Gun Control Is A Failure
- Thread starter BillCA
- Start date
Wildalaska
Moderator
So those of us that feel that rules restricting felons and the insane from owning firearms are both necessary and constituional under any reading of the 2nd amendment are "anti gun" in your view?
OK
WildproudtobeanantigunnerthenAlaska TM
Wild, again, that's reasonable on its face EXCEPT that you need to be very specific on "insane" or you allow wiggle room for the unsavory to bar anyone who's ever had depression, taken any form of medication that can alter mental state (all the way down to cough medicine), attends certain churches or other organizations deemed "dangerous", etc... It's a blank check that antis will gladly cash for as high an amount as possible.
Hal,
I'd hardly be considered anti-gun with the collection I have and shoot. Yet, I do support the concept that people who are mentally incompetent and those who are felons should be prohibited from owning guns.
With felons, I could see a series of laws that allows some of them to earn back their rights over a period of 5-10 years by staying out of criminal activities. Certain convictions would be exempt, such as pedophiles, rapists and certain other violent crimes. But that would be controversial and difficult to get most people to understand.
Ed - I'm glad to see that you're so compassionate towards the mentally ill and those who inadvertantly commit a paper-felony.
Should we bring back whips and and flogging with a cat o' nine too?
I'd hardly be considered anti-gun with the collection I have and shoot. Yet, I do support the concept that people who are mentally incompetent and those who are felons should be prohibited from owning guns.
With felons, I could see a series of laws that allows some of them to earn back their rights over a period of 5-10 years by staying out of criminal activities. Certain convictions would be exempt, such as pedophiles, rapists and certain other violent crimes. But that would be controversial and difficult to get most people to understand.
Ed - I'm glad to see that you're so compassionate towards the mentally ill and those who inadvertantly commit a paper-felony.
Should we bring back whips and and flogging with a cat o' nine too?Wildalaska
Moderator
Have the "antis" wiggled with the current defintion of insanity?
No Bill, in Hals view, and in the view of others, you are "anti gun", which they chose to define as folks who are willing to admit the constitutionality of gun control and who find reasonable measures appropriate. Ask Hal who he supports in the upcoming elections
WildialreadyknowAlaska TM
Not specifically, but the definitions of "safety" , "dangerous" , "reasonable" , "freedom", "militia" and "well regulated" have been manipulated ad nauseum. Laundry listing features, playing with dates, burying with paperwork and red tape, and other tactics have been used extensively. It's not at all a stretch to say that they'd play with the definition of insanity and stretch the boundaries as far as possible to include as much as they can. It's what bureaucrats do like a squirrel eats acorns.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Thats nonsensical.
WildonedoesnotfollowtheotherAlaska ™
Wild: I guise being up in the white North Isolates you from the world. The people they are trying to keep them from are the ones that are making a show of themselfves . The Nutt Cases, The Certified Bad People and the just plane strange. No matter what laws they inpose, I will be armed.
Non-sequitur Homefires. By definition, all criminals ignore or violate a law. So what's your point? Should we just toss out all statutes?
Despite the danger of being called "mentally ill" because you have a phobia about clipping your toenails or something, some folks overlook a key element. That is the current requirement (which I support) is that the person must be adjudicated (in a court of law) as mentally incapable of functioning in society. I.E. they must be insane or incompetent to handle their own affairs.
This is a far cry from the AMA or whomever declaring, say obesity as a mental illness and it automatically removing your rights.
The danger is not in the definition of medical terms, but in the way the legislatures draft the statutes. Require a hearing and records kept to ensure that rights can be guarded.
Then your opening post makes no sense.
On one hand you say the GCA of 68 is a failure, yet you continue on and say you support it.
WA, I simply dismiss as a closet anti.
Most of his posts echo the Brady camp.
Strike that - his function is that of an enabler. It's right there in his previous post.
Bill Clinton calls for "common sense gun legislation" and the enablers nod their head up and down in agreement - after all it's **reasonable**...
Which syllable of "infringed" can't be understood?
Last edited:
As long as 2A remains in its present state and the courts continue to be unable to decide what it means gun control will continue to be a failure. There are those who feel that 2A give every person regardless of age or any other restriction the right to own and carry any gun they want anywhere they want. The only protection from these people is to carry a gun of your own. Then there are those that feel that only the military should have guns and even some that think that we should do away with guns completely even for the military.
The logical compromise to all of this would be to pass some laws but what is missing is that the rallying point of the Brady Bunch is the shooting of President Reagan where the shooter was violating at least six laws when he did the shooting. Did we need another unenforced law when six weren't enough?
I may be siding with the Brady Bunch but I don't think that a 12 year old should be allowed to go into the local hardware store and purchase a M-16 then walk down the street with it loaded. I don' t think that when a five time felon should be allowed to go directly from being released from jail to the local gun store and purchase G17 and claim it is for his protection. But I think that anyone who wants a gun should be allowed to have one if there is no logical reason to prohibit them and the key word is logical. Personally I like the idea of permits for carrying and I know that rubs many people the wrong way all over. To be continued
The logical compromise to all of this would be to pass some laws but what is missing is that the rallying point of the Brady Bunch is the shooting of President Reagan where the shooter was violating at least six laws when he did the shooting. Did we need another unenforced law when six weren't enough?
I may be siding with the Brady Bunch but I don't think that a 12 year old should be allowed to go into the local hardware store and purchase a M-16 then walk down the street with it loaded. I don' t think that when a five time felon should be allowed to go directly from being released from jail to the local gun store and purchase G17 and claim it is for his protection. But I think that anyone who wants a gun should be allowed to have one if there is no logical reason to prohibit them and the key word is logical. Personally I like the idea of permits for carrying and I know that rubs many people the wrong way all over. To be continued
PT111, the problem is that that permits are just fine when they're $20 and shall issue, but politicians and police departments of anti firearm inclination can easily raise the fee to $300, make the form 10 pages instead of 2, turn 2 weeks processing into 6 months, make classes which are normally a good idea prohibitively expensive and/or difficult, and narrow "good reason" as tight as possible to cut off as many people as they see fit. To someone in power who wants a ban but can't pass it (or worse, wants to be able to say there isn't a ban) they have ridiculous amounts of latitude in making bans in effect by excess regulation. That's what the DC v. Heller is about.
Continued: Permits can easily be abused by the politicians which is the real problem. As Yellowfin pointed out what would be the real purpose of a gun permit. If it is used to help the average citizen and police then it works but just as with anything else when it becomes a fund raising tool both for the gubmint and the persons issuing then they defeat their purpose. If used properly and a LEO walks up you show him your permit and everyone goes on their merry way. Otherwise your butt gets carried off to jail. However with our society that won't work because we just can't agree on anything other than we need another law on the books to be selectively enforced and misinterpreted.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Evidently the part that says that reasonable gun control is, was and will be constituional.
Awww isnt that just so mean, my feelings are hurt.
WildicantwaitforcertonparkerthensomuchofthissillyrhetoricwillgoawayAlaska TM
It is highly doubtful that any non-sporting related firearms permits have had any intent to collect revenue as a primary goal or even close secondary. At best they serve to screen people, and most often to deter, curtail, or at worst (and most visibly) to exclude. Hunting licenses are an intended source of revenue, but never once have I seen an active campaign by a municipality to direct attention towards CCW, C&R FFL, or Class III's in effort to actively encourage their numbers to grow. I would absolutely love to know a chief LEO who makes it a public service announcement that he's a rubber stamp for Class III and keeps office hours for all to come to him, but I think I have better chance of meeting Santa Claus.
The problem with "reasonable" is.....
That it means something different to everybody. And reasonable to me is not reasonable to gun banners.
We have had since the founding of this nation (and before) laws that state you are not allowed to shoot people for fun and/or profit. Personally, I see no reason for anything else. What harm, other than shooting someone, can one do with any gun? Beat them with it? Laws covering assault cover that.
Shoot someone 37 times? Are they any more dead than shot properly once? Are they any more dead than if you cut off their head with an axe? Are they any more dead than crushing their skull with a hammer? Doesn't look that way to me.
Shoot 37 people (and just how does this kind of thing come to pass anyway?), are they any more dead than if they were locked inside a building on fire?
Maybe the problem with the idea of gun control is that while they focus on the guns, and on specific kinds of guns, they are actually sending a hidden message that it is ok to hurt/kill people, as long as you don't use a gun, or a specific kind of gun. And, of course, the more folks hurt/killed (even without guns) is just ammo for the banners, who will scream from the rooftops that without guns we will all be fine.
Banning guns reduces us all to the level of the jungle. Well, not all. The wealthy and privileged will have licensed gun wearers to protect them. They always do.
Without guns, the weak are at the mercy of the strong. The vicious, young, and able have a natural advantage over the aged and infirm. This is the law of the jungle. The strong eat the weak. How can such civilized people work so hard to reduce us to savagery?
Seems to me that gun control discriminates against the handicapped and the elderly. Removing the most effective (and often only) means of self defense, hardly seems to be equal treatment under the law.
If you are serious about ending the problem (and the anti-gunners really aren't, because what would they do then?) you take everyone proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have used a gun to shoot someone for fun and profit and destroy them. Publicly. Painfully. And without years of delay. Those individuals will never re-offend. Even if you can claim it no deterrent to others (because they figure they won't be caught), it is a deterrent to those executed.
Is there a potential for abuse of this system? Sure. Is there a potential for mistakes, and innocents paying the ultimate price? Yep. So what?! We have that already. AND, we aren't even getting what we were promised.
Communists favor gun control. Nazis favor gun control. Ethnic cleansers favor gun control. Big city mayors favor gun control. The UN favors gun control. Dictators and leaders of repressive regimes around the world favor gun control. Ted Kennedy favors gun control. Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Sarah Brady all favor gun control.
Don't we all want to be like them?
I don't!
That it means something different to everybody. And reasonable to me is not reasonable to gun banners.
We have had since the founding of this nation (and before) laws that state you are not allowed to shoot people for fun and/or profit. Personally, I see no reason for anything else. What harm, other than shooting someone, can one do with any gun? Beat them with it? Laws covering assault cover that.
Shoot someone 37 times? Are they any more dead than shot properly once? Are they any more dead than if you cut off their head with an axe? Are they any more dead than crushing their skull with a hammer? Doesn't look that way to me.
Shoot 37 people (and just how does this kind of thing come to pass anyway?), are they any more dead than if they were locked inside a building on fire?
Maybe the problem with the idea of gun control is that while they focus on the guns, and on specific kinds of guns, they are actually sending a hidden message that it is ok to hurt/kill people, as long as you don't use a gun, or a specific kind of gun. And, of course, the more folks hurt/killed (even without guns) is just ammo for the banners, who will scream from the rooftops that without guns we will all be fine.
Banning guns reduces us all to the level of the jungle. Well, not all. The wealthy and privileged will have licensed gun wearers to protect them. They always do.
Without guns, the weak are at the mercy of the strong. The vicious, young, and able have a natural advantage over the aged and infirm. This is the law of the jungle. The strong eat the weak. How can such civilized people work so hard to reduce us to savagery?
Seems to me that gun control discriminates against the handicapped and the elderly. Removing the most effective (and often only) means of self defense, hardly seems to be equal treatment under the law.
If you are serious about ending the problem (and the anti-gunners really aren't, because what would they do then?) you take everyone proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have used a gun to shoot someone for fun and profit and destroy them. Publicly. Painfully. And without years of delay. Those individuals will never re-offend. Even if you can claim it no deterrent to others (because they figure they won't be caught), it is a deterrent to those executed.
Is there a potential for abuse of this system? Sure. Is there a potential for mistakes, and innocents paying the ultimate price? Yep. So what?! We have that already. AND, we aren't even getting what we were promised.
Communists favor gun control. Nazis favor gun control. Ethnic cleansers favor gun control. Big city mayors favor gun control. The UN favors gun control. Dictators and leaders of repressive regimes around the world favor gun control. Ted Kennedy favors gun control. Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Sarah Brady all favor gun control.
Don't we all want to be like them?
I don't!