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

click here to read article


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

I still see no problem with this.

THE STATES WHICH HAVE STRONG GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL BE PROTECTED.

THIS I don't like, but that is an ex post facto and has no bearing on the proposed sales restrictions.

51 posted on 02/02/2003 8:48:08 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
This thread's point is about purchasing firearms which I think can fall under the commerce clause


"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."

The above is the threads point. IE - Appeasement.
--- Heston has admitted that his stance was wrong, that caving to government 'commerce clause' excuses to over-regulate our rkba's is/was a basic mistake.
52 posted on 02/02/2003 8:49:19 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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

I'm not arguing NY's law. Just the ones at the top of the thread and as to their Constitutionality

53 posted on 02/02/2003 8:52:25 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
Requiring law abiding citizens to prove anything is unacceptable.

But imposing restrictions on those who have been found guilty of violent crimes bothers me not at all.

54 posted on 02/02/2003 8:52:25 PM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: patton
This is going to be fun!

Knock yourself out.
I got my father's .22 and my Grandfather's 12 gauge when I turned twelve.
No problem with that.

55 posted on 02/02/2003 8:54:03 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: jonascord
Obviously there is some sort of disconnect here.

Obviously.

I am not talking about corrupt governments (that's another topic) but the about the document that outlines ours.

Make your case that "not infringed" is the same as "completely unfettered".

56 posted on 02/02/2003 8:57:57 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

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

The last good democrat, at least at the national level, was Larry McDonald. The communists murdered him, and the party has been run by totalitarians since then.

There are still plenty of good Republicans at the local levels and even a few in Washington. The party leadership, however, has been taken over by the liberal eastern establishment.

Neither of the parties, at the top, believe in individual Rights or limited government. The last 15 years have proven this beyond any doubt.

57 posted on 02/02/2003 8:59:03 PM PST by Mulder (Guns and chicks rule)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
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

You are changing the premise, which was: should kids be able to buy guns themselves? and my answer is yes, unless prohibited by their parents. (In which case the matter is between parent and offspring, not government and anyone.) It is already the case that parents are legally responsible for their children's behavior, and I would support laws that hold parents criminally responsible for underage children, in the case that the children can not be charged.

I said you had to prove that you were you.

That is, of course, the same thing. The only reason you would care that I were me is so you don't accidentally sell a gun to a criminal. Right? Or is there some other motivation other than registration that I cannot discern?

Socratic method.

The Socratic Method is that you ignore the other person's questions and continue to press your own?

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?

As a matter of fact, I did answer that question. I said: "If anyone should have a say, it's the parents who have the legal responsibility for their own children." To be more explicit, yes, I do think children in South Central LA should be able to buy guns, except those in prison. (And the ones who belong there should remain there.) I'm not a racist, if that's what you're getting at, who would disarm black kids in urban areas. Are you? Would you? I differ with both the KKK and the NAACP in that regard. They both think people shouldn't sell guns to blacks. (The former for obvious reasons, the latter because "blacks are inordinately victimized by gun violence, which is why gun sales should be curtailed.") I disagree.

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

... which is why murder is criminal. But gun ownership does not equal murder. I own guns, yet they haven't killed anyone by themselves, and I haven't used them to kill anyone. Can you see the difference? People are not gagged going into theaters in order to prevent them from shouting fire. If they were to do so, we all agree they can't cite any First Amendment protection. But they do not face prior restraint. Yet you apparently presume that the only possible reason people would buy a gun is to go on a killing spree (which I think we all can agree there is no Second Amendment right to do) and for this reason you wish to restrict gun purchases?

>>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.

On the contrary, you stated: 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's support. I assert that destroying anonymity in gun transaction is a nefarious aim. Period.

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

Yes. Besides that, it also goes down the Fourth Amendment road, being free from unreasonable searches without a warrant.

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.

That's all well and good, but I still resent having to prove my identity to purchase guns, and having them registered with the ATF.

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.

In other words, you can't understand the Second Amendment. Any infringement is a violation of the Second.

On another note, from the article: THE STATES WHICH HAVE STRONG GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL BE PROTECTED.

Now, more than 30 years later, the results are in and in fact the opposite is true: those places with the strongest gun control laws have the highest violent crime rates. This fact alone ought to serve as the basis for repealing the lot of them, even if we didn't have a Second Amendment or any kind of PKBA at all. The laws were sold to us as ways to reduce crime and they have miserably failed. Get rid of them!

58 posted on 02/02/2003 9:01:46 PM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
No.
59 posted on 02/02/2003 9:02:59 PM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Head
Please define that. Also include 'low-powered rifle' and 'medium powdered rifle'.

Immaterial.
I stated further down the thread that you should be able to own anything you wish.
A bazooka's fine with me.
I just don't think that any schmoe should be able to get one online.

60 posted on 02/02/2003 9:05:05 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
I didn't support it then, and I do not support it now.
61 posted on 02/02/2003 9:10:02 PM PST by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Problem is, eddie, if I wanted to I could make one.

And I am stoooopid about these things - the Afghans made them for years. It was a cottage industry.

Think about it.

62 posted on 02/02/2003 9:13:32 PM PST by patton (Killing babies is murder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: All
It may be that those who find 'penumbras' in the commerce clause, --- for gun regulation, --- can find in these same legal fictions a 'right' by governments to prohibit most anything. Hmmmmmmmmm?

Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820965/posts
63 posted on 02/02/2003 9:13:43 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: patton
Think about it.

I haven't disagreed with a single thing you've said.

64 posted on 02/02/2003 9:15:31 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
jonascord;
Obviously there is some sort of disconnect here.


Obviously.
I am not talking about corrupt governments (that's another topic) but the about the document that outlines ours.
Make your case that "not infringed" is the same as "completely unfettered".
56 -ew-

Make yours that there is some penumbra in the commerce clause that allows the '68 GCA to infringe upon the clear words of the 2nd.
65 posted on 02/02/2003 9:24:12 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
If memory serves me correct, when Lyndon B. Johnson signed that travesty(the 1968 gun control act) into law he made this statement:
"Today we make America safe by taking guns out of the hands of criminals."

Before the ink was dry the anti-gunners wanted more.
1972 "We only want to ban saturday night specials."
1978 "We only want to ban all handguns. Rifles and shotguns will not be affected."

1981 "The NRA is a rifle organization! They should give up their handguns and they can keep their rifles!"..Lee Grant on Good Morning America.
1981 From HCI. "We only want to control handguns. Long guns will not be affected!"

1986 "We only want to ban handguns and Assault Rifles. Sporting rifles will not be affected."
1989 "We want to ban all handguns and all semi-automatic firearms. Sporting rifles will not be affected."
Need more?
They lied to us in 1963.
They lied to us in 1968.
They lied to us in 1972.
They lied to us in 1978.
They lied to us in 1981.
They lied to us in 1986.
They lied to us in 1989 and they are lieing to you now!

66 posted on 02/02/2003 9:24:54 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
I know a man who had a felony conviction from 1940. He left the scene of an accident. The accident was not his fault. He was forgiven by everyone, BUT because he left the scene he was given 3 years in the pen.
Upon completion of his time he joined the military, was sent to Patton's 3rd army, given an M1 and shot his way across Europe.
He got an honourable discharge, married and raised 3 children. He later bought his children their first rifle, a Springfield .22.
Then in 1968 LBJ decided the old man was no longer to be trusted with firearms because of his 1940 felony.
Was it fair? When they needed for him to shoot his way across Europe no one complained-until 1968.
There are many others who have been denied their rights due to fistfights and other minor brawls back in the dark ages but have not been a problem since.
67 posted on 02/02/2003 9:38:48 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Make yours that there is some penumbra in the commerce clause that allows the '68 GCA to infringe upon the clear words of the 2nd

The Constitution states that you have a RKBA.
That you are not allowed to purchase them IN ANY WAY YOU SEE FIT, does not infringe on that right, as long as there is no undue impediment to your aquiring the gun.

