Gun Control. I believe in it.

K

Kodiac

New member
I sure do. In the base concept of gun control.

Convicted criminals should not have guns. Plain and simple.

All this other hogwash is pointless.

Limiting the types, numbers, styles, colors, and sizes etc is pointless.
I had a FELONY gun for a short while... When I realized that my BAYONET LUGS made me a felon (!) I had them grinded down to make the ATF happy. Its perfectly legal now... And I am sure EVERY BODY within a hundred miles or more can sleep safer now because they don't have to fear me sticking them fith my fixed bayonet.
Stupid... Just stupid.

There are so many stupid laws - we can't rail on all of them.

And what is the deal with these LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY guns and amunition. A gun that can punch through kevlar is so scary? ANY RIFLE can go through kevlar body armour. Body armour is at best only increasing your chances on the street - it does not make you SUPERMAN. And if your packing AP rounds in your side arm - a lot of good that armour does you if it gets grabbed.

Pistols shooting rifle rounds is not all that special come to think of it. I know of several... I could be armed with one of several varieties with in the hour should I really want one. So what's the point?

"Shall not be infringed" We might as well ball up the whole thing, all ten "rights" as well as the constitution... seems the goverment is making up the rules as they go along anyways. Current laws represent nothing like what it was all intended for anyways. Just how FREE are we anyways? There is GOVERNMENT in EVERYTHING we do - every aspect of our lives.

And the internet we are enjoying here now... This as a whole is the collective intelect of humanity... How arrogant is it of the US government to attempt to control it! It is PLANET WIDE! I have a friend in CHINA who Emails me several times a week. I have a brother and sister in Brazil... the only contact we have is via the net...

Oh... I'm rambling... I'll go get a Dr Pepper and relax. I'll be back to normal in a few minutes.
 
Unfortunately, I think Patrick Henry was unintentionally prophetic when he said "Give me liberty or give me death!" I government seems all too happy to provide the latter.
 
Did your wife not cook for you last night?
Dog howled all night and kept you up?
Car broke down?

Seriously, you know I agree with ya Kodiac. I do, however, believe we are reaching a point where a great many people are saying "no more." And that phrase may deliver us from the hands of our oppressors.
 
Rob, you know me too well...
I am cranky because of some torn cartilage in my left knee that is keeping me cringing every time I move my leg.
This happened last night - thought I could go and do some kickboxing with out properly warming up and stretching. I was foolish and I am now paying for it.
frown.gif

I will not talk about it again.
I do not complain about my ailments - I only responded as to why I am not my usual chipper self, since you noticed.
 
ouch....

ANyway... I was thinking about some more and I think the issue of "convicted criminals shouldn't have guns" is another one of those infringement deals that is getting out of hand.

I am all for Violent Criminals being kept away from weapons, in fact, lets keep them in jail.

BUT, what about a guy who *gets caught* with a mistake on his tax returns. Yes, some people deliberately "cheat" on their taxes, but almost everyone probably has gotten something wrong on their taxes that *could be* construed as a felonious tax evasion.
What about Felony speeding?
I think a true wife beater is among the lowest scum on earth, but I have seen some guys get arrested on a domestic vilence charge for breaking *things* during an argument. Should a guy who has the *control* to throw a chair when his B**** wife tells him she's sleeping around instead of throwing her really be told he can never have another gun?

I think this is another area that the antis are infringing more and more on people who are really no more threat than anyone else when it comes to firearms.
 
I figured that, I wasn't trying to correct you, just point out that I am sick of hearing about how "criminals are being stopped from buying guns."
I know two people who have told me that they really would like to shoot, but can't own a gun. One of them was the owner of company with undreds of employees, including a accounting department, he ended up being convicted of tax evasion when the company had a problem. The other was Randy Weaver, we know his story.
I've said it before, and I've bene in the company of people from NRA and NSSF who have said it. Lately, I've had less tolerance for it.

Criminals cannot own guns. THOUSANDS of new laws are passed every year. Personally, I don't think there are many violent acts that aren't already covered by laws and haven't been covered since the beginning of the social contract. off the top of my head Killing, robbing, raping, intentionally hurting, and committing treason complete the list. After that there are just thousands of ludicrous new ways for you and I to lose our gun rights every year, as far as I am concerned.
 
It's my understanding that convicted felons were allowed to posess firearms up until the Gun Control Laws of the '40's.

Gimme and armed population, govt funded training and I'd be all for letting them own again. Those who would be willing to use guns for criminal purpose would only contribute to raising the gene pool's IQ with their early demise.
Rich
 
We have the right to keep and bear arms for own protection.
If a person has been convicted of a crime he is a criminal and if he has served his time who will protect him if he cant own a gun?
 
While many states prohibit convicted felons from owning guns, some, CA included, allows them to possess one when their life is unlawfully endangered (note: possession and title are two different critters). Upon cessation of the theat, they are obligated to disarm themselves.

Prevention from even allowing their lives be endangered is perhaps the best cure. The Dalai Lama believes in reincarnation. So, if society were to kill them, their soul meets God and becomes enlightened. Following spiritual cleansing, they may be returned to the physical plane as a better human being. Rehabilitation through Reincarnation. Heck, you don't know 'til you try it.

Peace, freedom and granola bars.
 
I agree with 2 key points in this thread. Violent criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime should receive life without the possibility of parole. Period. They do as much damage to lawful citizens right to own firearms as any other factor. In the alternative, if society isn't willing to keep them locked up forever, the next best alternative is making it more difficult for violent criminals to buy firearms. For example, Instant Check is a good, sensible idea that imposes no inconvenience on a law abiding firearms purchaser. Instant Check should not have been forced upon the States by the federal government, but that's another issue.
As far as the infinitely quoted "the right shall not be infringed" ..... I must point out that NONE of the Bill of Rights have ever been interpreted to be "absolute", which many posts seem to imply. Certain regulations are allowed of the press, free speech, search and seizures, due process, right to assemble, etc., etc. I don't pretend to know where the line is (bazookas, explosives, and RGP's perhaps? 8-) but there is a point where reasonable limitations should be applied to CERTAIN weapons purchases by certain people, and there is nothing unconstitutional about that -- even from a pro-firearms ownership point of view. Of course, the citizenry should be active in voicing its opinion about what, if any limitations, are reasonable.
 
I disagree.
First, the "shall not be infringed line" that you mention so offhandedly, is incredibly significant. The founding fathers believed so much in the importance of this right, that they did not merely say: "The people have the right to keep and bare arms."
They went the extra mile, explicitly telling the government that it "shall not INFRINGE upon" that right. The 4th amendment, for example leads one to believe that there ARE _reasonable_ search & Siezures, but the 2nd does not say that we have the right to keep and bear _reasonable_ firearms nor does it say that we are protected from _unreasonable_ infringement. It seems very clear to me.

There is no weapon that the government should have that the citizen should not be able to have. If our tax dollars can buy it, so should the money in our wallets be able to buy it.

Recently, I heard a supposedly pro-gun Senator say "of course, we don't need fully automatic weapons, right?" When addressing a group that was 90% pro-gun. He knocked himself a few rungs down the ladder in many peoples minds with that statement. Taken to the extreme, how can an army of the people without man-portable SAMs resist the tyranny of an oppressive govt with A-10s and AH-64s??
(oh yeah, I forgot..Solothurn S18-1000s..but those were Jet Rangers...)



[This message has been edited by Rob (edited 10-29-98).]
 
ddelange-
Note that I suggested felons be allowed to own firearms in the face of an armed and trained citizenry. A much less expensive solution to the continued pursuit of previous lifestyle than life in prison.

4V-
I was of the impression that the laws against convicted felons owning firearms is federal. I am also of the impression that they may reapply for the right to be reinstated, but this rarely happens. Seems a bit strange, as we would never think to selectively apply any of the other Bill of Rights in so selective a manner.
Rich
 
Hey, any one have a German 88 from WWII for sale? It would go nicely mith my SA-7 in the back yard...

No, seriously... Every one has a point here... Where is the line drawn? That would depend on the citizen. If the guy on the other side of the fence was a former soldier and was trained with TOW missiles... I wouldn't give a gosh durn if he owned one. MG-42, M-60, Stinger... If he was "certified" with them no problem. I would have them as well... and we would get along fine. We both already have ARs and Mossberg 590s and we get along just fine...
Then Gen X troglodite across the street wanted an MP5... well he would have to jump through some serious hoops and prove he was competent... then why not? If he was legal to own a gun...
(besides... I would have my claymores and vulcans
smile.gif
)
 
I believe that the citizen has the right to have any paraphenalia that a modern soldier might have. In 1776, there was no licensing for artillery, was there? The modern citizen SHOULD have access to the RPG, M203, M79, LAW, SAW, M2, flamethrowers, claymore, etc. SO, you ask, incredulous: where *does* one draw the line? How much armament should be legal to the citizen?

My belief would probably center around defending an area vs an instrument of policy. A Stinger or Redeye or SA-7 or even M1A1 will be beneficial to keeping my neck of the woods unemcumbered by rioting lobs (a la the LA riots), or the aspiring despot. Nuclear device? Hm. I guess I could even see that, but it might be hard to justify MRV's to defend Roswell, GA. ERW's, though...

The problem is, where do we set the precedent? If we say, "One should not be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction", we set a precedent. If we say, "The citizen does not need an "Enterprise" class aircraft carrier", we set a precedent...and it will be so much easier to say, "The citizen does not need a tank...the citizen does not NEED an apc...the citizen does not NEED a rocket launcher...the citizen does not NEED an automatic weapon..." Eventually, we reach "The citizen does not NEED a military-appearing firearm..." (where America is now) to...
"THE CITIZEN DOES NOT need A GUN." You draw the line. Your freedoms end where my begin, and the governments' stepping all over my toes.

...Oh, and, Kodiac? If you can have your AR clone, I certainly should be "allowed" (blood boiling
frown.gif
) my H&K of choice, "generation" aside. (temperature solely induced by concept of illegal, treasonous actions of American politicians of the last 100 years)


[This message has been edited by Spectre (edited 10-30-98).]
 
Okay guys... When did I say I wanted to choose every ones arsenal? You miss read me.

And Spectre - settle down bud... Didn't you have to take a safety class of some sort to get your CCW? Thats is Proof Of Compitence - at least here in VA it is. And that was my point.
I am not ripping on the X generation - just the one that lives across the street from me who told me he wanted an MP5 that wears a black T shirt 5 days a week that says "GEN X" on it.
As said in the truism thread:
Dont take life so seriously, no one gets out alive anyway.
 
Turkish commandos storm plane, kill hijacker

October 30, 199 Web posted at: 3:38 a.m. EST (0838 GMT)

ANKARA, Turkey (CNN) --
Anti-terrorist squads raided a hijacked Turkish Airlines flight Friday after a seven-hour standoff at Ankara's airport, shooting dead the hijacker and freeing the 38
passengers and crew.
The hijacker was armed with a grenade and gun and declared he was acting to protest Turkey's crackdown on Kurdish rebels, according to accounts from the government and from passengers.


Security forces shot him at least four times in the 10-minute raid, private NTV television said.
"He didn't die immediately, but he was shot again," passenger Yakup Aslan said.
The action was clearly timed to coincide with nationwide festivities marking 75 years of the Turkish republic.
Throughout the day Turkish political and military leaders had presided over marches, flyovers and concerts. When the hijacking began, dignitaries were at a reception given by President Suleyman Demirel for visiting foreign leaders.

High drama

The final moments in the freeing of the hostages were monitored in intercepts
of radio traffic between the aircraft and negotiators at Ankara airport's
control tower.

"Did they get him? Did they get him?"
a voice from the control tower asked
amid apparent confusion.

"They've got him! They've got him!"
came the reply from the aircraft.

The control tower then thanked the
captain of the aircraft and the radio
went dead.

"An operation was conducted. The terrorist was destroyed. Not one of our citizens was harmed in any way," Transport Minister Arif Ahmet Denizolgun said.

Interior Minister Kutlu Aktas told reporters at a news conference at Ankara
airport that members of a 25-strong team had entered the aircraft's rear
door while a small group of women hostages was being released. The
hijacker was in the cockpit, talking with negotiators in the control tower.

Aktas said the hijacker, named as Mursel Peker, carried a Russian-made
hand grenade and a pistol with five rounds.

Pilot under the gun

"He held the gun to the pilot's head but he was neutralized with a single
bullet," Aktas said. "He got his punishment. He got what he deserved."

The hijacker took over the flight, from Adana in southern Turkey to Ankara,
Thursday evening demanding it be diverted to Lausanne, Switzerland.

The Swiss city is significant to Kurds as the site of a 1919 treaty that
blocked their hopes of a Kurdish state.

But instead of heading to Switzerland, the six-member crew brought the
plane down at the Turkish capital's airport, apparently after initially
misleading the hijacker into thinking the flight was stopping for fuel in
neighboring Bulgaria.

The hijacker agreed to release some passengers after hours of negotiations.
While his attention was diverted by the release of those passengers, the
anti-terrorist squad raided the parked plane from the back, private ATV
television said.

Not the first time

Last week, the same plane was prevented from taking off from the
Strasbourg airport by protesters trying to prevent French officials from
deporting a Kurd to Turkey.

Kurdish rebels have been fighting for autonomy in Turkey's southeast since
1984. The conflict has killed close to 37,000 people.

Turkish Airlines has been hit by two other hijackings this year, each time
with no real weapons and with no injuries.

The Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) have been fighting for self-rule for 14
years in the mainly Kurdish southeast of Turkey in a campaign that has cost
some 29,000 lives.

Plane hijackings have not in the past been a characteristic tactic of the PKK.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
 
Testing is cool, training should be required. I heard a long time ago about Germany's "hunter's License" (this was WEst germany, it has probably changed). The way it was explained to me, you had to go through a few years worth of different procedures and pay a decent amount of money, but once you had your "license" you could basically buy and even carry what you wanted. Now, that may not have been entirely accurate, BUT it sounded like a good system to me. I have no problem with training and licensing. I think the training should be handled by private organizations though, not the govt.
The licensing is only a problem if you concieve of the govt trying to take all the guns away, so right now, I will resist all attempts to institute a registry or licenses (oops, guess that has already happened, I have a CCW and am purchasing my first NFA weapon...)

Anyway, I disagree with anyone who wants to limit access to a group of weapons. I am more open to training programs. After all, Switzerland, the Shangri-La of gun rights, has madatory training and competition for its citizens, but they get free battle rifles! (and ammo) Sometimes I think god hated me, then I realize that he knows I could never dress like the swiss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top