Obama and gun control

Devil505 wrote:We can't limit PEOPLE in our society, but we can & do have sensible limits on weapons.

Isn't it fair to say laws limit people and their actions?

djackman wrote:Isn't it fair to say laws limit people and their actions?

Not sure I catch your drift???

djackman wrote:

Devil505 wrote:We can't limit PEOPLE in our society, but we can & do have sensible limits on weapons.

Isn't it fair to say laws limit people and their actions?

Technically speaking, all unconstitutional laws are not laws at all and "theoretically", we have no duty to obey them. I don't suggest you test this theory in places like the 9th Circuit Court, but, I'm just sayin'.......

If you think about any action or activity you do, ask yourself "Does this take away someone's life, liberty or their pursuit of happiness?" If the answer is "No", then enjoy yourself! If it's "Yes", then you probably shouldn't be doing it and if caught should be prosecuted and punished heavily.

It's as simple as that.

Devil505 wrote:

djackman wrote:Isn't it fair to say laws limit people and their actions?

Not sure I catch your drift???

Way I understood it you're saying to have "sensible limits" on weapons since people in our society can't be controlled. Unless I missed your drift....

The penalties for breaking laws are what prevent people from doing something "bad", not the availability or choice of device used in the act.

djackman wrote:Way I understood it you're saying to have "sensible limits" on weapons since people in our society can't be controlled. Unless I missed your drift....

Yup...You missed it...... but maybe I worded it poorly.( It was kind off an attempt at humor/irony saying that, unlike China that limits married couples to only one child, we have no such limits & therefore no control over the number of people we have in this country)

djackman wrote:The penalties for breaking laws are what prevent people from doing something "bad", not the availability or choice of device used in the act.

Sometimes yes & sometimes no. Again, I'll use Columbine as an example:

The two murdering, suicidal teens were not deterred by penalties at all, in fact they were suicidal & wanted to die. So, if penalties didn't deter them from perpetrating & even worse massacre using machine gun & hand grenades, what did?
Their (the weapons) lack of availability is what saved many lives, not fear of penalties.
(Fear of penalties has never been a particularly effective deterrent to crime anyway, since most criminals don't think they'll be caught)

Devil wrote....

(I am in favor of a citizen's right to own/carry firearms, but not in an unregulated way)


I have come to accept some regulation. I will not concede any further until I see evidence of two things.

1. That further regulation is KNOWN to be effective and it isn't onerous to firearms owners in such a way as to be completely offensive to their rights.
2. That every other gun control law is being used to its' fullest potential.

That means that every single NICS denial will be fully investigated. Those who were denied erroneously should be compensated for the interference in their rightful and legal rights to purchase and own firearms. Every other one will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

That will keep BATF and the FBI, and Handgun Control and the rest busy for the next century. They claim they don't have enough people to investigate and charge every denial. I say, "BULL!" You want more laws? For what? You don't have resources and manpower to enforce the ones you have now.

BE GONE! Come back when an idea that will have some effect on crime, and when you've got resources and manpower enough to enforce the laws already on the books. Until then, new laws are only going to add to your workload and further strain already scarce resources.

It's getting late but....god help me...I do enjoy this topic too much to not respond!
I'll be brief:

LeonMSPT wrote:I have come to accept some regulation. I will not concede any further until I see evidence of two things.

1. That further regulation is KNOWN to be effective and it isn't onerous to firearms owners in such a way as to be completely offensive to their rights.
2. That every other gun control law is being used to its' fullest potential.

I have serious doubts that anyone would ever be able to convince you that any new law would meet your "Known to be effective" requirement in item #1 above.(all new laws need time to determine their effectiveness or ineffectiveness)
Your requirement #2 would equally be impossible to prove since the answer would always be subjective.

LeonMSPT wrote:That means that every single NICS denial will be fully investigated. Those who were denied erroneously should be compensated for the interference in their rightful and legal rights to purchase and own firearms.

I agree with your basic argument that application for a firearms license should be handled relatively quickly & universaly accepted UNLESS there are good reasons for a denial. (criminal or mental history, etc)
(We can always debate what is a reasonable amount of time to give the government for investigation, but I would say............1 month tops, is what I would say was reasonable)

I agree with your basic argument that application for a firearms license should be handled relatively quickly & universaly accepted UNLESS there are good reasons for a denial. (criminal or mental history, etc)
(We can always debate what is a reasonable amount of time to give the government for investigation, but I would say............1 month tops, is what I would say was reasonable)


"License"? There's where the conversation ends.

We don't license rights. We don't allow the government that kind of authority. What they can give, they can take away. With no licensing, and no registration, we're never going to debate confiscation of any sort. I can provide example after example of governments that "promised" they'd never use licensing or registration records to confiscate firearms. Yet, when the rubber hit the road, they did it in New York, and they did it in New Jersey, and they've done it in California. They especially did it in England and Australia.

We'll have no licensing or registration, that's not up for debate for me. I don't trust todays' bureaucrats, and I certainly don't trust tomorrows'.

NICS is "instant", and when we're talking about rights, that's how it has to be.

You don't get to lock someone up for a month while you figure out whether or not they did something wrong. You don't get to stop people and demand their papers. Whether or not those things would make your (our) job "easier", or make you more "effective" as a law enforcement officer is absolutely and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I got to go to bed... spent most of the evening digging out and plowing, and have the same thing to look forward to in the morning before I leave for work...

Leon

LeonMSPT wrote:I got to go to bed... spent most of the evening digging out and plowing, and have the same thing to look forward to in the morning before I leave for work...
Leon

Hey!!...What is this "Leave for work" crap!! Stay here & debate it out....Like a man!!
(where are you priorities man?????...Work???)

LeonMSPT wrote:I can provide example after example of governments that "promised" they'd never use licensing or registration records to confiscate firearms. Yet, when the rubber hit the road, they did it in New York, and they did it in New Jersey, and they've done it in California.

Please do. I'm not familiar with the "Confiscation" of legally owned firearms by any government authority in the U.S.??

LeonMSPT wrote:You don't get to lock someone up for a month while you figure out whether or not they did something wrong.

Sure you do. If an accused criminal doesn't make bail, we keep them locked up all the time, even though they are presumed innocent until proven guilty at trial.

LeonMSPT wrote:You don't get to stop people and demand their papers.

Tell that to the TSA guards the next time you try to board a commercial aircraft.

LeonMSPT wrote:Whether or not those things would make your (our) job "easier", or make you more "effective" as a law enforcement officer is absolutely and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Quite right..but...Whether or not those things make our society safer is completely relevant.

Devil505 wrote:

LeonMSPT wrote:I can provide example after example of governments that "promised" they'd never use licensing or registration records to confiscate firearms. Yet, when the rubber hit the road, they did it in New York, and they did it in New Jersey, and they've done it in California.

Please do. I'm not familiar with the "Confiscation" of legally owned firearms by any government authority in the U.S.??

New Orleans following Katrina is probably the most recent example. Literally thousands of legal gun owners robbed of their guns by the New Orleans government.

Many states have had to modify their laws to prevent activist groups from getting hold of CCW permit holder's names and addresses and publishing them in local newspapers, as if they were sex offenders or drunk drivers or even shoplifters. There's a similar effort underway by activist groups to get access to law enforcement access only firearm trace records and data, which the Tiahrt Amendment (to BATFE appropriations bills) has been preventing for years. While these two were not confiscation, they do represent gross violations of privacy of the law abiding and attempts to misuse data even the BATFA and police wish to keep confidential given the sensitive nature of the data and how it can impact ongoing investigations and how it can unjustly point suspicion on completely law abiding individuals.

Devil, I find it hard to believe with the way you argue and debate and show how well read and informed you are, that you "overlooked" the Katrina thing. Selective memory prehaps? Hoping your opposition would not be sharp? I think you do this on more then one site.

Kevin

Devil505 wrote:

LeonMSPT wrote:You don't get to stop people and demand their papers.

Tell that to the TSA guards the next time you try to board a commercial aircraft.

And you're OK with that?

I have a number of reasons why I won't get on a plane, TSA or no, but I certainly will never do it just based on this reason alone.

KLook wrote:Devil, I find it hard to believe with the way you argue and debate and show how well read and informed you are, that you "overlooked" the Katrina thing. Selective memory prehaps? Hoping your opposition would not be sharp? I think you do this on more then one site.

Kevin

Thanks for the compliments Kevin! I guess I overlooked the natural disaster, emergency, (rare events) when a state Governor is allowed to declare "Martial Law," which vastly increases his power & makes many of our Constitutional rights null & void during the short emergency time period. (we could debate the prudence of allowing Governors so much power, but that would be for another topic. Suffice it to say that, short of providing no checks on owning a gun & keeping gun owner's identities secret from the government, there would be no way to stop those rare instances of temporarily losing a few rights, for the greater good.
I'll repeat my request for examples OUTSIDE of Martial Law being declared, when a government authority (within the U.S) has confiscated legal registered guns from their legal owner.

jpete wrote:And you're OK with that?

I have a number of reasons why I won't get on a plane, TSA or no, but I certainly will never do it just based on this reason alone.

I don't LIKE it, but until I can afford to buy my own island nation, & make my own rules, I'll have to give up some freedoms to live in this country. There are many things you can't do in any civilized society, I accept the trade off.

KLook wrote:I think you do this on more then one site.

Missed this the first time I read it. You are right Kevin. In addition to this forum I do belong to a political forum ( http://www.ballot.com/hotwire/ ...same username there) that is free & I highly recommend to you all.
I admit to enjoying the "mental exercise" of a good debate & would rather do that than watch American Idol or one of the 456 CSI shows that are on!