Quantcast

What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by yesit'sloaded, Nov 26, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    cowboy writes....
    Who says they are unconstitutional? No one that matters, that's for sure. As I pointed out to another poster, with people like you around, why do we need a Supreme Court? We should just ask you what you think, right?

    Cowboy asserts.....
    Expand your imagination a little bit. Could there possibly be more than one deputy?

    cowboy then comments.....
    Less than what? Since courtrooms have implemented screening procedures, shootings are near zero. If you think they would be less if "all are armed", you can think that if you want but I doubt that you will convince many people of that. And certainly no one that matters like judges, court administrators, deputies, etc. I doubt you could convince many members of the general public.

    cowboy continues.....
    I'd rather prevent such shootings by establishing sterile areas in a few obvious places like courtrooms and airliners.

    And don't duck the question. Under current (100% passenger screening) policies, how many airliners have been hijacked or have had shootouts occur compared to the frequent hijackings at gunpoint that used to take place before screening was adopted?

    Leaving all reality behind, cowboy asks.....
    I guess you didn't notice my repeated support for shall issue CHL's. What I disagree with is the ridiculous assertion that shall issue CHL's are unconstitutional.

    cowboy speculates....
    I doubt it. No one had considered suicide hijackers before 9/11. Everyone assumed that hijackers wanted to "go somewhere", "make a statement", etc. and that if you cooperated with them you would eventually be OK.

    Besides, other passengers could have had box cutters if they had wanted to because before 9/11 box cutters were not banned. Anyone could have them on board. The AQ's didn't have to hide them. They just took them through security legal as breathing.

    Just like you want them to be able to take MP-5's.

    As it turned out, the people on Flight 93 didn't need box cutters or anything else once they realized that this group of hijackers was different.

    cowboy asserts....
    So if an airline told you that passengers were prohibited from carrying weapons aboard, that would be OK with you?

    FWIW, air travel is interstate commerce, and can be regulated by the feds under commerce clause authority. There may be a conflict between 2A rights and commerce clause powers. This conflict is currently resolved in favor of commerce clause powers. The chance of any court ruling otherwise is effectively zero.

    Feel free to take your legal theories, gather up some venture capital, hire a bunch of lawyers and found "Second Amendment Airlines", whose policy is to encourage passengers to show up armed with no questions asked.

    Then, in the incredibly unlikely event that you win the legal battle allowing you to begin operations, see how many tickets you sell.

    cowboy responds....
    So you're telling me that going through the black market is easier than if there were no restrictions at all?

    Easier than if there were no restrictions at all?

    That is utter nonsense.

    What are you blathering about? I have consistently advocated for shall issue concealed carry. I have consistently pointed out the foolishness of "gun free zones" defined by signs or policies, but in the absence of any real security. Someone at VT should have been armed and have stopped Cho. And if VT hadn't stupidly banned CHL's from carrying on campus there probably would have been. And it's great that someone was armed and able to take action at that church in CO.

    Don't you bother to even read what you are responding to?

    cowboy goes on.....
    From here it looks like I'm being "called on the carpet" by people who don't read what I am posting.

    It's really pathetic.

    cowboy speculates.....
    Why don't you post your design for the "armed courtroom" on the web somewhere? Maybe you could put together some venture capital and market your design to states and counties looking to build new court facilities.

    cowboy responds.....
    No. I've simply pointed out that the "restrictions = infringements" position is in fact an idiotic load of crap that leads to so many absurd situations that only a mental defective could take it seriously.

    It's obvious that you are displeased with that.

    Arm everyone. Gun permits unconstitutional. Crazy courtroom designs. Please. Don't waste the bandwidth.
     
  2. Soybomb

    Soybomb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,959
    Wow I'm not sure how to piece all those replies back together but I'll see what I can do.

    When were they not? It seems like you're crediting security changes with fixing a problem that never existed.

    Why is that common sense? We've established that really there is no one from stopping anyone with malice from doing so now.

    But I can buy a gun "no questions asked" just like I can buy illegal drugs no questions asked. I could buy meth easier and faster than I can buy ephedrine products at walmart. Its probably easier and faster for a criminal to buy a gun on the street than it is for me to buy one at the gun store with restrictions. Why would you think these restrictions effect anyone but people that want to follow the laws? What difference does it make if your shooter carries his gun into the mall in a backpack or openly carried on his back? I can't see that a single thing changes with the outcome.

    Come on you're comparing the security systems in place at the US capitol building to county courthouses? I'm sure you realize you can't even begin to expect those county courthouses to have as many officers on duty or the security funding available for the capitol building. Even at that I'd point out that the shooter executed the security guard working the metal detector, and made it into the building and into offices. That sounds to me like you debunked your own theory. If a shooter can get past the metal detectors at the captitol and into congressional offices I see no reason to think they couldn't get into court rooms at a county court house.

    The shooter executed the officer at the metal detector and made it into congressional offices. I think thats a massive failure.

    How many were there before 9/11? The last US aircraft hijacking that had any passenger deaths before then was in 1987.Just because I put an anti-terrorist rock in front of my house after september 11th doesn't mean its actually stopping terrorists.

    Why does it have to be licensed? Can you point out the issue with the alaska/vermont model?

    The people of flight 93 did a very heroic thing. With firearms they might have been able to stop the hijackers earlier or faster before they had the opportunity to crash the plane. Even though al-Haznawi was flagged for extra screening that day, it did not keep the passengers on the plane safe. I would not call limiting the passengers to methods of attack that were slow enough to give the hijackers time to crash the plane before being stopped a statement that furthers your cause.
     
  3. IA_farmboy

    IA_farmboy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    264
    Location:
    Linn County, Iowa
    I was just thinking earlier today, what if conceal carry permits were common? Right now it is uncommon for someone to wish to get a permit so few have one. Now we have people that claim that those that have a CCP are less likely to break the law as if the CCP somehow makes a person "gooder".

    What if high schools offered CCP classes, much like how many offer driver's education classes? (Some schools make driver education mandatory, which can lead to amusement such as in the case of a blind student, but I am getting off topic.) What if it was common for a high school graduate to get a revolver for graduation present?

    The CCP loses it's meaning if a large portion of the population have them. All it does is flood the criminal database (because, apparently, getting a firearm must be a crime) with names and fingerprints of law abiding citizens making the maintenance expensive and reduces the effectiveness of that database.

    I've seen this happen with firearm registries, a government decides to take a spent casing and a fired bullet from every firearm to track that gun should it be used in a crime. Problem is that somewhere around 1 in 1000 firearms are ever used in a crime so that database becomes so unwieldy to the point of uselessness.

    If getting a CCP becomes popular the same thing will happen with the CCP database. Given that somewhere around 1 in 1000 people will ever be convicted of a crime the licensing of people to carry a concealed weapon becomes less effective as more people become licensed. This is especially true since those that are intent on committing a crime would tend to desire to stay off any system that tracks them, which would include a CCP database.

    What licensing does is create a deterrent to carrying a concealed weapon, and do so only to law abiding citizens. The criminals will carry concealed despite any law criminalizing it. The fact is that a vast majority of people can pass any background check for getting a CCP. Requiring fingerprints to get a CCP is potentially unconstitutional and would only serve to make the fingerprint database less reliable and less useful for actually fighting crime.

    So just imagine if 99% of the adult population got CCPs. What does that prove? That 99% of the adult population are law abiding citizens? I already knew that, and I imagine law enforcement already knew that.

    If it wasn't for the silly laws around here for getting a handgun I'd probably already have a couple. I don't see where that stops the criminals from stealing a handgun, buying a handgun from a friend or relative (which, depending on the specific circumstances, may or may not actually be illegal and is quite irrelevant as any such law is unenforceable), or passing a background check and buying it from a FFL as the criminal has yet to be caught.

    Gun control does not work. There is no such thing as "a light burden for the good guys and a heavy burden for the bad guys" because the bad guys have this nasty habit of breaking laws.

    I won't claim that going through the black market is easier than if there were no restrictions at all... for the law abiding. But it is easier for the criminals. Birds of a feather flock together and criminals tend to find other criminals to do such things as trade in firearms. If you are not known to the criminal element then it is going to be difficult to find black market firearms. Even a few nights in county prison is going to change that.

    I have met people that were willing to admit that they would be able to get me certain controlled substances if I so wished. If I chose to go down that road how long do you really think it would take for me to find someone willing to sell a certain other controlled item, such as a handgun, to me if I expressed a desire? I would wager that I could get a handgun illegally before my background check was processed by the sheriff.

    Licensing may slow the flow of firearms to the criminal element but it certainly doesn't stop it. Licensing also restricts the flow of firearms into the hands of the law abiding and does so to a greater extent. Saying otherwise is nonsense.

    Any background check will have errors and a false positive means that a law abiding citizen has been disarmed, a false negative means that a criminal has been armed. A true positive means that a criminal is now motivated to go outside the system to get arms, this avenue is open to criminals because they are unencumbered by law until challenged by law enforcement.
     
  4. Soybomb

    Soybomb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,959
    The permit does nothing to change the person but it does seem that people who have made it to the age necessary to get the permit without having already disqualified themselves from legal gun ownership or disqualified themselves from the permit requirements are fairly unlikely to turn bad suddenly. Just look at the violent crime recidivism rate and see how many crimes are committed by old criminals. The permit doesn't make you a good person but if you're capable of getting one, you're probably not criminally inclined.

    I think your estimate of how many would qualify is a bit high considering things like:
    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#findings
    "If recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 15 persons (6.6%) will serve time in a prison during their lifetime."
    but in general I'm not sure if the premise of what you're hinting at isn't wrong. Most of the problems we have a from a group of repeat offenders. Most of society seems to be pretty well behaved and probably are relatively decent people. Most people don't steal, rob, murder, rape, etc. They might download a mp3, drive poorly, or smoke pot but they aren't violent criminals out to hurt others.
     
  5. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    Frankie said....
    Soybomb replied...
    No such thing has been established. At the Capitol, the security perimeter did its job. You don't want to admit it because it messes up a cherished fantasy. So instead you make the inane claim that it wasn't perfect. Yes, there were casualties. But the shooter was ultimately stopped by the layered defense.

    The question you need to address is how many casualties would there have been if everybody present was toting MP-5's and the shooter just opened up on the people around him out of the blue? Because that's what would happen under an insane "restrictions = infringements" regime.

    Have you ever fired an MP-5? I have. Let me tell you, there would have been a boatload of casualties in the time it would take for someone to respond and shoot back. A big boatload.

    Soybomb writes.....
    Courtroom security was put in place in response to a number of courtroom shootings that occured.

    Frankly, it is inane to argue that arming everyone with MP-5's and having no perimeter and no security will result in fewer shootings than if you created a sterile environment with a security perimeter.

    I'm not going to waste any more of my time doing it.

    Soybomb writes.....
    Passengers began to be screened for weapons many years before that.

    I was alive back then, and I remember it was common for passengers to pull guns and demand to be flown to Cuba.

    If you're researching hijackings, dig up data on how many there were in the 60's and early 70's, before screening was put in place compared to how many there are now. Better yet, I'll do it for you.

    Check out these links.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuba-US_aircraft_hijackings

    http://www.geocities.com/khlim777_my/ashijack.htm

    Note that hijackings are much less frequent today than back in the 60's and 70's (before screening).

    Note also that no where in the world did authorities adopt the idiotic idea of handing out MP-5's to passengers or letting them bring their own aboard no questions asked.

    Screening works. It's not perfect, but it works.

    The above took me about 5 minutes.

    Show me a country or an airline that allows passengers to tote MP-5's aboard no questions asked and I'll view the results with interest.

    Or as I suggested to cowboy, gather up the venture capital and a bunch of lawyers (to get the current restrictions found unconstitutional) and start your own.

    Otherwise, you will reflect better on yourself if you simply admit that the "restrictions = infringements" position is an insane load of crap that only a mental defective would attempt to argue for.

    Frankie writes.....
    Farmboy replies....
    That's a good start. Too bad it couldn't be sustained for a full sentence.

    Farmboy continues......
    So it's easier for criminals to use the black market than if they could just walk into any store and buy any gun that they want with no questions asked?

    How is that possible?

    I was in a gun store yesterday that had hundreds of different pistols, rifles, and shotguns. If there were no restrictions, I'm sure it would have had plenty of Class 3 stuff too. It was well lit and staffed by friendly people. It offered gunsmithing facilities and stood behind the products that it sold.

    So the black market is supposed to be somehow easier to deal with than that?

    Farmboy writes......
    1) I have never advocated licensing for people to buy firearms.
    2) I have advocated background checks. Background checks are not an obstacle to LAC's. They are an obstacle to BG's. They force them into the black market. This doesn't prevent them from getting guns, but it makes it more difficult than it would be if they could just walk into any store and buy them.
    3) Licensing to carry guns is no more than a small burden to LAC's. Since BG's can't get licenses, it puts them at additional legal risk whenever they venture out carrying a gun. More prison time if they get caught. More chance they will get shot dead by the cops if they run or try to fight their way out. (Happens all the time around here (Austin). Cops try to stop BG with a gun for a minor offense. BG runs (because he knows if he gets caught with the gun it's a big problem) and ends up getting shot by the cops. Result - one less BG. If it were legal for the BG to carry the gun, they wouldn't bother running and would still be alive.)

    What amazes me is how people can waste their time arguing such utter nonsense. It's why I took a break a couple of weeks ago, and why I will soon take another one.

    There are plenty of good pro gun rights arguments to be made, and plenty of true infringements of the RKBA that need to be opposed. A short list:

    "May issue" CCW licensing which is often "may not issue".
    "No issue" CCW laws.
    AW bans.
    Complicated storage requirements.
    Licenses to purchase.
    One gun a month schemes.
    Handgun bans.
    Hollowpoint ammo bans.
    Microstamping.
    "Smart" gun requirements.
    "Product safety" requirements designed to ban guns.

    And many more.

    Instead people waste their time blathering on about how security perimeters do nothing, how black markets are easier for criminals than an unrestricted white market (Note: Not the current white market, but an unrestricted one.), and how we should hand miniature fully functional MP-5's to 3 month old infants so they can get used to the feel and sound of them at an early age. And hey, if they mess up and shoot someone that they shouldn't have, other people around could just use their own MP-5's to blow them away.

    After all, 3 month old infants are easy to make, right? It only takes 12 months.
     
  6. GeezerwithGuns

    GeezerwithGuns Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2006
    Messages:
    271
    Location:
    Colorado
    Isn't the stated objective of "reasonable" gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of law breakers and criminals who are by definition, well "unreasonable?" The big dichotomy is that "reasonable" people (law abiding & responsible members of society) don't need additional laws to behave properly. That was proven well before 1968.

    Criminals don't give two hoots about following laws or regulations.

    So, in effect, "reasonable" or "common sense" are nothing more than red herrings.
     
  7. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    Frankie wrote.....
    Soybomb replied.....
    Alaska and Vermont have different demographics than most other places in the USA.

    Let me quote from my post above.

    You'd be amazed at how many BG's carrying guns get shot by the cops around here when they run from being stopped for minor offenses.
     
  8. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Bollocks. Bollocks on two counts. One: Criminals run because they don't want to go to jail. It has squat to do with them carrying a gun. Two: Cops don't shoot fleeing criminals unless there is imminent danger of the criminal causing further serious harm(meaning the cops already saw the perp causing harm), and cops only shoot to protect themselves when being attacked same as any Joe Blow citizen.

    I do believe your claim of criminals "being shot for running after perpetrating a minor offense" would get the shooter and his department and city or state in a world of hurt with criminal and civil charges. Have you some inside information about a certain police force that has been doing this and getting away with it? If so, come forward with it. Sooner or later they'll be exposed. If you are aware of it and have done nothing about it, you too are culpable.

    Ah, I see where you are coming from. People from Vermont and Alaska are better people than the people in the other 48 states. They get to exercise their rights because a few people in the other 48 states spoil it for the rest of us. Tell me, what is the magic cut-off ratio of bad people to good people that says living in a certain state allows you more freedom to exercise your constitutionally protected rights?

    You sound like Rudy Gulliani with his comments of how New York City is a different sort of place. What, aren't they United States Citizens like the rest of the country? I ask you the same question about the other 48 states that are not Vermont or Alaska. Aren't the citizens of the other 48 states United States Citizens same as those of Alaska and Vermont?

    Wrapping your liberalism in a neat looking package of "allowing CCW permits on a shall issue basis, etc.", is a disingenuous placing of the goal post out there somewhere between the Constitution and totalitarianism. Well, there is only one set of goal post and those are the ones bounding upon the Constitution. Creating law that makes carrying weapons illegal is leftist. Creating more law that makes exceptions to those laws "allowing" concealed carry permits is still leftist. That is where you have shown yourself to stand - to the left of the Constitution. That is where the "reasonable restrictions are not infringements" are - out to the left of the Constitution. What is it about "shall not be infringed" that you do not understand?

    Woody

    "Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to stop crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood
     
  9. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    Geezer writes.....
    Maybe so. But if what they are doing is illegal at least we have something to convict them for and lock them up when we catch them doing it.

    By your logic, why have laws against murder, since criminals will not obey the law anyway?
     
  10. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    cowboy responds:

    Search some TX newspapers for Dallas, Houston, Austin, or San Antonio and then talk to me.

    As I pointed out to Geezer, why have any laws at all, since criminals will break them anyway?

    cowboy writes:
    They certainly have much lower violent crime rates, especially VT. And with all the time I spent in VT, I can tell you that even with their very good gun laws very few people routinely carry guns. So I do not believe that their low crime rate is related to a significant deterrent effect. Vermonters I have known, and I have known many, tend to be very peaceful and law abiding people.

    cowboy writes:
    "Shall issue CCW" is a liberal position?

    Advocating a "restrictions = infringements" regime where anyone can buy any gun and carry it anywhere they want at any time they want with no questions asked, where AQ operatives could legally board airliners toting MP-5's, leads to so many absurd situations that a proper label for it goes beyond "liberal" or "conservative". Terms such as "idiotic", "inane", and "insane" come to mind.

    How would you like it if 100 members of the "We Hate Gun Nuts Society", most of whom were violent felons who have served out their time, marched back and forth in front of your house everyday (using the public sidewalk) toting MP-5's?

    What's the problem? If they violated the law, you could just call some pals over the house and have it out with them, right?

    In fact, 100 of them would never dare to do such a thing because they would be afraid that you and your pals would blow them away, right?
     
  11. GeezerwithGuns

    GeezerwithGuns Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2006
    Messages:
    271
    Location:
    Colorado
    My point is that "reasonable" and "common sense" laws almost 100% of the time negatively affect the law abiding, not perpetrators. Does the fact that murder is against the law deter murderers? Statistics say no, however the law does prescribe an appropriate punishment.

    Murder is the result of an overt action. Making it illegal is a great deal different than legislating restrictive rules against inanimate objects.
     
  12. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    Geezer writes:
    Do you have any basis for that statement?

    Shall issue CHL makes it easy for LAC's to carry while providing for a criminal penalty for BG's.

    Background checks make is easy for LAC's to buy guns while forcing BG's to the black market.

    Banning guns on board airliners prevents AQ types from shooting them up while not affecting me at all.

    Examples are endless.

    Sure, there are many unreasonable gun laws out there that do negatively affect the law abiding. I'm not advocating or supporting them. This thread is supposed to be a discussion of what types of laws would be "reasonable", not how the word "reasonable" is used as a code word by the gun ban lobby.

    Geezer writes:
    What statistics are you referring to? In order to support your assertion, you would need to compare murder rates between societies that make murder a crime and societies that do not make it a crime.

    The problem is that there are no societies that do not criminalize murder. So I don't know where you are coming from on this.

    geezer writes:
    But if criminals don't obey the law, what use are the laws against murder? Answer: It gives us a way to put them away when they violate them.

    It's the same for guns.

    I can go out in public carrying my gun at no legal risk to myself whatsoever. If an LE finds that I am carrying a gun, he isn't going to do a blessed thing to me, nor I to him. I'm an LAC and I have the proper license, so I'm good to go.

    The BG faces a much different environment. If he gets caught carrying a gun he goes to jail. And if he tries to fight it out with the cops, (to avoid getting caught) he most likely gets shot.

    If there were no laws restricting unlicensed people from carrying guns, or restricting felons from possessing guns, the BG would be in the same nice position as I.

    So the BG puts himself at legal risk while I do not.

    The basic problem with the "restrictions = infringements" position is the fallacy that since criminals do not obey the law, having laws is useless.

    But as I've shown, one could make the same argument to say that it is useless to have laws against anything, because criminals will break them.

    That's arnachy.

    Some on this thread apparently prefer anarchy. And I suspect that it's probably because they have never had to live under it.

    It's easy to prefer arnachy from the comfort of your living room, with police patrolling your street, and thousands of violent BG's rotting away in prison for having broken various laws, and a full establishment of DA's and courts to convict them as needed.

    I think it's a lot harder to live the reality.

    Look around the world to places where a defacto state of anarchy reigns today. Somalia, Sudan, Northwestern Pakistan, Northeastern Afghanistan, etc.

    You wanna go live in any of those places? I'm sure we could take up a collection from people posting to this thread to buy your ticket and any guns that you may desire.

    And I hear that the Northwest Pakistan / Northeast Afghanistan area has very few gun laws. No waiting periods. No background checks. And I see TV footage of people with AK-47's slung over their shoulders coming and going as they please with no questions asked. (I guess the Pashtuns haven't got the knack of copying MP-5's yet.)
     
  13. GunTech

    GunTech Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,878
    Location:
    Helena MT
    The only reasonable vun laws I can see would be to deny them to vilonet felons. Constitutionally speaking, felons have been deprived of a number of rights normally accorded to citizens like the vote. The other category would be those adjudicated mentally incompetent with fairly strict guidelines. I don;t what a real nut-case with a gun.

    Other than that, I see no need for any restriction or regulation. We should be able to keep and bear arms.

    There is always the sticky question of private property. Should someone be allowed to be armed against the wishes of a private property holder? That's a tricky proposition.
     
  14. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    guntech writes:
    So how would you implement those restrictions? Would you support background checks for people looking to purchase guns, for instance?

    Also, if eligible people (i.e. non-felons, non-crazy) can carry guns openly or concealed, anywhere and everywhere, how would you keep violent felons and/or crazies from "blending in"? Would you agree with a requirement that guns be concealed (with some exceptions of course)? Would you agree with a requirement that people carrying guns need to have shall issue CHL's? Or would you implement a system where a cop could call in for an "instant check" on the criminal/mental health history of anyone who they happen to stop (traffic) or encounter for other reasons?

    Would you allow for no questions asked carry on airliners, in courtrooms, in prisons (by visitors), in the Oval Office, etc.? Or would you agree that there should be some narrowly defined "secure areas" where people entering are screened and where weapons are not allowed?
     
  15. GeezerwithGuns

    GeezerwithGuns Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2006
    Messages:
    271
    Location:
    Colorado
    I'm sure the politicians that passed the 1976 Washington DC gun control law felt sure that by "responsibly" banning the ownership of handguns, they would "solve" their violent crime problem. The only problem they solved was they made it easier for the BGs to go about their business. It is a fact that DC's murder rate rose 134% between 1976 and 1996.

    There are, in fact, over 22,000 various gun laws at the local, state and Federal level right now and I'm sure that the people who wrote these laws felt strongly that they were very responsible and made perfect sense. Do we need more, I hardly think so.

    The DC gun ban directly hinders a law abiding individual's ability to defend themselves. Disarming the innocent in DC has had pretty negative effect.
     
  16. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    Geezer writes:
    OK. So you think that DC's gun laws are "unreasonable". Fine. So do I.

    Geezer continues:
    OK. I mostly agree with that too.

    But I would favor new gun laws prohibiting employers from banning employees from keeping guns in their cars in company parking lots.

    And I'd like to see the "no new machine guns" part of the FOPA of 1986 repealed.

    So there's a couple of gun laws that we might want to pass.

    Geezer concludes:

    I agree.

    But note that unlike the laws I favor, the DC ban puts a large burden on LAC's who want guns (it mostly bans them) while failing to prevent BG's from getting guns through the black market.

    This is the opposite of what I advocate.

    I favor laws that put little or no burden on LAC's (such as background checks and shall issue licenses to carry) while placing a larger burden on BG's by forcing them into the black market and outlawing possession and carrying by BG's (thus increasing their legal risk and potential prison time should they choose to possess or carry guns).
     
  17. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    19,664
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Reasonable gun laws:

    How about: 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.
     
  18. Glockman17366

    Glockman17366 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,150
    Location:
    South Central Pennsylvania
    Laws against murder and other crimes using any weapon against another for criminal purposes are the extent of a rights limitation.
    Even those under 18 enjoy the same constitutional rights as adults, don't they?
    And, felons who have served their time...their "debt to society", why shouldn't their rights be restored...at least for nonviolent crimes? BTW, I consider "straw purchasers" to be violent offenders.

    As a Quality Assurance specialist, I believe in being proactive...however, "proactive" in a free society results in less freedom for that society.
    Every elected person swears an oath to protect and preserve the Constitution (which the Bill of Rights is part of). They must follow their oath...or leave office.
     
  19. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    Vern writes:
    Gee Vern, how long did it take you to come up with that?

    Now tell us what that means and we can disband the Supreme Court and simply refer all such questions to you.
     
  20. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    glockman writes:
    "..are the extent of a rights limitation." Not sure what you mean by that.

    glockman goes on:
    Ahh, not quite. They can't vote. In fact, there's a lot of things they can't do, including buy guns in most states (and in every state from FFL's).

    glockman says:
    I agree, for non-violent felons.

    Glockman says:
    Interesting. So I take it that 4473's and background checks are OK with you? Me too.

    glockman says:
    It's always a tradeoff. And making wise ones seems to be quite difficult.

    glockman says:
    The problem is, who brings that about? You can't expect a public official to suddenly realize he has failed to protect the Constitution and resign. And as we see, public officials are very reluctant to remove other public officials from office.

    In addition, whether or not someone's actions "protect the Constitution" so often reduces to simple policy differences. Every public official thinks they are preserving the Constitution. They just differ on the best way to do it.

    We can't make policy differences a crime. Who would determine which official was really preserving the Constitution and which was not (and had to leave office)?
     
  21. glummer

    glummer Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2006
    Messages:
    699
    Location:
    NY
    Yes, EASIER than (the “white” market) with no restrictions at all.
    In the black market one is buying stolen items, cheap, and dealing with criminals, who have little incentive to talk to the police if they are suspicious.
    That is EASIER than paying full market price, and pretending to be someone who is not a criminal at the same time.

    Why do you suppose there is a black market in electronics, or jewelry, or anything else?
    Because it is EASIER for those who are criminally inclined.


    To say otherwise is, as someone said, "an idiotic load of crap". :D

    Why do you think guns are any different? :banghead:

    It is NOT the same for guns.
    Unless you are speaking of concealed murders, unknown to the authorities.
    In which case the laws ARE useless.

    You can only punish that which you know about.
    Criminals carrying guns will conceal them, or conceal their identity, or just avoid the police, so there is usually no way to punish them until AFTER they commit some other crime; and they can be punished for that, anyway.
     
  22. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    glummer writes:
    In a completely unregulated white market, people could buy any gun they wanted no questions asked. That means no names, no ID's, no background checks, no nothing. So criminals, terrorists, lunatics, or anyone else could buy guns in complete anonymity. Whether the store owner has any incentive to talk to police or not, he wouldn't have all that much to tell them.

    So there's no advantage for the criminal to the black market there.

    As for buying stolen goods, guns will be stolen like anything else I suppose. And people who want to buy cheap and who don't mind the risk of getting caught with stolen goods will buy them.

    But I don't know that that is "easier" than just going to a store where you could buy them without worrying about getting nailed with a stolen goods rap someday.

    glummer presses on:
    While the black markets you mention tend to feature lower prices than legitimate stores, the selection and condition of the goods can vary widely. Sometimes these goods sustain minor damage when they are "ripped off". So like anything in life, there are tradeoffs.

    But you're kind of missing the main issue. In fact, I think you slipped and fell into an idiotic load of crap.

    The question is under which system is it more difficult for criminals, crazy people, terrorists, etc. to buy guns. Is it easier under a system that places obstacles in the path of these catagories of people (thus forcing them into a black market)? Or is it easier under a system where guns are sold out of vending machines sitting on every street corner (because to restrict this would be an infringement, right)?

    Or maybe it would be even easier if charitable organizations set up shops where they handed out free guns, no questions asked, to people who couldn't afford to buy them. (They would operate on the honor system of course.)

    I can see that defending the absurd consequences of a total "restrictions = infringements" regime is taking it's toll on some people. It's tough to choke on a fantasy, isn't it?

    I have a suggestion for anyone who feels stressed out by all this. Go buy a Ruger Vaquero in 45LC and a good cowboy action type gun belt and holster. Strap it to your leg. Have someone shoot video of you walking around in your backyard squinting into the setting sun. Then walk into your house and say, "Whiskey." Have your S.O. pour out a shot of whiskey and down it in one gulp. Then exhale loudly.

    Watch the video when you feel stressed. You'll feel better.

    BTW, video editing is a hobby of mine. If someone sends me their raw shots I'll be happy to edit it into a nice little video, complete with background music. (The theme from "The Magnificent Seven" is always a good choice.) Just send me a PM and we can set it up.
     
  23. Quaamik

    Quaamik Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    164
    Federal:

    All types of firearms, up to and including crew served weapons and explosive devices designed to penetrate armor, legal to purchase, build, sell, own, posses and carry (concealed or openly) with the following restrictions:

    - Parent / gaurdian consent for purchase below age 18.
    - Parent / gaurdian or designated adult supervision while useing off of own property if under 18.
    - Required basic firearm safety training in elementary school, repeat class with live fire instruction in junior high school, additional repeat class with live fire instruction in high school (live fire protions exempted if the person has a religious objection). Classes required to pass in order to graduate.
    - Restrictions on carry within the White House, Congress, and all Federal Court buildings with the requirement that they provide secure storage for firearms for visitors and that serving jury members be exempted.
    - Felons prohibited from possession while serving prison term, parole or probation.
    - Federal guidelines for shall issue concealed carry license for minors (training, background check, mental health exam to prove responsibility/competance only required) required to be honored by all states. Would allow minor to carry a defensive sidearm for personal protection without adult supervision.

    State: No more restrictive laws than federal except that state legislative, court and executive building can be restricted (serving jury members exempted).

    Local: No more restrictive laws than federal except that local court building can be restricted (serving jury members exempted).


    As an aside, I hate including the restrictions on minors. I just don't see a way around it as long as the parents are responsible for thier actions (and they are legaly less than fully responsible).
     
  24. Quaamik

    Quaamik Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    164
    additional:

    - Prohibition on businesses involved in renting lodging (motels, apartments, housing rentals) or selling food from banning customer carry of firearms.
    - Absolute liability for any other business that bans customers from carrying firearms.
    - Requirement that any business that bans employees from carrying provide adequate alternate security measures or face absolute liability.
    - Prohibition on businesses banning firearms from emplyee vehicles.
     
  25. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Absolutely. You , too, can figure this stuff out as well as any other of us. Obviously, you can read. But then you don't matter any more than the rest of us in your world view, so why bother, right?

    In the last 3 years I've been a court room about ten times. Once during jury selection process, there was one deputy present(the perp was being tried for murder) with a gallery full of prospective jurors, defendants, family of both the defendant and victim, and witnesses. The other times was for hearings and one trial. All those times there was never more than one deputy, and some times none. Your imaginary deputies won't save anyone.



    This is when that ounce of prevention fails, because when it does fail, you damned well need that pound of cure.

    It's their prerogative. It would then be my prerogative to fly on another airline that will allow me to be armed.

    You have some inside scoop on that? There is a good chance in the Court right now that may lead the way to resolving this "conflict".

    Yes, I do. Your stance allows these so-called "reasonable restrictions" that open the door for any restrictions. Have you not noticed what happens when this happens? It started with the NFA of 1934. It led to the GCA of 1968 and the '86 FOPA that stopped the sale of new machine guns to citizens, and the '94 "Assault Weapons" Ban.

    Maybe I will. I'm glad to see you don't object to the idea any more. We've made progress! It wouldn't be so hard to do, either. Many courts have closed circuit TV arraignment facilities already in use.

    No such thing has been established.


    Laws spell out abhorrent acts that society has decided shall be prohibited, and those laws make it possible for the courts, through due process, to convict and isolate those criminals from society. If those criminals were to be held in prison until they can be trusted - the reason they are being isolated from society in the first place is because they can't be trusted - then there would be no reason to violate the Second Amendment. Right now law abiding people are being punished so the state can let these violent criminals out of their custody. That seems to be terribly wrong, don't you think?
    I'll tell you what is "idiotic", "inane", and "insane", and that is the legal system that doesn't execute or keep violent criminals locked up, that doesn't keep the violently insane institutionalized, and the Federal Government that will not secure our borders and screen all who wish to enter. In lieu of that we suffer infringements, background checks, licensing, terror attacks, and the threat of terror attacks.

    Quoting only part of what I wrote is another tactic of someone who is losing an argument. If you take the whole of what I wrote into context, it is explained. The conservative approach is to remove the unconstitutional law, not make an exception that leaves the unconstitutional law in place. That is what makes these laws "allowing" people to carry arms leftist. No one should ever need a permit or license to exercise an inalienable right - especially an absolute and inalienable right.

    In the constitutionally abided world, violent criminals would be either dead or in prison, terrorists would be caught at the border, and lunatics would be institutionalized. Then I say "So what if the people could buy any gun they wanted no questions asked." It used to be that way - before criminals weren't let out of prison prematurely, the insane weren't allowed out without guardianship, and parents were actually responsible for raising their children.

    Frankie, if you had as much fervor in supporting the Constitution as you do in supporting ignoring it, you'd be a valuable asset. All your fears can be assuaged constitutionally.

    Woody

    Our Founding Fathers did a good job. You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice