I've heard of "gun nuts" before, but......

[Manedew]

here's a little history for you

Back in europe, while America was being settled by European colonists, a peasant couldn't own a gun.

a peasent couldn't hunt on the Lord's land....

frist offence was a cut off hand

second was hanging



Here, in America, you could own a gun and hunt......

___________________________

what does that mean in today's terms?

well there are still people in VT that require and live off thier limit in hunting every year.... so that spirit continues

I've met some in TX that fish and hunt thier bellies full as well.
And some that do it more for the sport & to get out of town; catch and release.

_____________________________ ____

Remember Ignorance is no excuse? Yet there are more laws on the books than any one person can know and interpret.

The trumped up charges for Laz's freind are mud in the face of the American spirit.

Even the guy in this article is attacked for his ignorance,  20 years is rediculios!  You have actual Violent offenders going away for less... I think I recall convicted rapisists getting less time......

our legal system is broke.

I'll bet this stat still holds... but was true a few years ago .... we have the higest prison rate per capita of any country on the planet.   That just seems stupid to me when I see cases like this, and there are pleanty of them.
____________________________

maybe we should find obscure laws that police break and write THEM tickets  

[beet1e]

Rule 7.

[NUKE]

Rule 6.

[lazs2]

SOB.. we will never get punishment that fits the crime if we think that TELLING violent criminals that we let loose "you can't have a gun" is gonna be a substitute for actualy doing something.

On the other hand... such womanly thinking leaves the door open to punishing those that are moral.

If you commit a rape... should you forfiet your noodle?  a theft your hands?   Voyerism your eyes?   A traffic crime your licence forever?  How bout a break a city ordinance lose your right to ever own property again?

Or... how bout simply punishing you with loss of income or freedom in a manner befitting the crime and your danger to society and hope you get the message or... next time you aren't given the chance to be a danger.

The three stirikes laws are infinetly better than a million parole boards and stern talking to's and all the restrictions in the world.

lazs

lazs

[SOB]

Now you're just being silly.

[Saintaw]

<--- I'm now picturing Beetle with a gag over his mouth going "mhhhm mhhhm mmmhhhhhmm mmhhhhh!!!!"

[Saurdaukar]

Beetle got pwnt in this thread.

[beet1e]

Manedew,

As I'm not allowed to display a flag with Bart Simpson's initials on it, I will respond to your text in another way. I would like, respectfully and humbly, to draw your attention to the fact that I beg to differ with regard to your considered viewpoint that poaching offences in the middle ages were punishable by amputation. I remain, Sir, your obedient servant.

Beet.

<--- imagine sealing wax and ring imprint here

[Nashwan]

Back in europe, while America was being settled by European colonists, a peasant couldn't own a gun.

Where in Europe? They certainly could in all the European countries I can think of offhand.

a peasent couldn't hunt on the Lord's land....

Can you hunt on someone else's property without permission?

frist offence was a cut off hand

second was hanging

Again, can you say which parts of Europe? Certainly not the case in any parts of Europe I know of.

[dedalos]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
The problem I see is this.  We have allowed the argument to narrow down and focus on GUNS.  GUNS ARE NOT THE ISSUE.  The issue is a man's basic right to determine his own destiny and live his own life.  Guns can be used for self defense.  Matter of fact, thats about all a handgun is good for.  If I choose to arm myself because I feel threatened, that should be my right as a citizen.  If it turns out I used them in such a way that I took away or infringed on the rights of another, who wasnt doing me any harm, then I should be punished.  But as long as I was merely defending myself or my rights or my space or my property, thats as it should be.  Whether I used a gun, or a knife, or a bow, or my bare hands.  In this age of information, we have become used to specializations, and narrow focuses in order to better understand limited topics.  The "jack of all trades" is becoming an anachronism now (although still necessary IMO).  The problem is, like this gun issue, by narrowing the focus so much, we cannot see the forest anymore beause the trees are in the way.  The opposite view is dangerous too, if balance is lost.  When we allow people to focus the argument on small specific topics, we cant always defend against them properly.  Focus needs to be restored to the proper level, and everything looked at in perspective.

Or, instead of waiting untill you get depressed again and you take your semi auto to a shopping mall and someone does get hurt, your rights as a sitizen are removed once you have pruven to be iresponcible, stupid, and unstaible.  Right come with responcibilities.  Wana defend yourself, get a hand gun.  If you don't like the laws, change them.  Until you do, deciding which law is good enough for you to obay and which isn't will put result in losing rights.

[lazs2]

I suppose that I am looking at things in a very black and white way but...

How "violent" a crime warants the taking away of your rights to defend yourself forever?  

Killing 10 people in your car while being drunk won't take away your licence to drive forever..

Even if a guy shot and killed someone in a bank robbery when he was 25.... Does that mean that when he is 50 or 60 he should still not be able to own a gun?   Is he even the same guy?

Frank James spent 20 or so years in prison and was given his gun back when he got out... he shot no one after his release and was frequently armed..

people sometimes kill or destroy lives in several drunk driving incidents but are allways allowed to have their drivers licence back after a period of time.

lazs

[SOB]

I could see giving that right back, after a clean probationary period of like 5 years or something, I suppose.  On the other hand, if you rob a bank and shoot and kill someone in the process, you shouldn't be getting out of prison anyhow...you should be put down.

The drunk driving bit is tough.  If you get behind the wheel drunk, the end result isn't nearly as clear as if you point a gun at someone and shoot.  But yeah, at some point you shouldn't be allowed to drive anymore.  I think a three strikes rule here would be applicable.

[dedalos]

Originally posted by lazs2
I suppose that I am looking at things in a very black and white way but...

How "violent" a crime warants the taking away of your rights to defend yourself forever?  

Killing 10 people in your car while being drunk won't take away your licence to drive forever..

Even if a guy shot and killed someone in a bank robbery when he was 25.... Does that mean that when he is 50 or 60 he should still not be able to own a gun?   Is he even the same guy?

Frank James spent 20 or so years in prison and was given his gun back when he got out... he shot no one after his release and was frequently armed..

people sometimes kill or destroy lives in several drunk driving incidents but are allways allowed to have their drivers licence back after a period of time.

lazs

Well, maybe the drunk driving laws are not that good and need to be changed.  However, killing 10 people while drunk would take several years off your life, not just the right to drive.

Personally I think this whole thing about defending yourself its just an excuse to cary a gun.  But if you feel the need to have one at home for protection you should.  Just feeling that need though should be rasing some flags about the place we leave.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
I suppose that I am looking at things in a very black and white way but...

How "violent" a crime warants the taking away of your rights to defend yourself forever?  

Killing 10 people in your car while being drunk won't take away your licence to drive forever..

Even if a guy shot and killed someone in a bank robbery when he was 25.... Does that mean that when he is 50 or 60 he should still not be able to own a gun?   Is he even the same guy?

Frank James spent 20 or so years in prison and was given his gun back when he got out... he shot no one after his release and was frequently armed..

people sometimes kill or destroy lives in several drunk driving incidents but are allways allowed to have their drivers licence back after a period of time.

lazs

Maybe in Cali they aren't tough as everywhere else on DUI. Texas for example ...

Texas Gets Tough on Drunk Drivers

A Texas law stiffened the punishment for defendants with two prior felony convictions with minimum punishment increased to 25 years and maximum to life.

A 46-year-old man was sentenced to life in prison for his seventh driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction. Since 1991, the offender was convicted twice for misdemeanor DWI and four times for felony DWI.

A 35-year-old man driving with a BAC of .23 percent was charged with the murder of a five-year-old child. Due to the fact it was the offender's third DUI offense, prosecutors pursued a felony murder charge, which he was convicted of and sentenced to 55 years in prison.

http://www.madd.org/news/0,1056,7067__print,00.html

I think the difference in drunk drivers is that for the most part they arent trying to hurt anyone or steal anything, they are just trying to go somewhere. The burglar or killer or whatever kind of criminal you want to give a gun back to is different in that they were trying to steal/murder/rob/rape. Two different mentalities in those 2 types of crimes altogether. (DUI vs. Property/Person Crime) Its all about intent.

[Must4ng]

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store-not a governmental agency.....