Question for gun grabbing liberals

[Diuretic]

How are they suppose to do that? If they are intended to minimize the harm from misuse of firearms, why are jail sentences imposed? Have Gun Control Laws prevented the misuse of firearms in Washington DC? In case you do not know, Washington DC has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country. This is what Mayor Marion Barry has to say about the success of that.

"Outside of the constant killings, Washington [DC] has one of the lowest crime rates in the country."
-- Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, DC.​

I'm not referring to the use of firearms by criminals. I'm referring to the average, non-criminal person. For example, it should be the case that someone suffering from a mental illness shouldn't be able to legally purchase a firearm. That's the sort of thing I mean.

 

[Surf_Fishing_Guru]

I guess that means your a fucking idiot.

FACT: A majority of murder perpetrators had no prior criminal record, despite your skewing statistics to invent a mythology in which all murders are committed by faceless criminal organizations that slowly creep out into the community and murder law abiding innocent civilians for no reason.

Suck on it bitch. You're going on my blocklist you desperate motherfucking dispicably evil sycophant.

With all that blather and cursing one would expect that you have a verifiable source for your "fact."

Can you cite such a source?

I would offer up front that the US Department of Justice will disagree with whatever you come up with.

A 2006 DoJ report examining violent crime in the 75 largest counties in the nation states that 67% of murderers had an "arrest record."

Am I going to be put on your "blocklist" now?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You can spot a moron redneck by his NRA lapel pin. The economy is crashing, gas is hitting $5/gallon. Were bogged down in an immoral war. We have a crushing national debt. Our government is spying on us and making hash of our civil liberties and ya'll are worried that some bogey man is gonna take your guns.

do you realize the irony of your claim and denial?????

when the nation/world falls apart, who are you going to turn to for help/survival????

here's a hint, it will not be the government....it will be the nearest neighbor/friend with a gun.

 

[Surf_Fishing_Guru]

Gun control isn't about disarming criminals. Criminals who use firearms as part of their offending are charged appropriately

Most laws targeting gun usage are plea bargain chips to be thrown away to secure guilty pleas for offenses deemed more serious.

The number of people actually prosecuted under the myriad of laws covering the purchase and receipt of firearms is very small especially when the feds dump whatever prosecution exists onto state or local officials. "Straw buying" is a perfect example. While the issue is front and center in the political realm (demands for "one gun a month") by itself it rarely sees the inside of a courtroom.

In SE Pennsylvania where I live the handful of prosecutions that have happened recently are only due to the building and funding of a task force to enforce existing law . . .

"In Pennsylvania and other states, police and prosecutors generally haven't made straw buyers a priority.

In Philadelphia, the police unit responsible for tracking guns is only now digging out of a 6,000-case backlog caused by inadequate staffing. The delays got so bad that judges sometimes dismissed cases because necessary lab work wasn't finished in time.

And most of the state's 67 county prosecutors didn't file any cases against alleged straw buyers in 2006 or 2007, court records show.

In Philadelphia, Assistant District Attorney Albert Toczydlowski said his office rarely prosecuted straw buyers until recently, when the state set up a task force to focus on gun violence.

The unit is making about 10 arrests a month, only a small fraction of offenders."

Philadelphia Inquirer -- 3/23/08​

 

[PorterM]

I'm not referring to the use of firearms by criminals. I'm referring to the average, non-criminal person. For example, it should be the case that someone suffering from a mental illness shouldn't be able to legally purchase a firearm. That's the sort of thing I mean.

What Gun Control Law is presented as a measure to prevent someone with a mental illness from purchasing a firearm? That is not what Gun Control Laws are designed to do. They are designed solely to restrict the the average, non-criminal person. Gun Control measures do not pertain to criminals because they do not abide by them. Criminals are not affected by these laws other than knowing that the general public will be disarmed and will make an easy target.

You are saying that someone with a mental illness should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. I can agree with you on that. Should they be allowed to purchase a knife with a 14 inch blade? Or a hatchet? Or anything else that could kill someone if they so feel the need? If you are talking about mentally unstable persons, a the lack of the presence of a gun is not going to prevent a mentally ill person harming someone else. You are focusing on the wrong part of the equation. You need to focus on the part that can form the intent and has the ability to harm, not what he uses to harm.

