gain from a disarmed and docile public (whether it be Hitler and Stalin or Mussolini and Castro) and plenty to fear from a well armed resistant public
 
Grabbin'

PP stated:

Actually I do not think it is the gun grabbers that want to be able to "do as they please"./I feel it is more the corporate controlled conservative govt that wants the citizens disarmed.
***********************

Dunno if that's it, thought there are surely some....like Soros...who are solidly behind it. Maybe the politicos are pandering to the leftist corporate bigwigs
for the money to further their agenda in return for a taste of the pie.

Someone once said, that..."When you have so much money that you couldn't conceiveably spend it all, the only thing left to covet is...power."

Maybe I was a little hasty Penguin. After reading some of your posts...carefully...it seems that I have been. Apologies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
CHL Shoots Robber(s)
Replies
22
Views
1K
IndianaBoy
I
M
  • Locked
(FL) 2 accused of impersonating cops
Replies
2
Views
577
Standing Wolf
S
S
  • Locked
Call Sarah Brady! Call the VPC!
Replies
7
Views
869
rayra
R
P
  • Locked
Bystander stops bank robbery
Replies
10
Views
2K
Technosavant
T
W
  • Locked
Two Teens Wounded in Brawl at Florida Water Park
Replies
4
Views
472
yhtomit
Y
Back
Top