gun control

More
13 years 11 months ago #6392 by foxhunter
gun control was created by foxhunter
Well here it comes. Heard on the news this am, Rep Chuck Schumer will take this opportunity to bring up gun control again.
Get ready for proposals to limit sales, magazine size, registration, etc.

In these days you can't have any hobby you enjoy without getting involved in the politics as some ass is always trying to take away your civil liberties.

If you own a gun, join the NRA and actively email, write or call your elected representatives about all issues you care about.

If you hunt with dogs, join the united States Sportsman Alliance.
Donate money for lobbying efforts by these organizations.

The antigun lobby and Humane Society of the United States are the two greatest threats to our right to hunt and own weapons. They are better funded and content to chip away at our rights till we die the death of a thousand cuts. History has taught us that if you give an inch on any form of restrictive gun laws, you will be giving an inch over and over till you've given them everything.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 11 months ago #6418 by crux
Replied by crux on topic Re:gun control
In addition to the Magazine ban, Pete King of NY (republican) suggested adding 1000ft gun free zones around certain politicians. Of course he probably didn't notice that the Safeway where the Arizona tragedy occurred was within a 1000ft Gun Free School Zone (922q), so it's difficult to understand how adding more magical zones that fail to prevent crime (proven) will do anything but make life annoying for lawful gun owners.

Of greater concern is the magazine ban. What rationale can you place in front of the general public that they'll reason with besides when a politician says "nobody needs these things". There's lots to say, but we need a pithy response that the general public will nod their heads to in support.

The best I have to offer thus far is "In a free society like the united states, we do not regulate private ownership of property even including dangerous things such as cars, planes or guns based on "Need"" (and you may have to take a side road to deal with the distraction "yea but planes and cars aren't 'designed to kill people' response that crops up). I follow this with the interjection that the problem is not the size of any magazine, as reloads take such a short time, but rather improved mental health screening, flagging, and treatment options, for most all the mass shootings of the last decade were conducted by persons with a history of threatening behaviour or mental illness. I insist that we need to focus on the behaviours not the hardware. Still, I see a lot of people nodding to suggestions that "nobody needs a 30 round magazine". Looking for other creative ways to help sway the general public.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 11 months ago #6462 by silver78
Replied by silver78 on topic Re:gun control
Gun control is a great excuse for liberal politicians to make themselves feel good while still refusing to punish criminals for the laws that are already on the books.

Lock em up, line em up & terminate the lowlifes who prey on the innocent. Stop the liberal backed revolving door of justice where punishment is short and criminals are released back on the street.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 7 months ago #7621 by JSteinhoff
Replied by JSteinhoff on topic Re:gun control
Hello Crux, very well stated. It would seem to me the far left, and the far right are so entrenched in their respective mind set, that very little is intelligently debated. Congress comes to mind. May I suggest that moderates, like myself, be encouraged to enter the debate. In this context, some compromise would be needed from both ends of the political spectrum.

I too do not support magazine restrictions and any other restrictions regarding lawful citizens. I do support keeping weapons away from convicted criminals and
those suffering from mental illness.

It would seem to me that the majority of the "general public" are reasonably moderate, and it would benefit the NRA to attempt a more inclusive approach.

Regards, JS

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 7 months ago #7634 by crux
Replied by crux on topic Re:gun control
I think that's fair JS.

You reminded me of a point that kind of highlights the pro-rights vs pro-restriction disconnect.

The general public might find the concept of rescinding the 1986 Full Auto Rifle ban as an "extreme" rights position, something not even the NRA seems interested in. Yet, the Full Auto rifle ban I think is a key portion of the impasse that prevents what people more reasonable than the Brady Bunch might consider Reasonable regulation.

Considering that the regulations enacted in the 30s to ensure full auto rifles were only held by lawful and responsible citizens, and registered arms were virtually never used in violent crime, one would think that would be considered a reasonable and successful policy. Lawful and responsible people still had a right to the arms, but persons who's judicial record showed they represented a threat to the security of a free state were restricted much like felons can't vote etc.

In the 1980s though, this successful program which respected the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, and kept full auto rifles out of the hands of dangerous persons was used to utterly ban civilian ownership of new production rifles. Regulation turned to ban (something which as arguably unconstitutional) and demonstrated that future regulation, however good intentioned, could be the next step to further bans, and pro-rights activists have dug their heels in hard ever since.

So long as pro-regulation activists continue to entertain general bans of types of weapons, as opposed to individual determination like the NFA system, and refuse to undo the current general bans (like auto rifles), I suspect little traction is going to be gained with the pro-rights crowd who have no reason to believe such regulations are nothing more than furtherance of the oft stated agendas by anti-rights policies foreign and domestic to disarm civil populations everywhere (which also has an unfortunate track record in many places).

Myself, I don't have a problem with the idea of registering arms and conducting transfers through an FFL), something many pro-regulation folks would cheer. The problem is I can never endorse such regulation so long as it will add to the already abused framework to ban arms generically and deprive our citizens of their constitutional right to carry arms even relevant to the security of a free state such as the Full Auto M16.

So there's an impasse in my view. So long as compromise leads only to surrender, who can compromise?

I look forward to a day when those who call for "sensible gun laws" aren't primarily motivated by the desire to counter the ideals of the 2nd amendment the nations founders documented in their writings as being essential to maintaining liberty and freedom. Once regulation activist can agree that law abiding and responsible citizens aren't the problems, and solutions do not consist in depriving them of various classes of arms, I think there's a lot more "Sense" that can be had. But the guarantees of rights protections have to be iron clad.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 7 months ago #7635 by JSteinhoff
Replied by JSteinhoff on topic Re:gun control
Crux,

I agree with your fundemental premise! Regards, JS

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 6 months ago #7638 by Akai
Replied by Akai on topic Re: gun control
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 6 months ago #7641 by JSteinhoff
Replied by JSteinhoff on topic Re: gun control
Akai, Yes, by lawful, peaceful assembly and the power of the majority vote!

Anything less is moving toward anarchy and treason!

JS

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 6 months ago #7642 by Akai
Replied by Akai on topic Re: gun control
Implied

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 6 months ago #7670 by crux
Replied by crux on topic Re: gun control

JSteinhoff wrote: Akai, Yes, by lawful, peaceful assembly and the power of the majority vote!

Anything less is moving toward anarchy and treason!

JS


The statement is historically and philosophically incomplete without the following consideration.

A concern rises if a government as a whole no longer constrains itself to it's lawfully appointed powers. If a circumstance arose where peaceful assembly and the power to vote or call for redress of grievance were suppressed, case in point 18th century Britain's suppression of legal rights and appeal of the American colonists, is it not arguable that the citizenry has a right to defend itself from usurpation of it's rights and reclaim the lawful constitutional government it has lost? Certainly that is part of the legal and philosophical and historical basis for the declaration of independence and resulting war that founded the United States.

Such is also the basis of the myriad quotes of the various founders and leaders of the United States in the centuries since that speak to the necessity of an armed populace as a necessary check to unconstrained governmental power, in addition to it's role in ensuring the security of a free state, and the security of individuals lives, property and their communities.

Certainly all citizens have a duty to support the constitutional system the nation was founded under, and themselves be constrained within it's laws, but they also have a responsibility to require the constitutionally appointed government operates within it's legal powers by vote ideally, and by arms if all other recourse fails.
The following user(s) said Thank You: sapper772

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.