Gun Control Spin
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, November 25, 2007 19:08
VIEWED: 6740
PAGE 7 of 8
Quote:Over here each car has a log book, which includes details of all it's previous owners and a form to send back to the DVLA on change of ownership. Perhaps gun ownership could have a similar thing?
Originally posted by SignyM:
AFA liabillity: It belongs to the registered owner, except in the case of an illegal sale in which case it belongs with the seller. If a gun is stolen or sold it must be reported otherwise- just like with cars- the person holding the last registration is "IT".
At the very least someone could make a fortune making "gun logbook covers" and "gun and logbook storage boxes".
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looks like the Supremes might rule on some of the issues brought up in this thread. If there recent decisions are any indication of how they will rule in this case, it will probably be a very narrow ruling only applying to DC. Then both sides will declare victory an the debate will continue.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22797253-1702,00.html
"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Comparing guns to kitchen knives isn't great either, a gun is designed to kill people, a knife is designed to cut up food. Theres a big difference between a tool that *could* be used for a purpose, and a tool that is *designed* for that purpose."
Looks at large steak on plate. Pulls out gun. blam! blam! blam! ... blam! ... blam!
Sits down with fork to carefully eat meat bits scattered all over the table.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While looking up the source of the quote attributed to Franklin I came across an interesting discussion. The colonists at the time were reported as being attacked by 'Indians' (whom they had displaced, but that's another story). Apparently the Pennsylvania governor (a British authority) was claiming the legislature (elected by colonists) was preventing him from disbursing guns to the local militias. Meanwhile the legislature had no money to purchase said firearms, and there was a lot of debate over whether the colonists should gets guns and defend themselves.
The issue of 'militias' was quite an active one at the time. It gave me a little insight into how the phrase "a well regulated militia." Looking further I came across this - "Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia."
Assuming that the purpose of bearing arms is to be able to form 'well regulated militias', things like hunting, target shooting and even self-defense aren't constitutionally sound reasons for bearing arms.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
excerpt from New York Times
A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: May 6, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html
There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.
The argument about whether the Second Amendment is a collective right or individual right will probably go on even if the courts make a ruling on this issue. Even though as suggested in the article above most Constitutional scholars including some liberal anti-gun ones agree that it is an individual right. I think it's inclusion in the Bill of Rights(all individual rights)is conclusive for me.
"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The individual rights view is far from universally accepted. “The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion supports the near-unanimous view of the federal courts that the constitutional right to be armed is linked to an organized militia,” said Dennis A. Henigan, director of the legal action project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The exceptions attract attention precisely because they are so rare and unexpected.”
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:**Mental note. When inviting Rue over for dinner, be sure not to use the good china.
Originally posted by rue:
Looks at large steak on plate. Pulls out gun. blam! blam! blam! ... blam! ... blam!
Sits down with fork to carefully eat meat bits scattered all over the table.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I am all for the banning of guns which have no possible practical purpose other than killing people ((Heavy Machine guns, Grenade Launchers, All manner of Vulcan Cannon, et al.)) for just that reason.
However, I believe that Citizen had the right idea for all firearms not falling into this category. Also, the idea of making one take a class beforehand is a good idea.
Holding the manufacturer liable for anything other than a manufacturing issue is nonsense. Holding the seller liable to some degree when there is reason to believe that selling to the person in question was a bad idea or simply failing to check up on them makes sense.
Ultimately, I think one possible solution that we've not considered is the Swiss Solution. Give everyone an assault rifle to keep at home, and train them on it. 
After a brief initial period of increased violence 
, I suspect we will have a serious drop in gun violence, as no one would be stupid enough to try and invade someone's home or attack them otherwise knowing full-well that there is at least one, probably more, assault rifle in there and that someone there knows very well how to use it. Remember, Machiavelli himself said - "The Swiss, Absolutely Free, Absolutely Well Armed."
"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The other possibility is that any potential home invader would realise that they can't break in without an armament of their own...
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
Ultimately, I think one possible solution that we've not considered is the Swiss Solution. Give everyone an assault rifle to keep at home, and train them on it.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's been mentioned in various RWED threads before; and its an idea I could get behind. Likely need to make some provision for the absolute pacifists (Quakers, et al) being permitted an exception.
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
...
Ultimately, I think one possible solution that we've not considered is the Swiss Solution. Give everyone an assault rifle to keep at home, and train them on it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME