Gun Debate: Should we give up on gun violence?

[texshelters]

Please no flaming. Also, we know there is a second amendment. I am not asking to rid the world of guns, so there is not need to bring that up as an argument. I want to know what you think.

Should we throw up our hands and ignore gun violence in America?

Is there a way to regulate guns that make the United States safer?

I say: regulate guns the way we regulate cars. Every first time buyer has to pass an examination to get a gun.

There would be a yearly gun check (like a smog check for cars) and a small registration fee. The money could be used to run the system.

At the time of the gun check there could be a psychological evaluation for those with a history of violence and a background check for violent crimes.


Will guns in universities and schools make us safer?

Is there a way to keep guns away from campuses so we don't need to be armed?

Here's where I don't want guns:

1. Universities and schools. Those places should be for education. Use the gun registration fee to hire trained security if there is a fear of campus gun violence.

2. Hockey games or games where parents are watching kids. I don't want to see parent or referees shot.

3. Oklahoma/Texas football games, or Michigan/Ohio State for that matter. Can you imagine the carnage?

4. Airplanes. All the fear of flying could drive people insane.

5. Subways and buses.

6. I am sure I am missing some here.

Where do you want guns?

What is wrong with having guns in our homes and for hunting? Is that not enough?

Are we safer bringing our guns everywhere we go?

Tex Shelters

[selador]

1. your recommendations are orwellian and ignore rights

"Should we throw up our hands and ignore gun violence in America?"

no. nor have we.


"Is there a way to regulate guns that make the United States safer?"

wow. talk about a loaded question. first of all, the question must be - at what cost. we could make the country MUCH safer just by reducing civil rights - such as miranda warning, exclusionary rule, various rules of evidence, search and seizure. etc. but we don't. rightly so. because the cost is too high.

2nd of all, i'm not sure any gun regulation would make the country safer, even at the GREAT cost of reducing our civil liberties that would ential. we have way too many gun reg's, and the areas that have really strict gun regs generally have way more crime anyway -see: DC, Chicago, etc. generally. not always

"I say: regulate guns the way we regulate cars. Every first time buyer has to pass an examination to get a gun."

i say. read the constitution. you don't need an exam to exercise free speech, open a newspaper or blog, etc. 1st amendment matters. so does 2nd.

"There would be a yearly gun check (like a smog check for cars) and a small registration fee. The money could be used to run the system. "

again, cars are not a civil right, nor a constitutionally protected right via amendment. owning and carrying guns IS.

apparently, you feel free to eliminate and reduce civil rights all in the name of protecting ourselves.

"At the time of the gun check there could be a psychological evaluation for those with a history of violence and a background check for violent crimes. "

ah. govt MANDATED psych evaluations. how orwellian of you. that sounds supergoodtruthexcellent. yup. i want my govt. to test citizens psychologically as a requirement for exercising their civil rights. maybe we should do the same with political candidates, reporters, lawyers, judges.

that is about as disgustingly orwellian an idea as i can imagine. govt. MANDATED psych tests before you can exercise a civil right.

fwiw, i have taken numerous mandatory psych tests. because i have worked in law enforcement. being a LEO is not a civil right. so, i have no problem with that.

and yes... i passed

"Will guns in universities and schools make us safer? "

i have no idea. they are perfectly legal in my state (WA) and i see ZERO evidence they make the schools LESS safe.

"Is there a way to keep guns away from campuses so we don't need to be armed?"

false question. the issue is not "need". we don't NEED free speech on campus either, freedom of expression, right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. but we respect the civil rights of all. students are not the #$(#$ of the world, to paraphrase john lennon

H"ere's where I don't want guns:

1. Universities and schools. Those places should be for education. Use the gun registration fee to hire trained security if there is a fear of campus gun violence. "

security, just like cops can't be everywhere all the time. and i say this as a cop. my state has legal guns on college campuses and i have YET to see ANY evidence it creates a problem.

furthermore, it respect civil rights of students, etc.

you don't.

"2. Hockey games or games where parents are watching kids. I don't want to see parent or referees shot. "

which assumes that allowing them makes parents or ref's more likely to be shot (not in evidence) and banning them would make us safer.

"3. Oklahoma/Texas football games, or Michigan/Ohio State for that matter. Can you imagine the carnage?"

plenty already carry at these games fwiw

". Airplanes. All the fear of flying could drive people insane.

5. Subways and buses.

6. I am sure I am missing some here. "

yes. like respect for the constitution.

"Where do you want guns?"

i don't WANT them anywhere. i respect the rights of citizens to carry them. it's not about FEELINGS.

"What is wrong with having guns in our homes and for hunting? Is that not enough? "

no. not if you believe in the right of self defense via firearms.

"Are we safer bringing our guns everywhere we go?"

i know *i* am safer.

ymmv

[texshelters]

5. So regulating cars is Orwellian?

You exaggerate my "fascist" tendencies here. I actually thought the ideas I promoted were well considered.

Your logic is faulty: DC has high rates of gun violence not because laws were passed; guns laws were passed because of high rates of gun violence. Check you causality; it's faulty.

The Hockey game reference was to violence at just such games, and if guns had been there, they may have been used. Remember the news of the sports fans fathers fighting in the stands?

Some of this was a joke, like the football games. I don't see why you need a gun there if the games are safe.

I know we have a constitution. I have one more question for you:

Why is having a gun more of a right then others being safe from gun violence?

What HUGE right would be taken away if we didn't allow guns on subways?

Capitalize your "I's"

Peace,
Tex Shelters.

[selador]

8. no. try reading comphrehension

try some reading comprehension

first of all driving a car is not a civil right. owning a gun IS.

second of all, govt. required PSYCH tests ARE orwellian.

a competency test in firing ability is not orwellian, as an analogy.

a PSYCHOLOGICAL test mandated by the govt. is as orwellian as can be

"Your logic is faulty: DC has high rates of gun violence not because laws were passed; guns laws were passed because of high rates of gun violence. Check you causality; it's faulty."

i didn't STATE casaulty. you did. i merely said that stricter gun laws haven't been shown to REDUCE crime. i did NOT say they caused crime. try some logic 101

"The Hockey game reference was to violence at just such games, and if guns had been there, they may have been used. Remember the news of the sports fans fathers fighting in the stands?"

you assume guns WEREN'T there. again, faulty logic. just because guns weren't USED does not mean they weren't there ANYWAY.

i've carried a gun for 20+ years and have never fired it (off duty). you would never know i was carrying it.

you can't assume in the above case nobody was carrying a gun. you assume it because the guns are necessarily only brought to your attention when displayed or fired.

fwiw, most citizens of NYC can go their entire lives and NEVER see a cop with his gun drawn. does this imply that cops never draw their guns?

again, incredibly specious logic.

as for what HUGE right? it's referenced in the 2nd amendment.

"Why is having a gun more of a right then others being safe from gun violence?"

because 1) having a gun is a right referenced in the 2nd amendment. 2) you are assuming that taking guns from citizens who legally posses them would make people safe from gun violence, which is not in evidence.

every point you make either ignores the constitution, or assumes facts not in evidence, or never proved at all.

[texshelters]

20. You missed the one question I wanted answered.

And I'll add one.

Are you afraid of something deeper and is that why you seem so angry?

Are you angry? If so, why? I never said I wanted to take away your guns or rights. I just wanted to know where guns are appropriate. So, no need to attack me. Unless it makes you feel more manly.

So, I won't assume you mean something, and how about you return the favor?

I didn't say their weren't guns at hockey games, but when I go to a game, guns are prohibited. I assumed they were everywhere. My bad.

The Constitution has an elastic clause, which could be used to show argue that having a car is a right. There is protection for property, which includes cars. It's the "search and seizure" clause.

Why is owning a gun anywhere and everywhere a "right"? Actually, the courts have decided that it is not. Owning a gun is a right, but states can regulate when and where they can be and be used.

By the way, slavery was legal, voting was once restricted BY THE CONSTITUTION to just white males, we once couldn't vote for Senators directly, a President could be in office for more than two terms, we once didn't have Miranda rights, the original Constitution doesn't protect property from being seized, just that you should have compensation, etc. So, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's moral or healthier for society.

So, is the Constitution the end all and be all? NO. That is why we can amend it. And nothing in the Constitution says you can't regulate guns.

So what was that about not understanding the Constitution. You shoudn't accuse people of something you don't know about.

Tex Shelters

[beevul]

48. Open mouth, insert foot.

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"


www.billofrights.org


That there is the preamble to the bill of rights. It plainly says that the bill of rights is a set of declaratory and restrictive clauses, applicable to governmental power. Amendment number 2 plainly says that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Now, unless you can tell us all how "shall not be infringed" applies to "a well regulated militia" but not to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", quite frankly, it says that a right belonging to the people shall not be infringed. You understand? The government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Regulation may or may not "infringe" on a peoples right, but I'd say that certain standards that apply to other rights could and should apply. A right delayed is a right denied, for example. No taxes on a right, for example. And those are just starters. You can make the claim that "nothing in the Constitution says you can't regulate guns" but obviously if a regulation infringes on the right, its not constitutional. Its just not as cut and dry as you make it sound.


As for amending the constitution, you need 2/3 majority of the states, IIRC. Good luck getting that. And even if you don't need to, you first have to convince 80+ million gun owners of the benevolence of
anything you propose. It would help if you'd distance yourself from the gun banners, and maybe denounce the concept of banning guns. Trust is a big factor on this issue, and I'll remind you that trust is earned not assumed.

Any "discussion" with gun owners should start with the acknowledgement that gun bans are out of the question. Call it a gesture of good faith.

Remember, you need them, they don't need you. If they don't like what your proposing, they may just get organized and vote your idea down, or if you lay something on them they don't like, after they vote you in, they may just take it out on you and your party like they did to Democrats after the original AWB passed. "I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it." -Bill Clinton, from his 1995 sotu adress. The very state of the country right this minute, is partially due to the terrible miscalculations of people that underestimate the gun vote. Don't allow the arrogance and ignorance that led to that mistake also lead to repeating it...again. You should google the name "jim zumbo" to give you some idea of how bad things can get, if you get a bunch of gun owners upset because they think you are going after, or support going after - the guns they own.

Me, I tire of hearing "we need gun control". We tried "alcohol control" and organised crime took over. We didn't learn our lesson...and we have had "drug control" for how many years now? And its done nothing except create an unregulated market for "illegal drugs".

I personally think gun control in general may as well be off the table alltogether until such time as we as a nation have a sane drug policy, because I believe it is that which is as the heart of the majority of all violence nationwide.

[apocalypsehow]

72. An utter jumble of nonsense - and nonsense you *KNOW* to be nonsense,

because it's been pointed out to you before.

Beevul said: "Now, unless you can tell us all how 'shall not be infringed' applies to 'a well regulated militia' but not to 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms", quite frankly, it says that a right belonging to the people shall not be infringed. You understand?'

Piffle. Do you understand that every draft of the Second Amendment directly related to military functions of a "well-regulated" militia? How soon we forget - when our cherished nostrums are trashed by facts:

Original text of the Second Amendment:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person”

Second draft:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”

Third version:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Final version:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Here's a few court cases directly on point:

"the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897),
“The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;... "

Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41 (1965). In this case, an airliner collided with a National Guard jet, and a need for a definition of National Guard arose. In this ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote,
The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution"


Current judicial precedents:

"At present, with certain exceptions and disputes, the courts generally find it acceptable under the Second Amendment for federal, state, and local jurisdictions to:
Regulate or not regulate militias
Enact, or not enact, child-safety lock legislation
Ban or permit handgun possession
Regulate or not regulate handgun possession
Prohibit or allow the carrying of concealed firearms and/or weapons
Regulate or not regulate the carrying of concealed firearms and/or weapons
Ban or permit assault weapons
Prohibit and regulate firearms on commercial aircraft.
Prohibit possession of firearms by persons who have been:
Involuntarily committed to a mental institution
Convicted of a felony
Convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence<89><90> or not, since in one jurisdiction the Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence law was ruled a violation of the Second and Fifth Amendments and was ruled unconstitutional for two years<91> though that decision was reversed on appeal<92> and the Supreme Court has not granted certiorari.
Convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and in the military, and being unable as a soldier in uniform to handle any weapons, although per Department of Defense policy, crew-served weapons such as tanks, missiles, and aircraft are exempt from the Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence law and may be handled or used by a soldier previously convicted of a crime of domestic violence<93> despite the same individual not being allowed to handle or use a pistol.<90>
Dishonorably discharged from the military
Require the licensing of firearms dealers
Ban or regulate bombs, artillery, and explosives
Require or not require the registration of firearms
Ban or permit the possession of firearms and ammunition on county-owned property
Ban or not ban the possession of weapons of any kind on Federal property (Although weapons are generally banned on most Federal property, National Parks in some parts of Alaska encourage hikers to carry firearms for protection against wild animals.<94>)
Prohibit firearm possession anywhere in licensed liquor establishments, or to prohibit firearm possessions only in the bar areas of some businesses, or to permit the carry of concealed weapons in any facility other than Federal facilities
Require or not require handgun owner identification cards
Require or not require the presentation of identification prior to buying ammunition
Ban or permit ballistic fingerprinting databases"

All quoted material available here for your perusal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

beevul sputtered: "No taxes on a right, for example"

*Ahem*: "No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Try not paying your property taxes, beevul, and see if the county doesn't put your property up for auction. Cite the Fifth Amendment to them as the Sheriff padlocks the front door and notifies the auctioneer to start his crooning. Maybe they'll take your constitutional "analysis" to heart and just tell you to forget all about paying those pesky property taxes. But I wouldn't bank on it.

[Firethorn]

74. Sure you can regulate them...

You just can't forbid people from owning or carrying them...

'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'

Now, to me at least, keeping = owning, bearing = carrying. People ~ Citizens of the USA, legal residents, etc...

Reasonable regulations include banning felons, committed persons from owning, possessing, or carrying firearms until they've proven that they're now upstanding members of the community. Their crimes, conviction by a jury of their peers, cost them full protection under the constitution.

Another is limits on where you can discharge a firearm, under non-emergency circumstances. For example, I'm commonly considered a gun nut, but even I think that it's not a good thing to go shooting a firearm in the middle of a city at three in the morning. Or anytime, for that matter, outside of a firing range while inside city limits. If a landowner owns enough property that he can have a shooting session without disturbing the neighbors, more power to him. Generally this would be outside city limits. If I set up a firing range in my basement, sufficienty soundproofed, again, great. I can shoot to my heart's content. If I don't completly sound proof it, but get it, say, below 'annoying music' or 'mowing the lawn', I can probably get away with shooting in my range during daylight hours.

So, is the Constitution the end all and be all? NO. That is why we can amend it.

Then it needs to be ammended before you go handing out bans and confiscating semi-military weapons. You know, the weapons that would be really useful in a militia...

[slackmaster]

14. The ownership of cars is NOT REGULATED

The use of cars in public places is.

[SteveM]

16. This is an important point...

You can have a car without much in the way of regulation if you don't operate it on public roads, hence the term "ranch rocket," "grove truck," "Keys cruiser," etc. Once you go public, you register each year.

Similarly, if you leave your guns at home, there is little regulation (except for the usual suspect cities), but once you go out of your house and off your property, there is regulation. Concealed carrying of weapons is an example of regulation requiring background checks, testing, and live-fire on the range.

[texshelters]

19. Thanks for understanding what I wrote

This issue is so emotional, people don't get subtly and anology.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Boomer 50]

34. We've gone down the register and ban list too many times

Every time gun ownership is restricted, crime gets worse. Even the FBI crime data supports this. Why not try something novel and new besides beating the same dead horse. Try enabling citizens to defend themselves and make the criminals the ones living in fear for once.

You want to stop violent crime in the United States? Stop pandering to the criminal element. Get rid of all the niceties in prison. enforce truth in sentencing laws and stop early parole. Punish the offenders while trying to rehabilitate them.

As long as we as a society continue to put concern for the lives of criminals above the sanctity of life and liberty of the law abiding citizen, we will have massive violent crime.

[iverglas]

71. oh no, Paco!

selador

[AlinPA]

2. There is very little that can be done. People will get guns and use them for crime,

do stupid things with them (like leaving around for children to shoot one another), point them at their head when they think they are unloaded, use them when they are drunk and so on. If laws are made, people who want guns will get them somehow.

[liberal4truth]

53. The problem is that gun-laws are plea-bargained down to misdemeanors

once a person is a Felon, they can no longer legally buy or a gun or ammo. Once they are in possession of a firearm or ammunition, they can be sent up the river for a long time, but so often this doesn't happen due to plea bargaining.

Just recently a Rap-artist, Clifford 'TI' Harris , was convicted of multiple violations of gun-control laws, including owning machine-guns, but instead of 15 to 20 years in prison, he is sentenced to 1,500 hours of community service. How is the world can gun control laws work when gun-owners know they can get a deal like this?

So its a two-pronged approach that is needed: Much stricter gun laws and long-term mandatory sentences for repeat offenders, no plea bargains at all. Once that word gets on the streets you will see gun-crimes fall significantly, but not until then. In the meantime we can expect to see more blood on the streets and homes of America, thanks to the NRA who condones these unlawful legal practices.

[villager]

3. the fact that NRA-influenced gun folk can't even tolerate the idea that weapons

should be regulated the way cars are, shows how unreasonable -- to put it politely -- they are about the whole argument.

Guns are like security blankets to them, and the idea that there is a common, societal interest in sane gun laws infuriates them -- you'll see that played out in this thread. But the very notion of their "guns" being taken away - even if we're talking, again, about licensure akin to what cars have -- touches a deep psychic wound in them somehow.

It's deeply strange, to -- once again -- put it in its politest terms.

[texshelters]

7. Well Put!

It still surprises me how much people will defend gun deaths because "we have a second amendment", and will fight all reasonable laws.

Tex Shelters

[SteveM]

18. It shouldn't surprise you. Cars aren't protected by the Second.

[beevul]

36. Define reasonable, texshelters. N/T.

[gorfle]

38. Here is why...

It still surprises me how much people will defend gun deaths because "we have a second amendment", and will fight all reasonable laws.

I "defend gun deaths" because I understand this simple, fundamental concept:

Our founding fathers created this country with the idea that the people would constitute the bulk of military power, so as to prevent tyranny from being enforced by force of arms. Thus they the right to bear arms was enumerated in our Constitution.

Making firearms readily available to most of the population means that some few will abuse that right.

I am willing to put up with the abuse by few because the alternative - removing the tools of liberty from all the rest, is unthinkable and would put us at the mercy of any who would abuse us.

No one is against reasonable laws. Your proposals are not reasonable. A right that requires government permission to exercise is not a right.

[DonP]

10. Regulate guns like cars, that would be great!

I could buy any gun I wanted to that met legal requirements, add any accessories to it at my discretion and take my gun across any state lines knowing it was legal.

I could take it to any city in the country, as long as I had a legal license in my home state. Not have to wait three days to pick my gun up after I bought it or go through a Federal background check to buy one, just like a car. I can buy as many guns as I can afford to as often as I want, and the dealers will offer financing right at the gun store.

No city or state could decide to ban the particular type of gun i chose to buy. The Federal form 4473 will disappear overnight and there will be no Federal record of my purchases.

That would be great. But I won't hold my breath.

This argument usually comes up regularly from people that have no idea how tightly guns are already regulated and buy into the crap from Brady or the Gun Guys that it's somehow easier to buy a gun than cough mediciane or that Teddy Bears are more regulated than gun manufacturers.

Regulate and treat guns like cars, great idea.

[villager]

23. absolutely -- you'd have to have a license, and insurance, and register the thing! We agree!

Welcome to the side of light!

[DonP]

30. Call me as soon as you have those pesky Federal regulations dropped

I'm sure you'lll have no problem getting Senators Lautenberg, Feinstein and Kennedy to accept that trade off.

I'd be more than happy to register it for concealed carry across state lines with ni interstate restrictions since you need a permit anyway, but if I just keep it at home and choose to use it on private property, just like a car, I need no permits or licensing. I have a 1962 Triumph TR-3B in my garage. No license or plates required until I decide to drive it on public streets.

Then we can get started on defining those pesky "reasonable regulations" state by state. Good luck convincing Mayor Daley, Bloomberg or Fenty to drop their urban bans.

Since insurance companies, that carefully calculate every possible area of risk in their actuarial tables, do not consider a gun collection of any size or a shooting hobby as a factor in homeowners or life insurance, any other insurance would be unneccesary.

[villager]

32. Sure -- keep your guns on your own property with no registration!

No going outside in public until they are, though.

I think we're on to a template here.

At least conceptually.

See -- we canagree. Sort of.

[gorfle]

40. Well, why?

Sure -- keep your guns on your own property with no registration!

No going outside in public until they are, though.

Why should I not be able to transfer my firearms from one private place to another, even traveling across public property? I can trailer a car from one place to another, on public roads, with no insurance or registration for it. Only if I use the car on public roads to I need licensing, insurance, and registration. It is the same with firearms. If I use them on public property, I need a CCW permit. Well this is not entirely true - I can go to a public shooting range without any paperwork. But if I use them on private property, no paperwork is needed at all.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. So you are saying that it's okay for me to have whatever guns I want on my property!!

I had no idea you wanted to do away with the National FIrearms Act of 1934. That's very progressive of you villager.

David

[gorfle]

39. Only if...

absolutely -- you'd have to have a license, and insurance, and register the thing! We agree! Welcome to the side of light!

You would only have to license, insure, and register it if you use it on public property. If you use it on private property, no licensing, insurance, or registration is required. Just like firearms.

[krispos42]

12. Why do we register cars? n/t

[SteveM]

17. More bar room psychology. That "psychic wound" is your reasoning...

If you read the entire Amendment you will surely see that if the people have a right to bear arms and form militias, then it wouldn't be too smart to register your guns with an entity (government) which has the potential to become tyrannical -- and round up those with guns. Refer to Alberto Gonzalez' "no-fly, no buy" proposals wherein if you are on the "no fly" list (no due process) you are automatically put on the "no buy(ing)" of guns list (no due process).

So what do you think of the "no fly, no buy" proposal, Villager?

[villager]

25. do you support any restrictions -- at all -- on the proliferation of weapons in cities?

Any?

At all?

Or should we let anyone by anything for any reason?

Just, you know, curious, as to what your barroom reasoning on the thing might be.

[DonP]

31. Are city dwellers any less of a citizen ...

than a rural person?

Or is it that code for you'd rather not have those minorities in the city have access to weapons to defend themselves?

The same restrictions we all support and abide by apply to city, suburban and rural folks.

No felons, no one with an active RO, no one under age, no one that has been adjudicated mentally unstable, no one that can't pass the basic background check with the national agencies, class 3 weapons if your state allows them.

[villager]

33. No -- yet city dwellers are supposed to agree to being shot, so rural folk can have all their guns..

And something needs to be done to balance things out a little more equitably.

[beevul]

35. Bah, thats not true.

"And something needs to be done to balance things out a little more equitably."


End the useless "war on some drugs" and youd acomplish far more than any gun control ever could.

[SteveM]

54. No restrictions in your home; some restriction in public (which we have),

See? Not one beer.

[gorfle]

37. We would love for guns to be treated like cars are.

the fact that NRA-influenced gun folk can't even tolerate the idea that weapons should be regulated the way cars are, shows how unreasonable -- to put it politely -- they are about the whole argument.

I for one would be quite happy with guns being treated like cars. In fact, they pretty much are. I don't need any paperwork to buy one or operate one on private property. I don't need a license to operate one on private property.

[liberal4truth]

52. the problem always comes back to the gun nuts hiding behind the 2nd amendment

even though it does not give them any private right to own a gun with no restrictions. Rembember that it says "well regulated" in that very same document they worship and that is what gun control laws accomplish exactly.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. The Supreme Court should rule on that very issue in a month or two.

Clearly though you represent one interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. One that many Constitutional scholars disagree with, but an interpretation nonetheless. Please don't act as if yours is the only interpretation, it's simply disingenuous.

David

[TPaine7]

66. "Well regulated"

didn't mean "under strict government control" it meant "properly functioning." People in those days spoke of well regulated minds and clocks. That is not to say that a properly functioning militia did not require government directed musters, but you are misreading the text.

Furthermore, the militia was to be well regulated, but it is the people who had a right to keep and bear arms. The words "well regulated" do not modify the noun "people" or the noun "arms." The Second Amendment does not call for the regulation of people or the regulation of arms.

[Tejas]

67. very easy to say you are hiding behind the 1st - see how that works? n/t

[Firethorn]

75. Ahhh...

I wish guns were regulated like cars were.

If guns were regulated like cars:

My CCW license would be valid in all 50 states, not a mish-mash of a dozen.
I could own and use a Ma Deuce as long as I only use it on my land
With a simple license & registration I'd be able to carry and use it just about anywhere
I could walk into any gun store and purchase a gun without a background check. Might have a credit check if I want one on loan. ;)

Cute list for your idea
Selected lines:
Anyone can purchase an automobile as long as they can sign a legal contract to pay for it.
The government can't limit the features of your car, such as top speed, fuel capacity, horsepower, etc.
There is no waiting period to purchase an automobile.
Licenses are only revoked after a court trial for misuse or violating the laws.
You only need to register an automobile if you plan to use it on the street.

[Redstone]

4. Oh, you stepped in it now. I hope you own a Nomex suit.

You'll get all the blather and yacketa yacketa about how "we have laws," but I'll tell you one thing: I could buy as many guns as I wanted to, even under the most restrictive laws of any state in this country. Background check? No problem. Records of felonies, mental-health issues, or substance-abuse history? I got none of those. Never even a traffic ticket in almost 40 years of driving.

But I'm just about the LAST person who should be allowed to have a handgun, for reasons I know well, but will not state here.

But I could get one, or as many as I wanted, with no trouble at all. Anywhere, any time I wanted to.

Something is broken in America regarding guns, but so few people want to recognize the truth of that.

Redstone

[Firethorn]

76. I'm curious...

Why would that be, that you think you shouldn't have a handgun?

Are you a closet hitman? In which case you likely ignore the law, and been lucky/good enough to not get caught.
Are you a closet psychopath? And you've decided to not get a handgun. Good for you.
Are you disabled, such that you can't operate a firearm? Possible, hope the doctors can help if that's the case. My grandfather suffers from uncontrollable shaking, he'd be lucky to hit a man sized target at 4 feet, much less the 10 yards I practice at.
Do you get uncontrollable rages? What's prevented you from beating somebody to death(or into the hospital) with a wrench or some such before now? Maybe you have more control than you think.

If it's your personal choice, I won't argue with you. Just don't try to take my rights away. The most I've ever killed is a couple deer. Mostly with my car, ended up finishing the second off with my handgun after he ran in front of me and ended up in the ditch with internal injuries and broken legs.

[PATRICK]

6. The issue comes up

only as broadly dumb way to excite voters against liberals. If we get in a lot of these problems will have saner discussions. I wouldn't even start placing it on a wish list as if we already have one-party rule. The gun threat is actually moving- under the aegis of those who pretend to protect an American right- to a Blackwater/vigilante/RW militia type of world where flooding civilian trouble zones with small arms to preoccupy them with more self destructive disaster is public policy rebounding to a police state for real. All the aims of the RW to protect citizens through gun ownership is now revealed to move directly opposite to that one end. The sucker response of the Dems to get caught trying to sidestep this flow with pleas for responsible laws has the effect of losing them elections and any attempt at all to make gun ownership responsive to civil society rights and needs. That response is the defensive trap of Democrast reflexively granting of legitimacy to our broken system.

First get rid of the issue manipulators who can be soundly beaten, and should be faced directly, on larger more revealing issues. Then in a reign of sanity and democracy we can remove "guns" from the hands of the mentally and morally incompetent(aka crooked politicians). ALL issue conflicts have this insane range responded to with sucker moderation and nervous voices of reason. Something as simple as a speed limit means that a hyped law debate determines how many thousands will live or die on the nation's highways. This is hardly about differing on the issues at this point. It is a fundamental war for life and liberty and that other thing. We haven't reached the point where anything good or rational dominates the discussion. To make it slide by and become a factor in this fake election(a positive choice and a suicidal negative means no real choice) is to be made the fool as enticing as it is to think about regulation to end gun violence.

[Indy Lurker]

9. We should not give up on gun violence

but we shouldn't punish or restrict people who are not committing crimes.


Currently, less than 10% of the people who fail to pass the background check (and thus more often than not lied on their form) are being prosecuted. This is a place we could reduce gun violence without impacting the law abiding.

I also recommend longer sentences for violent crimes. Over half of the people who are convicted of homicide are either on parole or probation for a violent crime. Again, this is a place we could reduce gun violence without impacting the law abiding.


As far as gun free zones go, they seem useless without some form of verification, such as metal detectors.

If someone is willing to break one of our most important laws, and kill another, I don't believe they will respect a "no firearms allowed" sign.

If you want to provide metal metal detectors, AND armed security for a given venue, be it a school, hospital, church, or stadium, I'm all for it.


If your only tool for for ensuring a venue is free of firearms is a $30 sign,




I would argue it's nearly useless.

[texshelters]

21. Thoughtful post, thanks!

Where did you get that "10%" rejected when backgrounds check information. Can you let us know.

Also, lying is why instant fingerprint checks are needed.

Tex Shelters

[Indy Lurker]

46. It's a little old

Despite 536,000 prohibited buyers caught by the National Instant Background Check,
only 6,700 people (1.25%) have been charged for these firearms violations. This includes 71%
of the violations coming from convicted or indicted felons.

---Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Firearm Offenders and Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, June 4, 2000




Half of all murders are committed by people on “conditional release” (i.e., parole or
probation).

---Robyn Cohen, “Probation and Parole Violators in State Prison, 1991: Survey of State Prison Inmates”, Bureau of Justice Statistics



81% of all homicide defendants had an arrest record; 67% had a felony arrest record; 70% had a conviction record; and 54% had a felony conviction.

---Brian Reaves, "Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1998", Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001


************************

simply arresting the half million people who are prohibited buyers caught by the National Instant Background Check would go a long way, we already have their names and addresses.

[krispos42]

11. The problem here...

Is that there is the assumption that gun control equals crime control.

Guns are a means of crime and murder, not the motive. People don't pick up a gun and say "Hey, now I can go rob a liquor store", they say "I'm going to rob a liquor store, I need to get a weapon".

I want to stop the violence. Shifting the violence from "guns" to "other" is not progress, it's the illusion of progress. To stop the motive for violence would require us to seriously look at our drug laws, tax policies, and health care system. But we won't do that. Republicans and many Democrats will not legalize drugs, institute the kind of progressive income tax that we had under Eisenhower or Kennedy, or have universal single-payer health care.

Most of the gun crime is committed by people that are either too young to buy a gun or are legally prohibited from buying a gun, which argues that having more restrictions will not do much to stop the people that are the true problem.

The problem is not that there are guns on buses, subways, or school campuses. The problem is that career violent criminals and the occasional nutjob have guns on buses, subways, and school campuses.

There is this perception that people that LEGALLY carry concealed guns (permit holders) are bloodthirty crazies just itchin' to pull out their shiny steel penis and blow some righteous holes in some evildoer. And that's simply not true. Nor is the perception that people that legally carry guns will just whip it out in public whenever they get angry an accurate one.


I think the underlying issue is that many people are reluctant, perhaps even afraid, to be responsible for their own defense. They are afraid of fighting back, perhaps because they believe it will only make the situation worse, or perhaps they believe that being part of civilized society means not learning or having the mentality that violence, even in self-defense, is okay. They find learning how to hurt people is unacceptable, uncivilized, and do not even want to think about it. And because of this, they draw very little difference between those that would use violence in an aggressive and criminal manner, and those that would use violence in a defensive and legal manner.

[slackmaster]

13. I cannot support the exercise of a civil right being contingent on a subjective judgement

Or subject to a tax or fee.

[texshelters]

26. To everyone:

The right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." It's in the Declaration of Independence, and it's important to me, and should be to you.

You seem full of fear when it comes to gun rights, but what about the right to my life, and the lives of others, to be safe, it's not important? That's crazy. I don't want random anonymous people everywhere with guns. Sure I can have a gun, but I will never be as willing or random in using it as a sociopath. Neither will most gun owners. Life is less important than guns? That seems to be what you are saying. And how happy are the families of people who get shot? Not very. If a little regulation that could lead to a lot of safety and liberty, wouldn't that increase our happiness. Are you against all taxes? What about gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc? Is complete gun freedom worth the thousands of gun deaths each year? Not for guns it's not.

You say, "someones subjective judgment". What judgment would be subjective? If someone has had a mental breakdown in their past, how is this subjective? Shouldn't they be re-evaluated after a time so their 2nd Amendment rights can be reinstated?

Tex Shelters

[slackmaster]

28. My right to own and use guns does not conflict with your rights in any way

You seem full of fear when it comes to gun rights...

Please point out anything I have ever posted on DU that makes me seem full of fear about gun rights (or anything else).

Life is less important than guns?

That's just a plain old false dilemma.

You say, "someones subjective judgment". What judgment would be subjective? If someone has had a mental breakdown in their past, how is this subjective?

We already have a federal law that says a person who has been lawfully adjudicated as mentally incompetent can't have guns.

People who have simple had some kind of mental breakdown in their past, have the same civil rights as people who have not.

[gorfle]

41. Answers...

I don't want random anonymous people everywhere with guns.

I don't know where you live, but in most states, random anonymous people everywhere do have guns. All you have to do is get a concealed carry permit.

Sure I can have a gun, but I will never be as willing or random in using it as a sociopath. Neither will most gun owners.

I don't understand what you mean here.

If a little regulation that could lead to a lot of safety and liberty, wouldn't that increase our happiness.

Regulation, by definition, restricts liberty. The question then becomes how much liberty do you wish to surrender to gain safety.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

The right to bear arms is an essential liberty. It allows the citizenry to demand and defend, by force of arms, all other rights.

Is complete gun freedom worth the thousands of gun deaths each year? Not for guns it's not.

I disagree. Given that out of 40-80 million firearm owners, less than 2% of them do bad things with them every year (search my other posts here for the data), I'd say that there is hardly any problem at all. All meaningless and criminal deaths are tragic. But since over 98% of firearm owners don't cause any problems with their firearms, it is absurd to create restrictions that affect all of them but probably won't do anything to affect the 2% who are actually a problem.


You say, "someones subjective judgment". What judgment would be subjective? If someone has had a mental breakdown in their past, how is this subjective? Shouldn't they be re-evaluated after a time so their 2nd Amendment rights can be reinstated?

From http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm
These people cannot legally own firearms:
• A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges pertaining to found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. What about the thousands of people each year who use a gun in self defense of their lives?

Do they not have the same right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."? The reasonable regulations you want in place are there. People adjudicated mentally ill are barred from owning firearms, as are convicted felons. Read the National Firearms Act of 1934, it's reasonable and I haven't seen one gun owner on here calling for it to be repealed. My guns impact you in no way whatsoever and they never will. Again I'll ask you what about the lives saved every year by privately owned firearms, are those lives less important than the lives of, most often gang members shooting other gang members? That seems to be what you are saying. You seem full of fear when it comes to guns. How many times have you been threatened or attacked with a legally possessed firearm? That is our problem, the law abiding gun owners in this country commit a small fraction of the violent gun crime. Why should we be forced to give up anything? I'll use your car argument, motor vehicle collisions cause the most accidental death in this country in terms of shear numbers and cost to society in order to reduce the number of cars on the road the government will put a $5,000 yearly registration fee on cars. The number of cars on the road will go down, child deaths due to motor vehicle collisions will all but disappear and the government will have the money to cover the costs of the injuries and deaths that do occur and as an added bonus our dependence on foreign oil will decrease. Let's say you've been driving 30 years with nary an accident, will you agree to this law? You can't argue that it will not have a huge positive affect on society, but why should you be punished you are a safe driver? I know people need to drive, but really they just need transportation. Imagine the money that would be put into mass transit, it will be inconvenient for a while, that's what is usually said to the gun owners when they say they won't be able to defend themselves. They are told it will be worth it in the long run.

David

[SteveM]

15. Respectfully, there are several problems with your proposals:

(1) Registering gun-owners is a non-starter. Simply put, if a rationale for arming yourself includes resistance to tyrannical forces, then you should not register with government which can become tyrannical.

(2) Yearly fees is a verifiable source of abuse of the Second Amendment. "They (Alabama)... asked for a resident license laws taxing every gun not less than five dollars a year... Unfortunately, a lot of white farmers were in the same range (economically) as the blacks, and being hit, too, they raised a great outcry." (Charles Askins, quoted in Recreation Magazine, May, 1909. Secondary source: Our Vanishing Wildlife, William T. Hornaday, Sc.D., New York Zoological Society, NY, 1913.) While this attempt to curb hunting is more specific than general Second Amendment rights, you can see how an attempt was made to discriminate against blacks -- until whites found themselves under the same "gun." The effort, BTW, was an attempt to outlaw the "three-dollar shotgun."

(3) Psychological testing fairly percolates with the potential for abuse. Should soldiers with PTSD be barred from the Second Amendment rights? Should someone with bi-polar condition? Someone who constantly describes women as "hos" and "bitches?" See also the history of "literacy tests" for voting in the South.

(4) Why "gun checks?" Mine work fine.

(5) You list places where you don't want guns: how do you stop them from being there? If folks are no longer legally sanctioned for bringing concealed guns to campus or anywhere else, they will have been tested and checked, including demonstrated competency at the range. This is an example of regulation already in place.

(6) You call your proposals a "system." What is the purpose of this system? To keep criminals from using firearms or to make it more difficult for the law-abiding to obtain firearms? You can actually have better success with the latter than with the former. Is this what you want?

(7) "Can you imagine the carnage?" We don't need to imagine. Killers have done the real thing in a number of places which have been quixotically termed "gun-free zones." Short of shutting down the "free university" as we know it, there may be NO WAY to prevent a killer from entering campus. And such a shut-down STILL wouldn't prevent a killer's actions.

(8) Where there may be room for discussion is the "extension" of the NICS test. A number of proposals have floated about here, including NGOs which perform background checks, then "dump" the data to protect citizens from government intrusion by registration.

(9) Are we "safer" by bringing guns where ever we go? I don't know. Some advocates of concealed-carry say we would be, though I am not convinced. But a citizen who carries a gun is not doing so to advance a "social cause" (of any body's). He/she is doing so for self-defense, an eminently personal concern.

(9) Finally, the tired shibboleth "more guns = more crime" has been disputed and defeated. Our violent crime rate has remained rather stable over the last 10-15 yrs while the number of firearms in civilian hands has gone up significantly. You don't hear this "bad math" much, now, except from the Brady's and MSM.

[texshelters]

22. So we can regulate cars

but not guns. Yes, there is a slight constitutional difference, but it seems feasible.

The psych testing would only be for people with a previous history. That could have prevented the recent NIU shootings.

Not everyones guns works fine. It was also an example: smog checks work, why not gun checks? Just a thought.

I didn't say "more gun= more crime". Sorry. Let me be clear; if you don't have a gun, and others don't, you can't be shot by one. Logical, isn't it?

We all have faith in ourselves as we carry guns around. Do you have faith in everyone else? I personally don't trust anonymous people carrying guns everywhere. That is why I suggest alternative security on campuses. And this security would be private, so there would be less worry about the jack-booted thugs. Nothing is perfect, but why is the United States so riddled with gun violence? I don't know. But I would like to know what to do.

Good point about the crime rate: the violent crime rate has been stable for sometime.

Anyway to put a brain detecting device that would render a gun harmless when carried by homicidal maniacs?

Thanks for the response without the personal attacks!

Tex Shelters

[slackmaster]

29. One more time - we do not regulate ownership of cars

We regulate the manner in which they can be used in public places.

Gun ownership is far more regulated than car ownership. Gun usage in public is very highly regulated.

[gorfle]

42. More answers.

So we can regulate cars but not guns.

Cars are only regulated when they are used on public roads. When used on private property, they are not regulated. Firearms are much the same way. On private property, there is no regulation. However, if you wish to use them in public, you must have a CCW permit.

The psych testing would only be for people with a previous history. That could have prevented the recent NIU shootings.

Really? You do realize that the NIU shooter had a previous history, right? He was involuntarily interred in a mental institution for a year. He told a friend he was discharged from the army for mental reasons. He passed no fewer than four background checks, including the check required to obtain a firearm license as Illinois requires.

Not everyones guns works fine. It was also an example: smog checks work, why not gun checks? Just a thought.

What problem would gun checks solve? Is there some rash of firearm malfunctions causing societal harm?

I didn't say "more gun= more crime". Sorry. Let me be clear; if you don't have a gun, and others don't, you can't be shot by one. Logical, isn't it?

But the fact is, others do have guns, and always will.

We all have faith in ourselves as we carry guns around. Do you have faith in everyone else? I personally don't trust anonymous people carrying guns everywhere.

This is because you have an irrational fear that people with Concealed Carry Weapons permits are somehow dangerous individuals. The fact of the matter is people with CCW permits have been shown to be many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to commit crimes than your average citizen. Additionally, people with CCW permits have been shown to be less likely to cause collateral damage while using their firearms than police officers. Feel free to search here on DU for the posts that documented these facts.

That is why I suggest alternative security on campuses. And this security would be private, so there would be less worry about the jack-booted thugs.

Yeah, just like the private security firms hired by the federal government, like, say, Blackwater, could never be used as a front for nefarious deeds.

Nothing is perfect, but why is the United States so riddled with gun violence? I don't know. But I would like to know what to do.

You are proceeding from the assumption that the United States is riddled with gun violence. Compared to the number of firearm owners in this country, there is hardly any firearm crime at all.

[gorfle]

24. Yes we should, and more replies.

Should we throw up our hands and ignore gun violence in America?

I do not believe we have "thrown up our hands and ignored gun violence in America". We have reasonable restrictions today. We have a background check on all FFL firearm sales. I would like the NICS database to be more extensive with regards to people with mental health problems, but other than that, I believe the system does a fine job of screening criminals who attempt to purchase firearms from FFL dealers.

I believe that in a free society with relatively easy access to firearms, as our founding fathers intended, there will always be a small portion of people who abuse the right to bear arms. This abuse is the price we pay for the freedom enumerated in our Constitution.

Is there a way to regulate guns that make the United States safer?

The correct question is, "Is there a way to regulate guns that make the United States safer without compromising the liberty, vision, and intent of the second amendment?"

I say: regulate guns the way we regulate cars. Every first time buyer has to pass an examination to get a gun.

You do realize, though, that I don't have to pass any examination to operate a car on private property, right? Since I only operate my firearms on private property, I think your idea is fine - no examinations required for them, only for CCW permits.

There would be a yearly gun check (like a smog check for cars) and a small registration fee. The money could be used to run the system.

You do realize, though, that cars operated on private property don't have to pass any smog checks, right?

At the time of the gun check there could be a psychological evaluation for those with a history of violence and a background check for violent crimes.

We already have this for all new firearm purchases and used purchases through FFL dealers.

Will guns in universities and schools make us safer?

Most definitely. CCW permit holders have already been demonstrated to be among the most law-abiding citizens in the nation, many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to commit crimes than your average citizen. Since they can already walk down main street, surrounded by hundreds of passers-by, why not walk around on a college campus or sit in a classroom?

No one will argue that being armed is a guarantee of safety in the face of aggression, only that it will give you a chance.

Is there a way to keep guns away from campuses so we don't need to be armed?

No.


Here's where I don't want guns:

1. Universities and schools. Those places should be for education. Use the gun registration fee to hire trained security if there is a fear of campus gun violence.

Police are almost never present during the commission of a crime - they only show up after the fact. Unless you want to payroll hundreds of thousands of campus police to sit in classrooms waiting for the exceedingly rare occasion of a school shooting, there is not much that increased police presence is going to do to affect these kinds of scenarios.

2. Hockey games or games where parents are watching kids. I don't want to see parent or referees shot.

3. Oklahoma/Texas football games, or Michigan/Ohio State for that matter. Can you imagine the carnage?

You are making the assumption that people who carry CCW permits are the type of people likely to fly off the handle and shoot people in anger. Available crime statistics for CCW permit holders does not bear this type of behavior out as being likely.

4. Airplanes. All the fear of flying could drive people insane.

I am marginal on this issue. I don't think CCW permit holders are likely to be the cause of any problems on aircraft, but firing firearms in such close quarters onboard an aircraft does seem risky to me. On the other hand, you won't find any box-cutter terrorists making a stand against a CCW permit holder, either.

5. Subways and buses.

If I can walk down a city street surrounded by hundreds of pedestrians while armed, why can't I sit on a subway or a bus?

6. I am sure I am missing some here.

I'm sure, too. :)

Where do you want guns?

What is wrong with having guns in our homes and for hunting? Is that not enough?

Are we safer bringing our guns everywhere we go?

Being armed is no guarantee of safety. Being armed gives you a chance to resist in the face of otherwise overwhelming force.

[texshelters]

27. One last thought

I have answered most of those comments elsewhere.

However, I don't assume people with guns at "hockey games" are nut jobs. I assume parents at hockey games are nut jobs, and guns give them a lethal way to respond.

Thanks!

Tex Shelters

[ManBearPig]

45. No

No we should not give up on gun violence. There are plenty of gun control laws on the books, we just have to enforce them. You see that's the problem, you can't make new gun control laws and expect a favorable result when you aren't enforcing the old ones; which is exactly what the democrats want to do everytime a shooting happens. They always want to take away guns from the people that didn't do it. Let me put it this way:

Banning law-abbiding gun owners from having guns in order to reduce crime, is like banning virgins from having sex in order to reduce prostitution.

[liberal4truth]

47. Too many gun owners are slipping by the national background checks...

so we need to make lying on the application a felony offense and prosecute these
people to the maximum penelties available, with lots of prison time included.

That will save hundreds of people from being shot to death by the NRA gun-nut crowd.

[slackmaster]

49. Ahem

Making a false statement on the federal paperwork for buying a gun is already a felony.

... and prosecute these
people to the maximum penelties available, with lots of prison time included.

Most of us RKBA folks agree with that completely.

That will save hundreds of people from being shot to death by the NRA gun-nut crowd.

Unfortunately you have been duped by propagandists into thinking the NRA people are the ones committing crimes. Violent criminals don't join organizations that cost money. They just go out and shoot people.

[ManBearPig]

50. Your Propoganda

I want to add on to what Slackmaster said about the propoganda that you believe. Your Brady Bunch is the cause of a lot of death because of the crap they put out; let me explain. They have put out so much bad information out on guns, that they make it seem like it is "naughty" to own one; that you should be ashamed of having one. This causes people, especially those who live in bad areas, to decide against buying a gun. Maybe they were thinking about getting one for home protection, but then all your lies and crap turned them away. And then what happens? They rely on 911 to get there in time only to die because they didn't have a gun to defend themselves. This is exact situation just happened recently:

http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/2608273/

Your side has warped the mind of so many people, that some think it is better to die in a home invasion than to have a gun and shoot the person. Your side is sick. Those of us that have not been corrupted by you, would have grabbed our guns first, then dialed 911. So congragulations on getting another person killed.

[iverglas]

51. well, c'mon

Your side has warped the mind of so many people, that some think it is better to die in a home invasion than to have a gun and shoot the person.

Aren't people whose minds are so easily warped into thinking that just too stupid to live anyway?

Looks like somebody's doing the gene pool a favour, I'd say.

Your side is sick. Those of us that have not been corrupted by you, would have grabbed our guns first, then dialed 911. So congragulations on getting another person killed.

You write pulp fiction for a living, right?

[L1A1Rocker]

61. But he's right.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. Iver's doesn't deal well with the facts.

Doubtful a response will be made.

David

[iverglas]

69. "Doubtful a response will be made."

You win! I'm not in the habit of talking to dead people.

L1A1Rocker

[iverglas]

70. I just love these strolls down memory lane

The night of the living dead thread is upon us once again.

To absent friends! ... or are they ...?

ManBearPig

[SteveM]

55. Y'know, one of the questions on the NICS form asks if the applicant is addicted...

to marijuana. Do you know of any marijuana addicts? Should they have "lots of prison time"? Can you define addiction in this instance and how it relates to the lawful/proper use of guns?

Or is it a prohibitionist's wet-dream to get guns AND pot on the same page?

[liberal4truth]

57. Actually, alcoholics are banned from purchasing firearms and everyone has heard over and over that

many hunting accidents and other shooting incidents are caused by mixing booze and firearms.

If many gun owners who sign these forms were truthful they would admit to having a problem with drinking alcohol to excess and seek help, instead of oftentimes using their own guns to commit suicide with.

No one with a substance abuse problem should be allowed to keep a gun, until
they are treated for their problem.

[beevul]

58. Alcoholics are banned from purchasing firearms? Since when?

When did this come to pass, and are you sure you have the facts?

[SteveM]

59. Alcohol is not on the form. And hunting accidents are very low and dropping.

[L1A1Rocker]

60. Name ONE.

[benEzra]

63. It already is.

Prosecute them.

[Tejas]

68. No, because that

would involve cracking down on the actual criminal element and the root causes, too much work for the antis. Much easier instead to attack an inanimate object held by law-abiding citizens.

:sarcasm:

[Politically Homeless]

64. Sounds good to me!

I say: regulate guns the way we regulate cars.

I just love it when the antis say this. I agree 100%

Do I need the government's permission to buy a car? No.
Do I need to buy the car from only certain people with licenses to sell cars? No.
Can I buy as many cars as I want each week/month/year? Yes
Do I have to be over a certain age to buy, own or possess a car? No (as long as it's kept on private property)
Can I buy small cars, big cars, slow cars, fast cars, cars that look dangerous? Yes
Do I need a license to buy a car? No
Do I need a license to operate a car? No (as long as I operate it on private property)
If I have a license from my state to operate a car on public property, is that license good anywhere in the country, for any car in the country? Yes.
How old do I need to be to get a license to operate a car on public property? Only 16 in most states.
Do I need to register a car that I own? No (as long as I keep it on private property)
Do I need a background check or waiting period to buy a car? No
Is my car held responsible if someone misuses it? No
Can the company that manufactured my car be sued if someone misuses it? No.
Do I need to "safe store" my car even though many are stolen and used for criminal purposes? No
Will I lose my driver's license if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not
Will I lose my right to own a car if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not

Do I really need to go on?

[TPaine7]

65. "Please no flaming. Also, we know there is a second amendment."

I find it fascinating when people say they know about, respect, or acknowledge the Second Amendment. . .

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

. . . and then go on to show what they really think about it:

Where do you want guns?

What is wrong with having guns in our homes and for hunting? Is that not enough?

Are we safer bringing our guns everywhere we go?

This is not a flame, but please explain how what I think is relevant if the highest law in the land recognizes the right of citizens to bear arms. Let's say I want guns only in homes and for hunting. Let's say I feel safer if only criminals (and the much smaller population of police) are armed in public. Should my feelings and wants overrule the Constitution that you acknowledged in your Second sentence?

[ogsbee]

73. Ha, ha, ha . . . Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

You phrase your question, "Should we give up on gun violence?" and then ask for no flames? Ever hear of a trick question?

Some of us don't think our responsibility as adults is served by clinging to and hiding behind Mommie's skirts. I hope you never experience the situation of waiting impotently for the cops to come and write up a report of a crime committed and a criminal long gone.