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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-113 next last
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
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
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.
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)
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
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
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
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!)
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.
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
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
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?
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
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.
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)
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
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
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.
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.
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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-113 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson