Skip to comments.Would you have supported this? Gun Control
Posted on 02/02/2003 5:56:41 PM PST by FSPress
click here to read article
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.
I'm not arguing NY's law. Just the ones at the top of the thread and as to their Constitutionality
Knock yourself out.
I got my father's .22 and my Grandfather's 12 gauge when I turned twelve.
No problem with that.
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".
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.
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?
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!
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.
And I am stoooopid about these things - the Afghans made them for years. It was a cottage industry.
Think about it.
I haven't disagreed with a single thing you've said.
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.
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.
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.
No you wouldn't.
(Are we reading the same thread?)
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?
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.
Stay safe; stay armed.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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)
But that wasn't the question asked at the beginning of this thread.
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)
I would still ban anonymous mail order and sales to children without their parent or guardian.
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.
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.