Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    7:31 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: The NRA's idea does not work. Back to Topics
Michiganian

Champion Author
Michigan

Posts:6,141
Points:1,116,405
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2012 4:11:46 PM

Just ask the survivors at Columbine HS, Fort Hood and Virginia Tech.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,643
Points:1,094,535
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2014 8:48:11 PM

On a side note. If you read the short list of English knife laws you will notice there is a religious exemption that allows for the carrying of an otherwise illegal knife if public.
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:3,558
Points:49,345
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2014 8:39:51 PM

.
. My brother was hunting up in Michigan and tried to get into a casino with his big hunting knife on his belt... they said that was fine, but he couldn't take his cell phone in...
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,643
Points:1,094,535
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2014 8:27:51 PM

The gun is a tool just like hammers which have been use as a weapon, a deadly weapon in some cases. in fact the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs is higher than the number of people killed with rifles A knife is also a tool I use one at work every day and carry it on my belt every day, in fact every one of my mechanic carries one too. Knives are also use as a weapon and people are killed when people use them as a weapon in a crime.

In England there are very few guns so the criminal element turned to a alternate weapon, knives. England has very restrictive knife laws much like some here in the U.S. want for guns. The knife I carry at work and everywhere else would get me possible jail time and or a huge fine. Even with these restrictive knife laws London still has a real problem with knife crime.

1,000 knife crime victims in London each month, shocking new figures show

Even without guns the violent crime is still there.

[Edited by: johnnyg1200 at 7/30/2014 8:31:16 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,116
Points:1,378,415
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2014 7:32:06 PM

rj I defned the problem as I did because marty wanted to deal with firearms. Therefore I chose to only consider firearms.

Other weapons can e considered also but marty just wants to ban all guns.
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:3,558
Points:49,345
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2014 8:36:47 AM

.
++ SURPRISE: New York State Has Begun Gun Confiscation (video) ++

"With no warrant, and with nothing more than a 15-year-old misdemeanor to go off of, police in Nassau County, New York seized a man’s entire collection of firearms."

"NY State Police Just Came to My Home and Took Everything,” the man reported on an online NY gun forum."

"The man said the state police arrived at his home to inspect the serial number of one of his registered guns. When he let them enter the home, he brought them to his gun safe where the officers then took his entire collection of weapons."

"As Infowars reports:

"I brought him to my safe, opened it and the 2nd officer went in and took out my cx4, Remington 70 sps and Remington 870 shotgun. Then he says that I had a misdemeanor possession charge 15 years ago and all the guns will be taken,” the man wrote, adding that he was put through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System when he purchased the guns with no issues."

"New York state is just the first to lead the charge on cracking down on registered gun owners."

"Part of the NY Safe Act, which was passed back in April, required that gun owners in the state would register their “assault-style weapons.”

"Though only 10 percent of gun owners complied, stories like this illustrate how damaging gun registration can be."

"When guns are registered it allows authorities to seize weapons, leaving the gun owner very little recourse to get their legally owned weapons back."

"According to the man, the state troopers gave him a “New York State police receipt and a certificate of relief paper. They told him if he could get a judge to sign the relief paper he would get his guns back.”

"He has since hired a lawyer, but has yet to get his guns back from the police."

comment:

Sevenmag > Sevenmag • 12 minutes ago

"Ok. Got the video to work. Apparently this was a lady that this happened to. The incident 15 years ago was a disturbance of some sort. As a result of the disturbance, the lady went to visit a counsellor. The counsellor went to the county Sherrif to try to get him to take action against the guns, but he refused. So the counsellor went to the state Gestapo, who fanatically complied and confiscated the guns. How many of us, at one time or another, have had to resort to some sort of counseling? I suspect the numbers are very high. I was under the impression that doctor patient relationships were sacred, unless the patient represents a very real threat to himself and/or others. There's one other thing that bothers me about this situation; the county sheriff, it's my understanding, is the ultimate law enforcement entity in any county. He should have kept the state police out of this persons house. Maybe I just don't have the most current info and that law no longer applies."

+ Guns Confiscated +

_______________________________________________________________________

++++++++++++++ RELIGION ERADICATION SPECIALIST +++++++++++++++
.
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:3,558
Points:49,345
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2014 7:57:33 AM

.
< rjhenn: "My point, of course, is that concentrating on guns isn't going to do any good, while concentrating on the root causes of violence holds more promise. Guns are a means, not a motive. Reduce access to one's means without removing the motive just results in the use of a different means." >

. Exactly, that's why I focus on eradicating the source of most evil motive and mental illness in society: religion addiction/psychosis... and other addictions...

_____________________________________________________________________

++++++++++++++++ RELIGION ERADICATION SPECIALIST +++++++++++++++
.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,279
Points:2,659,120
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2014 12:21:01 AM

flyboyUT - "1. Identify the problem. The problem is people using a firearm to injure others without justifiable cause."

Which is not the problem. The problem is that they are willing to injure others without justifiable cause in the first place.

"2. The reason for the problem. The existing penalties for improper use of firearms that result in injury to others are not enforced well enough or sufficient in penalty to get folks to choose another way of injuring others."

Doesn't seem to be quite true. Plenty of people are arrested and imprisoned for illegal use of a weapon.

And, again, even if your 'solution' worked, those people will still "choose another way of injuring others", so the whole thing winds up pointless.

"The government has no need to register each and every firearm in the country."

Nor can the government afford to do so.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,279
Points:2,659,120
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2014 12:18:54 AM

MiddletownMarty - "Don't tell me what I mean. Try reading my statement within the context of this topic."

Exactly what I did do. So why are you complaining?

"The (false) tacit assumption in that statement is that if guns become unavailable then people will use other means to carry out their violence."

Why is that false? Where in the world have stricter gun laws reduced violent death?

"Since more readily available means for committing violence already exist, why do those who commit violence continue to use guns?"

Because guns are readily available here. They're not, for example, in Japan, which has a suicide rate that exceeds our combined homicide and suicide rate, and they do it without guns. You're just fixated on guns, thus ignore the reality that violence and violent death occur at roughly the same rates whether or not guns are available.

"Create and maintain an ownership trail the way we do with automobiles."

So cars don't get stolen?

"And there are consequences for those drivers who do not drive responsibly, just as there should be consequences for those gun owners who sell their weapons privately and otherwise skirt the laws"

Big difference between being the one using a vehicle irresponsibly and being the one who sold that vehicle to the irresponsible one.

"How does requiring gun owners to assume responsibility for the weapons they own take away their right to own them?"

But you don't want gun owners responsible for the weapons they own. You want them responsible for the behavior of those they sell their weapons to.

"Then there goes your argument that most gun owners are law-abiding."

Not that I expect you to pay any attention, but since when are criminals "law-abiding"?

"The second amendment is the only one associated with killing lots and lots of people."

That only shows how obsessed you are with guns, to the point where you're unable to look at the actual problem.

"You mean like the right to shoot my neighbor whenever I like?

As does that.

"You're putting your words into my posts again."

He's only trying to make your posts make sense.

"The reason you and some others are so worked up is that my idea actually has merit and addresses the problem of illegal possession of firearms. One wonders why you would be against such an idea."

Because your idea won't do what you think it will. It's just more wishful thinking.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,279
Points:2,659,120
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2014 12:15:45 AM

Weaslespit - "Just me, but while you are correct I think we all know what was meant when the term 'weapon' was used given the context."

But it shows that Marty, like many, tends to regard firearms as the only weapons that matter.

"Unsubstantiated opinion (whether I agree with MM on the point or not)."

So where's there any evidence that stricter gun control reduces either total violence or total violent death?

"You can't answer a hypothetical slanted towards an individual's POV..."

How is "What good are you doing if you reduce 'gun violence', but just as many people die from violence?" a "hypothetical slanted towards an individual's POV"?

"Huh? Which goal is more attainable - eliminating violence or eliminating guns? Doesn't appear to me that either is realistic - so we do what we can on each front..."

My point, of course, is that concentrating on guns isn't going to do any good, while concentrating on the root causes of violence holds more promise. Guns are a means, not a motive. Reduce access to one means without removing the motive just results in the use of a different means.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,302
Points:326,930
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 6:14:15 PM

"Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right under the Second Amendment to possess firearms for self-defense"

Well we need something to fill the void between the average police response to a call being 16 to 20 minutes, the fact that they have no legal requirement to respond to a call, the police are not obligated to protect individuals and they are not in place to "prevent crime".

The function of the police to protect society as a whole, yet they even fail at that, during disaster events like hurricanes Katrina, Andrew, super storm sandy and so on.

The police have done every thing they can to show they have no interest in protecting people or preventing crime but put it in their mission statement.

So when you see "to serve and protect" as far as you, the citizen goes it is an out right lie.
About the only service you will get is papers served on you and traffic tickets.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,302
Points:326,930
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 6:02:23 PM

". Still trying to pimp the erroneous, deceptive idea that the 2nd Amendment only exists for "hunting"... makes us want to go out and buy a bigger gun... "

Finely something we can agree on.
Not just a bigger gun, but the least politically correct, blackest, with biggest magazine capacity on the market.

My FN fiveseven, got that back in 2008, the antis were calling it the ultimate cop killer. It seemed like an interesting gun. I like it, you can empty a 35 round magazine as fast as you can pull the trigger with out the point of aim walking all over the place.
The stories of the fiveseven over penetrating, were hugely over blown. It doesn't hold a candle to damage and penetration a 44mag or 357mag can do. The fiveseven pistol is roughly on par with what the tiny rimfire .22mag round being fired out of a rifle can do.
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:3,558
Points:49,345
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 5:15:16 PM

.
< "For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun, nobody needs a rifle, and I don’t know a lot of people who are into hunting who, being lifelong residents, would actually want that who lives in the city..."

. Still trying to pimp the erroneous, deceptive idea that the 2nd Amendment only exists for "hunting"... makes us want to go out and buy a bigger gun...
_____________________________________________________________________

+++++++++++ RELIGION ERADICATION SPECIALIST +++++++++++++
.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,116
Points:1,378,415
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 4:24:34 PM

Another fun one - you have to watch both videos though.....
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,116
Points:1,378,415
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 3:41:00 PM

Interesting article that touches on the subject.
.
.
>>>Writing for a majority of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right under the Second Amendment to possess firearms for self-defense, Justice Scalia observed: “The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government … the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.”

Nevertheless, Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans expressed his support this week for a provision in the House version of a Massachusetts gun control bill that would give local law enforcement officials discretionary power to decide who may acquire licenses to own shotguns and rifles. This provision was stripped from the State Senate version of the bill. Under current law, local law enforcement officials already have discretion over who is issued a license to own a handgun.

