good gun laws and bad ones....

[Charon]

When the second ammendment was written, it didn't have registration in any form in it's mind. Plus in those days, "Well Regulated" meant "Well Practiced."

Obviously. But most people who owned a gun were also raised in a firearm tradition that taught safety and responsibility. A lot of people who own one today have enough disposable income to posses a new "toy" and have a tradition gained by computer games, television and movies. It's just another toy, only better than airsoft since it makes a really loud bang.

Charon

[lasersailor184]

For some, maybe.  But for most who have guns, they were raised around them and instill the same thoughts of safety that they learned.

[straffo]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
In black and white situations straffo, it does.


Every single time that gun registration has been used, it was later used as a tool to take away guns by force (or by forced coercion) from the owner.

I maybe wrong but IMO it's more the registration the problem than the gun law.

[Kurt]

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
very interesting, but who decide who is insane and who not?
i doubt you need to be a criminal to count as a insane. At one point
we all are insane a little and some more
I know some people who i belive are not insane, but with a little help with
alcohol they can get "insane" beyound your imagination.
Now add a firearm to this sitiuation to get the results nobody wanna see.

But can they murder the English language with the cold effenciency that you do?  Because that truly would be criminal.

[Kurt]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
When the second ammendment was written, it didn't have registration in any form in it's mind.

Correct, in those days the right to bear arms was intended in the defense of the nation, or for hunting.

Today it is corrupted into the right to get a gun for whatever need you deem appropriate, to rob a store, to shoot a neighbor, whatever seems good to you at the time.

I believe Hunters who are validly hunting game, collectors with valid historical interests, and target shooters/hobbiests who can be proven to be crime free and sane should be allowed to own a firearm.

I believe anyone who breaks the spirit of that general rule should be shot in the forehead.

Gun legislation today in our country (the U.S.A.) is a perversion that serves the criminals more than the honest and I think its disgraceful.

And no matter how you approach it, anyone sufficiently interested in commiting a crime is going to do it, with a gun, a knife, a box cutter, a broken bottle, a chemical mixture made from a british sports drink, by threatening you with a booger... You name it.

[lasersailor184]

Today it is corrupted into the right to get a gun for whatever need you deem appropriate, to rob a store, to shoot a neighbor, whatever seems good to you at the time.

WRONG!

I'm a little astonished that you even said that.  The right to any gun has always been used for legal purposes.


The problem is that people who want to use guns illegally always obtain their gun illegally.

[lazs2]

so star... are you saying that the right to own firearms should be based on..... need?  proven need?   or... what you think is a needed firearm?

Are you saying that you would not like to own and shoot some of the historical fully automatics?   are you saying that fully automatics are useless in a conflict?

Angus... OJ is not out on parole.   He can own a firearm.  Taking away gun rights from released prisoners is a relatively new development based on....  nothing.   It just "felt" right to the people who don't like firearms.

charon... one correction... "a well regulated militia" in the parlance of the times meant... one that was well equiped.  The firearms were well taken care of.   Otherwise.. good posts.

I have no problem with instant background checks for a purchase but the type of firearm and especially the serial number should not even be on the paperwork.

lazs

[StarOfAfrica2]

Where did I say anything like what you posted?  I said I have no problem with requiring people to receive training and licensing.  Not limiting ownership in any way beyond that, except to automatic weapons.  If you WANT a fully automatic weapon, fine.  But any such guns in civilian hands should be registered.  I'm not advocating saying you CANT own ANYTHING unless you are mentally incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, or in jail.  Just making sure that folks are properly taught how to use and care for guns before turning them loose.  Every few years you come back to renew an expiring license, take a test to show you understand the basic operations of a gun, pass a basic target range course, and your license is renewed.  

Yes, a full auto weapon might affect the outcome of a fight.  However, unless you are talking about something like a Glock 17, I dont think the average public is properly trained or suited to using them, and ownership should be discouraged by any other than police and military units.  Not BANNED, just discouraged.  And yes, I do like to shoot historic military pieces.  As a matter of fact, I have a C&R license and I buy such things when I can find them at a decent price.  I'm buying a Yugoslav AK right now with the built in 22mm grenade launcher.  Anxiously awaiting delivery.  I also have a pair of Russian Nagant revolvers on the way, with the proper holsters, cleaning rods, lanyards, etc.  None of which would be my first choice were I to be attacked by someone with a gun.  I'd grab my Taurus .357 loaded with .38 Glaser tips and my Mossberg riot gun loaded with 00 Buckshot.

[lazs2]

maybe I missunderstood.... you said "what do you and I need with a full auto firearm"

What do we need with any kind?  what do we need black powder arms for?   If we make up a game for full autos then there would be a "need"?

I believe that the number of firearms owners in the U.S. is closer to 80 million tho than 44 million.

I also agree that firearms regestration may not allways lead to tyranny but tyranny allways starts with firearms regestration and confiscation and...

confiscation allways starts with regestration.

Now, if you want to make sure there is no confiscation or tyranny... simply not allow regestration.

Regestering the owner is allmost as bad... if a government goes bad it knows that the people that are the biggest threat are those who own or have owned firearms.   the unarmed windbag sheeple will do nothing but whine.

I see no problem with firearms safety training in schools.   Much more useful than teaching the kids how to put a condom on a cucumber.

The NRA will be glad to teach safety in schools.... for free.. they used to do it.

lazs

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by lazs2
I would do away with parole.  It does not seem like a good idea.

I`m not sure I follow you on this. Are you saying that a full sentence should be served without the possibility of early release with a parole period.........or that even under early release there should be no parole period?
In the latter case I would have to say parole is a good thing under certain circumstnaces. Too many times a prisoner does the old shine on routine and gets released early only to go directly back to the same lifestyle. Then again, some who serve time are through with criminal activity as a whole. ( I would say a low percentage in hard cases such as rape, murder, child molestation, etc. is there true turnover though)
In any case, as it stands now, a violation of parole should be enforced by a competent parole officer.
In another thread I started, you can see this is not the case in some instances.
Also, there have been statements that once convicted of a felony that you can never legaly own a firearm again. That is incorrect. In some cases a person can go through a process and interview and regain your rights to own a gun.

[lazs2]

yes.. I am saying that the person should serve his whole term.

Sadly.. the way most criminals "reform" is the just get too damn old to commit crimes.

lazs

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by lazs2
yes.. I am saying that the person should serve his whole term.

Sadly.. the way most criminals "reform" is the just get too damn old to commit crimes.

lazs

OK.
I agree on the more severe crimes.

[lazs2]

why not less severe too?  simply make the term in prison fit the crime.   Why let a person out if you still have to babysit him?

don't give people 20 years for selling pot.   Don't give people 2 years for shooting up a house and killing the people inside.

The possibility of parole simply skews justice.  If the sentance was finite... it would more likely reflect the crime.

I would not be oppossed to the sentance being overturned or moderated later by a another set of judges or new evidence.  

I actualy think judges do a very poor job of sentancing in a lot of cases.  I think that they should have a minimum and a maximum to work within.

lazs

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Kurt
Correct, in those days the right to bear arms was intended in the defense of the nation, or for hunting.

Within the writings of the founders; among the primary purposes of the right to keep and bear arms, was the right to personal self defense. Sport hunting was never mentioned by any founder.

I have said this at least 1,000 times... Gun violence is a cultural problem. If the cultural problem is not addressed, removing every firearm will not diminish the violence one iota. Bats, knives, chains, crowbars and bricks will still provide the means to commit violence.

Until this nation has the resolve to attack the core problem, violence will not subside, guns or no guns.

My regards,

Widewing

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by lazs2
why not less severe too?  simply make the term in prison fit the crime.   Why let a person out if you still have to babysit him?

Well , there are some people who makes mistakes that would never make the same mistake again. Some are pretty obvious. I beleive they should be given a chance to prove themselves under a set of controlled circumstances.
I think you have hit the nail on the head with the
babysitting  issue. A parole officer should do their job , not babysit. Their job should also not be viewed on a "Salesman Of The Month" or "Employee Of The Week" basis, which seems to be the trend. Less turnarounds and less revoked paroles making them look good on paper and receiving the Attaboy award for the year don`t cut it. All it tells me when I see that is someone is slacking, letting offenders slide to make themselves look good on paper.
I aslo agree the whole sentencing/punishment route needs a complete overhaul.
In a lot of cases someone caught with pot is still doing time while the child molestor or rapist seems to be on the "first to go" list, when it comes to release times. Was watching a program last night where it was stated that this one guy had been in custody and released three different time for child molestation . He went on to kill four children before he was sentenced to die. Ridiculous.