Bush to Propose Gun Control Laws

MR. McCLELLAN: It also rises to what he's talked about, about changing our culture and -- responsibility. ---

The president is going to change what about our culture
with new legislation?
That criminals dont get any real punishment?
Or maybe that too many 'unsecured' guns are accessible
to american citizens?Are we going to 'correct' our gun
loving culture?
Who cant see it now 'President Bush was a long time advocate of the gun lobby but after an incident on nearly his front door step this has moved him to action!'


Whos to blame?
EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU and yes myself.
Have we been sending money to the repubilcan party?
Why.Have we been continuing to send money to the NRA-ILA
WHY when they support men like this and much worse congressmen that will pass these BS facist knee-jerk laws.
People this is not the slice that cuts the cake its the icing were meant to taste.
When these pass and theirs no reasl uproar with the NRA already having backed Bush whos going to be able to oppose him from 'doing' more YOU?

DANGUS---look to my comment under the post 'organizations other than the NRA.GOA is much different than the NRA
they do not support such BS in fact it was GOA who pressured Hatch from supporting that bill when it was in the senate.
I CHALLENGE all of you show me where the NRA even told its members back then that republican senators Lott, (majority leader!!!) Hatch and Mccain supported all of these anti-self defense measures that Comrade Clinton wanted.
DANGUS-GOA is the only group I know of that wants gunlaws on the books to be repealed or overwritten to pull out their teeth the NRA has NEVER done this that I Know of and they continue to simply play politics.
But alas it doesnt really matter does it because GOA is so small and likely always be smaller than the NRA because the liberal media doesnt dare give them the advertising they do the NRA when they boldly lie with Clinton that the NRA
'oposes all of these measures and refuses to compromise'.

No none of this suprises most of us but I promise you this
we do have some surprises coming.
And you wont be able to gloss those over so go ahead and walk with Bush on this stepping stone allowing him to lead you but while you do I hope youll be learning to leapfrog
over those rights you feel arent being infringed.
Keep supporting compromise and youll keep getting it
keep beleiving their lies and lying to yourself.
Now I know why its BLUESMAN........I do feel blue.
Ofcourse we are thankful for the info though as always
Bluesman.

http://www.lp.org
http://www.gunowners.org
http://www.ccops.org
http://www.jpfo.org
http://www.keepandbeararms.org
 
but consider this:
Ashcroft stands by gun rights in interview with CNN's Larry King
By Jon Sawyer
Post-Dispatch Washingtion bureau


WASHINGTON - The arrest of an armed man outside the White House Wednesday has not
changed Attorney General John Ashcroft's view that the cure for gun violence in America is
better enforcement, not more laws.

"Law-abiding citizens have a right under our Constitution to have firearms," Ashcroft said during
an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," "but there's no reason for us to look the other way when
people misuse them and commit crimes. We should nail them."
 
I think rock jock summed it up pretty well. No, we don't have to like it, or stand up and support this nonsense, but let's see this for what it is...PC, feel good appeasement.

The whole trigger lock approach is looking a little tarnished as of yesterday's media epiphany. Voluntary trigger locks? Many manufacturers are already voluntarily shipping with locks included. No, I don't like the governments hands on everything, but if this is all we have to complain about we should consider ourselves fortunate. If AlGore was sitting in the White House right now... :(

W was our only choice last November. Instead of wasting time complaining about trigger locks, send him a letter encouraging his administration to get tough on criminals and leave us law-abiding citizens (and our guns) alone. Or write your Congressman regarding one of the many truly onerous gun contol measures currently before the legislature (take your pick).

We need to keep this all in perspective folks.

Sub
 
Bartholomew notes, "I don't think there is anything incompatible with trying to set controls to stop felons from owning firearms and respecting the right to keep and bear all kinds of arms for whatever legal purpose you wish."

I disagree - and so does the Second Amendment.

If the idea of incarceration is punishment, rehabilitation or both, then a criminal should not be released until he is sufficiently punished or sufficiently rehabilitated.

Upon completion of punishment the felon has paid his debt to society. He no longer owes a "debt to society" and should have all citizens' Rights restored.

Upon rehabilitation, the felon is no longer a threat to the citizenry and should have all citizens' Rights restored.

Yes, I mean to restore ALL the citizens' Rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution (as amended).

If the released felon is not reformed and wants a firearm, he will obtain one or make one. That's been proven beyond question. The law is powerless to prevent it.

If the released felon IS reformed, he has the moral right to protect himself and his family in the same manner as any other American.

When punishment is over and/or rehabilitation is completed, it is immoral to make felon and the felon's family defenseless.

So the key is NOT whether a former felon should have a gun.
The key is whether or not a felon should be released from incarceration.

If the felon is safe enough to be turned loose on society, the felon is safe enough to enjoy America's Rights.

If the felon is NOT safe enough to be turned loose on society, he should remain incarcerated until his punishment (or rehabilitation) is completed or he is dead.
-----

Ajaxinacan and other Members note we have no alternative but to accept (some) gun control to avoid (greater) gun control.

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have accepted (some) gun control to achieve safety, to avoid "worse" gun control, to support non-RKBA-related questions, etc.

We continue to bemoan the loss of the very Liberties we vote to negate.

Au contraire, Monsieur Ajax, we assuredly DO have alternatives - and moral obligations as well.

But we continue to give up our Rights because we are ignorant, cowards, or both. As a citizenry, we continue to sacrifice our Rights in the hope of preserving them. The very concept is madness!

Shame on us for blatantly giving away the Rights our forefathers died to give us and our children!

Why have we not yet learned that appeasement leads only to subservience, to bloodshed, or to both?
 
Bartholomew notes, "I don't think there is anything incompatible with trying to set controls to stop felons from owning firearms and respecting the right to keep and bear all kinds of arms for whatever legal purpose you wish."

I disagree - and so does the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

I disagree and I will explain why.

If the idea of incarceration is punishment, rehabilitation or both, then a criminal should not be released until he is sufficiently punished or sufficiently rehabilitated.
Click to expand...

Great. I am all for it. Apparently the vast majority of our fellow citizens aren't though. The government itself has decided that it is better for the occasional victim to eat the costs of being victimized rather than put up the tax money necessary to do what you propose.

As long as our justice system continues to operate in this manner, felons shouldn't have guns.

Upon completion of punishment the felon has paid his debt to society. He no longer owes a "debt to society" and should have all citizens' Rights restored.
Click to expand...

Under English Common Law, felony crimes were capital crimes. People were put to death for them. Here in modern times we simply execute their citizenship (right to vote, bear arms, etc.) instead. If anybody feels that is unfair, I am more than willing to let them go with the original penalty.

The legitimate gripe to this is that all kinds of penny ante tripe is now classified as a felony. So your point isn't entirely unwarranted in my opinion.

If the released felon is not reformed and wants a firearm, he will obtain one or make one. That's been proven beyond question. The law is powerless to prevent it.
Click to expand...

The law is powerless to prevent murder but nobody suggests that we let that slide. We can punish the felon for obtaining a weapon and let him know that he will be punished.

If the released felon IS reformed, he has the moral right to protect himself and his family in the same manner as any other American.
Click to expand...

Actions have consequences and the actions that made him a felon had the consequence of removing his right to vote and his right to bear arms.

I agree that felony parking meter stuffing and other ridiculous things shouldn't deprive someone of their rights. I also agree that it would be grand if we could reach the ideal justice system you describe; however, until there is significant political support for that kind of reform we have to live in a world where the following happens:

"(Source: BJS, Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. Data available online from Bureau of Justice Statistics at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/woofccj.pdf (page 6) )

In State correctional facilities, fully 90% of felons convicted for weapons offenses have prior convictions. 44% of felons convicted for weapons offenses have prior convictions for violent crimes. In Federal correctional facilities 75% of felons convicted for weapons offenses have prior convictions. 26% of felons convicted for weapons offenses have prior convictions for violent crimes.

Of the defendants in felony weapons cases in the 75 largest counties in 1992, two-fifths were on probation, parole, or pretrial release at the time of the offense and a third had previously been convicted of a felony. (page 1 of same link)"

Excerpted from, Kates, Don B., et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994):

"Looking only to official criminal records, data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense."

"The fact that only 75% of murderers have adult crime records should not be misunderstood as implying that the remaining 25% of murderers are non-criminals. The reason over half of those 25% of murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles. Thus, by definition they cannot have an adult criminal record."

Sources cited by the above excerpt:

An FBI data run of murder arrestees nationally over a four year period in the 1960s found 74.7% to have had prior arrests for violent felony or burglary. In one study, the Bureau of Criminal Statistics found that 76.7% of murder arrestees had criminal histories as did 78% of defendants in murder prosecutions nationally. In another FBI data run of murder arrestees over a one year period, 77.9% had prior criminal records. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Rep. 38 (1971).
The annual Chicago Police Department bulletin Murder Analysis shows the following figures for the percentage of murderers who had prior crime records:

1991: 77.15%
1990: 74.63%
1989: 74.22%
1988: 73.59%
1987: 73.81%

Five year average for 1987-1991: 74.68%
[Normally, most police departments and the FBI do not compile prior criminal record statistics of homicide offenders.]
 
e-mail

You can e-mail the president with your thoughts and threats to vote libertarian next time around here:

President George W. Bush:

president@whitehouse.gov

For all the good that will do. :)
 
Guns in the possession of a responsible adult are not a problem. I get the biggest kick outta hearing about trigger lock programs that distribute defective trigger locks. Here in Charlotte, the local Sherrif was distributing a cable lock with each permit issued. Later it was found the cable locks were defective. I kid you not, the Sherrif said, "Well, it was worth what you paid for it." Months before he was wearing a SEG when the program was aannounced, but after the locks failed he wanted nothing to do with it.

Mark my words. More people will be hurt by guns with trigger locks than with out. Trigger locks make it convenient to assume. I do not assume. I check, check and check again.
 
"Rock Jock,
Beefed up enforcement for what? Possesion of standard-cap mags with LEO ONLY stamped on them? Assembling an "assault" rife on a "pre-ban" reciever? Flash hiders on "post-ban" rifles? Threaded barrels? Folding Stocks?

Remember that these victimless infringements are just SOME of the laws that they are talking about enforcing.

How about we go back to a more simpler time, and a much simpler idea.

Do the crime (violent felony, meaning the willful infringement of someone else's rights) do the time. My goodness! How much more simpler could it be?"


John,

While I personally disagree with the age limit thing, and the standard capacity mag ban, I am happy that strict enforcement of gun lawa against criminals is finally getting some attention. Project Exile is a good one. It is aimed directly at provding minimum sentances for CRIMINALS that use or carry guns.

Frankly, some of you guys are annoying as he**. I hope that none of you have ever served in the military. If you did, you didn't learn a dang thing. Folks, we are in a war here! It may be a culture war, but it is a war nonetheless. And wars are won with strategy. Very few wars are ever won by engaging the enemy at every turn. You pick your fights. You let the enemy have Hill #101 and you fight for Hill #102 because the latter has greater strategic value. The objective in this war is the heart and minds of the American people, and if you want to hang onto your rights for the long term, you had better wake up and realize this. Bush knows he has the bully pulpit and is using it to his advantage. He is throwing the media a bone because he knows it will appease the moderates for awhile, and in the meantime, if he can show that strict enforcement of gun laws against criminals is the solution, then maybe, maybe, maybe they won't be so mindlessly accepting of the propaganda of the left. Then maybe we can have a reasonable discourse on the issue of guns, and maybe people will start listening to what you have to say about our, and their, RKBA. That's how the war will be sucessfully fought (mind you, I didn't say won because we will never win this war - there will always be tyrants who want to wrest our freedoms away). But if you want to go fight for your Hill #101, obstensibly out of principle, then don't be surprised when Sarah Brady and Rosie O'Fattie are laughing at you from Hill #102.

rock
 
All you "Project Exile" fans, please consider that "felon" doesn't just mean "violent criminal". Caught with pot one too many times when you were a kid? Barred from self-defense for life. Tax evasion conviction? No guns for you, ever. Got into a fistfight with your younger brother on the front lawn ten years ago after too many drinks at the Thanksgiving party? Domestic violence record, and no right to self-defense as long as you live.
 
Rock Jock, I think you sum it well in you last post.

As for the felon issue -- screw 'em! I am going to concentrate on the rights of the law abiding, and maybe after we "win" this war, I'll focus on them -- but I doubt it. The last thing we need to be focused on is felons rights here, much less be arguing about it among ourselves.

Later,

Mike
 
Indefinate incarceration? I think not!

Dennis:

If someone violated one of the imcomprehensible, byzantine firearms laws and was found guilty and incarcerated, you would have no problem with the government keeping him imprisoned until they thought he was fit to release? Suppose that person had 'anti-government leanings', which he was honest and unrepentant about? Do you think the government would *ever* find him fit to release? Under your system, once you make a mistake, the govenrment owns you and you have *no* rights. That doesn't sound like America, it sound more like Cuba. With all due respect, your idea sucks.
 
Dennis, you are right on the money once again. But, after being here over a year that doesn't surprise me any more.

"Gun laws" are useless. They in no way deter or even slow down crime, because anyone bent on breaking the law isn't going to pay them any mind whatsoever. The secondary market will be there regardless of the laws on the books. To argue otherwise is to ignore the obvious. But all that misses the primary point.

Our system of justice was designed to punish people for infringing on the rights of other people. Simply possessing a firearm doesn't reach that level, in my opinion. There are plenty of other laws on the books today that fall well short of that threshold, though.

Based on that, I really have little desire to see the enforcement of the current "gun laws", because they serve no purpose. It is against the law to kill someone. Doesn't matter in the least if a firearm is used, the act of taking a life is the crime. Same thing with robbery, rape, or any other of the numerous crimes which may or may not be committed with the use of a firearm.

So, I ask the supporters of Bush (and Ashcroft, and the Republicans in general): What "common sense" gun laws should remain on the books and be enforced, and what sort of new laws ought to be proposed?
 
"A vote for Libertarian is a vote for Gore" is what everyone told me. I know better than that because I voted for Bob Taft because he stated that he would sign a concealed carry law in Ohio, but I might as well voted for Lee Fisher.

A Republican is nothing more than a low fat Democrat. I hope that some of you start to realize this before you piss away what is left of our Bill of Rights.

I did not mean to flame any person in particular, just those who voted for the lesser of two evils. You deserve what you get.

I am about fed up with politics anyways. I'll let them pass their laws and say, "yeah, yeah, register my so called 'assault weapon.' I'll get right on that after I stop pretending that the Constitution is suppose to limit the powers of the federal government."

What I can't understand is that you're not allowed a semi-auto assault weapon based on a Treasury report that stated that they have no "sporting purpose." And the Supreme Court ruled that a person could not own a shotgun with a barrel less than 18" because it was not a "militia type weapon" even though police and military may purchase short barrel shotguns.

So which is it? Are we only allowed militia type weapons or are we not allowed militia type weaons?

I'm so confused...
 
Did you forget the Supreme Court?

Dennis,

MR. FLEISCHER: That's what he campaigned on, that's what he will do.
(UNQUOTE)

[sing-song voice]

Oh, Mister Westtexas! Yoo Hoo!
Oh, Mister NRAlife! Yoo Hoo!
Click to expand...

I don't know what you are talking about. We ALL knew that Bush was for these things (if he really is even now) during the campaign. It shouldn't be any surprise to you or me. He probably knows he can back these things, because he knows Hatch won't go for it anyway. It's not like he is now pushing for gun registration like Gore was.

On the flip side... HUD is no longer threatening lawsuits and firearm manufactures may yet get some protection against the cities who are filing the frivolous lawsuits. The most antigun president in US history, along with his VP are now history. Remember, we voted for Bush for his future picks for the Supreme Court anyway? Even though it probably won't pass Congress, I can live with free trigger locks and background checks at gun shows if I have to, we will get much more than that in return. Bush is a smart guy, he has to appear moderate. He will come through for us when it counts. Let him throw a bone or two to the Democrats, things are a long way from being over.

Bush has only been in office for two weeks, do you all ready want him to start backpedalling on his campaign promises, no matter what they are?


Joe
 
DENNIS---We have accepted (some) gun control to achieve safety, to avoid "worse" gun control, to support non-RKBA-related questions, etc.

We continue to bemoan the loss of the very Liberties we vote to negate.

But we continue to give up our Rights because we are ignorant, cowards, or both. As a citizenry, we continue to sacrifice our Rights in the hope of preserving them. ---------
up to that point DENNIS your repeating NRA logic weve been fed and supported for years now but then you had to keep on with the honesty and discipline that we all need.

--The very concept is madness!

Shame on us for blatantly giving away the Rights our forefathers died to give us and our children!
Why have we not yet learned that appeasement leads only to subservience, to bloodshed, or to both?---

Ignorant cowards I so agree we try to remain ignorant so that we can tell ourselves everything is okay and that we dont have to show responsibillity and get involved we send money to the RNC and the NRA not thinking of what they do with this money or what project exile in legislaters hands can do but only that weve 'done something' and can rest easy now.Or atleast I see a lot of that maybe Im heading in the wrong direction LMK.
Dennis will you please run for congress!!!
Itd be the first time I ever went to the polls for a congressmen.

BARTHTHOLAMEW--Reread what you wrote.
---Apparently the vast majority of our fellow citizens aren't though.--- The government itself has decided that it is better for the occasional victim to eat the costs of being victimized rather than put up the tax money necessary to do what you propose. ---

Thats right the government decided it theirs no way you can say the people on any major level supported that except for the fact that they just plain dont care thats we have so few americans involved and why more and more are getting to enjoy the 'fruits' of guncontrol in their state.


LENDSRINGER--All you "Project Exile" fans, please consider that "felon" doesn't just mean "violent criminal". Caught with pot one too many times when you were a kid? Barred from self-defense for life. Tax evasion conviction? No guns for you, ever. Got into a fistfight with your younger brother on the front lawn ten years ago after too many drinks at the Thanksgiving party? Domestic violence record, and no right to self-defense as long as you live. ---
lol,LOL

I see IM not the only one that reads betwen the lines
and see's their slick lies for what they are.
The rampant and continued unchecked attack of legislation
weve had for many years now is nothing for than government
enslavement step by step state by state
these socialists will never stop writing repressive laws and its nice to see some of us realize that to a degree many of us are to blame for letting it continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top