In an interview Boston Public Radio, Evans stated:

For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun, nobody needs a rifle, and I don’t know a lot of people who are into hunting who, being lifelong residents, would actually want that who lives in the city, but, especially here in the city I want to have discretion over who’s getting any type of gun because public safety is my main concern and as you know it’s an uphill battle taking as many guns off the street right now without pumping more into the system.

Unfortunately, Evans is not alone in his failure to comprehend that constitutional rights limit, rather than depend upon, the discretion of government functionaries. On Tuesday, several Massachusetts police chiefs gathered at the statehouse to protest the discretion provision having been stripped from the senate’s bill. Among those participating were Evans, Chief Terrence Cunningham of Wellesley, Chief Erik Blake of Oaks Bluff, and former Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis. The Boston Globe additionally reported that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick supports the House bill.
.
.
We therefore suggest some remedial reading and a dose of humility for Commissioner Davis and his likeminded colleagues. Some of the rights these officials now find so inconvenient arose from the overreaching of their predecessors in authority.<<<
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:22,217
Points:3,623,615
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 3:25:26 PM

"But I would never carry them around in public..."

I don't carry in public, but I would never say never.

One of my doctors never leaves home without his .380 in his pocket. His nurse has a .380 in her purse. They will probably never use them, but they (and I) are happy that the 2nd amendment exists.
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:3,558
Points:49,345
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 3:19:00 PM

.
< "Holding gun owners responsible means making them accountable to a third party." >

. PRIVACY means 2nd and 3rd parties don't know all your personal business...
____________________________________________________________________

++++++++++++ RELIGION ERADICATION SPECIALIST +++++++++++++++
.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,161
Points:312,990
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 3:05:02 PM

"Marty just more of your interminable games it seems"

You seem to enjoy it.



"Since you choose to not define what you see as the actual problem "

I did define it; you decided you wanted to discuss something else. Have fun discussing with yourself.



"your suggestions are neither well reasoned nor are your defenses of illogical ideas well reasoned."

Says the guy who adds words to my posts and offers objections to things I did not say and makes veiled ad hominem attacks



Ta ta
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:3,558
Points:49,345
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 2:22:36 PM

.
Guns shouldn't be registered... people who shouldn't have them should be registered... they should be listed alphabetically so if one attempts to buy a gun their disqualification pops up instantly...
.
_______________________________________________________________________

++++++++++++++++ RELIGION ERADICATION SPECIALIST +++++++++++++++++
.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,116
Points:1,378,415
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 1:35:56 PM

Marty just more of your interminable games it seems -

"You don't get to define what I see as the problem" --- Since you choose to not define what you see as the actual problem and you also choose to not discuss effects of what your proposing I reserve the right to exercise my free speech and define the problem.

That is unless you wish to obstruct another of my rights as a free citizen of this country. That too will not happen.

"I'm not making any rules. I'm offering a well-reasoned suggestion and presenting well-reasoned defenses against unreasonable objections. You, on the other hand, and adding words to my posts and offering objections to things I did not say and making veiled ad hominem attacks (gradeschool classroom? really?)."

Nonsense Marty - your suggestions are neither well reasoned nor are your defenses of illogical ideas well reasoned. The simple fact is that it appears as if you are acting like your trying to 'lay down the law' to a bunch of gradeschool kids - after all is that not what your familiar with? If you feel that is an attack your in error as it was not intended to be an attack but an illustration of how your coming across.

When your "suggestions" have been shown repeatedly to be failures as evidenced by history they cannot be well reasoned suggestions but illogical desires to control other people. My opinion is that you can live in a place of perfect safety if you wish. However you cannot at the same time live in a place of freedom and the exercise of your human rights.

If you wish you may trade your freedom for apparent safety but you will not be allowed to demand others do so to keep you happy.


[Edited by: flyboyUT at 7/29/2014 1:37:20 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,777
Points:506,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 1:24:57 PM

"Are you telling me I need to buy more guns? Maybe I will. Guns and ammo prices are down at the moment."

I have no problem with gun ownership. I just purchased a Remington 870 and would look to purchase a Glock 9mm as well if my Wife weren't completely anti-gun.

But I would never carry them around in public...
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,161
Points:312,990
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 1:14:20 PM

"The existing laws that are not enforced do nothing to make people accept responsibility for anything."

A gun owner is responsible for his weapon whether or not he accepts responsibility. The existing laws contain loopholes that must be closed so that private sales of all weapons are included.



"The government does not need to know who owns what firearm or other arm."

So we should simply take the word of a firearm owner that s/he is responsible? Holding gun owners responsible means making them accountable to a third party. Government is the appropriate choice.



"But I do note that you do not desire at all to talk of what you see the actual problem is - people being harmed by the misuse of firearms."

You don't get to define what I see as the problem.



"No I am not willing to give up my rights to make someone else feel better."

Being required to register and account for one's weapons does not diminish your rights.



"I also see a dislike to hold people accountable."

Surely you must be kidding. Registration of all weapons together with the accountability measures I have already outlined holds every gun owner accountable for the disposition of a weapon he owns. Perhaps that's what you really object to.



"Life isn't a gradeschool classroom where you get to make all the rules and have the power (to attempt) to tell everyone else how to think."

I'm not making any rules. I'm offering a well-reasoned suggestion and presenting well-reasoned defenses against unreasonable objections. You, on the other hand, and adding words to my posts and offering objections to things I did not say and making veiled ad hominem attacks (gradeschool classroom? really?).




"By the way answering a question by saying that you already did is no answer."

It is if I already did answer. If you don't like it, read what I post without inserting your own words into it, and stop asking questions that have already been answered.






[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 7/29/2014 1:21:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,116
Points:1,378,415
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 12:38:34 PM

Marty --- just more circular arguments that solve nothing.

The existing laws that are not enforced do nothing to make people accept responsibility for anything. Adding more laws in an attempt to do so will not stop irresponsible actions. But these laws will materially reduce the exercise of a basic right we have.

The government has no need to register each and every firearm in the country. The government does not need to know who owns what firearm or other arm.

So far yo have not show at all whey your restrictions on peoples rights will have any effect at all on the concern you express today - the irresponsible use of firearms.

But I do note that you do not desire at all to talk of what you see the actual problem is - people being harmed by the misuse of firearms. Now if that is your real problem maybe we can discuss some actual effective methods to start reducing the numbers of folks hurt.

But yo will get nowhere in trying to take away the rights that people have to keep and bear weapons for whatever reason they want and to maintain privacy. Its just not the governments job nor right to know....

Being a free citizen and enjoying the rights we have does involve some risk. We do need to define the risks and try to deal with them. No I am not willing to give up my rights to make someone else feel better.

Something that I have said more than once - rights and freedoms must be balanced by responsibilities and duties. The other side of that is that we must hold people accountable for their actions and we must be willing to take measures against failures to live in society.

Marty I see in many of your posts a dislike of the concept that responsibilities and duties are required for freedom and rights to exist. I also see a dislike to hold people accountable.

I am not advocating that anyone make you give up any rights that you enjoy, but were maintained by others, yet you feel perfectly comfortable at wanting to take away rights from others. You need to look again at what a right is and what a responsibility is and what happens if we don't exercise them.

Life isn't a gradeschool classroom where you get to make all the rules and have the power (to attempt) to tell everyone else how to think. It just don't work that way my friend.

By the way answering a question by saying that you already did is no answer. It perceived as a snide sarcastic attempt to dominate the conversation.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
All-Star Author Denver

Posts:674
Points:7,480
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 10:24:37 AM

MiddletownMarty: "True. So how do those convicted felons acquire their firearms? And why won't you answer that question; it's been asked 3 times now."

1. They steal them.
2. They buy them on the black market from other convicted felons.
3. They wait for a BATF program called Fast and Furious or something.
4. They buy them illegally.

So, then, there's your answer. Now, explain to all of us how passing MORE laws will prevent people who routinely break laws from breaking MORE laws.

We'll all be waiting...

I'm expecting it will have something to do with rainbows and unicorn farts.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:22,217
Points:3,623,615
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 9:50:58 AM

"Time to upgrade then :)"

Are you telling me I need to buy more guns? Maybe I will. Guns and ammo prices are down at the moment.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,777
Points:506,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 9:40:42 AM

"Many of us own revolvers."

Time to upgrade then :)
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,161
Points:312,990
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 9:35:59 AM

"I thought that the entire argument against banning high capacity magazines was due to how quickly s clip can be loaded? Is this now not the case?"

Yes, it's still the case.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:22,217
Points:3,623,615
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 9:33:26 AM

"I thought that the entire argument against banning high capacity magazines was due to how quickly s clip can be loaded? Is this now not the case?"

Many of us own revolvers.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,777
Points:506,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 9:15:15 AM

hero quoted - "Know how to use it and keep it loaded - An unloaded gun is about as useful as an empty fire extinguisher."

I thought that the entire argument against banning high capacity magazines was due to how quickly s clip can be loaded? Is this now not the case?

Either way, it seems like it would take much longer to charge a fire extinguisher than load a firearm... Poor comparison.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,161
Points:312,990
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 8:14:24 AM

"Dont stop now JD - your on a roll. "

He's on my ignore list; I can't see his posts. I'll take him off from time to time to see if he has matured at all. Until then, what he posts is of no consequence.



"Yes Marty its about rights - those slippery things you seem ever so willing to take away from people because of your personal fears. "

No, it's about personal responsibility. No rights are sacrificed in requiring all your guns be registered. Own a thousand guns if you want, just make sure they are all registered, that you have passed a bg check, and that you know when one goes "missing." Sell your weapon to anyone you want, so long as the ownership is transferred and the new owner passes a bg check.



"Responsible gun ownership is when those who choose to own them use them in accordance with law under the umbrella of the stated rights in our Constitution."

My idea doesn't circumvent that, but neither am I willing to take someone's promise that s/he is a responsible gun owner. If one is responsible, then one should be able to demonstrate responsibility by leaving a paper ownership trail.



"I wish to control abusive use of the guns - you seem more interested in playing games it seems. "

Does it seem as though I'm playing a game? The reason you and some others are so worked up is that my idea actually has merit and addresses the problem of illegal possession of firearms. One wonders why you would be against such an idea.



"No I will not agree to attempts to take away our rights of any kind until those who are trying to do so explain why its necessary."

Already explained. No need to go round that mountain again.



"Before they try they also have to explain why they will not enforce existing laws similar to the new ones your trying to make."

Already explained. No need to go round that mountain again.



"There are already laws that say it is illegal for convicted felons to own a firearm."

True. So how do those convicted felons acquire their firearms? And why won't you answer that question; it's been asked 3 times now.




"Marty maybe its time for you to clearly articulate exactly what it is your trying to do and why your trying to do it because so far what you have said seems to be just subterfuge for something else."

Already done that. There's no need to repost what I've already posted. Go back and re-read.

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 7/29/2014 8:19:50 AM EST]
Profile Pic
hero4hire
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:1,136
Points:340,190
Joined:Jul 2013
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 7:48:56 AM

rick, I read your link, andread some of the reader comments, one stood out: "Know how to use it and keep it loaded - An unloaded gun is about as useful as an empty fire extinguisher."
Profile Pic
mnrick041
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:17,094
Points:1,826,705
Joined:Jun 2009
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 6:50:34 AM

Here is a example of two homeowners using their firearms to defend their homes against one person. The first homeowner hit the intruder over the head with a shotgun, the man fled and forced his way into another home where he attacked a elderly woman. The woman's son shot him dead.

Violent intruder gets shot dead

Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,643
Points:1,094,535
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 2:16:07 AM

Let’s talk about assuming responsibility. I like the idea. How come Parole Boards cant be held responsible for the murders they let out of jail early? How may times have we all seen stories of parolees getting out and killing again, quite often before their original sentence was up. In fact there are laws that protect the boards from any consequences and in some cases event the identity of the board is protected. Personally I believe that if Parole Boards were held accountable that would reduce the murder rate more than any gun law, even if the ones on the books were enforced.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,643
Points:1,094,535
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 2:10:03 AM

By the way here is an example of how stupid things can get. I met a man at the range last week when I took my daughter shooting. He is a federal officer. He has a federal license to carry and it is valid just about any where. In the state of Illinois he can’t get a state issued CCW because about ten years ago he checked himself into a facility to help with his drinking problem. He felt that in patient treatment would work better for him because of some underlying health conditions and so did his doctor. He has been dry for the last ten years and it was a voluntary confinement. Because he was confined to a mental health facility he is ineligible to have a Illinois CCW event though he has a federal one. If this type of thing goes national how many people will avoid mental health care because they don’t want to be striped of their rights? My Daughter went though a very traumatic event six years ago and was under mental health care for about a year. Should she be refused the right to carry as a result.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,302
Points:326,930
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 1:57:19 AM

"Remember I said legal not emotional or political. "

HA! Good luck with that.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,643
Points:1,094,535
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 1:57:19 AM

If someone is texting and driving should the cell phone manufacture be held responsible for a fatal accident caused by texting and driving? How about the service provider?
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,643
Points:1,094,535
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 1:55:01 AM

>>>"How does requiring gun owners to assume responsibility for the weapons they own take away their right to own them?"<<<

A fifteen year old boy stole his aunt’s SUV and killed four other teens. He stole if by steeling her keys. Should the owner of the SUV be held responsible for the actions of her nephew? Stolen cars are used in crimes every day. If not please explain what the legal difference would be between that and holding a gun owner responsible for crimes committed with a stolen gun.

Remember I said legal not emotional or political.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,116
Points:1,378,415
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 28, 2014 10:14:40 PM

Dont stop now JD - your on a roll.

Yes Marty its about rights - those slippery things you seem ever so willing to take away from people because of your personal fears.

You keep telling ( or attempting to say) that its only about responsible gun ownership. Which you have never attempted to define except to say that all guns must be registered and the govt has the say so of who will be allowed to own a gun.

Responsible gun ownership is when those who choose to own them use them in accordance with law under the umbrella of the stated rights in our Constitution.

I wish to control abusive use of the guns - you seem more interested in playing games it seems. You laws requiring the BG thing have not worked before . The primary reason is the govt will not enforce them and will not punish those who flagrantly break the law.

No I will not agree to attempts to take away our rights of any kind until those who are trying to do so explain why its necessary. Before they try they also have to explain why they will not enforce existing laws similar to the new ones your trying to make.

There are already laws that say it is illegal for convicted felons to own a firearm. There are already existing laws that say its illegal to shoot someone without justification and that its illegal to use a firearm to break other laws (IE robbery). Yet it seems the progressives dont wish to really deal with those who break the existing laws... They just wish to make more laws that will only constrain the rights of those who heretofore have obeyed the law.

Marty maybe its time for you to clearly articulate exactly what it is your trying to do and why your trying to do it because so far what you have said seems to be just subterfuge for something else.
Profile Pic
jdhelm
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:15,237
Points:1,647,965
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Jul 28, 2014 9:21:46 PM

""Maybe this will help - as a teacher you may have the right to tell your students that they may not use their cell phones during class - but you have absolutely no right to tell them they cannot own one."

Are you seriously equating cell phones with guns? Really?"-

seriously? the equate part is not about phones and guns, it's about rights.



[Edited by: jdhelm at 7/28/2014 9:22:19 PM EST]
Profile Pic
jdhelm
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:15,237
Points:1,647,965
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Jul 28, 2014 9:19:36 PM

"How does requiring gun owners to assume responsibility for the weapons they own take away their right to own them?"

perhaps mm should write a bill and submit it to his congressperson, that explicitly constrains criminals who own guns, to make them responsible, and then propose in that "new law" as to how law enforcement will enforce that law.

when people who sit on the porch want to make more laws that will add to an already/existing law, where and when law enforcement cannot enforce that law, then they need to just sit on the porch because that will never fly.

I do believe that there is/are laws pertaining to gun owner responsibility - so - you want another? seriously?

ok, so why isn't law enforcement enforcing that law? Why?

perhaps you could live the life of a criminal undercover for 6 months to a year, and then come back to Erick Holder and help him figure out a way to enforce those 'gun laws'.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,161
Points:312,990
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jul 28, 2014 9:14:04 PM

"I beg to differ - the second is NOT associated with the illegal killing of lots of people. That is a total lie!!!!!!!"

The word "illegal" is your word, not mine. You're putting your words into my posts again. It's a really nasty habit that you should address soon. One would think a man of your years would have learned that by now. Alas.



"It is only "appropriate to consider more stringent regulation." in your eyes. How about the other folks who dont think so."

It's a free country. Let those who disagree voice their reasoned opinion (preferably without adding their words to my posts), as I am doing.



"As far as the crude idea of the papers --- is that not exactly what you want - that the govt has the right to determine what rights you have."

Nope.



"No Marty that is not your desire at all it seems to me."

It seems to me that you are horribly mistaken.



"Yo talk piously about the 'slaughter of people" on one hand then talk about wanting the govt to be able to decide who may or may not own a gun"

Is it pious to be against the proliferation of the means by which so many people are killed?



"Maybe this will help - as a teacher you may have the right to tell your students that they may not use their cell phones during class - but you have absolutely no right to tell them they cannot own one."

Are you seriously equating cell phones with guns? Really?



"When you say "assure responsibility in gun ownership" that really means nothing. What your really after is responsibility in how firearms are used arent you?"

No. What I'm after is being able to track where all those guns in Chicago and other places come from. They were all the property of a manufacturer or distributor or law-abiding gun owner initially. Where's the break in the fence? Create a chain of custody so we can see who's supplying whom and address the problem.



"I seems like you have a blind spot when it comes to firearms."

That you think you are like me in some respect sends shivers down my spine; nothing could be further from the truth. I do see quite clearly though.





[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 7/28/2014 9:18:06 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,116
Points:1,378,415
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 28, 2014 9:00:24 PM

I beg to differ - the second is NOT associated with the illegal killing of lots of people. That is a total lie!!!!!!!

It is only "appropriate to consider more stringent regulation." in your eyes. How about the other folks who dont think so.

As far as the crude idea of the papers --- is that not exactly what you want - that the govt has the right to determine what rights you have. You want more laws but are not willing to enforce what laws we have on the books now nor are yo willing to discuss what yo real concern is.

Yes Marty you do have the right to shoot your neighbor when you wish. We have always had that right. Your just arguing over what your going to shoot him with. One rather large concern is why do you want to harm him anyway? Do you have justification for doing so? Do you have a legal right to harm him?

" I said nothing about political philosophy, I said background check. Please keep your strawman arguments out of this." ........Horsefeathers Marty the only purpose for your background check is for the govt to determine who it wants to allow to exercise their right to "keep and bear arms". "My primary desire is as I've already stated; to assure responsibility in gun ownership." No Marty that is not your desire at all it seems to me. You want to be able to determine who may and who may not buy or own a gun. That has little or nothing to do with how they are used and why.

Yo talk piously about the 'slaughter of people" on one hand then talk about wanting the govt to be able to decide who may or may not own a gun - I keep on telling you that the two are not the same thing.

Like when we were talking about cars ----- "And there are consequences for those drivers who do not drive responsibly, just as there should be consequences for those gun owners who sell their weapons privately and otherwise skirt the laws (like claiming they were unaware that a gun in their arsenal was "missing") requiring background checks." There is a difference between owning a car or getting permission from the state to purchase one and driving drunk. One deals with the govt saying who may own a car and the other deals with the illegal use of the car. Do yo not see the difference in those two things.

Maybe this will help - as a teacher you may have the right to tell your students that they may not use their cell phones during class - but you have absolutely no right to tell them they cannot own one.

Once more if "My primary desire is as I've already stated; to assure responsibility in gun ownership. It's easy enough to grasp once you stop trying to put your words into my posts." is correct than your going about it in the wrong way.

When you say "assure responsibility in gun ownership" that really means nothing. What your really after is responsibility in how firearms are used arent you? It makes no difference if your neighbor owns a firearm or a 200 mph sports car or a King Air 300 or a riding lawn mower. You should only care how he uses them. Or are you really wanting to have such control over his every right.

If he is a devout Agnostic or something else and he develops an objection to the private ownership of Bibles will you feel the same? Will you accept his demanding a right to know what books you own? He may be able to ask yo to stop trying to convert him and to stop using your books to physically harm him but he cant tell you that you cant own them or pray for what you want.

It seems like your demanding to have control over who owns a firearm instead of being concerned over how people use them. Rather huge difference there Marty. No its not a straw man regardless of what you may think - I seems like you have a blind spot when it comes to firearms.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,161
Points:312,990
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jul 28, 2014 8:25:20 PM

"FYI the manufacturer rarely if ever sells the gun to the retail buyer - it goes through at least one or more distributors first."

Irrelevant. Transfer ownership from the manufacturer to the distributor at the appropriate time.



"Will we have to pass a similar check to exercise all of the other rights we have as US citizens? "

The second amendment is the only one associated with killing lots and lots of people. It's appropriate to consider more stringent regulation.




"Will we have this - "Achtung - zu stoppen und zeigen Sie mir Ihre Papiere". "

I think Arizona already has that. Of course, if you're raising the spectre of Hitler and WW II Germany then you've already lost the argument.




"Marty let me give you a hint - we do not have to have the permission of the government to exercise our natural rights."

You mean like the right to shoot my neighbor whenever I like?



"But if your real objective is to develop an absolute registration of all guns and to have it set up so the government has the power to choose who may or may not own a firearm based on whatever political philosophy is trendy at the time - that aint gonna happen."

Government is permitted to regulate the application of the second amendment, as it is allowed to regulate the others. I said nothing about political philosophy, I said background check. Please keep your strawman arguments out of this.

Government in the U. S. derives its power from the people. You are part of the government you seem to distrust so much.



My primary desire is as I've already stated; to assure responsibility in gun ownership. It's easy enough to grasp once you stop trying to put your words into my posts.






[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 7/28/2014 8:30:46 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,116
Points:1,378,415
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 28, 2014 7:39:37 PM

"Making firearm owners personally accountable for the disposition of their firearms" Mind telling me how passing a background check before someone buys a firearm will accomplish that goal? Are you going to send SWAT teams every two months to inspect what guns are where?

FYI the manufacturer rarely if ever sells the gun to the retail buyer - it goes through at least one or more distributors first.

Will we have to pass a similar check to exercise all of the other rights we have as US citizens? Will we have this - "Achtung - zu stoppen und zeigen Sie mir Ihre Papiere".

Marty let me give you a hint - we do not have to have the permission of the government to exercise our natural rights. You and the rest of your progressive or liberal big government friends might wish it but so far its not happening.

I'm still trying to grasp exactly what your trying to do - one time yo say your concerned about needless deaths from firearms. OK if thats the concern we can find some agreement on how to possibly deal with that.

But if your real objective is to develop an absolute registration of all guns and to have it set up so the government has the power to choose who may or may not own a firearm based on whatever political philosophy is trendy at the time - that aint gonna happen.
.
.
"I and everyone else do have a God given right to defend ourselves."

"Nobody is denying that right to anyone who can pass a bg check." Nowhere that I have ever seen does it say the govt has the authority to require a BG check to exercise a "God Given Right" Marty.

Now it is possible that people can be temporarily or permanently deprived of some or all of these rights after being convicted in a court of law for certain offenses. But your blanket demand that everyone has to have a approval just to exercise our rights is just flat out wrong friend.Yes Marty the vast majority of gun owners in the US are law abiding - so far. Those who use them for criminal purposes are still in the minority. Now this may be different in certain locals like Chicago where it is almost impossible to both own a gun and obey the law. But where I live the rate of gun ownership is very very high and the crime rate involving guns is very low. In fact when I talk to people and tell them I sold all my guns they look at me like I have a hole in my head.

But I ask again - what is you primary desire - to reduce injury caused by illegal use of firearms or to take away the rights of US citizens. The two are not the same thing Marty.

Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,161
Points:312,990
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jul 28, 2014 7:11:00 PM

"Marty you keep on trying to confuse how something is used with how one obtains or transfers ownership. The two are not synonymous."

I'm not confused about anything. Making firearm owners personally accountable for the disposition of their firearms will go far in decreasing gun deaths in this country. Registration of all firearms will accomplish this.

Every firearm produced is registered to the manufacturer, which then transfers ownership of the firearm to the individual as soon as it is sold (provided the user passes a background check). If that individual sells the firearm, ownership is transferred to the new owner upon passing a background check. If the new owner is not cleared through a bg check and the firearm is sold anyway, the previous owner is held accountable through a fine, jail time, or both. If a firearm is suddenly "missing", it must be reported within 24 hours or the same consequences apply.




"Besides we do have a nasty clause in the bill of rights that says we do have the right to "keep and bear arms"."

Nobody is denying that right to anyone who can pass a bg check.



"I and everyone else do have a God given right to defend ourselves."

Nobody is denying that right to anyone who can pass a bg check.



"Lotsa luck there as the very people who you most need to obey your cockamamie new law are the very ones who will not pay any attention to it."

Then there goes your argument that most gun owners are law-abiding.




"It seems now that people are getting tired of watching the slaughter occurring in gun-control zones like Chicago."

The guns being used in Chicago and other areas were at some point in the hands of law-abiding gun owners. Or do you believe in the gun fairy?

And, I said nothing about gun-free zones, so take your strawman and go home or else address the ideas in the post to which you are replying. Do try to refrain from labeling ideas as a knee-jerk reaction (difficult though that may seem to you) and consider what's actually said.


[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 7/28/2014 7:16:05 PM EST]
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,302
Points:326,930
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Jul 28, 2014 7:09:26 PM

"It seems now that people are getting tired of watching the slaughter occurring in gun-control zones like Chicago. It should be blatantly obvious that liberal ideology is not working very well there, yet you want to spread that same failure to the rest of the country??? NO THANK YOU! "

That's kind of their dream, turn the entire country into one big Chicago.
Why? I have no idea. All observations seem to point to this end.
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,205
Points:1,898,225
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jul 28, 2014 7:04:35 PM

MiddletownMarty said: "When they get tired of people being slaughtered in the name of the second amendment things will change."

It seems now that people are getting tired of watching the slaughter occurring in gun-control zones like Chicago. It should be blatantly obvious that liberal ideology is not working very well there, yet you want to spread that same failure to the rest of the country??? NO THANK YOU!
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,116
Points:1,378,415
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 28, 2014 6:36:20 PM

Marty you keep on trying to confuse how something is used with how one obtains or transfers ownership. The two are not synonymous.

I agree we need to find a better way to control violence - or all kinds - but I'm willing to start with people using firearms imporperly. I have an idea of how to do it but you are not willing to even listen to what we both know will work.

1. Identify the problem. The problem is people using a firearm to injure others without justifiable cause.

2. The reason for the problem. The existing penalties for improper use of firearms that result in injury to others are not enforced well enough or sufficient in penalty to get folks to choose another way of injuring others.

3. Develop adequate laws to regulate the injuring of others - REGARDLESS OF WEAPON OR OBJECT USED ----THEN ENFORCE THE LAWS AND IMPLEMENT THE PENALTIES - YOU KNOW THAT OLD SWIFT AND SURE PUNISHMENT THING.I believe your trying to attack the problem in a round about way that we both know is a waste of time. Making someone get a permission slip to buy a car will do nothing to stop drunk driving. But I bet if we passed a law that said every car used by a drunk driver was to be crushed immediately upon conviction of the offense we would reduce the incidence of drunk drivers. If we also said that killing someone as a result of drunk driving was an non appealable death sentence the number of drunk drivers would drop.

There are too many existing firearms to make your idea of registering every NEW firearm and owner to be of much value.

Besides we do have a nasty clause in the bill of rights that says we do have the right to "keep and bear arms". I and everyone else do have a God given right to defend ourselves. You may not like it but then it is your right to debate it and try and convince everyone to register with the govt what they own. Lotsa luck there as the very people who you most need to obey your cockamamie new law are the very ones who will not pay any attention to it.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,161
Points:312,990
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jul 28, 2014 5:17:35 PM

"Do we still have thousands of needless deaths and hundreds of thousands of people injured each year because people do not willingly accept the responsibiity of driving safely?"

And there are consequences for those drivers who do not drive responsibly, just as there should be consequences for those gun owners who sell their weapons privately and otherwise skirt the laws (like claiming they were unaware that a gun in their arsenal was "missing") requiring background checks.



"So tell me again just how the govt having information on exactly who owns what firearm will insure people accept the responsibility of owning and using a dangerous object. "

It holds the gun owner personally responsible for the proper transfer / disposition of his weapon. That is something you advocate, right? Personal responsibility?



"Never once (as a civilian) did one of my firearms cause any harm to another human being. So why do I need a law to tell me to be responsible again Marty?"

Cross your heart and hope to die? Pinkie promise? Because others do need a law, and you're part of society and should embrace what's personally inconvenient for the good of others.



"Rather large difference there between what you say your asking for and what the effects would be of your proposal."

I was quite clear in what I stated. I said what I meant.




"But you have not answered my primary concern - you want additional laws when the present laws are not being enforced - WHY?"

The present laws clearly contain loopholes.




"You seem to be willing to take away the rights of other people because your fearful."

How does requiring gun owners to assume responsibility for the weapons they own take away their right to own them?





[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 7/28/2014 5:23:50 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,116
Points:1,378,415
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 28, 2014 5:08:37 PM

Marty laws do not insure responsibility - that is what I was trying to tell you. We have tons of laws "insuring responsible driving" dont we. Do people still speed, drive while texting or drive drunk? Do we still have thousands of needless deaths and hundreds of thousands of people injured each year because people do not willingly accept the responsibiity of driving safely?

So tell me again just how the govt having information on exactly who owns what firearm will insure people accept the responsibility of owning and using a dangerous object.

Trying to legislate responsibility is similar to trying to legislate morality. Hey how about we pass a law making it illegal to lie or steal or any of a bunch of other things we don't want people to do.

People do not "get slaughtered in the name of the 2nd amendment" Marty any more than they get deafened by your free speech. I exercised my 2nd amendment right for years before I decided advancing age convinced me to sell all my firearms. Never once (as a civilian) did one of my firearms cause any harm to another human being. So why do I need a law to tell me to be responsible again Marty?

Marty you are not asking for a law that says owners must be responsible!

You are either asking for a law that registers each and every firearm and or gives the govt the power to deny ownership of them to people.

Rather large difference there between what you say your asking for and what the effects would be of your proposal.

But you have not answered my primary concern - you want additional laws when the present laws are not being enforced - WHY?

You seem to be willing to take away the rights of other people because your fearful. Will you allow others to take away your rights because they are fearful of how you might do things?

Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,161
Points:312,990
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jul 28, 2014 4:41:59 PM

"Do you think that everyone shares your thinking on that subject?"

No. How does assuring responsibility abrogate freedom? Do you think everyone shares your opinions on this subject?



"Right now a sufficient number of citizens in the US will not accept the laws your proposing."

When they get tired of people being slaughtered in the name of the second amendment things will change.




" I was totally responsible for them until I no longer owned them. I did not need a law to tell me this. I did not need a registration of them to tell me this."

Then you should have no problem with a law guaranteeing that every gun owner is and remains responsible.




"Marty they will not comply...."

If such a law existed, they would be less than law-abiding gun owners, I'm afraid... rather like some of the whack-a-mole gun-owners here in Connecticut.







[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 7/28/2014 4:44:11 PM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics