Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Would you have supported this? Gun Control
From the Joey Bishop Show ^ | June 18, 1968 | Charlton Heston

Posted on 02/02/2003 5:56:41 PM PST by FSPress

Here are some to the same arguments that we hear today about guns. This was a plea that helped establish the Gun Control Act of 1967. Stop and Think. Would you have supported this legislation? The person who spoke the words is today a defender of the second amendment.

TWO WEEKS AGO, ROBERT F. KENNEDY BECAME ONE OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS STRUCK DOWN BY AN ASSASSIN'S BULLET. SOMETIME TODAY, IN SOME CITY IN AMERICA, A GUN SHOT WILL RING OUT AND SOMEONE ELSE WILL FALL DEAD OR WOUNDED. THE VICTIM MAY BE A PUBLIC LEADER OR A PRIVATE CITIZEN, BUT, WHOEVER HE IS AND WHEREVER HE FALLS, HE IS NOT ONLY THE VICTIM OF THE GUNMAN....HE IS THE VICTIM OF INDIFFERENCE. THE TRAGEDY IS STARK AND REAL. THE SCARS LAST FOREVER, AND THE ULTIMATE AND SENSELESS HORROR IS THAT SO MUCH OF THIS SLAUGHTER COULD BE PREVENTED. OUR GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE SO LAX THAT ANYONE CAN BUY A WEAPON....THE MENTALLY ILL, THE CRIMINAL, THE BOY TOO YOUNG TO BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNING A DEADLY WEAPON.

THE SOUND OF THAT GUNFIRE WILL ECHO AGAIN...TOMARROW, THE DAY AFTER, AND ALL THE DAYS TO FOLLOW, UNLESS WE ACT!!! 6,300 PEOPLE ARE MURDERED EVERY YEAR WITH FIRE- ARMS IN THESE UNITED STATES. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE AND WHEN IT IS COMPARED WITH THE FAR, FAR LOWER RATES IN OTHER FREE COUNTRIES, IT IS INTOLERABLE.

LIKE MOST AMERICANS, WE SHARE THE CONVICTION THAT STRONGER GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IS MANDATORY IN THIS TRAGIC SITUATION. WE DO NOT SPEAK FROM IGNORENCE OF FIREARMS. THE FIVE OF US COUNT OURSELVES AMONG THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO RESPECT THE PRIVILEGE OF OWNING GUNS AS SPORTSMEN OR AS PRIVATE COLLECTORS. WE HAVE USED GUNS ALL OUR LIVES BUT THE PROPER USE OF GUNS IN PRIVATE HANDS IS NOT TO KILL PEOPLE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CONGRESS HAS RECENTLY GIVEN US SOME PROTECTION AGAINST PISTOLS IN THE WRONG HANDS. BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH....NOT NEARLY ENOUGH, THE CARNAGE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THERE IS EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER THE SALE OF RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS.

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE. MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE. MEDGAR EVERS WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE.

NOT LONG AGO, A DEMENTED SNIPER PERCHED ON A TOWER AND KILLED FOURTEEN PEOPLE IN COLD BLOOD......BY RIFLE. FOR MANY LONG MONTHS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS ASKED THE CONGRESS TO PASS SUCH A LAW... BUT THE CONGRESS WILL NOT LISTEN UNLESS YOU, THE VOTER, SPEAKS OUT....UNLESS THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY RISE UP AND DEMAND THAT THE CONGRESS GIVE US A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL LAW.

THE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN INTRODUCED. IN THE SENATE, IT IS S-3633. IN THE HOUSE IT IS HR-)7735.

THIS BILL IS NO MYSTERY. LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT IT. IT'S PURPOSE IS SIMPLE AND DIRECT. IT IS NOT TO DEPRIVE THE SPORTSMAN OF HIS HUNTING GUN, THE MARKSMAN OF HIS TARGET RIFLE, NOR WOULD IT DENY TO ANY RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN HIS CONSTI- TUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM. IT IS TO PREVENT THE MURDER OF AMERICANS. IT CONTAINS THREE SENSIBLE AND REALISTIC RULES.

FIRST, IT WILL OUTLAW THE MAIL ORDER SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES. IF THIS LAW WERE IN FORCE SEVERAL YEARS AGO, IT MIGHT HAVE STOPPED LEE HARVEY OSWALD FROM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUYING THE HIGH-POWERED RIFLE HE USED TO MURDER PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY. EACH YEAR ONE MILLION RIFLES ARE SOLD THROUGH THE MAILS.

SECOND, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO MINORS - PEOPLE TOO YOUNG TO BEAR THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY PLACED IN THE HANDS OF A GUN OWNER.

THIRD, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO STRANGERS. PEOPLE WHO DRIFT ACROSS STATE LINES, TOO OFTEN WITHOUT CREDENTIALS, BUY THESE WEAPONS, AS EASILY AS THEY BUY CIGARETTES AND CANDY. THE STATES WHICH HAVE STRONG GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL BE PROTECTED.

WE URGE YOU, AS A RESPONSIBLE, SENSIBLE AND CONCERNED CITIZEN, TO WRITE OR WIRE YOUR SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN IMMEDIATELY AND DEMAND THEY SUPPORT THESE BILLS. IN THE SENATE, IT IS BILL S-3633. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IT IS BILL HR-17735.

IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY....IN THE NAME OF CONSCIENCE....FOR THE COMMON SAFETY OF US ALL.... FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA, WE MUST ACT....IT IS UP TO YOU....YOU ALONE AND THE TIME IS NOW.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: banglist; copernicus5
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last
This is not about Heston, it is about us. Would you support this bill? The murder rate was low when this bill was enacted into law. The rate rose to very high levels in the years following.
1 posted on 02/02/2003 5:56:41 PM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
bang
2 posted on 02/02/2003 6:05:23 PM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
Proving, in person, that you are a responsible law abiding adult citizen before you can purchase a firearm does not, IMO, violated the Constitution and is, indeed, a worthy aim.

That being said, it would have done nothing to stop Lee Harvey Oswald, Charles Whitman, Sirhan-Sirhan or James Earl Ray.

3 posted on 02/02/2003 6:08:45 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
These laws only stop or inconvenience those who obey them. Those who seek a firearm for a criminal purpose can always get them. If your aim is to deny firearms to those who don't obey the law then make the sure they stay in jail.
4 posted on 02/02/2003 6:16:55 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Proving, in person, that you are a responsible law abiding adult citizen before you can purchase a firearm does not, IMO, violated the Constitution and is, indeed, a worthy aim.

Should one also have to prove he is a "responsible law abiding adult citizen" before being allowed to speak, worship, assemble, remain silent, be free from unreasonable searches, or from cruel and unusual punishements?

That being said, it would have done nothing to stop Lee Harvey Oswald, Charles Whitman, Sirhan-Sirhan or James Earl Ray.

If you admit such laws won't stop these sorts of things, then what is it you are attempting to accomplish by supporting them anyway?

5 posted on 02/02/2003 6:17:51 PM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Proving, in person, that you are a responsible law abiding adult citizen before you can purchase a firearm does not, IMO, violated the Constitution and is, indeed, a worthy aim.

If the government dealt with serious law breakers to start with, they wouldn't be buying guns since they'd all be hanging from ropes or busting rocks.

This is a classic case of the Hegelian Dialectic at work. Problem, reaction, solution. The gov't creates (through action or inaction) a problem, manipulates the public reaction, and finally proposes a solution which involves more government and higher taxes. Not only this, but their "solution" leads to another "problem", starting the cycle again.

6 posted on 02/02/2003 6:23:18 PM PST by Mulder (Guns and chicks rule)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Proving, in person, that you are a responsible law abiding adult citizen before you can purchase a firearm does not, IMO, violated the Constitution and is, indeed, a worthy aim

The Constitutional issue is known as "prior restraint" alternatively understood as "guilty until proven innocent" and is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

History is littered with examples of government arbitrarily and capricously assuming guilt and acting on that presumed guilt with extreme prejudice.

One oft referenced example is, of course, the policies of the duly elected German Government toward various segments of their population such as Jews, Gypsies and other non Aryan people.

The possession of armament by the general population (including military weapons such as shoulder fired missiles and various explosives-grenades,land mines etc.) is intended as a check and a balance on the capability of a Government to wage war on its own population.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

7 posted on 02/02/2003 6:26:27 PM PST by Copernicus (A Constitutional Republic revolves around Sovereign Citizens, not citizens around government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
This clown is a 'if-it-feels-good' type, who is not real sure that everyone is entitled to defend themselves. I think only people who can draw a graph of a quadradic equation should be allowed to vote. Seems reasonable to me. Each prospective voter is given a computer generated equation, and a piece of paper. Three tries of entering either of the answers, and the curtain opens and a horn goes off, announcing to the world that another liberal has failed...
8 posted on 02/02/2003 6:28:33 PM PST by jonascord (Fie on leftist quotes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE. MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE. MEDGAR EVERS WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE.

This language is suspect and prejudicial as well as inflammatory and inaccurate, in other words: propaganda.

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS MURDERED BY A rifleman. MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS MURDERED BY A rifleman. MEDGAR EVERS WAS MURDERED BY A rifleman.

Best regards,

9 posted on 02/02/2003 6:32:18 PM PST by Copernicus (A Constitutional Republic revolves around Sovereign Citizens, not citizens around government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Do you think a child should be able to walk into Wal-Mart (alone) and purchase a sidearm?
Should an Amazon.com computer ship out an order for a high-powered rifle to any address?

Any rational, adult non-felon shall not have his or her right to keep and bear arms infringed in any manner.

Proving that you are the person you claim to be (with no record of the transaction required to kept on any file or computer) is not unreasonable.

Will it do much good?
I doubt it.

About a month before Whitman's Texas Tower adventure, Richard Speck strangled 8 nurses in Chicago.

But neither do I see it doing any harm.

If you have a convincing arguement otherwise, or can show a violation of the 2nd Amendment, I'm all ears.

10 posted on 02/02/2003 6:41:09 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
This is a classic case of the Hegelian Dialectic at work. Problem, reaction, solution. The gov't creates (through action or inaction) a problem, manipulates the public reaction, and finally proposes a solution which involves more government and higher taxes. Not only this, but their "solution" leads to another "problem", starting the cycle again.

Very well said, but after reading it a second time I think this statement could be modernized/improved as follows:

This is a classic case of the Democratic Party at work. Problem, reaction, solution. The gov't creates (through action or inaction) a problem, manipulates the public reaction, and finally proposes a solution which involves more government and higher taxes. Not only this, but their "solution" leads to another "problem", starting the cycle again.

11 posted on 02/02/2003 6:46:54 PM PST by greydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus
The possession of armament by the general population (including military weapons such as shoulder fired missiles and various explosives-grenades,land mines etc.) is intended as a check and a balance on the capability of a Government to wage war on its own population.

I agree with that.

I will research "Prior Restraint" but I would think the Founders meant that you must be of, at least, "militia" age. I would also think that being neither crazy nor criminal could be assumed.

12 posted on 02/02/2003 6:50:49 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus
You are so right.

I have many rifles, none of which can aim and fire themselves. Guns are good, some people are bad. Lock up the bad people or execute them. Elementary social science.
13 posted on 02/02/2003 6:51:21 PM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Do you think a child should be able to walk into Wal-Mart (alone) and purchase a sidearm?

This was the law of the land prior to 1968; the country somehow managed to survive nearly 200 years with this policy. If anyone should have a say, it's the parents who have the legal responsibility for their own children.

Should an Amazon.com computer ship out an order for a high-powered rifle to any address?

Again this was the law of the land prior to 1968. How could we have possibly made it this far?

Any rational, adult non-felon shall not have his or her right to keep and bear arms infringed in any manner.

Having to prove that oneself is not a criminal is an infringement ... you didn't answer my questions but instead are asking me some of your own. Should people have to prove who they are to worship or speak freely?

Proving that you are the person you claim to be (with no record of the transaction required to kept on any file or computer) is not unreasonable.

Well that's nice, though I disagree, but it certainly isn't what we have now: the "background check" includes make, model, and serial numbers of guns purchased - full blown registration.

Will it do much good? I doubt it.

I ask again: then why do you support it?

About a month before Whitman's Texas Tower adventure, Richard Speck strangled 8 nurses in Chicago.

S#it happens. Good thing the police were able to solicit the assistance of deer hunters to pin the guy down while they rushed him, no? Even if they hadn't, gun control wouldn't have stopped this guy, as you yourself admit. So why support it?

But neither do I see it doing any harm.

I do, it's a privacy violation. Why should I have to prove who I am, because the government releases people into society, to live among us, that it does not trust with guns?

If you have a convincing arguement otherwise,

I don't need one, you yourself admit the laws don't do work.

or can show a violation of the 2nd Amendment, I'm all ears.

If you were to look up "right" "people" "not" and "infringed" you could probably figure out the violations all by yourself. But knowing that violations occur is a far cry from having a court rule a law unconstitutional. I presume this is what you actually mean when asking me to "show" a violation. They're there, they're just not recognized (yet).

14 posted on 02/02/2003 6:55:05 PM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Modern media has taught people well. Childern did buy guns at that time. I wonder what harm came to them. Sears and Roebuck would ship you that high-powered rifle, no questions asked. If this has been so effective, why arn't the criminals completely without guns today. Maybe it's bacuse there needs to be more, stronger laws with stiffer penalties to really get the message across. All infringement does harm!
15 posted on 02/02/2003 6:56:46 PM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: greydog
This is a classic case of the Democratic Party at work.

The corruption has overtaken both parties.

Those few in the Republican party calling for a real reduction in government and taxes and now referred to as the "fringe" element of the party.

16 posted on 02/02/2003 7:01:30 PM PST by Mulder (Guns and chicks rule)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
By the way there is a record that is kept on file and can be reviewed at any time. Form 4473, that you fill out to prove that you are a good person, goes into the files for 20 years. If the BATF wants to see it, they can. When the business closes those forms still on file are required to be shipped to the BATF. As the clerk at Sears said in 1968, "this is gun registration!"
17 posted on 02/02/2003 7:01:37 PM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Who is to set the standard for rational?

This is mostly a two part problem:

1. Known criminals are released from jail too soon.

2. The 2nd Amendment provides protection to the individual(unless you are a fan of the 9th District Court)for the right to keep and bear arms.

If you were to reverse either one of these statements, which would be most effective in preventing the use of firearms for crime?

Is this supposed to be a free country, or a controlled populace. Freedom suffers everytime Big Brother oversees another part of the individual's life. If the regulaion of gun sales is "not unreasonable" (your words)yet inaffective, ("I doubt it"(your words again)), why do you choose to support it?

If I was to set the standard for rational, YOU would not legally own guns.
18 posted on 02/02/2003 7:12:11 PM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
Heston supported gun control in 1968.

I would have supported gun control in 1968.

In 1968, the research into the effectiveness of gun control was so limited that it was possible to honestly believe that gun control might work.

That is no longer the case - that gun control doesn't reduce violent crime is no longer an open question. You can only support gun control through willful ignorance or intentional duplicity.

Heston has learned better, since 1968.

So have I.

So have most of us.
19 posted on 02/02/2003 7:16:49 PM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Still, I'll place my bets on my party.

You stated "The corruption has overtaken both parties", which is quite correct IMO.

One can only hope that the "Peter Principle" in politics has not grown so far as to justify the cleaning of the muskets.

20 posted on 02/02/2003 7:19:42 PM PST by greydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jdege
I understand why you posted what you did since on your home page you say you are a recovering liberal. But now, knowing what you know about gun controls ineffectiveness, would you support the repeal of all parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act?
21 posted on 02/02/2003 7:25:51 PM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Excellent reply!

A lack of responsibility on the government's part to lock up the real criminals (and keep them locked up) does not constitute an obligation on my part to convince anyone that I (or my children) "deserve" to have a firearm!!!

TC
22 posted on 02/02/2003 7:26:25 PM PST by USMC_tangocharlie (si vis pacem, parabellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Should one also have to prove he is a "responsible law abiding adult citizen" before being allowed to speak, worship, assemble, remain silent, be free from unreasonable searches, or from cruel and unusual punishements?

Sweet. This reply's gotta a hemi.

23 posted on 02/02/2003 7:26:41 PM PST by budwiesest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
WE URGE YOU, AS A RESPONSIBLE, SENSIBLE AND CONCERNED CITIZEN, TO WRITE OR WIRE YOUR SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN IMMEDIATELY AND DEMAND THEY SUPPORT THESE BILLS. IN THE

SENATE, IT IS BILL S-3633. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IT IS BILL HR-17735.

IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY....IN THE NAME OF CONSCIENCE....FOR THE COMMON SAFETY OF US ALL.... FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA, WE MUST ACT....IT IS UP TO YOU....YOU ALONE AND THE TIME IS NOW.

IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY? [bite me] FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA, WE MUST ACT [Yes you must ] act like idiots that is !

IT IS UP TO YOU....YOU ALONE AND THE TIME IS NOW. [ Thats right its time to scrap unconstitutional laws and unconstitutional congressmen and lawmakers who pass them the time is now for ACTION not just to act like its happening. ]

24 posted on 02/02/2003 7:27:31 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (The Fellowship of Conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greydog
Actually if you will go to the second amendment law libray and read the articles on the 1968 gun control act. One that was passed over several years in three different parts it was not really passed for crime control. It was driven by the gun manufactures to increase their profits. There is still a group of manufactures that are behind closing the gun show loop hole, severly regulating private sales etc because it causes people to buy new firearms. Gives the companies more control over the sellers of their product. Think about it. That will probably be our downfall. I believe only the USSC can save the 2nd. I just don't know if they will. Unless enough citizens will march and protest for this right as they did during the civil rights marches. I hope citizens will but I just don't know. I guess I'll just be an outlaw or my children will be.
25 posted on 02/02/2003 7:34:39 PM PST by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
I would not support repeal of all parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The restrictions on individuals convicted of crimes of violence are reasonable.
26 posted on 02/02/2003 7:35:15 PM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Any rational, adult non-felon shall not have his or her right to keep and bear arms infringed in any manner.

Adult? OK, - that a reasonable regulation on the rkba's.
Forbidding ex-felons? They shouldn't be 'ex' if they are still dangerous to society.
Rational? To give our government the power to determine the 'rationality' of non-dangerous persons is a non-rational act in itself.

Proving that you are the person you claim to be (with no record of the transaction required to kept on any file or computer) is not unreasonable. Will it do much good? I doubt it.
But neither do I see it doing any harm. If you have a convincing arguement otherwise, or can show a violation of the 2nd Amendment, I'm all ears.

The 'harm' is in allowing ~any~ level of government to exceed 'reasonable' regulations on our rights.
We allowed the feds to so exceed in both the 1934 & 1968 gun control 'acts', and we are now reaping the whirlwind in not only unreasonable fed/regs, but in CA., a state totally out of control.

27 posted on 02/02/2003 7:39:02 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
#5 - Dito!

Maybe its the high altitude and thin, clean, air that helps us to think so clearly?
28 posted on 02/02/2003 7:41:56 PM PST by PatrioticAmerican (Let's all pay our fair share...make the poor pay taxes! They pay nothing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
If anyone should have a say, it's the parents who have the legal responsibility for their own children.

If they wish to buy one for their child, more power to them.
But they should be prepare to be culpable for the child's actions

Having to prove that oneself is not a criminal is an infringement ...

I did not say that.
I said you had to prove that you were you.

you didn't answer my questions but instead are asking me some of your own

Socratic method.
BTW...you didn't answer mine.
Do you think that "children" in South Central LA should be able to walk into a store and purchase a gun?

Should people have to prove who they are to worship or speak freely?

Neither worship nor (non-slanderous) speech interfere's with another's right. Death does.

Well that's nice, though I disagree, but it certainly isn't what we have now: the "background check" includes make, model, and serial numbers of guns purchased - full blown registration.

And I'm against it....thus my statement.

I ask again: then why do you support it?

I didn't say I supported it...just that I didn't see that it violates the 2nd.

I do, it's a privacy violation.

That right was found in the "preumbra" that allowed Roe v Wade.
You sure you want to go down that road?

Why should I have to prove who I am, because the government releases people into society, to live among us, that it does not trust with guns?

Because S$%t happens.
Now I am not coming at this from a bleeding-heart frame of mind.
I have NO sympathy for criminals and think incarceration should be both longer and tougher. I made my peace with 'vengeance as justice a long time ago.

But in this case, I will take the old "Government is the people" argument and say "it's a good thing" to try and attempt to lessen the cases of children, criminals, and nutcases having guns.... as long as it does not violate the 2nd.

29 posted on 02/02/2003 7:44:47 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jdege
Have the restrictions prevented felons from getting guns? Remember your orginal post.
30 posted on 02/02/2003 7:50:18 PM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
You see ~no~ violations of the 2nd in any current federal or state gun laws?
31 posted on 02/02/2003 7:52:22 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; Blue Collar Christian
Rational? To give our government the power to determine the 'rationality' of non-dangerous persons is a non-rational act in itself.

You both have me on this point.
Shall we amend it that to "criminally insane" as found in a court of law, and/or as to be found so incompetent as to be under the care of a legally appointed guardian?

32 posted on 02/02/2003 7:56:30 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
The point behind forbidding guns to convicted felons isn't to keep them from getting guns, but to provide a fast and effective way of putting them back in jail should they return to a life of violence and crime.
33 posted on 02/02/2003 7:59:39 PM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You see ~no~ violations of the 2nd in any current federal or state gun laws?

I see no violations in the proposed laws at the top of this thread.
MOST gun laws today are in violation, but that's not the premise of this thread.

As I stated in a subsequent post, I find that restricting of the TYPE of firearm to a citizen to be a violation of the 2nd.

34 posted on 02/02/2003 8:02:30 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
I own a large property in NY - family cabin, etc.

In VA, I have an absolute right to carry a handgun openly (where I live), and a permit to carry a handgun concealed.

In NY, I am not, as a non-state-resident, permitted to carry a handgun at all.

You may not think this is an infringement: I do. I invite you to confront a 400-lb. bear in the woods, sans gun, thirty miles from a neighbor.

Note that carrying a long gun on skis is problomatic.

35 posted on 02/02/2003 8:07:30 PM PST by patton (Killing babies is murder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
You then would support the repeal of the 1934 NFA which provided for restrictions on automatic weapons and the act during Reagan's time which stopped the additon of new NFA arms into the registry.
36 posted on 02/02/2003 8:12:31 PM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Rational? To give our government the power to determine the 'rationality' of non-dangerous persons is a non-rational act in itself.

You both have me on this point. Shall we amend it that to "criminally insane" as found in a court of law, and/or as to be found so incompetent as to be under the care of a legally appointed guardian?

Here's the real problem with 'regulating' sales of weapons. It gives the state the ability to, in effect, prohibit person to person transfers, as per existing CA law. -- I cannot legally give my adult grandson a gun. It must be a registered transaction thru a licensed dealer.
This violates a number of my constitutional rights to property [see 14th], as well as the 2nd.

37 posted on 02/02/2003 8:18:49 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: patton
You may not think this is an infringement:

I most certainly do!

The point at the top of the thread was the method of purchasing guns.
Inconvenienced is not necessarily infringed.

38 posted on 02/02/2003 8:23:07 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
You then would support the repeal of the 1934 NFA which provided for restrictions on automatic weapons and the act during Reagan's time which stopped the additon of new NFA arms into the registry.

Yes I would.

39 posted on 02/02/2003 8:24:09 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jdege
Just to be clear. They return to a life of crime, commit a rape, for instance, and since they are in possession of a gun get convicted both with rape and possession of a gun. Why not just pass a law that states that a felon may not own or be in possession a car?

Law abiding citizens get to undergo a background check to prove that they are not a felon.
40 posted on 02/02/2003 8:25:51 PM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Ah. I have noticed that you would restrict gun ownership to adults?

I gave the .22 to my 12-yr-old, that my dad gave to me when I was twelve.

So far, no deaths. But he can chase a golfball for miles!

41 posted on 02/02/2003 8:27:26 PM PST by patton (Killing babies is murder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
FIRST, IT WILL OUTLAW THE MAIL ORDER SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECOND, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO MINORS - PEOPLE TOO YOUNG TO BEAR THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY PLACED IN THE HANDS OF A GUN OWNER.

THIRD, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO STRANGERS. PEOPLE WHO DRIFT ACROSS STATE LINES, TOO OFTEN WITHOUT CREDENTIALS, BUY THESE WEAPONS, AS EASILY AS THEY BUY CIGARETTES AND CANDY. THE STATES WHICH HAVE STRONG GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL BE PROTECTED.

I see no violations in the proposed laws at the top of this thread.
MOST gun laws today are in violation, but that's not the premise of this thread. As I stated in a subsequent post, I find that restricting of the TYPE of firearm to a citizen to be a violation of the 2nd.

I think you need to look closer at your premises & what you 'see' as gun control.

42 posted on 02/02/2003 8:29:58 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
(by the way, VERBOTTEN is pretty much tantamount to an infringement, inconvenience, whatever)
43 posted on 02/02/2003 8:31:03 PM PST by patton (Killing babies is murder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I cannot legally give my adult grandson a gun.

Of course that is insane.

This thread's point is about purchasing firearms which I think can fall under the commerce clause.

44 posted on 02/02/2003 8:31:57 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: patton
Ah. I have noticed that you would restrict gun ownership to adults? (emphasis mine)

NO....gun purchasing.
If YOU wish to go with him and purchase it for him, I have no problem.

45 posted on 02/02/2003 8:36:13 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: patton
(by the way, VERBOTTEN is pretty much tantamount to an infringement, inconvenience, whatever)

That I ask that you present yourself in person, rather that ordering over the phone (or by computer, or by mail) is NOT unreasonable, IMO.

46 posted on 02/02/2003 8:41:04 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Oh, goody. Because I just promised him a ......"SNIPER RIFLE"

Deal is, he has to buy the optics, then we negotiate on the firepower.

This is going to be fun!

47 posted on 02/02/2003 8:41:15 PM PST by patton (Killing babies is murder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
You're dancing...

EVERY,AND I SAY AGAIN, EVERY NATIONAL OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT HAS REGISTERED EITHER GUNS OR GUN OWNERS, HAS, AT SOME TIME LATER ON, CONFISCATED THE GUNS. I offer, as evidence, Britain, Chicago, Australia, New York, California, Germany, Russia. And we all know how successful THAT has been.

You seem to be entirely oblivious to what is happening right across our border in Canada. The million, (sorry, Billion!) dollar program that turned millions of honest citizens into lawbreakers and felons, overnight.

Neither worship nor (non-slanderous) speech interferes with another's right. Death does. I'm sure the millions at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Bergan-Belsen, Maulthausen, Waco, the WTC, will take comfort that YOU don't think religion is hazardous to your health. History, unfortunately, says otherwise.

If anyone should have a say, it's the parents who have the legal responsibility for their own children. If they wish to buy one for their child, more power to them. But they should be prepare to be culpable for the child's actions. Until 1968, they were. Then, the idea came along that, was ANYTHING really worthy of blame?

Do you think that "children" in South Central LA should be able to walk into a store and purchase a gun?

Yes. Perhaps, just perhaps, since the only ones with guns are the gang-bangers, a little competition might be good for them. The LAPD sure hasn't done a whole lot of good. Maybe a modern version of the Earp Brothers is what's needed.

I didn't say I supported it...just that I didn't see that it violates the 2nd.

The wording of the 2nd says "...Shall Not Be Infringed." I, personally don't see a lot of wiggle room. Not "mostly shall not", or "in large part shall not..."

But in this case, I will take the old "Government is the people" argument and say "it's a good thing" to try and attempt to lessen the cases of children, criminals, and nutcases having guns.... as long as it does not violate the 2nd.

Based on that thinking, shouldn't anyone crazy enough to actually ENLIST in the USMC be barred from ever having a gun? They KNOW that they might have to land on some hostile foreign shore, and shoot people, and they ACTUALLY ASK to go! They spend weeks of training, pushed to the absolute limits of personal ability, so they can kill strangers. And what's worst, an 18 year old has a pistol. Obviously there is some sort of disconnect here.

48 posted on 02/02/2003 8:42:19 PM PST by jonascord (Fie on Marxist quotes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
"....high-powered rifle...."

Please define that. Also include 'low-powered rifle' and 'medium powdered rifle'.

In most places those buzz words, along with 'arsenals', 'semi-autos', 'uzi's', assault weapons, etc. are only used by the anti-gun crowd in their attempts to inflame emotion. Our side should be more selective and precise with words.

49 posted on 02/02/2003 8:44:20 PM PST by Buffalo Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Er, um, eddie - presenting myself in person in NY does not allow me to own a handgun.

Hell, owning hundreds of acres of property does not, either.

you drunk, boy? 'cause you ain't makin' any sense.

50 posted on 02/02/2003 8:44:37 PM PST by patton (Killing babies is murder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson