Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on August 21, 2006, 08:45:31 AM
-
another thread was getting sidetracked by this...
Sooooo... what do you feel we should have for gun laws.
I will start.
Firearms should be held to strict manufacturing standards of safety (like they are now).
Children should only be able to shoot in the company of an adult. The insane should not be allowed to own firearms and no one serving time in prison should be able to have one while in prison.
no explosives in a populated area that could endanger the surrounding buildings.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no one serving time in prison should be able to have one while in prison.
lazs
I bet the CO's really agree with this part :)
shamus
-
It seems reasonable to me... they have lost their rights while in prison and should be treated as people without rights.
lazs
-
I have a question... when did the 2nd Amendment become limited to small arms?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It seems reasonable to me... they have lost their rights while in prison and should be treated as people without rights.
lazs
while in prison? what about after they are released?
I think once they get to have a vacation in the big house, the right to bear arms should be gone for good. Isn't it that way now? Sorry not up on al the latest gun laws as I do not understand some fascination of guns and fast or expensive cars - always thought they were lacking in something/somewhere and were trying to compensate for their short comings
-
I have a question... when did the 2nd Amendment become limited to small arms?
When the ATF (think it was the atf) sued a Dead guy and successfully argued to a judge what the second ammendment included.
It's kind of hard to defend your rights if you're A.) Not at the lawsuit, B.) Don't have a Lawyer, and C.) Dead.
The laws you see about machine guns, cannons, other weapons and anything else stem solely from this one lawsuit. No judge has been willing to accept a lawsuit to challenge it, especially a supreme court judge. They are afraid of the consequences of us winning the suit.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The insane should not be allowed to own firearms a........
why you like to denny acces to firearms for more then half population?
also your propositions reminde me current eurocommies law
-
Originally posted by Eagler
while in prison? what about after they are released?
I think once they get to have a vacation in the big house, the right to bear arms should be gone for good. Isn't it that way now? Sorry not up on al the latest gun laws as I do not understand some fascination of guns and fast or expensive cars - always thought they were lacking in something/somewhere and were trying to compensate for their short comings
I would think they have served there time and payed for there crime, But then i think they should be able to vote once out of prison as well,
should be treated like everyone else once they get out.
-
the founders defined "arms" as hand held firearms that could be brought with you to form a militia.. most fully automatic weapons that were handheld would qualify.
Prison? while in prison they shouldn't have rights. when they get out you hand em the gun that they had on em when they went in if any.
If you can't trust em with a firearm then why would you let em out?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If you can't trust em with a firearm then why would you let em out?
lazs
While I agree with the spirit here (if they've served their time they should be de facto brought back into society) the reality is that most are on parole when they get out and parole serves as a method to both reintegrate and to some degree "test" the con's ability to go back into society as a law abiding citizen. Same for half-way houses.
I despair somewhat looking at recidivism rates though--forty percent is the running average (there are many factors to recidivism--type of crime, length of incarceration, priors, etc)--but about four out of ten will reviolate, therefore returning everyone's guns at the time of release is a bad idea.
Now, if there were perhaps a time period associated with the return of rights (voting, gun ownership)--say, two years after clearing parole and burning their DOC number maybe that would work.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The insane should not be allowed to own firearms
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.
-
The problem there is our criminal justice system is a joke.
If they would just enforce the laws on the books now and stop trying to ban everything that shoots a bullet, I'd be satisfied. The laws are rather restrictive, but tolerable as they are.
If given a choice, I would do away with the barring of those with misdemeanor "violent" crime convictions, and make it necessary to have your case reviewed instead. That way those with BS convictions have a chance to not lose their rights unilaterally.
I'd also like to see a federal mandate that restricts states to controlling (or banning) concealed carry and/or carrying a loaded gun within certain areas. Otherwise state laws should not be allowed to infringe on our Constitutionally protected 2nd Amendment rights.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
while in prison? what about after they are released?
I think once they get to have a vacation in the big house, the right to bear arms should be gone for good. Isn't it that way now? Sorry not up on al the latest gun laws as I do not understand some fascination of guns and fast or expensive cars - always thought they were lacking in something/somewhere and were trying to compensate for their short comings
My disagreement with you on this is the implicit assumption that someone cannot ever pay their debt to society. I'm with Lazs on this, if someone serves their time, then it should be done with afterwards. Our current setup keeps punishing people for the rest of their lives for a mistake they might have made decades earlier. Rehabilitation is not only possible, it must be the eventual target of our prison system unless we want to keep a permanent underclass of folks who can never advance to fully productive members of society.
-
BTW, I'm generally of the opinion that the only gun control should be a good eye and a steady hand. An armed society is a polite society.
Lazs's compromises seem reasonable, I suppose, if it's the difference between a nanny state that takes _all_ guns away....
-
Star.... you are ok with no fully automatics allowed or even being built? If you aren't in jail then there is no crime that should take away your human rights.
I would do away with parole. It does not seem like a good idea.
The sad truth is that the way most criminals stop being criminals is.... they get to old to be. They simply outgrow it.
as for "insane" I will settle for the legal defenition. There should be some cutoff on IQ to where if they have the IQ of a child then they could only shoot in the care of an adult.
Background checks would still be needed but could be electronic and instant.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Background checks would still be needed but could be electronic and instant.
lazs
They are in Texas so it's certainly possible everywhere.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Background checks would still be needed but could be electronic and instant.
lazs
That is a problem up here in ma., criminals are going to places like maine and georgia to purchase guns w/o background checks at flea markets, then bringing them back here.
We used to have a law up here years ago that kept gun crime real low, not sure if we still have it or if they enforce it as they should. If you were caught with an illegal handgun(illegal mind you, and just a handgun) you did a year mandatory.
When I was young everyone owned a shotgun and the guy next door was a taxidermist, so we are not as anti gun as you think.
-
Everyone should be able to own a gun. This increases the chance they will use it committing a crime, which increases the chance the cops will have to use deadly force on the individual, which reduces prison populations.
-
Anyone with a criminal record: No. Not unless cleared.
A gun owner should have a permit.
Terms for the permit: mental health, a course taken, and guarantoors for the individual.
And I'd skip automatic's and handguns :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Anyone with a criminal record: No. Not unless cleared.
A gun owner should have a permit.
Terms for the permit: mental health, a course taken, and guarantoors for the individual.
And I'd skip automatic's and handguns :D
Like guns, words can be dangerous too. Also like guns, freedom of speech is protected by the bill of rights.
Would you advocate a permit for public speech? In case you don't feel there's a good comparison, I'd like to note that public speech has been responsible for millions of deaths over the centuries, far more than have ever been killed by guns. Also, more damning, just about EVERYONE has a mouth.
:D
-
I wonder if it would be easier to put the legislation on the other end of the spectrum. Rather than worry about gun licensing, background checks, mandatory waiting periods, CC permits, etc., make the penalty for illegal use very severe. If someone uses a firearm (or even an imitation firearm) while committing a crime, the punished severely.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I wonder if it would be easier to put the legislation on the other end of the spectrum. Rather than worry about gun licensing, background checks, mandatory waiting periods, CC permits, etc., make the penalty for illegal use very severe. If someone uses a firearm (or even an imitation firearm) while committing a crime, the punished severely.
We already have that in many states don't we? I am pretty sure Cali has the, use a gun in a crime add 5 years, fire a gun add 10, shoot someone life law don't we?
You know the only gun laws that work and punish the criminal and not law abiding gun owners.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Anyone with a criminal record: No. Not unless cleared.
A gun owner should have a permit.
Terms for the permit: mental health, a course taken, and guarantoors for the individual.
And I'd skip automatic's and handguns :D
Everyone does have a permit, it's called the constitution.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Like guns, words can be dangerous too. Also like guns, freedom of speech is protected by the bill of rights.
Would you advocate a permit for public speech? In case you don't feel there's a good comparison, I'd like to note that public speech has been responsible for millions of deaths over the centuries, far more than have ever been killed by guns. Also, more damning, just about EVERYONE has a mouth.
:D
Somebody sentenced for i.e. armed assault, rape, murder, robbery, burglary, battering etc should IMHO NOT be able to walk to the armory and buy an assault rifle.
Clear enough ?
-
Sentenced? You mean, they're in jail?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
We already have that in many states don't we? I am pretty sure Cali has the, use a gun in a crime add 5 years, fire a gun add 10, shoot someone life law don't we?
You know the only gun laws that work and punish the criminal and not law abiding gun owners.
Are these laws working?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Sentenced? You mean, they're in jail?
After jail.
Criminal record is the name.
Would you like to see Charles Manson with a pair of Uzis?
-
Well, Chuck Manson is still in jail, so no.
Also, I feel (as I have mentioned at the top of the thread) that once someone serves their time, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. If you continue to treat people like criminals, then they will remain criminals.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Are these laws working?
You know I am not sure, I tried to find more info on them but I suck at googling lol.
I have heard they work well, but I can't find much to back it up. They sound like a good idea though.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I wonder if it would be easier to put the legislation on the other end of the spectrum. Rather than worry about gun licensing, background checks, mandatory waiting periods, CC permits, etc., make the penalty for illegal use very severe. If someone uses a firearm (or even an imitation firearm) while committing a crime, the punished severely.
The laws are on the books. The problem is the refusal to apply and prosecute. See: Project Exile.
If you use a firearm in the commission of a crime, the odds of you being prosecuted for the crime itself are excellent, provided you're caught. The odds of you being prosecuted for the use of the firearm in the commission of that crime are the same as being killed by terrorists, struck by lightning, or winning the lottery. There are a FEW exceptions to that, in SOME very rare locales.
As it stands, legal gun owners are in favor of, and have long campaigned for, massive and severe penalties including very long manditory sentences for the use of firearms in the commission of a crime.
-
sixpense.... what is an "illegal handgun"?
sandie is of course on the right track... wether you ban firearms or not... if there is no penalty it is just a jesture.
take england. I could get a gun their in a day or two if I wanted... it is not that I can't get one that stops me but the penalty.
Make the penalty for using one in a criminal manner severe enough and you can leave em laying around at bars.
make it a death penalty and you will never have a repeat offender.
lazs
-
I might sound like a raving soicalist with this one, but I could actually see mandatory firearm education and the registration of a gun owner...
Let me explain.
I believe in a "well regulated" public in the sense that gun owners should have a basic understanding of firearm safety. In the past, that wasn't much of an issue because more people were raised with firearms, or were drafted and received military training, etc. I have never been on a military range where I felt particularly unsafe (with the exception from a "short" 203 round one time). However, I have been on several civilian ranges where it was obvious that a firearm owner or two had relied solely on Hollywood for their education. Barrels casually waving around with fingers on triggers, little attention to hands off during cease fire, rounds down range during cease fire, holes in places that indicated too many accidental discharges, etc. In some cases there was a range officer to take care of things, in others not. Most shooters, if not all, have had similar experiences.
So, I don't have a major problem with licensing the gun owner after passing required, reasonable and appropriate safety courses, and revoking that license for irresponsible behavior. A responsibility goes with the right type of thing. Registering the owner is different IMO from registering firearms because:
1. Let's say America is under a police state rule. As a registered gun owner you turn in that rusty old .22 to the collection point like any good citizen would. They do a surprise inspection a few weeks later and find nothing in your house "I understand the need officer, thanks for being so careful with my belongings during the search." :) Meanwhile, my FNFAL and 3000 rounds of good South African 7.62 are buried in a sealed container on some remote property.
2. It's not like that anti-gun neighbor of yours, who fully supports the current regime, wouldn't drop the dime to the Alphabet Ninjas and mention that he once saw you carry a gun case into your house a few years back. Registration or not, people know your business all too well. Remember, the Gestapo did very little original case work (totally lacked the manpower for that), they just sifted through the leads provided by the good citizens of Germany for those that were the most interesting.
HOWEVER... I would only approve of this were our 2nd Amendment rights far more clarified in the modern era than they are now. As it stands, anything that would give the anti's more leverage without guarantees in return is not worth the effort, and will only be misused and abused.
[edit: Of course, most Americans would already have received this firearm education while in High School, as a standard elective like driver's ed and with federally funded Civilian Marksmanship Program after school shooting competition :)]
Felons -- if violence was involved, especially with firearms, I see no real need to give them a right they threw away when the committed the crime. Especially, if there are "anger management" issues at work, REAL domestic violence, etc. Of course, in a sane world the prisons would not be crowded with nonviolent offenders, there would be no useless and misguided war on drugs, and true sociopaths would be locked up for the full term of real sentences. It probably would be much less of an issue.
Automatic Weapons -- I would like to see them more available. However, I wouldn't necessarily do away with having a rigid background check requirement and perhaps the current tax structure enhanced to make up somewhat for lower prices due to greater availability. I realistically do believe that a fully automatic assault weapon is more deadly than a semi automatic rifle, and should be harder for a potential nut job to purchase for his grand, public exit. Still, they should be easier to acquire than they are today for the average, law abiding shooter and collector.
The Founding Fathers did prohibit ordinance, and I feel that these start to move into that catagory, clearly beyond any semi automatic weapon regardless of magazine capacity. Nor is automatic fire a requirement, initially, for armed resistance. Still, wothy of a reasonded discussion since I certainly would like to be able to afford, own and shoot an MG42 or a PPSH 41 :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, Chuck Manson is still in jail, so no.
Also, I feel (as I have mentioned at the top of the thread) that once someone serves their time, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. If you continue to treat people like criminals, then they will remain criminals.
Benefit of the doubt after release. In my opinion it matters if it was a tax issue or armed robbery.
But then there are "clean" ones like O.J.Simpson.
And Charon:
"I might sound like a raving soicalist with this one, but I could actually see mandatory firearm education and the registration of a gun owner...
Let me explain.
I believe in a "well regulated" public in the sense that gun owners should have a basic understanding of firearm safety. In the past, that wan't much of an issue because more people were raised with firearms, or were drafted and received military training, etc. I have never been on a military range where I felt particularly unsafe (with the exception from a "short" 203 round one time). However, I have been on several civilian ranges where it was obvious that a firearm owner or two had relied solely on Hollywood for their education. Barrels casually waving around with fingers on triggers, little attention to hands off during cease fire, rounds down range during cease fire, holes in places that indicated too many accidental discharges, etc. In some cases there was a range officer to take care of things, in others not. Most shooters, if not all, have had similar experiences."
Yeppers :aok
-
Lazs, what need do you or I have of a fully automatic weapon? I understand the "principle" but give me my bolt actions and a couple of semi-auto M1's and I'll be quite happy, even if the other guys have full autos. I've fired a full auto AK-47 with a 75 round drum magazine. Emptied that sucker in just under 8 seconds. I could certainly hit the broad side of a barn with it. The ENTIRE broad side of the barn. I know how to keep my head down until Mr. Spray and Pray is out of ammo, thank you. I'd rather do without having full auto guns in civilian hands. The next person who tries to defend having one for deer hunting, I think maybe I'll want to shoot HIM.
I too have a problem with sending people to jail, letting them out and saying they've paid their debt, and then not returning their freedoms. That should be changed, but then so should much about our criminal justice system.
I have no problem with requiring training and licensing, just like I have no problem with requiring people to take Drivers Ed before getting a drivers license. Once you pass a basic course though, and get your license, you should not be bothered about buying guns afterward. You should not have to tell the govt. how many you have or what they are or anything else. If you must allow civilians to own military grade weapons, fine. But require those to be registered to their owners so we can keep track of them.
Heck, I even think we should do something like what Switzerland does, and not only require training but encourage at least a minimum amount of military service, and require those so trained to keep and maintain their weapon at home in case they are ever needed.
-
A note on the gun registration. You brought up the Nazis first, so I don't get a godwin zap here. :D You mentioned that the Gestapo relied on german informers. To a certain extent, that's true.
But first, they went after the registered owners. Rather than simply take their guns, those folks were the first to be taken to the camps. Much easier to to this than to simply assume that you got all of their guns. In the eyes of a government, the folks who OWNED guns are the most likely to still have some hidden somewhere.
That miniature armory you mention that's buried on another property? How useful is that when you're locked up in a detention?
Just a thought...
-
StarofAfrica, you're right, fully automatic IS silly.
I prefer three-round bursts.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
A note on the gun registration. You brought up the Nazis first, so I don't get a godwin zap here. You mentioned that the Gestapo relied on german informers. To a certain extent, that's true.
But first, they went after the registered owners. Rather than simply take their guns, those folks were the first to be taken to the camps. Much easier to to this than to simply assume that you got all of their guns. In the eyes of a government, the folks who OWNED guns are the most likely to still have some hidden somewhere.
How does it support your point of view ?
Prooving something wrong doesnt imply the alternative is right
removed a bit to much of the original post.
-
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.
-
A note on the gun registration. You brought up the Nazis first, so I don't get a godwin zap here. You mentioned that the Gestapo relied on german informers. To a certain extent, that's true.
But first, they went after the registered owners. Rather than simply take their guns, those folks were the first to be taken to the camps. Much easier to to this than to simply assume that you got all of their guns. In the eyes of a government, the folks who OWNED guns are the most likely to still have some hidden somewhere.
That miniature armory you mention that's buried on another property? How useful is that when you're locked up in a detention?
Just a thought...
I would like to see the reference on that. My understanding is that they collected "illegal" arms which were also registered (mainly handguns) and prevented new purchases. The primary focus of confiscation was on the Jews, and they were the primary group sent away to the camps (if found in possession at the time -- mainly during the Crystal Night period). Anyone else subsquently caught with an illegal arm could go to a camp but... that would be the case regardless of registration. The people sent to the camps en mass at the earlier dates were activist SDP members, anarchists, homosexuals and communists and later Jews and Gypsies etc. Gun ownership was a secondary consideration to their political and racial foundations.
Also, it's kind of hard to see the practicailty of locking up 44 million US gun owners or roughly 1/4 of the population, on some general whim.
[BTW, I don't think it's in the spirit of Goodwin to suggest that should such a day come, likely as not, libertarians and others who respect individual rights will have more to fear from their neighbors, than from the Govt. Ninjas or Govt. lists. Basic group dynamics, belong vs outcast, safety vs rights, order vs the individual. You can see it on this board, and it crosses both libural and Konservtive political spectrums. Frankly, might make rebellion kind of pointless in that scenario.]
Charon
-
Also, it's kind of hard to see the practicailty of locking up 44 million US gun owners or roughly 1/4 of the population, on some general whim.
Wasnt all that hard to lock up nearly 300,000 Japanese Americans in the 1940s on not much more than a whim. Spin something enough so that people fear it enough, and you can do anything. Ever watched any of the McCarthy hearings? Yeah. Get a bad enough incident and a charismatic leader for the anti-gun folks, convince enough people in the govt., and you could lock up 44 million people, especially if you didnt care too much for their comfort.
-
Star,
44 million vs. 300,000.
1/4 of the population.
One out of every 4 people.
Entire states in the South and West would lose the majority of their populations.
Not even remotely practical at any level.
Especially since it's the 1/4 of the population that is actually armed :)
Charon
-
That's why you don't do everything at once.
You gradually take weapons away from law abiding folks. A rifle here, a pistol there, finally you're left with a core group of folks that's a lot smaller than the original 44 million. THOSE, you jail.
See "How to boil a frog" for more on this process.
-
Just to clarify
1. Owner licensing ONLY if the 2nd Amendment is solidly and formally clarified in the modern era to the same level it was understood when the Bill of Rights was developed. Right now, today, I do not support any additional regulation of firearms. Licensing based ONLY upon reasonable education requirements. NO gun registration.
2. Licensed owners without registering weapons is far less threatening to individual rights than weapon registration because it is logistically impractical to deal with 44 million gun owners as a class of citizen. You just can't lock up that many people on a whim, and you don't know exactly what each possesses.
3. You can, however, relatively easily drive around, knock on doors, confiscate registered weapons, put them in a truck and say have a nice day -- especially if you only do it one class of weapon at a time. Start with semi automatic rifles, move up to handguns, then scoped bolt action rifles. Let the hunters have black powder and the collectors have deactivated weapons. Gun owners are a self-interested lot, particularly the deer hunter and trap shooter crowd, and as long as they believe "you don't want MY guns" they will often go along, to some extent, with laws that take away others. By the time you go for their guns they are a much smaller community, and in many cases may be fully happy with a black powder deer rifle or double barreled shotgun.
After this confiscation, formerly legal gun owners would have to work through criminal channels to possess a banned firearm, and face stiff criminal penalties if caught. Since most such individuals are not of a criminal mindset to begin with, well, aside from some sour grapes you readily remove the empowerment of the population in relation to the government. Frog in water kind of thing.
4. The worst case scenario would be a combination of licensed gun owners and registered firearms.
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." So I think that every single person who wishes it so can go through goverment target shooting, and as their marksmanship gets better they get bigger tax cuts.
-
I don't disagree with you Chair, in fact my post mirrors yours and was written at the same time.
The only regulation I would move with would be relative to firearm education, and only if the 2nd was reestablised on far more firm ground than it is today. I'm not a pure libertarian, which borders on anarchy. I believe that responsibilities go with rights, and gun ownership carries with it some heavy responsibilities. For whatever reason, there are people who fail at the responsibilty end where safety is concerend. What is the recourse for those?
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
-
For some, maybe. But for most who have guns, they were raised around them and instill the same thoughts of safety that they learned.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Jackal1, the situation you describe where the marijuana user stays in prison longer than the child molester is the result of mandatory sentencing minimum guidelines. Of interest, in a recent earlier post, lazs2 advocated mandatory sentencing minimums. Talk amongst yourselves. :D
-
chair... the child molester needs a minimum sentance. I do not believe that victimless or non violent crimes need a minimum sentance.
I do not believe that personal drug use should even be a crime.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I do not believe that personal drug use should even be a crime.
Agreed there for sure. Watch out, Lazs, someone might call you a dirty hippy if you're not careful.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Agreed there for sure. Watch out, Lazs, someone might call you a dirty hippy if you're not careful.
Or worse, JBmustain will put you on ignore when you make him look silly.
Its a shame some people can't handle even the thought of true freedom. :D
-
No chair... someone might call me an individualist.... a not as smart man might call me a libertarian. some have called me an anarchist.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
a not as smart man might call me a libertarian. some have called me an anarchist.
If you listen to some folks here, you'd think there was no difference between the two.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Jackal1, the situation you describe where the marijuana user stays in prison longer than the child molester is the result of mandatory sentencing minimum guidelines. Of interest, in a recent earlier post, lazs2 advocated mandatory sentencing minimums. Talk amongst yourselves. :D
Maybe you missed this........
I aslo agree the whole sentencing/punishment route needs a complete overhaul.