Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 9/16/2002 11:46:27 PM EDT
Judging from the responses in the "are there any reasonable gun laws?" thread, most gun owners seem to support reasonable infringements to the second amendment. If this represents the opinions of Americas gun owners, we surely don't have much more time before we'll follow the lead of England and Australia.
Link Posted: 9/16/2002 11:54:21 PM EDT
Not me. I support outright private ownership of full auto firearms after a background check. I think you should be able to buy ammo like buying milk---Almost anywhere!
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 12:01:18 AM EDT
And you dont see background checks (registration) (requiring government permission) as an infringement?
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 12:06:03 AM EDT
and you want violent felons and the mentally incompetent to be able to own anything with no restrictions?
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 12:07:26 AM EDT
It will be the result of diminishing returns through political expediency.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 12:10:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silence: and you want violent felons and the mentally incompetent to be able to own anything with no restrictions?
View Quote
If there weren't any infringements, violent felons wouldn't be alive very long. Same with mental incompetents who would resort to violence.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 12:12:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2002 12:23:39 AM EDT by Ken226]
Violent felons should be hanged in public immediately after thier first violent felony. and the "mentally incompetent" who can operate a firearm lawfully should not be restricted from doing so. For example, I have a neighbor who was drafted and sent to Vietnam in 1968, he was exposed to alot of chemicals and has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. He has hunted and used firearms all of his life (before and after Vietnam), I have never seen him commit an unsafe act but his brother has to handle his finances, if he is ever caught he will be charged with a felony.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 12:18:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2002 12:19:43 AM EDT by M4_Aiming_at_U]
Originally Posted By Ken226: Violent felons should be hanged in public immediately after thier first violent felony. Punish the felon, not everyone else.
View Quote
In Maryland the MDSP will not give you a CHL even if you were being stalked, If I gt caught carrying my handgun to protect myself w/o a CHL in MD and charged with a felony. Should I be hung?
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 12:26:01 AM EDT
M4, you must have missed the word "VIOLENT" in my post above. That is, unless you consider possessing a handgun without government permission (license), a VIOLENT felony.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 12:29:09 AM EDT
In MD I think they do consider that to be a "Violent Felony" Those F'n Commie bastage!
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 1:31:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silence: and you want violent felons and the mentally incompetent to be able to own anything with no restrictions?
View Quote
if everyone carries...includeing the above....then when they screw up everyone else shoots them. problem solved. "Hail Citabria7GCBC! he has solved the problems of what to do with criminals and total wackoos!!!
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 1:44:04 AM EDT
I believe that the national instant check system is good.Every felon should be entered into this system that way they cant obtain a firearm legally. If they want one bad enough the felon is gonna get a firearm there is no way around it.You cant prevent it. Now as far as Machine guns go,i think as a responsible American and due to the fact that there is gonna be lapses in Homeland Security that people should have the right to buy what firearms they are comfortable with. Under no circumstances should records be kept on law abiding Americans period.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 2:04:38 AM EDT
I am a former Infantryman, am currently a municipal police officer and hopefully soon will be a border patrol agent. I have had many background checks, all of them obviously clean yet of the many firearms I have purchased, my quickest NICS registration, ahem, background check, has taken two days. This may seem reasonable to some of you, but I dont like having to ask government permission to buy something. I have arrested quite alot of felons who happened to be armed, probably roughly 100 plus or minus. I make it a point to ask them where they obtained thier guns, and I havn't yet had one who bought it legally and submitted to the background check that im required to submit to. So, in effect, the background check is only an inconvenience to the law abiding. It doesn't even inconvenience the criminals.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 2:17:56 AM EDT
Ahh, the BP. The third most corrupt Federal law enforcement branch (only the IRS and ATF beat it!). I remember seeing a report that the BP (I think it was the New Mexico branch) has the most 'on the job' felony (murder, rape, robbery, extortion, etc) investigations pending right now per employee. To those of you saying 'anybody, anygun, anytime' Do you support 'reasonable' restrictions on speach? IE- Slander- should you be able to say anything, about anyone, anytime, regardless of the facts? or the classic 'Yelling FIRE! in a crowded theatre'? Should that be protected by the 1st Amendment?
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 2:41:32 AM EDT
I think some of us have had good points. However, Think how many felons out their can't get guns easily. Just because one person can doens't mean others can't. Think how many more felons would carry guns if they didn't have to do a background check. Futher more, Would you want your neighbor playing around with some sort of high explosive material he bought? Would you feel safe having you kids in the house next door to some guy who might be unstable with 5 pounds of C4? Hey What if the nieghborhood thug got mad at you for calling the cops and ordered himself a rocket launcher to blow up your car? Their are resonable restrictions that have to apply. Back when the second ammendment was made they didn't have guns that fired 2 miles or guns that fired 11 rounds a minutes. They had muskets and cannons. Its kinda hard to do a drive by shooting with a musket. What are you gona do, drive by slowly and fire off three rounds a minute? Everything out their is subject to resonable restriction. You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater. However you can go on TV and talk about doing drugs and you won't get in trouble. So you people that think that anyone should be able to own anything they want, just remember, just because you can be mature and handle it doesn't mean everyone else can.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 2:54:29 AM EDT
show me a single instance of a violent felon being stopped by a nics check. cannons could in fact, shoot in excess of a mile and did in fact, fire explosive rounds. But we arent talking about destructive devices, and neither is the second amendment. Rockets, missiles, grenades, fission/fusion warheads, mustard gas and the rest of the weapons you are referring to are not arms, they are destructive devices. One may yell fire in a crowded theatre if there IS a fire. For those of you who prefer fascism, why must you impose it on us? There are many places where the form of government you want already exists. You do as you please, and Ill do as I please.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 3:00:42 AM EDT
The 2nd amendment give us the right to keep a well-regulated malitia. What is that? A bunch of guys with Ar's and AK's? Back then they owned cannons and musckets. I don't think I would now trust a militia that happens to be against the governemt using a howitzer. I know some militias are good but not all of them
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 3:01:33 AM EDT
Yes I know I can't spell. Sue me
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 3:06:17 AM EDT
Ok one more post. Violent felons arn't stopped by NICS becuase they know it exists. They don't bother trying. That would be like driving drunk and purposly driving through a police sobriety check-point. I have heard of some instances of people being turned down because they were felons.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 3:11:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2002 3:18:53 AM EDT by Ken226]
The militia is not the dipsticks you see on TV wearing beards, berets and pot bellies. The militia is "10 U.S.C. 311(a) clearly states that all males between the ages of 17 and 45 who are either citizens of the United States or have declared their intent to become citizens are members of the unorganized militia." I agree that felons avoid gun dealers because they know they will be denied. That is why nearly 100% of the weapons i have recovered from criminals where taken during burglaries. Since the NICS law went into affect the demand for black market firearms has increased several hundred percent. Firearms are one of the most sought after items on a burglars shopping list.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 4:00:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silence: To those of you saying 'anybody, anygun, anytime' Do you support 'reasonable' restrictions on speach? IE- Slander- should you be able to say anything, about anyone, anytime, regardless of the facts? or the classic 'Yelling FIRE! in a crowded theatre'? Should that be protected by the 1st Amendment?
View Quote
Slander - You should be able to say anything about anybody anytime. Regardless of the facts? No. If you say someone is a scumbag, be prepared to back it up. Otherwise, they get to sue you. 'Yelling FIRE! in a crowded theatre'? This puts others at risk. However, when you enter a theatre, they don't gag you before you sit down to insure that you don't behave that way. An adult should be able to know what behavior is acceptable in a specific situation. Likewise, gun control laws are the "gag at the theatre". It prevents law abiding citizens from excercising a RIGHT.
Originally Posted By rasanders22: The second amendment gives us the right....
View Quote
No. The second amendment states the right that exists. If the Constitution and Bill of Rights were torn up, these rights would still exist. The Constitution and Bill of Rights simply put them on paper.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 4:05:58 AM EDT
Ken226, Going back to your first post. You made the claim that supporting reasonable restrictions would lead to more or less the declaration that 'our guns will be illegal soon'. That would seem to argue that you favor NO restrictions at all, corrct? If so, do you think it is ok for a seriel killer to get out of jail walk across the street and buy a Ma duece? (and dont say that that cant happen, it will happen in Texas of all places in 2006, a seriel killer of, rough estimate, 200+ women, that has repeatedly said that when he gets out he will start back will be released, since texas gave him immunity of a few murders to recover the bodies of some of his victims, and then they gave extra 'good time' to ease overcrowding, and no other cases can be linked to him other than through the police and courts 'knowing' he did them, but no actual evidence linking him to the crime) Should you be able to take a glock and wave it around inside a theatre? It may be that I am not understanding the argument that you are making, but you seem to be saying that any and all restrictions are evil. I guess what I am attempting to ask is this, when you say that the 'support of reasonable infringements' leads to 'our guns will be illegal soon', do you mean that there can be Zero, none, nada, zilch, infringements? That the right of the People to keep and bear overrides the general welfare of the People? If your 'right' is in opposition to the general welfare, which one is greater? (now for this particular question do not that the use of the word 'your' to mean you in particular, but take it to mean ANYBODY (felons, children, mentally incompetent, citizens, resident aliens, members of Congress, the President, judges, whatever))
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 4:18:25 AM EDT
Ok I am not gona turn this into a religious debate but.... The bills of rights and the constitution give us our rights. We can continue to cal them god given but in reality they are not. If god really wanted us to have guns I'm sure he would put something into place to make sure every person alive in this world could have one. But that doesn't exist. You don't hear people in 3rd world countries crying out about their god given rights. Anywho, The supreme court has ruled that the first amendement can be blocked as was the case in wwI. Now this was a long time ago but it still passed. As far as putting a gag in someones mouth, the movie theather (I'm pretty sure about this) would most likly refuse enterence to someone that had been kicked out before for making a lot of noise. Say if they had been kicked out ten times from the movie theater and tried to go back, I'm sure the management would make them leave. Is making someone be quite a violation of their first amendement. No one is getting hurt by it. And lastly, I am glad the NICs is in place. I don't plan on doing anything illegal and if I do, I plan to face the jury and take my punishment. I'm glad the violent offenders cannot buy guns and are detered by NICS. I'm glad people have to go throught all the stuff for class 3 weapons. I'm not happy that they limited how many were made but hey thats life. I wouldn't trust just anyone being able to go in a buy a full-auto SAW/M60. I'm not in fear of the common criminal that has one. I am afraif of a nutcase who goes on a spree killing with a m60 that he bought the day before. We can all sit and talk about what we would do if someone was shooting at us, but how many of us have been shot at? My ideal national gun control laws are as follows; NICS background check, NFA items with no limitations (can buy brand new machine guns, can't think of how to word it) and thats it. Guns out of the hands of felons and mentaly insane and into the hand of the people who want them.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 4:20:57 AM EDT
As for a convicted murderer getting out and buying a gun, I see no reason why he should ever get out or even why he is still alive. If, however, they decide to let him out, and his debt to society is payed (ie no probation or parole) then yes, his constitutional rights are restored. As for buying a MaDuece, I believe the M2hb .50 is classified as a destructive device and not small arms. I dont support "no restrictions on weapons" but I do support what the second amendment states, "arms (not destructive devices), shall not be infringed"
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 4:22:23 AM EDT
'Reasonable restrictions' are just that, reasonable. Everyone should be able to agree on that. No firearms in Courts. No firearms in the possession of someone who is intoxicated. There are not a whole lotta places where firearms should be banned by the government, but being a true believer in property rights, if certain property owners wish to make their property 'weapons free' they should be allowed to do so. Football stadiums, maybe. I know that if I owned a professional sporting venue, I would not be all that happy in paying increased insurance premiums if I didn't ban weapons from my arena. Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 4:28:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2002 4:32:19 AM EDT by Ken226]
ETH, I couldn't agree more. But what most are calling reasonable restrictions are in fact, infringements. For example, the second amendment was intended to give the people a means to defend themselve against an oppressive government. Now, in order to defend ones self, we must obtain government approval. Make no mistake about it, the NICS system is a means of obtaining government permission.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 4:39:51 AM EDT
Erm- Arms INCLUDE 'destructive' devices. Arms isnt just Firearms. Granted firearms are the main meaning in these days, but in the 18th century it meant every weapon: Firearms, swords, hangers, knives, billy clubs, axes, bows, crossbows, grenades, etc. It even quite possibly meant cannon and Ships of war, there is some debate I have read that cited both cannon and ships as having been considered 'arms' by the Founding Fathers. [i]arms (from merrium webster) Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Old French, from Latin arma Date: 13th century 1 a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : FIREARM[/i] Or are your saying that the NFA of '34 is good? In my opinion it is a GREATER infringement than the AW ban of 94, or the GCA of 68. And just because you have 'served your time' you dont get your rights back, you have to petition for them to be restored.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 4:47:17 AM EDT
Websters lists the common definition, when it comes to matters of law websters is out the window. Statutory law in itself gives every word a legal definition which is rarely the same as websters common definition. I agree, NFA is more of an infringement than GCA68 or the Klinton ban. By the way, I believe ATF now gets to define what is and is not a destructive device.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 4:51:43 AM EDT
Thanks, [b]Ken226[/b], but insofar as government permission to purchase weapons for my collection, I will pay a little extra, if need be, for a private sale - one that is totally devoid of government approval and, er, knowledge - than for an NICS purchase. Luckily, you will always find that the private sale is cheaper anyway! No yellow sheet, no sales tax. No trail. Do not believe for a second that the people of the United States could be conquered by any group, foreign or domestic, [b]IF[/b] they have the will to resist. And that's a very big [b]IF[/b]! They will, at least for the present, always have the [b]means to resist![/b] What? 100 Million small arms in the United States? Do we even know? But whenever there comes forth a generation of Americans 'who know not George Washington', [u]then[/u] this nation, as it was originally formed, will perish, and perish very, very quickly. I got that line about George Washington from this: [b]Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph[/b]. Exodus, Chapter 1:8. Because this new Pharaoh had forgotten all that Joseph had done for his fathers, he chose to place the children of Israel into bondage. So it will be with [u]our[/u] country! Eric The(Biblical)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 5:02:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2002 5:06:08 AM EDT by Ken226]
"Because this new Pharaoh had forgotten all that Joseph had done for his fathers, he chose to place the children of Israel into bondage. So it will be with our country!" ETH, well said. Legal definitions DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE - Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces; a missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; a mine, or a device similar to any of the devices described above; (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and (C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described above and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. 18 U.S.C. There is NO legal definition for the word "arms".
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 5:11:11 AM EDT
Ok, what is the statutory definition of 'arms'? And please cite the case or statute that defines it. And yes the ATF decides what a DD is, as part of the NFA of '34. Is the USAS-12 a shotgun, machine gun, or a DD? The ATF says it is a DD. Does that make it not an ARM anymore? One further thing, The reason I am badgering you is that you have your own 'personal' definition of reasonable, as a matter of fact so does EVERYBODY. A 'reasonable' restriction is not an infringement. An 'UNreasonable' restriction is an infringement. And it is up to the courts, or, if the courts get out of hand, the People to decide what the line between the two is. There can be an 'unreasonable' exercise of rights too.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 5:22:31 AM EDT
ummm read my sig....and quit giving up and rolling over, half of you sound like little girls begging daddy for some candy---can I please have a gun?---lap dogs all of ya---and then Eric comes in and says "no guns in court"..certainly not no one wants protection where all the scum are.......I think I'll go throw up.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 5:23:37 AM EDT
There is NO legal definition for the word "arms".
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 6:00:24 AM EDT
Soapbox time - since I'm new here I haven't done that yet but this is close to a raw nerve. Because of my interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I think American citizens should be able to own ANY weapon of their choice. We would never find ourselves squeezed between tyranny and criminals if that were the case. That said, first thing to do is repeal the 1968 GCA (aand all the others to boot) and rid ourselves of one of its supporters - Charlton Heston. The '68 GCA was the US 'word for word' version of the NAZI 1938 GCA which makes CE, at best, a former American Nazi. Then charge every politician & LEO (federal, state, or local) that promotes gun control with treason. As for 'violent criminals' being 'allowed' to purchase weapons when they get out ... (1) why are they getting out?; (2) if they are OK to let out, why deprive them of their right to defend themseleves? (I didn't say attack others, etc.) In my opinion, the founding fathers knew a militia was necessary to protect this country but they knew that could be used to impose tyranny too (that's why the Constitution prohibits a standing army). So that's what they said in the 2nd Amend..., [i]"Since a possibly evil, constantly armed, group is/will be necessary to defend this place (but equally or better possibly capable of destroying freedoms of the people), we believe the people as a whole should retain the right to defend themselves against such a group with every means attainable; that way, the people will always outgun the predisposed tyrants.[/i] The 2nd Amend prohibited the US govt. from infringing on the right of the people. That right is reserved to the people (not to the states they live in either). If you have a problem with criminals having weapons, deal with the criminal, not the weapons.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 6:14:41 AM EDT
KEA, Damn!, now your speaking my language.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 7:30:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2002 7:33:10 AM EDT by jrzy]
Originally Posted By Ken226: show me a single instance of a violent felon being stopped by a nics check.
View Quote
My son as some of you guys know is an FFL,his very first customer EVER that walked through the door 2 years ago was a convicted felon,he still had his firearms ID card from the state on new jersey on him and he filled out the paperwork and my son was on the phone with NICS,the girl on the other end told my son to be careful and not turn his back on him and that he should say"the computer is down right now" my son told me the hairs on the back of his neck stood up and he said he was glad he had his gun on. The guy got spooked and said he would come back after lunch,he didn't and the state police came in shortly after that and picked up the guys paperwork and they just caught up with the guy this past year in Florida. We never did find out what the guy was convicted of but the state trooper said it was bad real bad.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 8:23:49 AM EDT
ok I have one more poiont to make before I shut up on the topic. For anyone who things their should be no restrictions, let me ask you a question. By support no restictions on firearms, you then have to support an American citizen, who just got back in America from and Al Quaida training camp in afghanistan, being able to go into a gun store in any state, buy a full-auto AK-47, get onto a fully loaded plane? Thats idiotic. And before someone oput their says hey, If i had my gun I could stop him from hijacking, lemme present a scenario. Mohamad Abdual Laden, an american citizen is sitting next to you on a plane withj a loaded full auto AK-47 with AP rounds. He gets up to go to the bathroom at the front of the plane. All of a sudden, he unloaded his clip through the cockpit door, through te pilots, through the control panels dooming the plane to crash. Anyone see a problem when you have no gun restriction. I could come up with more but I need to go to bed. goodnight everyone
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 9:11:14 AM EDT
ras....let me give you a scenario...the government decides that Mormons are "a treat to the safety and well being of the united states" and decides to attack their church and burn it to the ground with the people inside....instead they are met with a hail of bullets and decide that this is not the way to go about things...It happened in Texas....at Waco....I don't give a rat's ass about any whiny "what if" scenario that you come up with...I am more frightened of the US government than I am of the approved enemy of the moment. And here's another one for you..."what if anyone on the four planes on Sept 11 had been carrying and had killed the "hijackers"..........being helpless is no deterrent......read that again. And again...or do agree with the fed who said rape is like the weather, you should just lay back and enjoy it?
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 10:36:07 AM EDT
As an attorney, I can tell you that it is almost certainly untrue that there is no 'legal' definition of 'arms'. As an initial matter, our legal system has no qualms about giving multiple definitions to a word or phrase. Therefore, the word arms in the constitution could mean something different in the Constitution than it does in one federal law than it does in another federal law than it does in some federal regulation, than it does in your home state...etc. you get the point. While it is true that the text of the Constitution does not define 'arms' as used in the Constitution there is likely case law that does set forth a definition (though I haven't had time to look into it). The ordinary rule of legal construction is that when a term is undefined it is given its ordinarily understood meaning. That is to say, the rough equivalent of a dictionary meaning (in most cases). The problem with Constitutional interpretation is the approach taken. For instance, should the court construe the language in harmony with the realities of today or should the document be construed as originally intended. This is only a rough outline, the various options approaches and conclusions are staggering. Maybe I will elaborate mopre if I get a chance later on.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 10:54:39 AM EDT
Post from hound -
and then Eric comes in and says "no guns in court"..certainly not no one wants protection where all the scum are.......I think I'll go throw up.
View Quote
You actually want guns in a courtroom? So David Westerfield, who, up until his conviction the other day for the murder of 7 year old Danielle Van Dam, was legally entitled to own and possess a weapon, came into the courtroom each and every day of his weeks-long trial, he should have been allowed to take his weapon from the holster under his coat and place it on the counsel table in front of him. So that when the jury was deliberating his guilt or innocence, some juror could say, 'You know this guy is armed. Are we certain we need to bring back a guilty verdict? He might start shooting, and we'd be his likely target!' [b]hound[/b], they didn't allow firearms into courtrooms 100 years ago, 150 years ago, or even 200 years ago. So if there is some inherent right to bring a weapon into a court of law, I don't know about it! Relax! You can always shoot your attorney as he tries to get into his late-model luxury vehicle! You know how difficult it is to maneuver those fat torsos and briefcases into small openings! And shoot him from ambush! Why not? Eric The(Sheesh!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 11:09:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2002 11:19:39 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By Imbroglio:
Originally Posted By Silence: and you want violent felons and the mentally incompetent to be able to own anything with no restrictions?
View Quote
If there weren't any infringements, violent felons wouldn't be alive very long. Same with mental incompetents who would resort to violence.
View Quote
Yes. Instead of trying to just restrict RKBA of people convicted of simple assault & battery or DUI/accident w/injury let's just shoot them all. THAT'S the more 'reasonable' thing to do. EDITED TO ADD: Loss of certain rights is part of the punishment of committing a felony. What's wrong with that?
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 11:16:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jrzy:
Originally Posted By Ken226: show me a single instance of a violent felon being stopped by a nics check.
View Quote
My son as some of you guys know is an FFL,his very first customer EVER that walked through the door 2 years ago was a convicted felon,he still had his firearms ID card from the state on new jersey on him and he filled out the paperwork and my son was on the phone with NICS,the girl on the other end told my son to be careful and not turn his back on him and that he should say"the computer is down right now" my son told me the hairs on the back of his neck stood up and he said he was glad he had his gun on. The guy got spooked and said he would come back after lunch,he didn't and the state police came in shortly after that and picked up the guys paperwork and they just caught up with the guy this past year in Florida. We never did find out what the guy was convicted of but the state trooper said it was bad real bad.
View Quote
Good story [b]jrzy[/b]. There's probably DOZENS of stories like that from most FFLs. I was in a store once and a guy with two DUI convictions was turned down because of the background check. He was handling a gun at the time and was firmly told to put the gun down and leave the store because he wasn't even supposed to be anywhere near a gunstore. I could understand the "no you can't buy that gun" part but I thought that was odd that he was 'asked' to leave the premises. Was that an over-reaction on the gunstore owner's part?
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 11:16:24 AM EDT
Eric we have had this discussion before...no the person in custody should not have a weapon. Otherwise yes.......simple really.As for your question of inherent right, read my sig. And in my perfect little world, the only question about David would be burial arrangements because little Danielle would have pulled a .32 and capped his ass. And one more time---being helpless is no deterrant.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 11:18:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2002 11:22:41 AM EDT by Apatriot]
Well I Guess we should put things in perspective a little........ A mental incompetent can still own and drive a car, Which means that person can still buy Gasoline with out a background check......... If i recall correctly, gasoline in a bottle with a rag in it,When lit and thrown produces a rather nasty effect.So...I guess we better start the NICS before anyone gets to buy Gasoline.....Oh .I almost forgot....It's for the children...... The big problem here,is that most people have no friggin idea what the constitution and bill of rights are.These documents do not limit the peoples rights at all,these documents spell out the limits of our federal government.And everything else is left to the people.It is not the federal governments place to interpet or explain the meaning of anything in these documents.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 11:24:11 AM EDT
Apatriot...don't get on my side of the fence, they will all hate you and throw insults....thanks for showing how stupid the liberal attitudes of our local gun-grabbers are.....
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 11:35:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2002 12:54:58 PM EDT by legalese77]
As a brief follow up to my earlier post, we should all remember the full text of the 2nd amendment so we can speak competently. As you may know, the amendment refers to the right of people to keep and bear arms only with respect to the support of a well regulated militia [original language edited since some individuals insist on hanging on to a single unfortunately worded sentence despite its withdrawal via a later post]. One might argue that we either a)don't have any militia anymore or b)the militia is the equivalent of organized police, national guard or some other group or c)something more clever than the simplistic options listed here. Depending on the reading, the analysis can then vary drastically. Some people would argue that because there is no militia or because some other group fills that role that the right to bear arms is satisfied by allowing those filling the 'well regulated militia' role to bear arms. Others would even suggest that the absence of a militia means that Americans have no right to bear arms. On the other hand, one could also argue that while the militia no longer exists as it once did, the modern day anlog would be to permit ordinary citizens to bear arms because that's what the Constitutional guarantee amounted to when drafted. (Keep in mind however that I am neither a historian nor do I specialize in this area but I am merely presenting the more popular legal aspects of this ongoing debate.)Furthermore, even if one does have a right, don't be fooled, you have no absolute rights. For instance, 'free speech' does not mean that you can say whatever you want whenever you want with impunity. Likewise with all rights, none are unqualified. 'Reasonable' restrictions are just as one other poster suggested, reasonable. If they are reasonable, there should be no objection to them. On the other hand, I understand the fear of 'reasonable' restrictions being carried too far and of course not everyone agrees on what is reasonable. I would also like to briefly weigh in on the violent felon issue. Anyone that would suggest that violent felons ought to be executed or suffer some other such terrible fate has absolutely no idea how easy it is to commit a crime classified as a felony. Furthermore, they have no grasp of how broad the definition of 'violent' can be within a given legal system. While many people refuse to believe so, scores of inncocent people are convicted for crimes they are not guilty of, including violent felonies. Example: Illinois currently has a moratorium on the death penalty because we found out that we had *for sure* *at least* innocent people numbering in the double digits sitting on death row waiting for execution. That speaks volumes. Those cases should suffer the least degree of error since the most is at stake. How many people whom are not guilty are convicted of significantly lesser crimes (domestic violence, simple assault, small time pot dealers, burglary, etc.)or are railroaded or coerced into admitting guilt/confessing through abuse of investigators/prosecutors/etc? I submit that the numbers are staggering. Please remember the fragility and capacity for error of the legal system lest you have to find out the hard way someday.
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 11:38:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rasanders22: I think some of us have had good points. However, Think how many felons out their can't get guns easily. Just because one person can doens't mean others can't. Think how many more felons would carry guns if they didn't have to do a background check.
View Quote
Think how many more honest citizens would carry guns if we didn't ban it or create a bunch of hoops to jump through to do it legally.
Futher more, Would you want your neighbor playing around with some sort of high explosive material he bought? Would you feel safe having you kids in the house next door to some guy who might be unstable with 5 pounds of C4?
View Quote
[b]You do not have the right to feel safe[/b]. You cannot infringe on other peoples' rights in the name of feeling safe. As for the serial murders and violent felons just out of jail, why are they walking out of jail alive and still willing to commit crimes? This is a failure of the criminal justice system, not a failure of gun laws. It must be treated by making sure real criminals do not leave jail willing to commit another crime, not by passing more gun laws. For the record, I do think that background checks are reasonable, but government-mandated background checks performed by the government that the guns are supposed to protect us from is directly opposed to the meaning of the constitution. And of course, private property is still private property. If you are on my property, be it a home, store, football stadium, or anywhere else, I can tell you to do anything I want. If you don't like it you can leave, and if I don't like what you are doing, I can make you leave. But I can only use force (force including arrest by armed police officers) if you refuse to leave, or if you use force against someone else first. The fundamental concept behind law in this country is supposed to be that every individual person has the right to Life, Liberty, and Property. These rights cannot be infringed, unless that person has threatened or harmed the Life, Liberty or Property of another individual. In no other case can these rights be infringed, even in the name of the good of society. Especially since what they call the "good of society" is usually the good of the people who are leading that society. Of course the defendant in a criminal trial can't have a gun. If he is on trial, there is (or at least is supposed to be) a reasonable suspicion that he has harmed the Life, Liberty or Property of another individual. When you do that, you lose your rights, at least your right to self-defense. But why not the jurors or the visitors? The balif has one, doesn't he? And I think the judge can too. Are they better then the rest of us? I think is Macallan who likes to say "All your guns are already banned, they're just taking their time rounding them up!"
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 11:45:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By legalese77: As a brief follow up to my earlier post, we should all remember the full text of the 2nd amendment so we can speak competently. As you may know, the amendment refers to the right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms. One might argue that we either a)don't have any militia anymore or b)the militia is the equivalent of organized police, national guard or some other group or c)something more clever than the simplistic options listed here. Depending on the reading, the analysis can then vary drastically. Some people would argue that because there is no militia or because some other group fills that role that the right to bear arms is satisfied by allowing those filling the 'well regulated militia' role to bear arms. Others would even suggest that the absence of a militia means that Americans have no right to bear arms. On the other hand, one could also argue that while the militia no longer exists as it once did, the modern day anlog would be to permit ordinary citizens to bear arms because that's what the Constitutional guarantee amounted to when drafted. (Keep in mind however that I am neither a historian nor do I specialize in this area but I am merely presenting the more popular legal aspects of this ongoing debate.)Furthermore, even if one does have a right, don't be fooled, you have no absolute rights. For instance, 'free speech' does not mean that you can say whatever you want whenever you want with impunity. Likewise with all rights, none are unqualified. 'Reasonable' restrictions are just as one other poster suggested, reasonable. If they are reasonable, there should be no objection to them. On the other hand, I understand the fear of 'reasonable' restrictions being carried too far and of course not everyone agrees on what is reasonable. I would also like to briefly weigh in on the violent felon issue. Anyone that would suggest that violent felons ought to be executed or suffer some other such terrible fate has absolutely no idea how easy it is to commit a crime classified as a felony. Furthermore, they have no grasp of how broad the definition of 'violent' can be within a given legal system. While many people refuse to believe so, scores of inncocent people are convicted for crimes they are not guilty of, including violent felonies. Example: Illinois currently has a moratorium on the death penalty because we found out that we had *for sure* *at least* innocent people numbering in the double digits sitting on death row waiting for execution. That speaks volumes. Those cases should suffer the least degree of error since the most is at stake. How many people whom are not guilty are convicted of significantly lesser crimes (domestic violence, simple assault, small time pot dealers, burglary, etc.)or are railroaded or coerced into admitting guilt/confessing through abuse of investigators/prosecutors/etc? I submit that the numbers are staggering. Please remember the fragility and capacity for error of the legal system lest you have to find out the hard way someday.
View Quote
Erm 'right of the militia'? Horsehockey! PLease go read the Second again, you didnt get it all the first time around! or [:k]?
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 11:47:46 AM EDT
Hey devildawg, don't think the records arent being kept. cmjohnson has already assisted me in re-evaluating my stance on the MG issue....
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 11:52:34 AM EDT
Once again we have a liberal gun-grabber trying to confuse us with legalese....You state you ignorance of the full text of the and and then try to browbeat us into "reasonable" restrictions. Let me quote for you 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. Not some people, not white people, but all people who are necesaary to the security of a free state As for the felon statement that is so often thrown around.....I am going to say this one more time----being helpless is not a deterrant. Criminals are by definition, Lawbreakers, explain to me how passing more laws will solve that?
Link Posted: 9/17/2002 11:54:03 AM EDT
Mace: I am very sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Your understanding of your rights while on your property is roughly, but not entirely accurate. I don't mean the following to be a personal attack, just informative. I believe that if most Americans were told what they should be told about the law, our Constitution and jurisprudence in general that most of them would be absolutely outraged. However, you, like many others are WOEFULLY misinformed about the nature of 'life liberty and property' These rights may be infringed and are constantly infringed without any proof of threat or harm to any other person's rights (unless of course you mean potential threat and then the exception swallows the rule as practically every act or omission by a person 'potentially' threatens the rights of another) The precise language is "no person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.." Due process is a fluid concept and can take on different meanings. The Supreme Court has gone to great lengths to try and define precisely what due process is. See the Supreme Court case of Mathews v Eldridge. The bottom line, however is that due process is often very little, if any, protection against an infringement of your rights. Nobody in this country is nearly so 'free' and has as many 'rights' as we would all like to believe. In the meantime, I shall provide everyone a link for their educational enrichment: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top