 

[Diuretic]

Most laws targeting gun usage are plea bargain chips to be thrown away to secure guilty pleas for offenses deemed more serious.

The number of people actually prosecuted under the myriad of laws covering the purchase and receipt of firearms is very small especially when the feds dump whatever prosecution exists onto state or local officials. "Straw buying" is a perfect example. While the issue is front and center in the political realm (demands for "one gun a month") by itself it rarely sees the inside of a courtroom.
................

<snipped some material>

Where I am the population is quite small and our firearms control legislation is reasonably detailed but more importantly it's workable. Use of firearms by criminals isn't common but it's not rare either. Just recently there have been several instances of shootings where illegal handguns were used (we're starting to get a burgeoning street gang culture but it's early days yet). In our criminal law there's no bargaining with the prosecution for a crime (not being a breach of firearms control legislation) that is committed with a firearm. Plea bargaining here is not common and it's highly regulated when it does happen. But the important point is that we don't have a culture of acceptance of firearms as an individual right, that makes it easier to control legal ownership. Again, I stress, I know the problem with the underground firearms market, I'm only referring to everyday ordinary, non-criminal use/ownership/possession.

 

[Surf_Fishing_Guru]

If there was no such thing as the 2nd Amendment and you were tasked with drafting gun control laws, how would you go about it? Would you start from the premise that all individuals are entitled to own/use/possess any firearm and then work towards reasonable restrictions? Or would you start from the premise that no private individual is permitted to own/use/possess firearms and then work towards reasonable restrictions?

The USA is founded on the principle of conferred power; all power resides in the people and the government may exercise only that limited amount of power the people grant to government (via the Constitution).

Since no power was ever granted to government to impact the private arms of the citizen none exists.

My right to arms is not granted, given, established or otherwise created by the 2nd Amendment . . . That means the 2nd Amendment has only one action; to redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it does not possess.

So, to answer your question . . . Americans start from the premise that any law impacting their right to be armed is invalid, illegitimate and unconstitutional. The government must prove that a law impacting the citizen's right to arms answers a pressing need that can not be met through any other means.

The Supreme Court has spoken on such laws very little and that "ambiguity" (not really but I'll give the anti's a little wiggle room) has left a blank slate upon which the lower federal courts have scribbled all over. Americans concerned with the gun rights issue are waiting for the Supreme Court to issue its decision in DC v Heller; the first in depth examination of the 2nd ever undertaken by SCOTUS.

The decision could be rendered on Monday.

I can barely contain my excitement.

 

[Diuretic]

What Gun Control Law is presented as a measure to prevent someone with a mental illness from purchasing a firearm? That is not what Gun Control Laws are designed to do. They are designed solely to restrict the the average, non-criminal person. Gun Control measures do not pertain to criminals because they do not abide by them. Criminals are not affected by these laws other than knowing that the general public will be disarmed and will make an easy target.

You are saying that someone with a mental illness should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. I can agree with you on that. Should they be allowed to purchase a knife with a 14 inch blade? Or a hatchet? Or anything else that could kill someone if they so feel the need? If you are talking about mentally unstable persons, a the lack of the presence of a gun is not going to prevent a mentally ill person harming someone else. You are focusing on the wrong part of the equation. You need to focus on the part that can form the intent and has the ability to harm, not what he uses to harm.

Yes that applies in the States, it doesn't apply where I am and I've been trying to make that point. We have fairly strict firearms control laws. Firearms are controlled by type and a legal owner has to be licensed for the type of firearm they own and they have to meet certain other requirements. There are minimum age limits. People with criminal records can't own a firearm legally, people who are infirm (physically or mentally) can't own a firearm. And every person who applies for a licence has to undergo basic safety training.

As for people need to be armed to protect themselves, we're lucky, that isn't a huge issue here - at the moment. I'm not saying that will never change.

 

[PorterM]

Yes that applies in the States, it doesn't apply where I am and I've been trying to make that point. We have fairly strict firearms control laws. Firearms are controlled by type and a legal owner has to be licensed for the type of firearm they own and they have to meet certain other requirements. There are minimum age limits. People with criminal records can't own a firearm legally, people who are infirm (physically or mentally) can't own a firearm. And every person who applies for a licence has to undergo basic safety training.

As for people need to be armed to protect themselves, we're lucky, that isn't a huge issue here - at the moment. I'm not saying that will never change.

I did not make myself clear and I do apologize. I was referring to Gun Control measures in the United States only.

 

[Surf_Fishing_Guru]

Our government is spying on us and making hash of our civil liberties and ya'll are worried that some bogey man is gonna take your guns.

Uhhhh pardon me but wouldn't citizen disarmament mesh perfectly with what you are speaking of? Isn't the right to gun ownership a civil right worth defending?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Economies rise and fall, as do prices. Wars do not last forever. The national debt has been ongoing since WWII.

But a freedom, once lost, will never be regained except through revolution.

You can disclaim constitutional rights as irrelevant issues, others do not. I notice you are concerned about civil liberties. Calling others moron for having a different priority on issues just reveals the narrow minded totalitarian inside.

That's a strawman and a disconnect. No Freedom is absolute. You're freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. You don't have the freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. You don't have the freedom to drive down the road intoxicated, you don't have the right to print lies about a person in the news papers, you don't have the right to worship god by molesting children and you don't have the right to the unregulated manufacture and distribution of fire arms and to call such regulation a violation of your rights is a misrepresentation of the facts.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I also notice this argument is most often taken by those most likely to support "bogey man", confiscatory gun bans.

What gun bans? You mean the one banning sales of M16 and Tanks to the public. Those Bastards!

This issue is a granfallon of Orwellian proportions. I tell you what, the politicians who make this an issue on the right are not gun enthusiast friends. They are cynically manipulating on an emotional hot bed issue in order to get your vote. So go ahead and keep voting for these right wingers based on gun issues because by god you'll need those guns to put food on your tables cause you sure as hell won't be able to afford to buy it when you're working for 40 pesos an hour.

This is an issue right up there with abortion and gay marriage.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

By the way. I am a gun owner too.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Sorry you do not like rednecks. It is clear that you have a certain bias against people different than yourself.

If Bill Clinton had not taken ANWR off limits and had implemented a positive energy policy that encouraged exploration, the economy that relies on oil for all manner of commerce would not be having the problems it is having today and gas would not be as expensive.

Well, if you are worried about the "crushing nation debt", perhaps you should concern yourself with the House of Representatives as they are the ones that control spending. I forget, what political party is in the majority?

Sorry you believe that we are in an immoral war. I guess we could hash that out, but there is probably nothing I could say to make you see anything other than what already do.

Why is the government spying on you?

It is not just taking guns away, but not allowing the people that want to defend our lives and families the ability to do so.

It's not that I dislike rednecks. It's just an unfortunate moral condition caused primarily from ignorance and lack of education. In most cases, it can be cured.

It is also ignorant to trump up a political non-issue, like gun control, to the same level as the War in Iraq or our National Debt and if you beleive other wise, you have no one to blame but yourself when you remain a poor ignorant redneck. This is a "Divide and Conquer Issue" for politicians just like gay marriage and abortion and you're a damned fool if you don't have the wit to see that.

Oh and please do defend the morality of the Iraq war. This I'd love to see! LOL

The point here is, NO ONE is taking away your ability to defend your lives and families. Last I heard no one was knocking on my door and asking for my guns....oh but heaven forbid I had to register when I bought my 9mm. I mean you can use that same lame brain logic about requiring a hunting license.

 

[Good Luck]

That's a strawman and a disconnect. No Freedom is absolute. You're freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. You don't have the freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. You don't have the freedom to drive down the road intoxicated, you don't have the right to print lies about a person in the news papers, you don't have the right to worship god by molesting children and you don't have the right to the unregulated manufacture and distribution of fire arms and to call such regulation a violation of your rights is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Strawman? Why is anything people like you disagree with "strawman"? Do you know what a strawman argument is?

You demonstrate the reasonable limits of freedom - swinging a fist, religion, etc, ALL of which end when they interfere with the basic rights of others. I fully agree with that basic, common sense definition of the practical limit of personal freedoms.

Now: Show me where my POSSESSION (and associated reasonable, legal use) of a weapon directly or even indirectly interferes with anyone else's rights.

THAT is where the "disconnect" lies, and it is on the side of those who support gun control laws and the banning of certain types of weapons. You claim that a freedom has reasonable limits, but you cannot show where your limits are, in actuality, protecting the rights of others by limiting the rights of gun owners.

 

[Good Luck]

What gun bans? You mean the one banning sales of M16 and Tanks to the public. Those Bastards!

This issue is a granfallon of Orwellian proportions. I tell you what, the politicians who make this an issue on the right are not gun enthusiast friends. They are cynically manipulating on an emotional hot bed issue in order to get your vote. So go ahead and keep voting for these right wingers based on gun issues because by god you'll need those guns to put food on your tables cause you sure as hell won't be able to afford to buy it when you're working for 40 pesos an hour.

This is an issue right up there with abortion and gay marriage.

Go take a look at the gun control laws in DC over the past two decades, and then tell me that gun control laws have NOT been progressing toward more and more limits, while adding continually to the list of guns that are absolutely banned. There is a reason 2nd Amendment advocates feel their constitutional rights are being threatened. Because the continual increase in regulations and laws are heading one direction: the full proscription of private ownership of guns. You cannot deny there are factions out there who have that exact goal in mind. They have already been successful with automatic weapons, are partially successful with so-called "assault weapons" with designs to progress to a full ban, have plans for a full and complete ban on handguns except for law enforcement. But since you agree with those plans, you see no reason to call it an issue.

You can "not give a fuck" about the 2nd amendment. That's understandable when you obviously support the violation of the 2nd amendment. But then hypocritically complain about violations of civil liberties. If you don't care about one constitutional protection, why do you care about the other?

There are many issues when it comes to how our government interacts with the manner our society functions. Some people put different issues at the top of their list of issues which determines who they choose to vote for. NONE of those issues is any less valid than the other issues. If you don't give a shit about 2nd amendment rights, then don't base you vote on who believes what about gun control.

But to debase and insult those who DO care about 2nd Amendment rights is to stand right along side the assholes who call anti-war protesters unpatriotic. You, like many others of your type, have taken on the mantle of superiority, and anyone who disagrees with you do so out of ignorance.

Sorry, but it does not take ignorance to disagree with totalitarians.

 

[PorterM]

What gun bans?

Keep a pistol in your home in Massachusetts and see what happens. It is a mandatory 1 year in prison. All you have to do is to have the gun frame - no barrel or trigger mechanism. You cannot legally drive through the state with a handgun in your car locked in a suitcase in the trunk.

 

[uscitizen]

OHH wow Mass must have a horrible crime problem then ?

My choice of home defense weapon is a shotgun anyway. Might not have time to put on my glasses. First 3 loads are #2 shot and the last 2 are Slugs.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.29]

"Total crime in the Commonwealth has declined by 2.9% between 2004 and 2005, with violent crime increasing by 4.75 and property crime decreasing by 4.3%. The category of violent crime is composed of murder (up 4.8%), rape (down 3.8%), robbery (up 4.9%) and aggravated assault (up
5.3%). The category of property crime is composed of burglary (down 1.4%), larceny (down 3.6%) and motor vehicle theft (down 12.3%)."

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/msp/...eporting_unit/mass_crime_report_2004_2005.pdf

 

[PorterM]

OHH wow Mass must have a horrible crime problem then ?

My choice of home defense weapon is a shotgun anyway. Might not have time to put on my glasses. First 3 loads are #2 shot and the last 2 are Slugs.

Boston does but I would think you would know that being involved in Law Enforcement and carrying a badge as you have stated earlier.