Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 228

5861 posts

Flag Post

Quel surpris.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Jhco,

So Ungeziefer, how many countries can you name that have the possession of arms without government red tape, if they are allowed to even have them.

None that I consider exemplary places off hand. I am not sure the total absence of red tape is even a good idea. It was a while back last time I said this, but I think the US’s real problem is with a culture of violence. The gun control laws, more or less, are beside the issue to the crime rate and will only ever have a superficial effect. With power comes responsibility, I am not sure if the US population (as a whole) is yet ready for the laws they have given themselves.

But, you did not address my question before Jhco, and it is one I am serious about. I truly feel the comparison is fair. Why is the blanket assumption that you will be a danger to yourself or others, not a valid reason to deny you firearms?

Also as a second. What would you see as an ideal level of gun control? Assume you could write the laws of the land, since you’re a super-wizard now. Any registration? Paper trail, identity and the like? Any limits on fire power? Small arms,long arms, automatic, explosive, vehicular, ect. Bombs? What do you see as the pro’s of your system, what would be the cons?

I don’t consider us a violent society. At least no more than any other society. I personally feel we get a bum rap on that culture of violence reputation.

But I would love to tell you how I feel about our laws. First, let me say I agree entirely with our having the 2nd Amendment intact. It is in my opinion extremely important that our people be able to excersize our right to regain control of our government if it becomes a tyranny. When our Constitution was ratified, this was instrumental to the ratification, as we feared a too powerful government.

With that said, I am not against some of the laws we have allowed to stand. The 1934 National Firearms Act had a purpose. It was to take machine guns out of the hands of the mobsters who were targeting parts of our country. This was mostly in the East. Although the firearms act didn’t accomplish what it set out to do entirely, it did allow law enforcement the teeth to go after the mobs. This did mostly affect the mobs as the common citizens didn’t have much use for fully automatic firearms.

After this foray into infringement of our 2nd Amendment (give an inch-take a mile) politicians felt they could add more and more laws. Some weren’t terrible, but were still infringing on the Constitution. The gun control debate started in 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated.

It wasn’t until the Gun Control Act of 1968 that people become concerned. This was part of Lyndon Johnson’s (D) Great society program. It was a big step in controlling firearms and the citizens ability to obtain them. This is about the time I become interested in firearms,

I would personally be ok with some of the regulation’s we have now if it actually worked like it was supposed to. It doesn’t. The only people these regulations affect are the law abiding citizen. The criminals ignore these laws.

I see no need to own explosives or rocket launchers. I can live with regulations on these types of weapons. We don’t need to be driving tanks. It is funny, but these are legal to own. As far as handguns, rifles, and shotguns are concerned, there shouldn’t be any regulations, as these won’t keep them out of the hands of the undesirables anyway.

I accept the paper trails we have, but I am distrustful of the use this information could be put to. If our government decided to confiscate our firearms (government tyranny), Like they did in Louisiana during Katrina, they would have a list to go by. This is why I don’t like the permit system for concealed carry. Basically, we shouldn’t allow this paper trail to leave the state it is created in.

 
Flag Post

Gun Control Timeline

1791
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment — “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.” gains final ratification.

1837
Georgia passes a law banning handguns. The law is ruled unconstitutional and thrown out.

1865
In a reaction to emancipation, several southern states adopt “black codes” which, among other things, forbid black persons from possessing firearms.

1871
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is organized around its primary goal of improving American civilians’ marksmanship in preparation for war.

1927
Congress passes a law banning the mailing of concealable weapons.

1934
The National Firearms Act of 1934 regulating only fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns is approved by Congress.

1938
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.

1968
The Gun Control Act of 1968 – “…was enacted for the purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetence.” — Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms The Act regulates imported guns, expands the gun-dealer licensing and record keeping requirements, and places specific limitations on the sale of handguns. The list of persons banned from buying guns is expanded to include persons convicted of any non-business related felony, persons found to be mentally incompetent, and users of illegal drugs.

1972
The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is created listing as part of its mission the control of illegal use and sale of firearms and the enforcement of Federal firearms laws. ATF issues firearms licenses and conducts firearms licensee qualification and compliance inspections.

1977
The District of Columbia enacts an anti-handgun law which also requires registration of all rifles and shotguns within the District of Columbia.

1986
The Armed Career Criminal Act (Public Law 99-570) increases penalties for possession of firearms by persons not qualified to own them under the Gun Control Act of 1986.

The Firearms Owners Protection Act (Public Law 99-308) relaxes some restrictions on gun and ammunition sales and establishes mandatory penalties for use of firearms during the commission of a crime.

The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (Public Law 99-408) bans possession of “cop killer” bullets capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.

1989
California bans the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons following the massacre of five children on a Stockton, CA school playground.

1990
The Crime Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647) bans manufacturing and importing semiautomatic assault weapons in the U.S. “Gun-free school zones” are established carrying specific penalties for violations.

1994
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) imposes a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun and requires that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on purchasers of handguns.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) bans all sale, manufacture, importation, or possession of a number of specific types of assault weapons.

1997
The Supreme Court, in the case of Printz v. United States, declares the background check requirement of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act unconstitutional.

The Florida Supreme Court upholds a jury’s $11.5 million verdict against Kmart for selling a gun to and intoxicated man who used the gun to shoot his estranged girlfriend.

Major American gun manufacturers voluntarily agree to include child safety trigger devices on all new handguns.

1998 – June
A Justice Department report indicates the blocking of some 69,000 handgun sales during 1977 while Brady Bill pre-sale background checks were required.

1998 – July
An amendment requiring a trigger lock mechanism to be included with every handgun sold in the U.S. is defeated in the Senate.
But, the Senate approves an amendment requiring gun dealers to have trigger locks available for sale and creating federal grants for gun safety and education programs.

1998 – October
New Orleans, LA becomes the first US city to file suit against gun makers, firearms trade associations, and gun dealers. The city’s suit seeks recovery of costs attributed to gun-related violence.

1998 – November 12
Chicago, IL files a $433 million suit against local gun dealers and makers alleging that oversupplying local markets provided guns to criminals.

1998 – November 17
A negligence suite against gun maker Beretta brought by the family of a 14-year old boy killed by an other boy with a Beretta handgun is dismissed by a California jury.

1998 – November 30
Permanent provisions of the Brady Act go into effect. Gun dealers are now required to initiate a pre-sale criminal background check of all gun buyers through the newly created National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) computer system.

1998 – December 1
The NRA files suit in federal court attempting to block the FBI’s collection of information on firearm buyers.

1998 – December 5
President Clinton announces that the instant background check system had prevented 400,000 illegal gun purchases. The claim is called “misleading” by the NRA.

1999 – January
Civil suits against gun makers seeking to recover costs of gun-related violence are filed in Bridgeport, Connecticut and Miami-Dade County, Florida.

1999 – May 20
By a 51-50 vote, with the tie-breaker vote cast by Vice President Gore, the Senate passes a bill requiring trigger locks on all newly manufactured handguns and extending waiting period and background check requirements to sales of firearms at gun shows.

1999 – August 24
The Los Angeles County, CA Board of Supervisors votes 3 – 2 to ban the the Great Western Gun Show, billed as the “world’s largest gun show” from the Pomona, CA fairgrounds where the show had been held for the last 30 years.

 
Flag Post

So basically Jhco, your real concern is that you don’t trust the government to handle registrations in a sensible manner, not that you disagree with regulation itself. Would that be correct?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

So basically Jhco, your real concern is that you don’t trust the government to handle registrations in a sensible manner, not that you disagree with regulation itself. Would that be correct?

The trust of the government is usually the biggest difference between the left and the right; with the left trusting and the right not willing to make themselves vulnerable.

 
Flag Post

I wouldn’t say we were completely trusting. One of the biggest issues with any kind of public service system, is putting in place sufficient safeguards to prevent abuse. As anyone who creates these kinds of systems knows, the weak-point is always between the keyboard and the chair.

But otherwise your point is well taken. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be, that those on the left believe government can be moulded to work for the common good, whilst those on the right believe government is incompatible with the common good.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

So basically Jhco, your real concern is that you don’t trust the government to handle registrations in a sensible manner, not that you disagree with regulation itself. Would that be correct?

I don’t really think the government trusts us much either.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

So basically Jhco, your real concern is that you don’t trust the government to handle registrations in a sensible manner, not that you disagree with regulation itself. Would that be correct?

I said I accept it…for now. Anytime a list is made of gun owners I get extremely nervous. Hitler knew who had the guns in Germany and you know what happened there. No, I don’t trust our government anymore. There was a time I was more trusting, but that time is gone. They are power hungry and money hungry. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

So basically Jhco, your real concern is that you don’t trust the government to handle registrations in a sensible manner, not that you disagree with regulation itself. Would that be correct?

I said I accept it…for now. Anytime a list is made of gun owners I get extremely nervous. Hitler knew who had the guns in Germany and you know what happened there. No, I don’t trust our government anymore. There was a time I was more trusting, but that time is gone. They are power hungry and money hungry. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

YOU do understand that “the govt.” is comprised of two very opposing ideologies? Yes, the one YOU support does align w/ specific views of yours: NRA, pro-life, anti-Gay, and ya believe the clap-trap they put out about economics because of…..

The Democrats wanting to have economics that “level the playing field” by doing a Robin Hood maneuver to return to the working class ppl their fair share of the pie they helped make-&-bake so that they can have a decent middle class. In this economic area, YOU support a group that certainly doesn’t have YOUR best interests at heart.

YOUR arguments about “welfare abuse” is ridiculous. Two things easily debunk it. 1)..while there most certainly is abuse, it is not as prevalent as ya think it is. 2)…the real abuse is corporate welfare. Didn’t YOU admit that one of YOUR children took advantage of such “govt. help”. AND, I’m betting that others in your family (YOU & wife) are benefiting from govt. perks….even though ya’d deny that is what they are.

 
Flag Post

THat didn’t debunk a thing. You can’t debunk a claim with more claims.
As opposed to putting up a statistic or something to say “That cannot be right because x amount of people have x”, you just put up some claim that isn’t backed up by anything.

That’s like saying WWIII can’t happen because “aliens will get us first”, but yours was to a lesser extent of ridiculousness.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Retry:

THat didn’t debunk a thing. You can’t debunk a claim with more claims.

Ya think not? LOL
“claim: maintain something is true: to say, without proof or evidence, that something is true”
“opinion:
1.personal view: the view somebody takes about an issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment
2.estimation: a view regarding the worth of somebody or something
3.expert view: an expert assessment of something”

“debunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of”

I certainly don’t “CLAIM” to be an “EXPERT”,,,,
BUT, I certainly do maintain there can be a particular effectiveness involved in “personal views” when it comes to (using such a level) “debunking” a similarly offered claim. I strongly believe a person has a “right” to “claim” that their non-expert, non-backed-up-by-anything opinion has indeed debunked (at least to some degree) what another person “CLAIMS” to be true….WITHOUT also having offered ANY of the criteria YOU say is needed in the whole scenario.

We are merely DISCUSSING issues here….NOT having a formal debate.

YOUR small number of posts (might?) indicate that ya’re fairly “new” to this forum.
That would, obviously, indicate a certain lack of knowing about the amount of “debunking” of jake-o’s positions (as I mentioned in MY post) by both other posters’ opinions & cited links.

As opposed to putting up a statistic or something to say “That cannot be right because x amount of people have x”, you just put up some claim that isn’t backed up by anything.

Hmmmmmm….that’s a nice CLAIM ya just made. LOL

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

So basically Jhco, your real concern is that you don’t trust the government to handle registrations in a sensible manner, not that you disagree with regulation itself. Would that be correct?

I said I accept it…for now. Anytime a list is made of gun owners I get extremely nervous. Hitler knew who had the guns in Germany and you know what happened there. No, I don’t trust our government anymore. There was a time I was more trusting, but that time is gone. They are power hungry and money hungry. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Ok then, Jhco. What about this?

We create the gun registration system for all citizens, and when we create it we give it its own constitution – laws all future updates must abide by, that is set in stone and involitile. We appoint a watchdog organisation, probably from the NRA to see the registration-constitution is followed to the letter.

One of the key parts of that document outlines that whilst it must be possible to search the registration system for owners of a gun matching evidence found at a crimescene, or an owner a particular gun is registered to, or even search the system for all owners of a particular model in a given area up to the size of a state, it is absolutely never-to-be-permitted that the system shall be created in such a way as to allow lists to be made of every gun owner of any gun type in any given area.

Likewise the document sets out very clear guidelines as to how the records may be stored. Encrypted, digital storage only. No hard copies are to be made of any part of the data unless it is pertinent to a criminal investigation, and then only permitted within the scope and timeframe of that investigation. Breach of this mandate to be made a federal offense.

That should render the system itself a useful resource, but one which does not permit absolute control over gun owners. It is not possible to use it for a witch-hunt for all gun-owners unless you are searching for locals who own a specific make of gun as part of a criminal investigation. No politician can ever change the micro-constitution binding the system, and no amendments are possible.

Would you be more willing to consider such a mandatory registration system under those conditions?

 
Flag Post

probably because they pose many domestic threats i.e columbine. but keep in mind that the japanese said themselves that one of the reasons they didnt invade the US during WW2 is “because behind every blade of grass was an american with a gun.” i strongly believe that we should be able to bear arms but within reason.

 
Flag Post

Vika, now what kind of a slight of hand are you suggesting? How about if we just keep the Constitution we have and you can all suck eggs.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Vika, now what kind of a slight of hand are you suggesting? How about if we just keep the Constitution we have and you can all suck eggs.

I’m trying to suggest a valid monitoring system, that I think addresses all your concerns whilst still allowing mandatory registration of firearms.

I would appreciate some serious feedback Jhco, as I have gone to pains to create something that should satisfy both sides.

 
Flag Post

What part of we don’t want monitored don’t you understand? Anytime there is a list, there will be some politician or anti-gun group who wants to have a copy. You did know Handgun Control went to court to get access to states concealed carry permit holders. they lost but to even try to get them shows me list can’t be maintained safely. I, for one and believe me there are millions of me, will not trust anyone with my rights. You can make up any wild scheme you want, but it isn’t going to fly with gun owners.

Two Constitutions? What is wrong with the one we have? You seem to think it can’t satisfy our country’s needs, even though it has for over 200 years. Have you ever heard the words, Freedom is like a double edged sword, you must accept some bad for the good.

 
Flag Post

headdesk

Jhco, you strain credulity, you really do.

Two Constitutions? What is wrong with the one we have?

What part of it being a mini-constitution based on the one that governs the country, solely to prevent politicians from gaining control of the NEW system once it is in place, was beyond your ability to grasp?

What part of we don’t want monitored don’t you understand?

The part where monoitoring is a great idea if it cannot be abused, which is what I spent time designing a system for. Even the local rabid gun nut, Jhco, has said he is in favor of some regulation if it cannot be abused.

 
Flag Post

Vika, why don’t you propose this to the gun rights organizations. If you can pass the idea with them, you would have a good chance of getting the gun owners on board.

Here you are wrong, I didn’t say I was in favor of it, I said I accepted it. Then I said I didn’t trust government to have this power at their disposal.

 
Flag Post

Although gun-grabbers like to bash the US with more gun crime than England and Wales, neither country is anywhere near other countries. I know you anti’s like to think the US is a bastion for gun crime since it gives you fodder to talk about banning them, but here is a link I think is interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1916969.stm

 
Flag Post

Now can you give us the statistics of a western country that has similar statistics? If I were to use crime statics in one of those countries where they kill of anyone carrying drugs to defend drug legislation you wouldn’t think that was a valid source so what we need is at least a western country if we are going to compare crime.

 
Flag Post

Because guns facilitate in killing people. The government should just crack down on illegal weapons and tighten background/psychological tests to people wanting to buy a gun.

 
Flag Post
Although gun-grabbers like to bash the US with more gun crime than England and Wales, neither country is anywhere near other countries.

Dude, what? England borders Scotland and is quite close to France. Not sure what you’re on about here.

 
Flag Post

That news article would be a lot more meaningful if you weren’t trying to compare the USA to South Freaking Africa.

From the article:

“Violent crime is rampant,” says [a guide book], “lots of guns” another.

Violent crime and lots of guns. Are you trying to defeat your own point?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:
Although gun-grabbers like to bash the US with more gun crime than England and Wales, neither country is anywhere near other countries.

Dude, what? England borders Scotland and is quite close to France. Not sure what you’re on about here.

LOL….w/ jake-o, ya gotta read his “mind” a lot.
He means near in statistics,,,
not geography.
Ya’d think a college grad could do better….lol
Yeah, yeah….I’m one to talk.
But, I do mine ON PURPOSE.
But ya already “new” that,,,,
I’ve shown it a lot on this “sight”.
 
Flag Post

I found this information interesting. Machine guns are called Class III firearms. It seems these are the steps involved in purchasing one.

1) you have to have an FFL to start

2) you have to apply for the SOT (special occupation tax) category also known as Class III license.

3) in order to be eligible for the SOT, you have to prove that you are in the business of selling Class III firearms, so you can’t just be a buyer. You have to sell as well.

4) in addition to the above, you have to get a letter from the local LE that requests a Demo of Class III arms.

5) the tax is $500 per year.

6) typical anal reaming background checks apply

7) apparently there is also some kind of interview with the ATF you have to go through.