Talk Show: Wants to know who has the best solution to Gun Control?

A

aarshow.com

Inactive
Hi,

I'm the host of the nation's only solutions-driven talk show An American Resolution and this Sunday live on the radio (and also on the Internet) I will be presenting 2 different solutions to trigger locks being manditory.
And I want to know if you which solution you think is the most credible. To read each of the solutions visit www.aarshow.com and I'd also love to read YOUR SOLUTION which you can send in to me. I look forward to hearing your insight on this issue and helping us take action that leads to a solution!

Thank you!

Todd Hartley -
Your Resolutionary Host -
An American Resolution - www.aarshow.com
 
1. ANYONE GUILTY OF USING A FIREARM IN THE COMMISION OF A CRIME GETS AUTOMATIC 50 YRS. SENTENCE.

2. ANYONE GUILTY OF USING FIREARMS IN THE COMMISION OF A RAPE GETS LIFE SENTENCE ,NO QUESTIONS, NO PAROLE FOR THE BASTARD EITHER.

3. ANYONE GUILTY OF PREMEDITADED MURDER WILL GET THE SAME 5 MINUTES AFTER COURT IS OVER.

Well, that will cause a sudden decrease in the crime rate isnt that what the klinton administration wants. I refuse to hear a damn word about sensless killings,etc.by the goverment when they treat these criminals better than a law abiding citizen. I sick of spending my tax dollars on these low-lifes. WHEN DOES SOMEONE LOSE THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS? anyone that would hurt innocent kids and kill for no reason at all in my opinion doesnt have any rights at all well maybe a little off topic but i feel better getting that said
 
1) Trigger locks? ............How about responsible parents who go back to raising their kids instead of letting the gvt do it!

2) The same one who raises their kids for them has absolutely NO business having anything to do with citizen ownership and carry of weapons, In or Outside of the home!

3) Read my signatures:

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
---------------------------
"Reasonable gun law?............There's No such critter!" --EQ
 
Gun control is not a solution. It's the PROBLEM!
Eric

------------------
Formerly Puddle Pirate.
Teach a kid to shoot.
It annoys the antis.
 
A few novel ideas.

Honor the 10th amendment, let the states decide, Give it 10 years or so and see who has the best solution!(the non state, DC proves where the gun control idea will lead)

Criminal control?

Turn off the 2nd/3rd parent. (TV)

Teach something other than socialist victimization in schools.

Hold people resposnsable for their actions and those of their children.

Role models with a little dignity?
-------------------
And a few notes. Read the Constitution and contemporary documents, Anderson and Ortega are totally full of it!
Ever think that cars have locks on them, how many cars are joy ridden by teens every year?
Anderson doesn't understand education either, "feel safe" is not respect, respect is taught for gun use not warm fuzzy feel safe BS!
----------
Rebuild the real America, problem solved!!!!
 
BountyHunter - I just wanted to response to your point 1:

>1. ANYONE GUILTY OF USING A FIREARM IN THE
>COMMISION OF A CRIME GETS AUTOMATIC 50 YRS.
>SENTENCE.

I am against this idea for the same reason I am against "zero tolerance" rules. This country needs to use its common sense instead of going by-the-book in all cases. Yes - this requires restraint (from frivolous lawsuits, for example), and judgement.

In this case, what does "use" mean? If I get a ticket for speeding while CCW-ing, does this count?

What about if I'm charged with "brawling" because Mr. Howell started punching me, and I retreated, and I happened to be CCW-ing at the time?

What about if a school-teacher has a gun in her car, and a kid starts shooting people up inside, and she runs out and gets it and stops the berserk kid? Should she be charged with carrying into a school, and get the 50 years?

Basically, I'm saying we need the ability to judge each case on its merits.


-z
 
Todd,
I might have been inclined to have more respect for your 'national' talk show, if you had spelled 'mandatory' correctly. Perhaps you should 'resolve' to use a spell-checker more often?
Oh yes, and the question of gun locks? It is clear, you should use them if you think you need them.


------------------
If they take our guns, I intend to let my hair grow long and acquire the jawbone of an ass.
 
Ha! I see where the police chief from Utah sez he's read the Constitution. He may have, but it's obvious he didn't understand what he was reading.

For starters, try the preamble to the first ten amendments--it'll give you a good idea that the "Bill of Rights" is a protection AGAINST government. How, then, would it apply to any governmental group? (Imagine a primal scream.)

And doesn't it speak to rights given by the Creator? The rights are not given by government at all!

Governments can deny rights; they cannot give but privilege.

Art
 
It never ceases to amaze me how those in the media continually miss the big story. Here you are looking at a small piece of the picture and missing the biggest story of all. “The killing of the Second Amendment”. Our government is in a war against the American people to eliminate all privately owned guns. All but one of our lower federal courts have now ruled that the meaning of the Second Amendment is anything but a right of individuals. The Supreme Court refuses to address the issue. Here is what Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall had to say in Hickman vs. Block in the 9th circuit:

“The question presented at the threshold of Hickman's appeal is whether the Second Amendment confers upon individual citizens standing to enforce the right to keep and bear arms. We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen. We conclude that Hickman can show no legal injury, and therefore lacks standing to bring this action.”

Now compare this to part of an article written by Tench Coxe published in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789:

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

The BIG story here is why are our courts, our legislators, the President and most of the media lying about the meaning of the Second Amendment? Is it not interesting that the people which the Second Amendment was intended to give us a last means of defense from, are the very same people who are lying about the meaning of it?

My question is WHY? Why are they lying? It is certainly not the deaths caused by guns, as every credible study done shows that they do far more good than harm. The why is your story, the one you should be investigating.




------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Hi guys.

Todd called me a few days ago and asked if I
will be an in-studio guest on his show (tomorrow) Sunday.

I agreed and will be pitted against one of our local Phoenix area gunphobes.

This will be very, very fun.

Rick
PS, go over to www.glocktalk.com and read
the coptalk forum. Todd asked them questions
about trigger locks and gun control. You just
might stifle a tear as you read the words of
our boys in blue defending the Constitution.

Maybe some of them will make Chief.

------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788
 
Its really very simple. Guns are not the problem. The rise in gun violence among
children is due to the violent "shoot em up" type of video games and "gangsta'" rap music.

Instead of banning guns and infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, we should be banning the sale of violent "shoot em up" type video games and "gangsta'" rap music.

From the moment kids crawl out of bed to the time they go to bed, they're sitting in front of their nintendo, sega, PC, whatever, playing these games.

The violence in these games instills the violence into the child. The child then acts out this violence.

The reason that children see a gun as a solution to their problems is due to these
games. If you shoot it, it goes away.

But you dont see any politicians banning games. After all, its just a game... or is it?

"Gangsta'" rap music is popular among white middle class teenagers. Its no secret that the lyrics in this style of rap music premotes violence.

Yet people wonder what went wrong when 14 yearold middle class white kids begin dressing up in hip hop style, start copping "attitude" and taking guns to school.

Banning guns is not the solution. Children act out the violence that is placed before them through emulation. They desire to fit in, they seek acceptance. If someone threatens the child at school, they see a gun as a solution. If you shoot it, it goes away.

The solution is to eliminate the violence from the childs life. If there isn't violence, there is nothing to act out.

The parents are responsible. They allow these games to be bought and played and they allow this type music to be listened to. (if you can call it music)

Bottom line, guns are not the problem. Alot of people attack the 2nd Amendment, but why doesn't anyone attack the 1st? Is the 1st more important than the 2nd?

After reading what I wrote, it makes me sound like Jerry Falwell. Well, I'm not some religious nut. I'm just addressing a problem that I see everyday. I see the root of the problem, yet I don't see anyone doing anything about it.

All I see is my RKBA being infringed upon by a bunch of ignorant clueless people.
 
Todd,in 1945 and 6, a few million demobilized GIs hit the streets of America. Many brought back guns as souvenirs. Most were "Habituated to violence", and has seen the atrocities of war at its worst. Some freed the inmates of Buchenwald and Birkenau.
With all these people accustomed to violence returning, and with all the weapons they either brought back or bought(by mail order!) when they arrived home, where was the violence? By todays' standards, the late 1940s was milk and cookies.

Thanks to excellent genealogical research, I can trace my last name back to a man born in 1753,and name all the ones in between. One of my ancestors fell at Saratoga,fighting for what he believed in. Another fell in the Cornfield at Antietam, doing the same. We have served in the military from Valley Forge to the Ashau valley, from Yorktown to Belleau Wood. 5 generations of us have served in Law enforcement, most have hunted, all had easy access to firearms. And...

History shows the final total. NO homicides, other than Line of Duty. No suicides, no tragic accidents, 240 years plus of safe, responsible gun ownership. After 240 years, if the Govt cannot trust us with our guns, why should we trust them with theirs?

Also, wife's aunt by marriage was born into a large Jewish family in Berlin in 1928. When she escaped from Birkenau in 1944, she was the sole survivor from about 30 close relatives. Aunt Helga can give anyone some input on what it's like to live where the govt decides who may possess the means of defense, and who may not.

The Second Amendment is there because, the Founders KNEW that governments can become oppressive. They just finished an armed insurrection for that reason. And, in the greatest experiment ever commenced, they set out to determine if the People could lead themselves,and determine their own destiny.

The Second is a limit of Governmental power, like the rest of the Bill of Rights. And, since it keeps the tools of resistance to tyranny in the proper hands, it may prove to be the most crucial in the preservation of liberty to the People.

And, I'm no wild eyed radical. I've honorable scars from the Nam mess, and a couple of decades serving in the Dept Of Public Safety here in Md. I vote,serve on juries and perform the duties in general of a private citizen.Been married to the same,wonderful, woman for a couple of decades and hope for at least a couple more. The only arrest on my record is for disturbing the peace, a relic of a civil rights demonstration in 1965.That's a distinction I rank right up there with my Purple Heart and Citation. The only times I wear camo is when hunting,and I help out the Scouts,usher at religious services, and am regarded as a pillar of my community.

But the govt fears me and my guns. I've committed no crimes,killed less people(other than line of duty)than some liberal pols, and am not fomenting any Jihads against anyone. I'm merely in favor of being able to protect my family and myself,and to determine my destiny as the Founders wished.

Msot govts have become oppressive, even those that didn't start out as that. Maybe our elected officials have forgotten that they are the servants of the People, not the Rulers thereof.

Americans need leaders, not rulers,and the trend seems to be towards those of the latter category.

Thanks and I'm off the soapbox....
 
Todd, welcome to TFL.

I'm not going to respond to all of your questions ... you have plenty of material to work with right now. It is rather amusing to see some of the ignorance with which people interpret the Constitution when they have simply read the words, and have not applied or studied the historical background.

But, you see, that is typical in this debate. Lots of people discuss firearms, and very few of them really know what they are talking about.

My more important comment to you is regarding your show's format. To be frank, I seldom listen because I find the premise to be rather exaggerated. What I hear on the show is that everyone else simply discusses problems, but in a few short segments, you and your guests are going to 'solve' problems that have vexed others for decades.

It will be refreshing if you take an honest look at this issue. It is complicated, there is a massive foundation of history and philosophy that impacts the debate, and there are many components to examine. Carefully test the logic of many statements, such as 'no one needs a gun', 'guns are not regulated', 'no one wants to take guns away from honest citizens', 'guns should have sporting purposes' and so on - huge logical holes in each of these and similar statements.

If you are really interested, consider some reading - 'That Every Man Be Armed', by Stephen Halbrook, 'More Guns, Less Crime', by John Lott, and 'The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy', by David Kopel are excellent starts.

The 'answers' to the gun debate are about as obvious and accurate as the world being flat ... the truth is often different than it appears at first glance.

Good luck with your show. Regards from AZ
 
Checked the voting results on the gun lock question at aarshow.com. As of Sunday 2PM EDT, the anti's were trailing by about 50 to one. We musta packed the ballot box! Or...no...could it be that ordinary people agree with the obvious truth...that the RKBA is an individual natural right, not permission to have a National Guard unit in every state? NAAAAAAAAA :) --slabsides

------------------
If they take our guns, I intend to let my hair grow long and acquire the jawbone of an ass.
 
If people were punished for commiting crimes, then all of this would be a moot discusion. Every day we hear of some scary sociopath being released back onto the streets to continue a life of crime. They are not afraid of doing horrible things to you, me, or anyone. People have the right and responsiblity to defend themselves and their families. The government is NOT going to do it for us. As a husband and father it is my responsibility to protect my family the best way that I can, guns enter that category. Anyone who says that I have to respect the life of someone trying to harm me or my family can go to hell.

If you want to stop Columbine type incidents, enforce the "don't commit murder" laws.



------------------
Beware the three D's: The dumb, drunk, and deranged. Chadintex@hotmail.com
 
Todd,

Welcome to TFL.

"... 2 different solutions to trigger locks ..."? 'Sounds like two bad choices. It's not unusual these days for media sources to bind a discussion with built-in premises. Will you?

To some of us, the gun control crowd is epitomized by the sounds of, " ..reasonable people agree...", coming from some well modulated voice of the opposition, while flanked by others who make no bones about their goal of total eradication of gun ownership.

We simply don't believe that "reasonable" measures are what the gun control crowd is after.

I read all four resolutions. A little game, if you please ...

Question by RKBA advocate:

"What is so hard to understand, after all, about the difference between a law-abider's concurrence with the laws of his community and a law-breaker's attitude toward the law in any community?"

Answer by Gun Control advocate:

"Sensop, do you mean you don't see any reason to even try to diminish the senseless death toll of our children by guns?"

Reply by RKBA advocate: "Can you answer the question without changing the subject?"

That's how it goes, debate after debate, discussion after discussion. How did we get to the point in this society where we can only discuss the subject if I agree with your premise before we begin?

Todd, tell me what built in premises you have in your questions?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>(AAR) What's the best way to resolve America's gun problem? ... If we should not support gun control, explain the best way to decrease gun violence.[/quote] "...America's gun control problem"? " ...gun violence"?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>(AAR) Is maintaining a well-regulated militia still relevant today? Would placing limitations on gun ownership be constitutional?[/quote] "... still relevant today? ..." Funny how we can be so literal when we want and so interpretational when it's convenient. "... limitations on gun ownership be constitutional"? Can you read?

Think there's any prejudice here, Todd?

How about the survey? <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>5. Would mandatory trigger locks make guns safer?[/quote] Is that some kind of trick question? Of course it will make them safer. That's not really your question at all.

God forbid that the entire concept of binding law abiding citizens with another law should have no effect on those that break the law routinely. The assumption is outrageous, is it not?

Ever wonder what it would be like to go to bed a law abiding citizen and wake up a felon? Remember: "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." - Paul Begala, Presidential Advisor. Most, if not all believers in the right to keep and bear arms live with that fear.

The worst case of abuse in this debate is political advocacy paid for with taxpayer funds and implemented by our government.

And members of the media wonder why we think "honest debate" in the media today is a sham?

I admit to a high degree of cynicism when it comes to "the media" and this subject. I also suspect what a "solutions-driven" debate is. Solutions arrived at prior to the "debate". I mean, it's the driver, right? Duh.

Well, we can't give up. We never will, no matter how hard you try. We just don't believe you.

Go, RickD!

BTW, Bounty Hunter, be careful what you wish for. Smithz has a point. We'd be in deep doo-doo if all the gun laws on the books were enforced. You know they would be enforced very selectively. Hell, they already are. That's how we know that more gun laws are a ruse. It's not more gun laws they want. It's our guns! All of them.

[This message has been edited by sensop (edited April 09, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top