Guns

[English]

How do people feel regarding gun laws? Personally I am incredibly anti-gun. It would frighten me enormously if Britain relaxed gun laws to the extent that the US has. I think this is one of the main reasons the UK has such a miniscule homicide rate. Perhaps people here would start killing eachother however they don't have the means to do it!! :-)

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

How do people feel regarding gun laws? Personally I am incredibly anti-gun. It would frighten me enormously if Britain relaxed gun laws to the extent that the US has. I think this is one of the main reasons the UK has such a miniscule homicide rate. Perhaps people here would start killing eachother however they don't have the means to do it!! :-)

There are other means to kill someone besides guns! Strangulation, stabbing, freak car accidents, freak accidents of other nature, wrapping them up in wet rawhide and when it dries, it'll crush their bones and their flesh will ooze from their bodies. Many ways! But to list anymore would be, ah, demented.

[© tweed]

How do people feel regarding gun laws? Personally I am incredibly anti-gun. It would frighten me enormously if Britain relaxed gun laws to the extent that the US has. I think this is one of the main reasons the UK has such a miniscule homicide rate. Perhaps people here would start killing eachother however they don't have the means to do it!! :-)

There are other means to kill someone besides guns! Strangulation, stabbing, freak car accidents, freak accidents of other nature, wrapping them up in wet rawhide and when it dries, it'll crush their bones and their flesh will ooze from their bodies. Many ways! But to list anymore would be, ah, demented.

True, but guns can prove fatal from a distance, but stabbing, stangling etc. has to be done when you are close to the victim.  So, guns are easier to get away with in the world of crime, if you know what I mean.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

How do people feel regarding gun laws? Personally I am incredibly anti-gun. It would frighten me enormously if Britain relaxed gun laws to the extent that the US has. I think this is one of the main reasons the UK has such a miniscule homicide rate. Perhaps people here would start killing eachother however they don't have the means to do it!! :-)

There are other means to kill someone besides guns! Strangulation, stabbing, freak car accidents, freak accidents of other nature, wrapping them up in wet rawhide and when it dries, it'll crush their bones and their flesh will ooze from their bodies. Many ways! But to list anymore would be, ah, demented.

True, but guns can prove fatal from a distance, but stabbing, stangling etc. has to be done when you are close to the victim.  So, guns are easier to get away with in the world of crime, if you know what I mean.

Yeah. You're right, but committing Homicide wth a gun is so 'lacking' in imagination. Here's imagination for you, courtesy of Jonathan Taylor Thomas, from his role in 'Man of the House': paraphrasing: You could wrap us up in wet rawhide, so when it dries, it will crush our bones and our flesh will ooze out of our orafaces like a tube of toothpaste!

[jravnsbo]

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.


--first, Gun control is a losing issue for Democrats.  The people want to be able to own firearms.

The Founders gave us the Bill of Rights which is a list of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS sucha s the seond amendment.

Check  out the 5th Circuit case of United States v. Emerson and the District case below it for a detailed history and explanation of the 2d Amendment as an individual right.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

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.


--first, Gun control is a losing issue for Democrats.  The people want to be able to own firearms.

The Founders gave us the Bill of Rights which is a list of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS sucha s the seond amendment.

Check  out the 5th Circuit case of United States v. Emerson and the District case below it for a detailed history and explanation of the 2d Amendment as an individual right.

'A well regulated Militia', that's right, that's what the second Amendment meant, not that everyone should be able to own one, but be provided one in the Defense of their country in service, only.

[Gustaf]

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.


--first, Gun control is a losing issue for Democrats.  The people want to be able to own firearms.

The Founders gave us the Bill of Rights which is a list of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS sucha s the seond amendment.

Check  out the 5th Circuit case of United States v. Emerson and the District case below it for a detailed history and explanation of the 2d Amendment as an individual right.

I actually think the idea of state militias is kind of out-dated, but that's just me.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

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.


--first, Gun control is a losing issue for Democrats.  The people want to be able to own firearms.

The Founders gave us the Bill of Rights which is a list of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS sucha s the seond amendment.

Check  out the 5th Circuit case of United States v. Emerson and the District case below it for a detailed history and explanation of the 2d Amendment as an individual right.

I actually think the idea of state militias is kind of out-dated, but that's just me.

Well, Do we as a Nation just throw out the baby with the bath water? Sure, there's a lot of outdated, useless language in the Constitution. But, we need [for STABILITY'S SAKE] preserve, protect, and defend, the Constitution of the United States of America!

[Wakie]

I think the way things stand now regarding firearms isn't too bad.  The only changes I might make would be

*Create a 48 hour "cooling off" period when purchasing a firearm.

*Close the loophole which allows unlicensed individuals to sell firearms from their "personal collection" wthout conducting a criminal background check.

*Hold accountable gun dealers who sell firearms either without conducting a background check or who knowingly sell to individuals who fail a check.

*Require anyone selling a firearm to make a gun lock available free of charge (essentially built into the price of the firearm).

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Now that the Republicans have more power I notice they've abandoned their efforts to relax gun laws. Strange, isn't it?

The frontrunner for the Democratic nomination is more friendly to the rights of gun owners than Bush is.

In other words, Republicans only oppose gun control when it suits them.

[jravnsbo]

What?  relax gun laws, Republicans have always said ENFORCE THE ONES WE HAVE, don't make more.

wakie--gun dealers now have to do background checks and it is illegal not for them to do so.  so if they are not doing this then yes they should be held accountable, as in arrested b/c they are breaking the law.

I don't believe in "gun locks" and definately don't believe int eh government mandating it, maybe make it optional.  But many people don't know how to fire a gun in a hurry with a gun lock on it and could be hurt by an attacker b/c the gun does have a gun lock on it.

[Wakie]

Yeah, after 10 years of controlling Congress (with the last 3 with a Republican White House) you would have thought they'd have gotten a lot more of that "contract with America" through.

But still .... no line item veto.  No balanced budget amendment.  No online access to Congressional documents.

Plain and simple, they just walked away from some of there stated agenda items.  Mainly those which sound good but have the potential to hurt them the most politically.

[jravnsbo]

line item veto was sstruck down by the courts, and would take a cA as would the Balanced Budget amendment and the votes for 2/3's not just a simple majority are not there.

[Wakie]

What?  relax gun laws, Republicans have always said ENFORCE THE ONES WE HAVE, don't make more.

wakie--gun dealers now have to do background checks and it is illegal not for them to do so.  so if they are not doing this then yes they should be held accountable, as in arrested b/c they are breaking the law.

I don't believe in "gun locks" and definately don't believe int eh government mandating it, maybe make it optional.  But many people don't know how to fire a gun in a hurry with a gun lock on it and could be hurt by an attacker b/c the gun does have a gun lock on it.

Yes, gun dealers have to do checks but individuals selling from their private collections do not.  That loophole allows convicted felons to get their hands on guns.  That definitely needs to be closed.

I'm in favor of stronger punishment for dealers who don't do checks.

Finally I think gun locks are necessary.  If someone doesn't know how to use a gun they really shouldn't operate one, should they?  Just as if someone doesn't know how to use a car they shouldn't operate one of those either.

[jravnsbo]

well your original post said gun dealers, so that is what I addressed.

The example I was referring to was the burglar breaking into the houseor the rapist and the woman reaches for the gun to protect herself but b/c of a gun lock she couldn't operate it and was injured.  There are documented cases on this.

Stronger punishments, don't see a problem with that.  If you break the law you are a criminal, plain and simple.

[jravnsbo]

In fact the NRA is the ones that pushed for the law to give a mandatory sentence of 5 years if a gun was used ina  criminal offense.  So no matter if they pled the crime down they still got 5 years for the crime.

Can't remember the exact name of it now, but Virginia is where it started and has spread to a lot of states from there.

[Wakie]

well your original post said gun dealers, so that is what I addressed.

I mentioned private sellers and gun dealers.

The example I was referring to was the burglar breaking into the houseor the rapist and the woman reaches for the gun to protect herself but b/c of a gun lock she couldn't operate it and was injured.  There are documented cases on this.

Sadly there are also many cases of children finding a gun without a gun lock on it and accidently hurting/killing themself or someone else.  If you want to store your gun without the gun lock on it then that is one thing.  But not being given that opportunity because the dealer "didn't have any in stock" is unacceptable.

Stronger punishments, don't see a problem with that.  If you break the law you are a criminal, plain and simple.

Someone who provides a weapon to a convicted felon should be tried as an accessory to any crime that felon then commits.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bowling for Columbine was an excellent documentary.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

well your original post said gun dealers, so that is what I addressed.

The example I was referring to was the burglar breaking into the houseor the rapist and the woman reaches for the gun to protect herself but b/c of a gun lock she couldn't operate it and was injured.  There are documented cases on this.

Stronger punishments, don't see a problem with that.  If you break the law you are a criminal, plain and simple.

Well, now, you have something there, about a possible attacker and women not knowing how to disengage a lock. But, shouldn't their significant other or a male friend take them out to a shooting range and teach them how to use a gun? With or without a lock. That's how we teach our kids how to drive, on the backroads, long before they get behind a wheel of a car with their driving instructors.

[migrendel]

I would bear no opposition to criminalizing gun ownership. The only entity, according to the Supreme Court in Presser v. Illinois, with the right to own a firearm is the government. If we criminalize possession, we can establish criminality before the weapon is ever discharged, and can prevent crime before it even happens. Then we have to contend with that most ridiculous of special interests, hunters. These people are willing to place some silly recreation before public safety. We will just have to say emphatically that their right to shoot at an animal takes a backseat to the prevention of crime, and animal population can be just as effectively controlled by selectively sterilizing a percentage of the animal population. It's really that simple, and it frustrates me to no end when certain conservatives could care less when freedom of speech and due process are treated like a poor relation in the name of national security, but unmitigated gun ownership is treated like an uncriticizable necessity.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I would bear no opposition to criminalizing gun ownership. The only entity, according to the Supreme Court in Presser v. Illinois, with the right to own a firearm is the government. If we criminalize possession, we can establish criminality before the weapon is ever discharged, and can prevent crime before it even happens. Then we have to contend with that most ridiculous of special interests, hunters. These people are willing to place some silly recreation before public safety. We will just have to say emphatically that their right to shoot at an animal takes a backseat to the prevention of crime, and animal population can be just as effectively controlled by selectively sterilizing a percentage of the animal population. It's really that simple, and it frustrates me to no end when certain conservatives could care less when freedom of speech and due process are treated like a poor relation in the name of national security, but unmitigated gun ownership is treated like an uncriticizable necessity.

I agree with most of what you said. But, my friend, I am a HUNTER. We don't do it to control the pet population, we do it for food. Venison, if done right, is delicious, and a gamy alternative to beef and pork and chicken.

[migrendel]

By that token, I supposed it would be acceptable for me to kill a spotted owl as long as I made a steak out of it. I also don't believe you get your food from hunting. If you want food, you can look in your freezer.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

By that token, I supposed it would be acceptable for me to kill a spotted owl as long as I made a steak out of it. I also don't believe you get your food from hunting. If you want food, you can look in your freezer.

yeah, and in my freezer you'd find Venison. NOW, your comparison to shooting a 'protected' species to killing a Buck is totally bogus. Deer are not a protected species. Why euthanize or sterilize when people since Biblical Days, [read about Jacob and Esau] have hunted deer. Are you a card carrying member of PETA? I, by the way, would never hunt exotic, or endangered species of any kind. Also, I am from the Upper Penninsula of Michigan. We have laws against shooting deer who's antlers have not grown more than 4 inches from the base of the skull. We have also banned feeding deer in the wild just to fatten them up to shoot them.  We are not barbaric. But, hunting is a way of life here. It does provide for food.

[© tweed]

By that token, I supposed it would be acceptable for me to kill a spotted owl as long as I made a steak out of it. I also don't believe you get your food from hunting. If you want food, you can look in your freezer.

yeah, and in my freezer you'd find Venison. NOW, your comparison to shooting a 'protected' species to killing a Buck is totally bogus. Deer are not a protected species. Why euthanize or sterilize when people since Biblical Days, [read about Jacob and Esau] have hunted deer. Are you a card carrying member of PETA? I, by the way, would never hunt exotic, or endangered species of any kind. Also, I am from the Upper Penninsula of Michigan. We have laws against shooting deer who's antlers have not grown more than 4 inches from the base of the skull. We have also banned feeding deer in the wild just to fatten them up to shoot them.  We are not barbaric. But, hunting is a way of life here. It does provide for food.

So, do you have to take a 12-inch ruler and measure the antlers?  How exactly do they regulate that?

[JNB]

 Gun Control in the US is more or less a dead issue. The suburban areas where gun control is a popular issue are now Democratic anyways, and Gore himself blames the NRA for his defeat more than any other factor. The issue is now at the point where it will harm the remaining Democrats in the rural areas, while the Dems do not have much left to gain in the suburban areas.