68 posted on 02/02/2003 9:41:58 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Until 1934, "shall not be infringed" meant the same as "unfettered". That's when, in case you've forgotten, our first Socialist President decided to disarm the revolutionaries who were at that time literally camped on his doorstep. See the "Bonus Army" for further data.

The "Taking guns from criminals" was so much smoke and misdirection. Bonnie and Clyde stole BAR machine guns from a NG armory, because they never made enough robbing banks and grocery stores to buy them over the counter. At least Capone bought his from a dealer, (he could afford it, what with dealing illegal drugs and all. That could open a WOD rant, but I'm tired.)

Corrupt government only started to affect the population when Democrats, "for their own good" , started to do a clog dance on the Bill of Rights. They've been at it ever since. The Republicans do it to, but they really lack a true enthusiasm for it. The are still wisps of guilt floating around the GOP.

69 posted on 02/02/2003 9:46:05 PM PST by jonascord (Fie on Marxist quotes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
tpaine:
Make yours that there is some penumbra in the commerce clause that allows the '68 GCA to infringe upon the clear words of the 2nd


The Constitution states that you have a RKBA.
That you are not allowed to purchase them IN ANY WAY YOU SEE FIT, does not infringe on that right, as long as there is no undue impediment to your aquiring the gun.
68 -ew-

I see fit to have my brother in Minnesota send me [in CA] a Mdl 12 shotgun my father owned.
-- Under the 'law' you support, both of us would be felons, if he did so.

Is that enough of an 'undue impediment' to you?
70 posted on 02/02/2003 10:01:54 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
And, by the way, are Marines crazy? If uncivilized behavior and violent expectations are your criteria for insanity, an 18 year old Marine is about as close as you can get in this country. If a Drill Sergeant told a boot to back a bus over a baby, somewhere around Week 6, that boot wouldn't blink an eye or take a deep breath.

Back in the mid 90's, at MCB 29 Palms, a Navy head candler, to support his doctoral thesis, polled the enlisted Marines on base to find out whether they would be willing to go house-to-house, in the US, confiscating guns, if ordered to. They said yes. The poll results were pleasing to clinton, and the naval shrink ran for cover, and got Riffed, while the Pentagon frantically tried to spin it as "one man's opinion."

The Gun Grabbers are out There, waiting. They don't quit, They don't give up.

71 posted on 02/02/2003 10:07:51 PM PST by jonascord (Fie on Marxist quotes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Under the 'law' you support, both of us would be felons, if he did so.

No you wouldn't.
(Are we reading the same thread?)

72 posted on 02/02/2003 10:12:45 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
That you are not allowed to purchase them IN ANY WAY YOU SEE FIT, does not infringe on that right, as long as there is no undue impediment to your aquiring the gun.

Let's try these on for size, shall we?

Which one of these is closer to what is actually written in the Bill of Rights? And which one more accurately reflects what you believe is or ought to be the case?

73 posted on 02/02/2003 10:40:31 PM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
His brother would be a felon under GCA 1968 since he gave possession of a firearm to a person he knew to be a resident of another state. And he would be a felon also.

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.

The original Joey Bishop show statement, being pure propoganda, uses the word STRANGERS to sell the restriction to the listeners.

If you have done this type of thing with a family member who resides in another state without using an FFL on both ends of the transaction you have committed a felony under GCA 1968. If arrested and convicted for doing this you can no longer own or be in possession of a firearm. IT's JUST THAT DAMN EASY TO GET SOMEONE.
74 posted on 02/03/2003 2:45:00 AM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
It is obvious that gun control laws have not decreased violent crimes. Many of our society have become cold in their hearts and do not value human life. Disrespect, dishonesty, and the love of money in our society fuel violent behavior. No gun control law will ever put love back into the hearts of those who have no regard for others.
75 posted on 02/03/2003 3:37:39 AM PST by 2nd_Amendment_Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
All the below happened because the general population had no firearms. Gun registration was used to track down the owners of firearms so they would be no opposition to the bloody plans of these tyrants.

The Fruits of Gun Control

The Totalitarian Body Count

The syndicated columnist, Walter Williams, who happens to be a college professor, has recently finished a study of governmental murder and has concluded that in the twentieth century far more people were killed by their own governments than died in war. Statistics are always questionable, but Williams' come out as follows:

Killed in Warfare: 39,000,000

Killed by Lenin and Stalin: 62,000,000

Killed by Mao Tse-tung: 35,000,000

Killed by Hitler: 21,000,000

These are the leaders, and the figures are beyond comprehension, but coming down to more comprehensible numbers we find that 2 million were killed in Turkey, 2 million in Cambodia, 1.5 million in Mexico, and 1 million by Tito in the Balkans. It should be noted that the time over which these atrocities were perpetrated has a bearing on the magnitude of their atrocity. Combined executions committed by Lenin and Stalin, for example, were spread over 70 years between 1917 and 1987. Mao's murders took place over about 37 years between 1949 and 1987, so his intensity could have been greater. Hitler's 21 million were murdered over a much shorter period, and so the intensity factor pretty well evens out, but the fact remains that vastly more homicide was perpetrated in this century of slaughter by governments against their own people than by armies against enemies. Man's inhumanity to man seems more virulent when it is domestic.

76 posted on 02/03/2003 4:19:24 AM PST by 2nd_Amendment_Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Je$$e Jack$ons' right to "free speech" has caused more problems for society than guns ever could or will.


Stay safe; stay armed.


77 posted on 02/03/2003 4:44:19 AM PST by Eaker (I assemble automatic weapons in my sleep.......no wonder they never work!!!!!!. . . . .;>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
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.

3. The concept of "felony" has been stretched to the the point where almost anyone, if put under enough scrutiny by the authorities, can be classified as a "felon".

78 posted on 02/03/2003 4:49:48 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
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.

Sure. But understand and make a distinction between a SOCIAL web of restraint and a LEGAL/POLITICAL web of restraint.

Understand further that some of the most proficient adults both then and now were given adult sized responsibilites at ages as young as 10 or 12.

It is a great curiosity that people who see nothing wrong with teaching their kids to skate at speeds of 30-40 miles an hour as young as the age of 5 so they can practice as early as 6 AM to compete in the Olympics consider necessary survival training in use of firearms and weapons too dangerous until children are at least 18.

Some of our best shooters-1996 Olympic Medalist Kim Rhode- started shooting AT the age of 5. ( Shhhh. Don't tell the liberals!)

Never give Government an inch at any time for any reason. They will always take a mile or more.

Best regards,

79 posted on 02/03/2003 5:44:11 AM PST by Copernicus (A Constitutional Republic revolves around Sovereign Citizens, not citizens around government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
I know a man who had a felony conviction from 1940.
And the gun control act of 1968 includes a provision by which convicted felons who have led blameless lives after their release can petition to have their firearms rights restored. The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1985 provided that for state offenses, firearms rights would be restored when all other civil rights were restored, unless the judge specifically stated otherwise. I prefer the method we use with state offenses to that we use for federal offenses, especially since the feds have put a freeze on restorations. But I'd not get in a snit even if there was no restoration. There are fundamental issues of individual liberty involved in imposing restrictions on individuals who have not been convicted of a crime. Much of the GCA 1968 are of that sort. There are not fundamental issues of individual liberty involved in imposing restrictions on individuals who have been convicted of a serious crime, as a part of their sentence. We can argue that these restrictions may be excessive in some cases, or that there should be a way for the restrictions to be lifted under certain circumstances, but it's a utilitarian argument, not involving fundamental issues of individual liberty.
80 posted on 02/03/2003 6:48:08 AM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
A guy that goes to jail for drug posession or tax evasion or other non-violent crimes is not a threat to society if he owns a firearm. My point is that armed robbers, rapists etc are regularly released from jail, over and over again, obtain firearms through other than the existing legal methods anyway, and repeat the pattern over again. Why bother with regulating firearms sales when the black market is up and running for the persons inelligable for legal posession? Let's keep the creeps under wraps or fry them. Don't make it hard for me and my good citizen buddies to obtain a firearm, or have to turn in our now illegal AR-15s because repeat violent offenders are going to be released from prison.
81 posted on 02/03/2003 8:00:01 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with you!
82 posted on 02/03/2003 8:07:18 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
I see you are listening, that's good.

You still think that regulation is what to do when you admit it is ineffective though. Is there interference on this line? Am I breaking up?

Check out "Project Exile" and see what is effective.

This thread started with our NRA president being an example of someone observing the results of gun control and humbly changing his opinion, to the point of making it his life's (probably final, as his health fails) commitment.

I hate Hollywood, but I have to tip my hat to Chuck!
83 posted on 02/03/2003 8:18:53 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian

Why bother with regulating firearms sales when the black market is up and running for the persons inelligable for legal posession?

Because it's a lot easier to prove that someone has a gun than that he committed some specific crime.

I think it's something like the three strikes law. If you've committed two prior violent crimes, you can go to jail for 20 years for shoplifting bubble gum.

Some say that's excessive, but I'm not bothered at all.

If you've proven, though past behavior, that you cannot be trusted, you're put on notice that we will not tolerate behaviors that we accept in others.

If you're a released felon, we don't forbid you a gun because we think that we will prevent you from obtaining one, but so that if we ever catch you with one, we can throw you back in jail, without having to wait for you to shoot someone.

84 posted on 02/03/2003 8:42:08 AM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian; Copernicus
You still think that regulation is what to do when you admit it is ineffective though.

I am such a proponent of laissez faire capitalism that I probably could be convinced that anyone should be able to hang a "Doctor" sign in front of their office, and let the lack of a diploma, lack of insurance, and (even) death of patients and the subsequent lawsuits drive him from the market.

I am no fan of regulation.

I entered this thread as an intellectual exercise as to the Constitutionality of the proposals listed at the top.
(And not referring to any actual laws passed nor the historical abuse that arose from such passage, nor any abominations such as Brady)

We are not protected from bad laws being passed....just unconstitutional ones.

The "Prior Restraint" and the difficulty of determining "competence" are the best arguments that have arisen so far.

I still see no problem with denying anonymous "mail order" shipping of firearms.
That deals with interstate commerce and is in the purview of Congress.

Let's not make it any easier on any future Mohammed Atta.
(And before everyone jumps on this...I know he used boxcutters, but you also know what I mean)

85 posted on 02/03/2003 8:59:43 AM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
CHECK "YES" OR "NO": Have you observed gun control to be effective?
86 posted on 02/03/2003 9:25:02 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: jdege
If the felon(violent felon)is not released, what is the problem?
87 posted on 02/03/2003 9:32:02 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
CHECK "YES" OR "NO": Have you observed gun control to be effective?

"NO"

But that wasn't the question asked at the beginning of this thread.

88 posted on 02/03/2003 9:35:56 AM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
An excellent question. With 20/20 hindisght, we all know that the Gun Control Act of 1968 didn't work. But in the absence of that knowledge, nothing about what Chuck described sounds unreasonable. Now, after 35 years of failed gun policies, we know why he doesn't support "reasonable" gun conrol anymore; we all know better. We've since learned that gun control isn't about controlling guns nor has it ever been about controlling guns.
89 posted on 02/03/2003 9:39:50 AM PST by Redcloak (Join the Coalition to Prevent Unnecessarily Verbose and Nonsensical Tag Lines, eh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Head
Here's a definition for ya:

Low powered: 20 mm or less
Medium power: Greater than 20 mm up to and including 50mm
High power: Anything greater than 50mm

(We're talking caliber here)

90 posted on 02/03/2003 9:44:00 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
The question at the beginning of this thread was about then, whereas our conversation has come to now. At least that is my take.

Thank you for answering my last question.
Now do you still support gun control in any form?
91 posted on 02/03/2003 9:49:03 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
Now do you still support gun control in any form?

I would still ban anonymous mail order and sales to children without their parent or guardian.

92 posted on 02/03/2003 9:58:06 AM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
BTW...please re-read my post at #85.
I don't believe I can make my position any clearer and it already touched on the last few quetions you have asked me.
93 posted on 02/03/2003 10:03:20 AM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
I still see that though you have observed gun control to be ineffective, you support it where you find it "reasonable" though ineffective. I just don't get it.
94 posted on 02/03/2003 10:29:13 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
The distinction between sentencing someone to 20 years in prison, or to 10 years in prison and 10 years on parole, or 10 years in prison and 10 years on parole and 10 years off parole but forbidden to possess firearms is purely a matter of sentencing choices.

We may argue about which we believe would be most effective, but there is no Constitutional issue.

I reserve the bulk of my ire for violations of individual rights. And if you commit a crime of violence, you've surrendered your individual rights. How quickly they are restored to you is a matter of policy, not of principle.
95 posted on 02/03/2003 10:51:26 AM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian; yall
--- "I just don't get it." ---
-BCC-


The right to bear arms is being 'regulated' by the same types of people, political groups, and government bureaucracies that support the WOD's, anti-smoking laws, seatbelt/helmet laws, radical DUI laws, ---- the list goes on and on, -- because in their view ANYthing can be banned if a majority rules it is 'dangerous' enough.

Those who find 'penumbras' in the commerce clause, --- for regulating gun transfers, --- can find in those same legal fictions a 'right' by governments to prohibit most anything by majority decree.

Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820965/posts


96 posted on 02/03/2003 12:13:49 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: jdege
Project Exile would suit your fancy. Felons who no longer have the civil right to possess a firearm but are caught with firearm(s) go directly to jail, do not pass GO, even if they are just being harrassed for loitering. The felon not allowed to possess firearms but wants to aquire firearms has not a difficult task in front of him through black market channels.

How is making me wait for NICS, which puts my name and the gun's serial number in a government file going to keep that felon out of a gun?

Don't lie now.
97 posted on 02/03/2003 3:21:07 PM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Simple logic escapes many. I hope I'm not missing something. I don't get jazz music either ;o)

You got grit, keep hangin' in there.
98 posted on 02/03/2003 3:42:20 PM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
Project Exile is simply the radical idea of enforcing a few of the laws we've already passed.

As for NICS its primary purpose is to increase the transaction costs of buying a handgun - the idea is if we can make it progressively more difficult to buy or own a handgun, fewer and fewer people will bother.

It never did have anything to do with crime.
99 posted on 02/03/2003 6:46:43 PM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers; Blue Collar Christian
Let's not make it any easier on any future Mohammed Atta. (And before everyone jumps on this...I know he used boxcutters, but you also know what I mean

Actually, I do not know what you mean.

Mohammed Atta et. al. were middle class Muslims smart enough to fly a World Class Airliner yet too stupid to take advantage of the opportunities their faith and intelligence could have provided them and their loved ones.

He was funded in his activities at a level far beyond the means of a large number of Americans (try it, call a flight school and tell them you want to take 747 lessons) and presumably should his type choose to strike again he will have entre to the level of society appropriate to the proper execution of his mission whether it be a dummy company to manufacture Fire Extinguishers or a Chicken Plucking plant.

I fail to see how regulating commerce through the mail between ordinary Americans will in any way hinder him or his cronies.

The Interstate Commerce Clause was intended to ensure uniformity of procedure (if you will) between the individual sovereign states.

That twisted Socialist FDR converted it into a bludgeon to wield against every citizen and transaction in every manner he could conceive.

My conjecture at this point is that you remain too much imprisoned in the voodoo logic of the muddlestream media.

Spend more time in Cyberspace, learn more about reality and live long and prosper.

Best regards,

100 posted on 02/03/2003 7:07:18 PM PST by Copernicus (A Constitutional Republic revolves around Sovereign Citizens, not citizens around government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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