More on Gun Control

DanishDynamite said:
Given that you know my view as well as I do by now, I suggest that Silicon, in the name of efficiency, just contacts your own good self. ;)

I'm flattered at the degree of trust you're showing in me.


Either that or you don't care... ;)
 
AlH said:


Then - using the same argument - why not ban alchohol?

From <URL>December 1996 Scientific American article</URL>



I expect to have a greater chance of being injured or killed by a drunk-driver than being shot by a disgruntled postal worker. Thus to improve my safety, I would support a total ban on alcohol as I do not drink and it would not be a hardship on me. Who cares about the people who safely enjoy using alcohol, it is for the greater good, including theirs and their families.

Plus you are (potentially) reducing the number of homicides (~11,000 from above) committed annually.

In Australia, there has been a very aggressive campaign against drink driving. While the road toll in the states is pretty static, that in Australia has been falling consistently.

You can't ban alcohol, but you can modify people's use of it to minimise the harm done to others.
 
a_unique_person said:
In Australia, there has been a very aggressive campaign against drink driving. While the road toll in the states is pretty static, that in Australia has been falling consistently.

You can't ban alcohol, but you can modify people's use of it to minimise the harm done to others.

Sure, and that's effective as long as you target the people causing the problem. IOW, you target those who are actually driving, as opposed to anyone who drinks alcohol.

But as has definitely been proven in the past, alcohol Prohibition doesn't work, and there's no reason to believe that gun Prohibition would work any better.
 
Kodiak said:

Straw Man Propaganda (unless, of course, you can provide evidence that the NRA is " largely pro-criminal").

Yawn, do any you folks actually know what a straw-man argument really is?

The NRA favors the right of everyone to purchase guns, criminal or not. Their opposition to background checks is evidence of this. The fact that they oppose legislation to close loopholes exploited by gun runners to fence weapons to criminals is even more.

I am a member and supporter of the NRA, and I can tell you that we are definitely anti-criminal.

Law Enforcement Training [/B]

Why do they oppose legislation that would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns yet have little to no effect on the average gun purchaser?

I'll tell you why, its good business for the NRA to make guns available to criminals and recommend bigger guns to law enforcement to shoot the criminals with. A real win-win situation for them.
 
Except for facts like the NRA does not sell or manufacture guns. Like the NRA does not cater or even ask for the vote or monetary support of criminals. Other than truth, your post makes a lot of sense.
 
Shinytop said:
Except for facts like the NRA does not sell or manufacture guns. Like the NRA does not cater or even ask for the vote or monetary support of criminals. Other than truth, your post makes a lot of sense.

They don't seem to have a problem taking cash from the folks who have to defend themselves from criminals. Criminals that obtained their weapons by way of NRA sponsored legislation, btw.

It's called "playing both sides of the fence".

Unless you have a better explination of why the NRA opposes legislation that restricts gun sales to known criminals?
 
Gee, I don't know. I guess you could go back to California which registered guns one year with promises not to go further and then turned around and confiscated a large number of guns - contrary to what they had promised. I think that would make anybody very adverse to giving up anything. Personally I back background checks and any system that allows instant checks at gun shows. But the anti-gun lobby has taken the low road so I do not blame the NRA for not giving an inch.

In addition there are many instances where illegal use is made of an item yet it is not banned for legal use or even restricted in how it is sold. It's called freedom, something we tend to forget in wanting to make this a vanilla, kiss ass society.
 
Shinytop said:
Gee, I don't know. I guess you could go back to California which registered guns one year with promises not to go further and then turned around and confiscated a large number of guns - contrary to what they had promised.

Gee, I guess those folks that registered their guns should have maybe been extra-special careful not to commit felonies!

In addition there are many instances where illegal use is made of an item yet it is not banned for legal use or even restricted in how it is sold. It's called freedom, something we tend to forget in wanting to make this a vanilla, kiss ass society.

And there are many instances when items that are a public health risk have their sales restricted. Tobacco and alcohol for example. It's called society, get used to it.
 
EvilYeti said:
Yawn, do any you folks actually know what a straw-man argument really is?

Do you? You're the one misrepresenting the NRA's views.

EvilYeti said:
The NRA favors the right of everyone to purchase guns, criminal or not. Their opposition to background checks is evidence of this. The fact that they oppose legislation to close loopholes exploited by gun runners to fence weapons to criminals is even more.

Again...evidence please.

They only oppose checks which require a waiting period because they feel it is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. THe NRA has publicly stated that they are all for an computerized national database for instantaneous background checks.
 
Kodiak said:


Once again...evidence please.

Look up the McClure-Volkmer act. Here are some of its highlights:

Allowed Federal Firearms License holders to sell guns at gun shows located in their home state.

Allowed individuals not federally licensed as gun dealers to sell their personal firearms as a "hobby."

Restricted the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to conduct inspections of the business premises of federally licensed firearms dealers.

Reduced the recordkeeping required of federally licensed firearms dealers, specifically eliminating recordkeeping of ammunition sales.

Raised the burden of proof for violations of federal gun laws.

Expanded a federal program that restored the ability of convicted felons to possess firearms.

All these things do nothing but make it easier for criminals to arm themselves.
 
EvilYeti said:
All these things do nothing but make it easier for criminals to arm themselves.

Twisted propaganda.

I have no problem with your first five "highlights". They seem reasonable to me.

However, I see nothing that resembles you sixth "highlight", except for a provision that allows someone currently barred from firearm ownership to appeal to the Secretary. Which is not the same as restoring gun rights to felons.

I'm glad my NRA supported such an Act.

The McClure-Volkmer Act, A.K.A. the Firearms Owner's Protection Act
 
EvilYeti said:


....It's called society, get used to it.


Be sure to remember that when John Ashcroft tries to pass Patriot Act II, you would be one of his biggest supporters.
 
EvilYeti said:


And there are many instances when items that are a public health risk have their sales restricted. Tobacco and alcohol for example. It's called society, get used to it.

Please tell me you are not as dense as your post indicates. The arms confiscated in California were by type of weapon, they had nothing to do with committing of any felonies or other crimes. Please awaken yourself to facts before posting drivel.

Tobacco and alcohol are restricted by age or locale. But then they do not have Constitutional backing to the right of citizens to alcohol or tobbacco. Please join the real world in this debate.
 
Kodiak said:

I have no problem with your first five "highlights". They seem reasonable to me.

Those "highlights" are responsible for the vast majority of firearms purchases by criminals. They do nothing to help law-abiding citizens.

I have no problem with you supporting the arming of the nations felons, but don't try and play the law&order card. That is the most blatant of hypocrisy.
 
Shinytop said:

Please tell me you are not as dense as your post indicates. The arms confiscated in California were by type of weapon, they had nothing to do with committing of any felonies or other crimes. Please awaken yourself to facts before posting drivel.

I live in California, why don't YOU look up the facts before you go making an ass of yourself again? Guns were confiscated for any number of reasons, including the comission of felonies. The most reported confiscation was the SKS assault weapons, which are ILLEGAL to own in California! People owning them were breaking the law, whether the guns were registered or not. If you have a problem with the assault weapon ban thats a different issue entirely, it has nothing to do with background checks.

Tobacco and alcohol are restricted by age or locale. But then they do not have Constitutional backing to the right of citizens to alcohol or tobbacco. Please join the real world in this debate.
The Constitution gives states the power of limited self-government and grants the federal government regulatory power over militias. Nothing California has done violates any of this.

Ad-homs are fun and all, but do you have anything of substance to bring to this debate? Name calling only relegates you to the forensic playground of grade-schoolers and right-wingers.
 
Tony said:



Be sure to remember that when John Ashcroft tries to pass Patriot Act II, you would be one of his biggest supporters.

Ok, THIS is a perfect example of a strawman argument. Please use this as a reference before accusing me of doing the same.

Thanks! :wink:
 
EvilYeti said:
Those "highlights" are responsible for the vast majority of firearms purchases by criminals.

You have yet to provide any proof of this...


EvilYeti said:
They do nothing to help law-abiding citizens.

The benefits, protections, and freedoms expressed in those "highlights" are self evident, especially compared to the Act from the late 60's it superseded.


EvilYeti said:
I have no problem with you supporting the arming of the nations felons, but don't try and play the law&order card. That is the most blatant of hypocrisy.

Considering your propaganda to this point, your opinion means little, if that much...
 
EvilYeti said:

The Constitution gives states the power of limited self-government and grants the federal government regulatory power over militias.

The Constitution gives the states nothing! It limits, restricts and enumerates the power and role of the Federal Government.

To address you claim about militias...


"Amendment II --

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The Militia was just the reason given for originally instituting the 2nd Amendment. It protects the right of the people, not just the "militia."

The second amendment is composed of two parts: the Justification clause, and the Rights clause.

Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."
"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right:

The Supreme Court has listed the Second Amendment in at least two rulings as an individual right. -- Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and U.S. v. Cruikshank

The Supreme court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. -- United States v. Miller

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment."
"All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

"62% of those likely voters sampled believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while only 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias." -- Associated Television News Survey, August 1999

"There are 23 state constitutions with "right to keep and bear arms" clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only 3 have "for the common defense...." or other "collective rights" clauses."
"Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment, or the state analogs to it, only 10 (3.3%) have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)." -- Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the Defense of Themselves and the State_(Praeger Press, 1994), cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)

James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respectingthe rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice

"The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons.
 

Back
Top Bottom