10 Ring Tao
Member
...Have some 'splaining to do.
No, really, I'm genuinely curious to see the why, and the amount of misinformation, behind these votes.
Those who'd like to dictate purchase ages are getting askew glances, too.
What gun control measures do you support?
- Thread starter Hoplophile
- Start date
- Status
...Have some 'splaining to do.
No, really, I'm genuinely curious to see the why, and the amount of misinformation, behind these votes.
Those who'd like to dictate purchase ages are getting askew glances, too.
bdickens
Member
I'm a staunch advocate of strict gun control.
I believe you should strictly control every gun you shoot.
I believe you should strictly control every gun you shoot.
I think some things should be controlled.
Smaller children should not own guns. Showing off "my new gun" to friends could be bad. So age 16 for rifles, 21 for pistols.
Felons should not be able to have guns, unless some requirement is met. Repeat felons should be a no go, and if caught with a gun, a nice long sentence.
But I think any good citizen of the right age should be able to own any weapon that any other person on the world can own. Full autos, silenced, high cap. No huge tax, no lengthy forms.
And gun registration would be a good idea, but has too many holes. But like cars, if all of them were in a system, tied to your name, no one would use them for crimes. But for some reason, criminals don't follow the law.... wonder why...
Smaller children should not own guns. Showing off "my new gun" to friends could be bad. So age 16 for rifles, 21 for pistols.
Felons should not be able to have guns, unless some requirement is met. Repeat felons should be a no go, and if caught with a gun, a nice long sentence.
But I think any good citizen of the right age should be able to own any weapon that any other person on the world can own. Full autos, silenced, high cap. No huge tax, no lengthy forms.
And gun registration would be a good idea, but has too many holes. But like cars, if all of them were in a system, tied to your name, no one would use them for crimes. But for some reason, criminals don't follow the law.... wonder why...
Wow so far this thread has mostly revolved around felons and gun rights or no restrictions at all for anything, What about mentaly deficient folks, you know the 50 year old person with a 10 year olds mentality, should this kind of person be allowed to have a gun? Does this person really have the knowledge wisdom and responsibility it takes to be a responsible gun owner? OR should this kind of person be restricted?
Scoutsout2645
Member
For 10 Ring Tao:
I'll explain MY vote for you, since the OC/CCW question was worded to allow a large grey area of opinion from simple age restrictions to a total ban.
A) I endorse carrying, in all states, for any legal citizen over 18 y/o who is not a convicted violent felon or judged psychologically violent/dangerous or mentally non-competent.
B) Anyone who chooses to carry MUST: 1) take and pass a basic firearms safety course,the content and length of which to conform with similar NRA courses, and 2) qualify with his/her weapon/s at least once per year but no more frequently than that State's police are required to qualify. The qualifying round of fire shall be no more stringent than required by that State's Police Training Commission (or similar body) for the minimum qualification of police forces.
I feel that this would weed out the known problems (criminals and psychotics) and the potential problem of untrained or unknowlegable gun owners, while restoring the right to carry to the states that currently do not have this.
It also takes much of the wind out of the anti's sails--if it is safe for police to carry off duty, why is it not safe for a law abiding citizen who meets the same standards as the police to carry?
I'll explain MY vote for you, since the OC/CCW question was worded to allow a large grey area of opinion from simple age restrictions to a total ban.
A) I endorse carrying, in all states, for any legal citizen over 18 y/o who is not a convicted violent felon or judged psychologically violent/dangerous or mentally non-competent.
B) Anyone who chooses to carry MUST: 1) take and pass a basic firearms safety course,the content and length of which to conform with similar NRA courses, and 2) qualify with his/her weapon/s at least once per year but no more frequently than that State's police are required to qualify. The qualifying round of fire shall be no more stringent than required by that State's Police Training Commission (or similar body) for the minimum qualification of police forces.
I feel that this would weed out the known problems (criminals and psychotics) and the potential problem of untrained or unknowlegable gun owners, while restoring the right to carry to the states that currently do not have this.
It also takes much of the wind out of the anti's sails--if it is safe for police to carry off duty, why is it not safe for a law abiding citizen who meets the same standards as the police to carry?
Drgong
Member
let me do the flipside of "Well if they are a danger, just keep them in jail"
So if someone holds up a store at age 18, your saying keep them in prison for approx 65 years (life) for that action?
At some point in time, you will have to release some prisoners who may be a danger as it a affront to liberty to put someone in jail for life just becuse "they are a danger to society" as where do you draw the line of being a danger to society?
We have (When it works) the best system so far developed, where if your liberty can only be removed when a group of your fellow citizens agree that you broke a law that was passed by a democraticly elected officals. However when one is released from prison, one does not automatic become full citizens, a felons for a time are put into the same catagory as children and instutionalized persons, those who have a subset of rights.
Will a law prevent dangerus felons from getting guns - no, just as a law will not stop someone from forcing themselves sexually on a women. However, the law sets out punishments for breaking such a law and I have no problem if a convicted felon who has not had rights restored getting a parole violation and or a additonal ten years if cought with a gun. Yes, they will get a gun, but they can go to prison over it.
Felons do not have the same rights as law abiding citizenship, Voting, where they may live and associate with, Searches without a warrent, and so on.
Just give a Felon ten years of probation (with the Felon paying the cost of the Probation officers on a pro-rated basis), as when one is on probation one does not have full rights, for example, a probation officer can come in and search your residence. If they stay crime free in ten years, they get full rights back, including gun ownership.
So if someone holds up a store at age 18, your saying keep them in prison for approx 65 years (life) for that action?
At some point in time, you will have to release some prisoners who may be a danger as it a affront to liberty to put someone in jail for life just becuse "they are a danger to society" as where do you draw the line of being a danger to society?
We have (When it works) the best system so far developed, where if your liberty can only be removed when a group of your fellow citizens agree that you broke a law that was passed by a democraticly elected officals. However when one is released from prison, one does not automatic become full citizens, a felons for a time are put into the same catagory as children and instutionalized persons, those who have a subset of rights.
Will a law prevent dangerus felons from getting guns - no, just as a law will not stop someone from forcing themselves sexually on a women. However, the law sets out punishments for breaking such a law and I have no problem if a convicted felon who has not had rights restored getting a parole violation and or a additonal ten years if cought with a gun. Yes, they will get a gun, but they can go to prison over it.
Felons do not have the same rights as law abiding citizenship, Voting, where they may live and associate with, Searches without a warrent, and so on.
Just give a Felon ten years of probation (with the Felon paying the cost of the Probation officers on a pro-rated basis), as when one is on probation one does not have full rights, for example, a probation officer can come in and search your residence. If they stay crime free in ten years, they get full rights back, including gun ownership.
JohnBT
Member
"What about mentaly deficient folks, you know the 50 year old person with a 10 year olds mentality, should this kind of person be allowed to have a gun? "
I had guns in my closet when I was 10, so I suppose I had a 10-year-old's mentality.
I think convicted felons should have their rights restored after they serve their sentence AND after they reimburse their victims.
John
I had guns in my closet when I was 10, so I suppose I had a 10-year-old's mentality.
I think convicted felons should have their rights restored after they serve their sentence AND after they reimburse their victims.
John
Scoutsout2645
Member
Drgong:
I'd say that this is a compromise I could live with. I'd like the frequency and degree of monitoring increased, but this satisfies the principle of not making a proven criminal's future crimes easier to commit, while also satisfying the idea that a person can change his ways and become a productive citizen.
What penalties do you propose for repeat offenders, or those who violate the terms of probation(test "hot" in a drug test, get caught associating with gang members, etc) without committing an actual "crime"?
I'd say that this is a compromise I could live with. I'd like the frequency and degree of monitoring increased, but this satisfies the principle of not making a proven criminal's future crimes easier to commit, while also satisfying the idea that a person can change his ways and become a productive citizen.
What penalties do you propose for repeat offenders, or those who violate the terms of probation(test "hot" in a drug test, get caught associating with gang members, etc) without committing an actual "crime"?
71Commander
Member
Drgong. You keep bringing up that liberal mantra. Probation is a liberal idea that has no value in a civilized society. If a 18 commits a crime worthy of a life sentence, let him serve life. You say if a dangerous felon has a gun while on probation, put him in prison for 10 years. I say, don't let him out.
What's so hard to understand?
What's so hard to understand?
Drgong
Member
What is so hard to undestand that the concept of life in prison for any offence is simply a unworkable for costs alone, let alone the obsene punishments that would be handed down. I guess someone who gets in a fist fight deserves life in prison, what about man who committs manslaughter? There are punishments other then life in prison due to the fact that some crimes are worse then others.
If your willing to say that a man who gets in a fistfight or commits manslaughter deserves life in prison, then fine, your being logical about it, but I don't agree.
I don't think that criminals deserve rights commonly enjoyed by law abiding citizens, but at some point in time, since we don't have a prison colony to send them to, we have to release a few of them back into the public. Probation has been around in it modern form since 1841, (and has older common law roots).
The facts are that felons are released on a DAILY stream due to the fact that they have served part of there punishment. If you want them armed that is your opinon, do not expect me to agree untill they show they are peaceable.
If your willing to say that a man who gets in a fistfight or commits manslaughter deserves life in prison, then fine, your being logical about it, but I don't agree.
I don't think that criminals deserve rights commonly enjoyed by law abiding citizens, but at some point in time, since we don't have a prison colony to send them to, we have to release a few of them back into the public. Probation has been around in it modern form since 1841, (and has older common law roots).
The facts are that felons are released on a DAILY stream due to the fact that they have served part of there punishment. If you want them armed that is your opinon, do not expect me to agree untill they show they are peaceable.
71Commander
Member
Nice red herring.
If the sentence calls for life, do life. No where did I say that all crimes are life sentences. Me thinks you see what you want to see. If the crime committed calls for 20 years, make them do 20 years. Not 10 years and then probation.
After their sentence is served, restore their full rights and privileges.
IndianaBoy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,551
If a person has committed a violent crime so heinous that they cannot be trusted to own a gun, they should either be in jail, or hanging from a tree.
IndianaBoy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,551
Let me see if I understand you.
An adult makes a decision that 75 dollars in a cash register is more valuable than the life of the clerk and customers in the store...
And it is an affront to their liberty to put them in jail and throw away the key?
I wonder if the murdered hotel clerk in the nearest town to me would agree with you. After all... she only lost her life. It would be WRONG to ask the same of her killer.
Tarvis
Member
I knew if I went to the last page there would be some juicy conversations.
I'm gonna have some fun with this one:
The major problem with gun control is it's like the "One Ring." Just as Gandalf said he would use the ring in his desire to do good, so would I allow the creation of a law banning violent felons from using guns. Through me, however, gun grabbing liberal do-gooders that know more about what is good for me than I do would use that slippery slope to increase the restrictions. In the background there will always be the general non-gun enthusiast public (Boromir) that think they are doing the right thing, and Smeagle (Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton etc.) that wants the power for themselves.
I'm gonna have some fun with this one:
The major problem with gun control is it's like the "One Ring." Just as Gandalf said he would use the ring in his desire to do good, so would I allow the creation of a law banning violent felons from using guns. Through me, however, gun grabbing liberal do-gooders that know more about what is good for me than I do would use that slippery slope to increase the restrictions. In the background there will always be the general non-gun enthusiast public (Boromir) that think they are doing the right thing, and Smeagle (Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton etc.) that wants the power for themselves.
Drgong
Member
Straw man arguement - if someone is murdered then they are not facing just armed robbery charges.
Then agian, what about a bar fight? life in prison? What about jaywalking? (yes, those are stawman arguments as well.)
Just going to leave now and say that your wasting your time and poltical capital arguing that violent felons deserve gun rights.
Then agian, what about a bar fight? life in prison? What about jaywalking? (yes, those are stawman arguments as well.)
Just going to leave now and say that your wasting your time and poltical capital arguing that violent felons deserve gun rights.
Phil DeGraves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
No, we have not bought into the liberal line. We just don't believe that we should be complicit in selling a gun to a convicted felon if we don't want to.
Scoutsout2645
Member
71Commander:
That's fair, but that is neither what Drgong was saying, nor what others (or you, according to your next sentence) are saying.
The philosophy of "lock 'em up forever" crowd ignores the fact that, according to the precedents in our legal system, you can't lock someone away for life for a lesser crime--violent felony though it may be. Their argument is that, if an 18 y/o commits a crime not worthy of a life sentence, we should still apply an indeterminate sentence of "until he's safe to return to society". The reality is that, by endorsing THAT belief, you ARE violating the "cruel and unusual" part since two people, who commit the same crime, can get drastically different sentences.
But, lets ride that slippery slope all the way down. If someone commits that felony that would have gotten him 10 years now gets, as in your quote,
If prison is now no longer a tool of punishment but a place to banish for life those who might be dangerous, then why not proactively remove all individuals from society whose thoughts and words show harmful intent?
I understand that, now, these questions/examples may seem absurdly extreme but it is these extremes that you have to look at when examining a law because over time that is where these laws may wind up.
That's fair, but that is neither what Drgong was saying, nor what others (or you, according to your next sentence) are saying.
The philosophy of "lock 'em up forever" crowd ignores the fact that, according to the precedents in our legal system, you can't lock someone away for life for a lesser crime--violent felony though it may be. Their argument is that, if an 18 y/o commits a crime not worthy of a life sentence, we should still apply an indeterminate sentence of "until he's safe to return to society". The reality is that, by endorsing THAT belief, you ARE violating the "cruel and unusual" part since two people, who commit the same crime, can get drastically different sentences.
But, lets ride that slippery slope all the way down. If someone commits that felony that would have gotten him 10 years now gets, as in your quote,
, then why not just execute him? If he is so dangerous that he can't be released, if committing any felony warrants a probable life sentence, why would it not merit a death sentence? Lets expand this to other areas of law...permanent revocation of driving privileges after your 1st speeding ticket because you might speed again?
If prison is now no longer a tool of punishment but a place to banish for life those who might be dangerous, then why not proactively remove all individuals from society whose thoughts and words show harmful intent?
I understand that, now, these questions/examples may seem absurdly extreme but it is these extremes that you have to look at when examining a law because over time that is where these laws may wind up.
Thats a wonderfully elaborate plan. I suspect the cost and hassle would keep many people from carrying but that aside, why do you think it is necessary? We have a couple states where people can just conceal a gun if they legally own it, several states where you can open carry a gun with no permit, and states where you can get a carry permit without training or testing. Do these places have a safety problem from their more loose requirements? If there is no problem....why all these restrictions and regulations? I'm all for well thought out solutions but I think there needs to be a problem before we come up with great ideas to fix it.
JImbothefiveth
Member
Reread the whole constitution again. Put this in context. You also have the right to liberty, and life, but those can be stripped away with something else mentioned in the constitution. It's called "due process". I also urge you to look up "jury of peers".
Rereading the second without re-reading the rest is going to produce some flawed interpretation at best.
71Commander
Member
Not a bad idea.
You can talk all you want about traffic tickets, no one else is. It has no bearing in this discussion.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
What? I'm Still Guilty?
Yes, a little hyperbole . . .
So, tell me, O wise social engineers . . .
Why is it that I have to keep proving I'm not guilty of something?
Please?
Oh, and has anyone else noticed a tendency to legislate common sense in some of the proposals? You know, oh, gosh, we have to keep guns away from ten-year-olds. Well, let's look back ninety years . . . were ten-year-olds buying guns? Was that ever a problem? Did they have a law for that? If so, what?
Mental illness.
Explain to me, again, why it is that I have to keep proving that I'm not crazy?
Please?
How is that common sense?
If you're going to restrict the sale of something, how about simply applying the same kind of criteria used for cars or boats?
Here's the thing: any law or regulation which, by default, imposes special requirements on ordinary normal people -- especially of a nature of making them prove their innocence -- is a serious infringement of liberty.
Think about it. We want to control terrorism. Libraries have books which terrorists could use to learn bomb making. The "arts" of chemistry are certainly subject to abuse. Therefore: anyone wishing to check out a book on chemistry or any of several related fields of study must first provide evidence that he's not a terrorist.
Hey, it's "common sense," isn't it?
No, no, you see, you're just not getting it, we only want to enact legislation that imposes restrictions on FELONS, not good people like yourselves. Oh, good. So, can I buy a gun? Uh, that depends. Are you a felon?
So, keep the felons in prison until they're done being felons.
Oh, we can't do that, there are too many of them! It would bankrupt us!
Uh, okay. and there are too many of them because . . . ?
Well, you see, nearly everything is a felony nowadays, and we have to make sure that people who do bad things -- like, you know, serving trans fats at fast food restaurants, cheating on taxes, smoking evil plants, selling cigarettes to "prohibited persons," or disparaging socialism -- are properly labeled so they can be properly controlled . . . say, you're not a socialism critic, are you?
So, how to control the population?
How about this proposal: find reasons to label "special" classes of people (felons, "mentally ill," and so on) who "need to be watched," but allow them to mingle with the general population. Now, any time someone wants to engage in an activity that you think will challenge, question, or undermine your authority, make him prove he's not on the list of "special class" people.
Now you have a way to gather data on potential trouble sources while asserting that you're only trying to protect everyone from the bad people.
Now, it might take a few decades of [strike]indoctrination[/strike] education in order to sell the idea that it's your job to take care of everyone, but keep at it, because eventually you'll have enough believers that you can ridicule those who insist on seeing to their own welfare (and their own defense).
So . . .
Somebody please explain to me: why is it that you want to make the default assumption that I'm either crazy or guilty of something?
Yes, a little hyperbole . . .
So, tell me, O wise social engineers . . .
Why is it that I have to keep proving I'm not guilty of something?
Please?
Oh, and has anyone else noticed a tendency to legislate common sense in some of the proposals? You know, oh, gosh, we have to keep guns away from ten-year-olds. Well, let's look back ninety years . . . were ten-year-olds buying guns? Was that ever a problem? Did they have a law for that? If so, what?
Mental illness.
Explain to me, again, why it is that I have to keep proving that I'm not crazy?
Please?
How is that common sense?
If you're going to restrict the sale of something, how about simply applying the same kind of criteria used for cars or boats?
Here's the thing: any law or regulation which, by default, imposes special requirements on ordinary normal people -- especially of a nature of making them prove their innocence -- is a serious infringement of liberty.
Think about it. We want to control terrorism. Libraries have books which terrorists could use to learn bomb making. The "arts" of chemistry are certainly subject to abuse. Therefore: anyone wishing to check out a book on chemistry or any of several related fields of study must first provide evidence that he's not a terrorist.
Hey, it's "common sense," isn't it?
No, no, you see, you're just not getting it, we only want to enact legislation that imposes restrictions on FELONS, not good people like yourselves. Oh, good. So, can I buy a gun? Uh, that depends. Are you a felon?
So, keep the felons in prison until they're done being felons.
Oh, we can't do that, there are too many of them! It would bankrupt us!
Uh, okay. and there are too many of them because . . . ?
Well, you see, nearly everything is a felony nowadays, and we have to make sure that people who do bad things -- like, you know, serving trans fats at fast food restaurants, cheating on taxes, smoking evil plants, selling cigarettes to "prohibited persons," or disparaging socialism -- are properly labeled so they can be properly controlled . . . say, you're not a socialism critic, are you?
So, how to control the population?
How about this proposal: find reasons to label "special" classes of people (felons, "mentally ill," and so on) who "need to be watched," but allow them to mingle with the general population. Now, any time someone wants to engage in an activity that you think will challenge, question, or undermine your authority, make him prove he's not on the list of "special class" people.
Now you have a way to gather data on potential trouble sources while asserting that you're only trying to protect everyone from the bad people.
Now, it might take a few decades of [strike]indoctrination[/strike] education in order to sell the idea that it's your job to take care of everyone, but keep at it, because eventually you'll have enough believers that you can ridicule those who insist on seeing to their own welfare (and their own defense).
So . . .
Somebody please explain to me: why is it that you want to make the default assumption that I'm either crazy or guilty of something?
Scoutsout2645
Member
Soybomb:
Regarding cost and hassle--my quals are a 60 round day fire, 40 round night fire, I can be in and out of this part in 30 mins. I don't know about you, but burning 100 rounds during a session at the range is not uncommon for me. As far as the initial course, I'm not losing any sleep by requiring a person to have rudimentary knowlege about the safe use of that deadly weapon he wants to carry around me.
As far as "the point" of these restrictions/etc: right now many states functionally do NOT allow carry. If the mindset is to improve or expand the application of RKBA to states like CA and NJ, not just defend it in places like TX, then we need to create proposals that will address the concerns of these populations.
In my opinion, showing that the agenda is one of careful and responsible gun use is far more productive to the cause than advocating giving full auto AKs to every prisoner upon release. We will always lose to the hard core antis, but our stance and the policies we advocate can either win over moderates through responsibility or will alienate them into believing that we are all just a bunch of gun nuts.
Regarding cost and hassle--my quals are a 60 round day fire, 40 round night fire, I can be in and out of this part in 30 mins. I don't know about you, but burning 100 rounds during a session at the range is not uncommon for me. As far as the initial course, I'm not losing any sleep by requiring a person to have rudimentary knowlege about the safe use of that deadly weapon he wants to carry around me.
As far as "the point" of these restrictions/etc: right now many states functionally do NOT allow carry. If the mindset is to improve or expand the application of RKBA to states like CA and NJ, not just defend it in places like TX, then we need to create proposals that will address the concerns of these populations.
In my opinion, showing that the agenda is one of careful and responsible gun use is far more productive to the cause than advocating giving full auto AKs to every prisoner upon release. We will always lose to the hard core antis, but our stance and the policies we advocate can either win over moderates through responsibility or will alienate them into believing that we are all just a bunch of gun nuts.
ctdonath
Member
A gun is a point-and-click interface. It's not hard to understand. Like a bicycle, once you know how it's hard to forget. Proficiency may take training & practice, but close-range "stop or I'll shoot" is really not that hard.
Who are these people whom I am to convince I'm good enough with a gun to be allowed to carry it? What gives them final say on my rights? I have hundreds of hours of training, and have taught police - why must I bow to them? What assures their motives are assurance of proficiency, and not oppression?
Worth repeating. Why are only the cooperative forced to cooperate, when non-cooperation is so easy for those who would be denied should they cooperate? And why do I have to prove myself to you - especially when I in turn doubt your integrity, competence, motives and authority?
And "due process" begins with the onus on the accuser to warrant pursuit of denial of rights to a particular individual. It is NOT up to the subject to come forward and say "please inflict due process upon me".
At some point you have to let him out unless he's deemed "that dangerous". The law simply must acknowledge that once out, he will have access to certain items, regardless of whether he's "allowed" to.
Nobody is saying you must sell to anyone.
Some of us are saying nobody should have authority to stop you from selling to people whose felony conviction is stupid (ex.: simple possession of a new 30-round AR magazine in NY; yes, that's a felony). Some "felonies" are far from worth losing rights over.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
