Time to bury the guns...

POSTED BY: Hardware
UPDATED: Thursday, October 11, 2007 15:32
VIEWED: 9033
PAGE 3 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 1:37 PM

I know bullets are cheaper, but that's a statement far better made with some tar, feathers and a fencerail.

Any politician not scared shitless of his constituents is a politician desperately in need of a recall vote, if not the above.

THEY should be scared of US, not vice versa.

-F

JUDITH

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I know bullets are cheaper, but that's a statement far better made with some tar, feathers and a fencerail.

Any politician not scared shitless of his constituents is a politician desperately in need of a recall vote, if not the above.

THEY should be scared of US, not vice versa.

-F

Here, here!
Hear, hear!!

HARDWARE

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 4:14 PM

Does that include terrorist, convicted violent felons, and the mentally ill? Cause if you agree we can't allow those folks to have guns then you agree we need gun control...just disagree as to the how much.

Me, I've got some nice guns, I intend to keep them whatever the law says. But I favor keeping them away from criminals, terrorists, and crazy types...and kids (without proper supervision, which means most kids these days, but not all).

H

Let's address the kids issue first. When I was in school it was not uncommon for high school students to bring their deer hunting rifles to school and leave them locked in their car in order to hunt after class. Number of spree shootings at school... 0.

Prior to 1934 any child with enough money could puchase and own, or if they chose, have delivered by mail, a fully automatic firearm. Number of spree shootings perpetrated by kids... 0.

Whatever objections you may have, it's not about just kids.

Prior to 1968 convicted felons could own firearms. The Gun control act of 1968 made that illegal. What changed in 1968? If you're saying convicts are going to committ crimes after release, why release them? Isn't this law a condemnation of our criminal justice system?

As far as terrorists, I haven't seen a huge number of terror events involving guns. As a matter of fact, trying to prevent acts of terrorism caused 9/11. How long do you think 9/11 would have gone on if a couple of citizens on each plane were armed? (and no, despite what hollywood has shown a bullet won't cause the plane to explosively decompress.) The answer to terrorism isn't a cop on every corner, it is arms in the hands of everyday people. How many times do you see fanatics shooting up a location in Israel?

This country has been fed a huge line of shinola about it's gun laws starting back in 1898. Why is it illegal to have a detachable stock for a pistol? Why do rifles and shotguns have a 16 inch minimum barrel limit unless you pay a $200 tax? It's about control, pure and simple.

They have forgotten WE control THEM.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I ain't buyin what you're sellin.

Firstoff, a criminal, especially a known violent felon with no respect for the law in the first place, isn't gonna give a rats ass if some words on paper say he cannot have a gun.

Do you really, truly, honestly THINK that will stop him like a brick wall from buying or possessing one ?

Nope, but it does make it a bit less convenient and if they commit another crime it tacks on another charge which will hopefully keep them away for longer.

Quote:
Imma also refer you to this post, that whole totally pesky "unalienable rights" thing, you know.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30821&m=547245#547245

Unalienable rights refer to the three that follow it, not to the Bill of Rights.

Quote:
And on top of that, what part of "shall not be infringed" somehow escaped folk here ?

Two thoughts on this, first I'm pretty sure that if the founding fathers knew what weaponry would develop into in the future that they wouldn't have nearly so broad in their statement there. Second, since they were so broad IIRC the "well regulated" has been construed to mean that the government has a certain amount of say in the matter, if it was not construed as such then IMO we would have to (and would have by now) pass a new amendment giving the power to restrict weaponry. Perhaps it would be a better option to push for a new amendment replacing the second with clearer language on the matter. Personally I think we'd do well to have the entire Constitution re-written to be clearer on a lot of points.

Quote:
I don't see any caveats, exceptions, excuses or legal/verbal contortions there, I see a plain statement that means exactly what the hell it says, and it's a damned slippery slope when you start letting the Gov slip it's leash.

Once again I see this as a an issue of a lack of foresight, again if the founding fathers knew that we would have cheap, easily concealable rapid-fire weapons that they wouldn't have been so broad and once again the original meaning has been contorted to save the trouble of needing to pass a new amendment.

Quote:
A universal right must remain universal, otherwise it's just one group oppressing another.

To take this to the logical conclusion no one would ever be punished for a crime since to do so would be to infringe upon their right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, otherwise it's just society oppressing criminals.

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 5:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Why is it illegal to have a detachable stock for a pistol?

That's illegal?

HERO

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
And I'm finding myself stuck dead in the middle between you two; I'm starting to agree with Frem we must question who is deciding who the terrorists are and agreeing with Hero I don't want 'em to have none.

I suspect that law abiding folks are not terrorists. Even the underground sleeper types are not truly law abiding since Conspiracy is a crime. Never the less I think criminal record of violent offenses, like Domestic Violence, are reasonable places to start. Having a list of folks who attended terrorist camps and are on international watch lists are another.

George, the guy down the street who works as a CPA and likes to go hunting or target shooting and whose worst offense is a speeding ticket...he can buy all the guns he wants. Martha, the single mother working two jobs in a bad neighborhood, fine. Fred, the postal worker...I'd be a little more cautious, but ok. PirateNews, the crazy-talker...no guns for you!

I like concealed carry, cause it cuts crime. Sure thats bad for business, but hey, I'm also a law enforcer and I like less crime. I can carry myself as a Prosecutor, but I choose not to. I would if I worked for Cleveland or Akron...its dangerous in those cities.

H

HERO

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Firstoff, a criminal, especially a known violent felon with no respect for the law in the first place, isn't gonna give a rats ass if some words on paper say he cannot have a gun.

Do you really, truly, honestly THINK that will stop him like a brick wall from buying or possessing one ?

It will stop him from buying one legally. But it would not stop you.

So what's your problem?

Unless your a violent criminal, terrorist, or mentally insane.

Are you?

And I note for the record that many violent criminals are arrested before they can commit another violent crime because they are caught with the gun first. Maurice Clarrett is a good example (disgraced former OSU running back arrested carrying a loaded AK-47).

H

HARDWARE

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 9:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Why is it illegal to have a detachable stock for a pistol?

That's illegal?

Unless the pistol is on the curio and relics list maintained by BATFE, possession of a pistol that can accept a detachable shoulder stock is a violation of the National Firearms Act.

http://www.shelfspace.com/~c-r-ffl/sec3.html

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 10:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Why is it illegal to have a detachable stock for a pistol?

That's illegal?

Unless the pistol is on the curio and relics list maintained by BATFE, possession of a pistol that can accept a detachable shoulder stock is a violation of the National Firearms Act.

Huh, I wondered why they weren't more common since it seems to be a reasonable thing for target practice.

BADKARMA00

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 10:31 PM

Hardware, I agree 100%. Nuff said.

Bad_karma

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE