Registry would treat gun owners like criminals
By: Pam On: Apr/12/07 - 58 Comments
If someone told you he had been forced to provide the Pennsylvania State Police with their fingerprints, photograph, Social Security number and a host of other personal information, you’d probably assume they were arrested and charged with a crime.
Well, that kind of police ”booking” process could be in store for Pennsylvania’s roughly 3 million firearms owners if gun-control advocates in Harrisburg have their way.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com …
April 13, 2007 - 02:52 AM on April 13th, 2007
If someone told you he had been forced to provide the Pennsylvania State Police with their fingerprints, photograph, Social Security number and a host of other personal information, you’d probably assume they were arrested and charged with a crime.
Or that you were a student.
April 13, 2007 - 05:38 AM on April 13th, 2007
1.
Apples and oranges.
The ifference here is that gun ownership is a Constitutionally guarenteed right while being a college student is not.
So, where is the ACLU on this case, I wonder?
April 13, 2007 - 06:20 AM on April 13th, 2007
2, Ted you know damn well the ACLU is pushing the gun restrictions. When the Communists take over, you won’t be able to resist them.
April 13, 2007 - 06:35 AM on April 13th, 2007
3.
I know- it was sarcasm. The ACLU are slelective regarding the rights they wish to take away from us.
April 13, 2007 - 08:05 AM on April 13th, 2007
We should register all liberal politicians that prepose these laws strating with his little royal snottiness TED KENNEDY and that includes all liberal fools:cool::idea:
April 13, 2007 - 11:23 AM on April 13th, 2007
subscribe
April 13, 2007 - 03:19 PM on April 13th, 2007
The ifference here is that gun ownership is a Constitutionally guarenteed right while being a college student is not.
I was referring to high school; besides, I thought that the “New Right” loves it when the govt. keeps tabs on its citizens. What if one of these gun owners turns out to be a terrorist? Or worse, and Arab!!?
April 13, 2007 - 03:31 PM on April 13th, 2007
I thought that the “New Right”loves it when the govt. keeps tabs on its citizens.
What a stupid thing to say.
April 13, 2007 - 04:22 PM on April 13th, 2007
I thought that the “New Right”loves it when the govt. keeps tabs on its citizens.
No, just when it keeps tabs on aliens who might be terrorists. (but you really knew that didn’t you?)
April 13, 2007 - 08:07 PM on April 13th, 2007
New right my ass. Growing up every year there were PSAs on the television reminding resident aliens that they were required by law to inform the government of their names and addresses by April 15th. Where did that system go?
AKD, I’m not going to resort to insults and lower myself to your level. You need to pick up a few history and sociology books and do a little reading on the topic of gun control before you start spouting off. The founding fathers of this country knew far to well what could happen if the citizenry were disarmed. Let me quote a few of them for you.
“An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people, that it was the best and most effective way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them and let them sink gradually by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” George Mason at the Virginia Ratification Convention, June 1788
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience….. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones….? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted andbetter for the assailants: they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one….” Cesare Beccaria, Father of Modern Criminology, 1764
” The states can not , even laying the consitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government” US Supreme Court,1886
There are also a number of studies that show that Gun control laws actually result in higher violent crime rates. Do some research, buy a gun, go to the range, and learn to protect yourself. The first inalienable right is the right to live, and the Supreme Court has declared that the police are not responsible to insure that you keep that right. That responsibility is on the individual.
April 14, 2007 - 02:16 AM on April 14th, 2007
8. What a stupid thing to say.
What a stupid non-response from someone who is usually so happy just to cheerlead.
9. No, just when it keeps tabs on aliens who might be terrorists. (but you really knew that didn’t you?)
Well, here’s what a study conducted by 14 constitutional scholars had to say. Here’s a link to the following alongside some other discussions of the debate:
In sum, we remain as unpersuaded by the DOJ’s 42-page attempt to find authority for the NSA spying program as we were of its initial five-page version. The DOJ’s more extended discussion only reaffirms our initial conclusion, because it makes clear that to find this program statutorily authorized would requires rewriting not only clear specific federal legislation, but major aspects of constitutional doctrine. Accordingly, we continue to believe that the administration has failed to offer any plausible legal justification for the NSA program.
It’s hilarious that you’d actually think that something like warrantless wiretapping is a great way to keep us safe. You must really trust your goverment (and every govenrment that will follow the current one), Robert.
10. There are also a number of studies that show that Gun control laws actually result in higher violent crime rates.
I’m aware of one study by a right wing think tank that was debunked on the grounds that it took no account of economic differences in the regions studied–poverty is a much more commonly correlated with violent crime than gun laws. On the other hand, a number of studies have shown that you’re much more likely to kill a loved one than a criminal (or a foreign invader).
I’ll tell you what, FOA, when you argue that we should dissolve our standing militia (which the majority of the founding fathers certainly didn’t think that we needed—-read Madison from the I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789), I’ll agree that we should all unholster our pistols and party like it’s 1789…
April 14, 2007 - 09:12 AM on April 14th, 2007
It’s hilarious that you’d actually think that something like warrantless wiretapping is a great way to keep us safe. You must really trust your goverment (and every govenrment that will follow the current one), Robert.
Again you deliberately mischaracterize in order to set up a straw man.
Say, how’s the global warming business going? Have you purchased your carbon offsets from Al Gore’s company yet?
April 14, 2007 - 02:33 PM on April 14th, 2007
subscribe
April 14, 2007 - 06:45 PM on April 14th, 2007
The only question left to debate is whether any gun control laws that are on the books are allowable under the 2nd Amendment.
Every anti-gun argument that has ever been made (”…you’re much more likely to kill a loved one than a criminal (or a foreign invader)…) has been refuted, debunked.
The anti-self defense, anti-gun, anti-individual rights crowd is just plain out of arguments. So they keep recycling the old ones, ones that were refuted years ago.
I guess you could say they are out of ammunition…:smile:
April 14, 2007 - 10:06 PM on April 14th, 2007
REGISTER KENNEDYS NOT GUNS:razz:
April 14, 2007 - 11:06 PM on April 14th, 2007
Well AKD, you obviously don’t understand the original meaning of the word militia that meant every law abiding adult male.
I don’t know about the study that you are referring to, but I was referring to “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott as well as a highly unpublicized study done by two professors at the behest of the Carter Administration wherein the professors actually asked people with intimate knowledge of the effects of gun laws on criminal behavior, over 25,000 convicted violent felons. John Lott’s work has held up to every challenge. As for the other study, the professors changed their attitudes about gun control laws dramatically. While both had been heavily in favor of restrictive gun laws prior to the study, one became ambivalent to them and the other became adamently opposed to them.
As for poor neighborhoods suffering from higher violent crime rates than poor ones, please explain how it is that the upper class Chicago suburb of Morton Grove that banned the ownership of handguns in the home became substantially more dangerous than the poor to middle class Atlanta suburb of Kennesaw that mandated (providing the option to opt out if desired) gun ownership in every home which showed a precipitous drop in violent crime following the adoption of the pro gun ordinance? Do you realize that the most restrictive firearms ownership laws in this country are in the cities with the HIGHEST violent crime rates? Do you realize that 75% of the violent crime in this country is committed by 25% of the criminal population? Were you aware that it has been illegal for a convicted felon to purchase a firearm in this country since 1968? Were you aware that it has been illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase a handgun or handgun ammo since 1968? Do you know that it has been illegal in this country for anyone under the age of 18 to purchase rifle or shotguns or ammunition for same since 1968? GUN LAWS DO NOT STOP CRIMINALS FROM COMMITTING CRIMES! They do stop law abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves from people who are not law abiding. Did you know that the people who provided the guns to Dylan and Klebold (the two teenage shooters at Columbine high school) have been sent to prison for violating federal firearms laws? BTW do you know why a gang of teenagers targeted a pair of German tourists in Florida for carjacking, armed robbery and murder a few years ago? Because, according to a 13 yr old gang member, they KNEW that as tourists the Germans would be unarmed and therefore unable to resist effectively. Why do you think Florida rental car companies don’t put the company logo on the backs of the cars? They discovered that criminals were using them as signs that said “Rob me, I’m unarmed.”
April 15, 2007 - 03:59 AM on April 15th, 2007
Well AKD, you obviously don’t understand the original meaning of the word militia that meant every law abiding adult male.
Madison’s argument was against the need for a stading army. Maybe you should read more closely.
John Lott’s work has held up to every challenge.
The National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott’s work. They determined that right to carry laws have no effect on violent crime.
The report calls for the development of a National Violent Death Reporting System and a National Incident-Based Reporting System in order to start collecting accurate and reliable information that describes basic facts about violent injuries and deaths.
About ten different writers have taken Lott apart. Here’s an abbreviated selection of articles to start with: “Shooting Down the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis”(Ayers & Donohue, Stanford Law Review 55.4); More Guns, Less Crime? (Dezhbakhsh, Emory Report 52.6); Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. (Gary Kleck—usually a gun advocate, New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter).
Most of the studies have noted the numerous clustering/coding errors. When Lott was correcting the coding errors, however, he changed his calculations to remove a statistical correction for clustering while leaving a statement that clustering was corrected for in the associated tables.
Generally, his critics argue that Lott has shown one analysis of his data, which is not by itself inconsistent with ‘More guns, less crime.’ This model is unacceptable, however, on the basis of its other predictions and assumptions. Therefore, they conclude, some other factors are probably at work, specific to Florida in the time period covered. Here’s a quote from the Kleck piece cited above:
The 1.3% of the population in places like Florida who obtained permits would represent at best only a slight increase in the share of potential crime victims who carry guns in public places. And if those who got permits were merely legitimating what they were already doing before the new laws, it would mean there was no increase at all in carrying or in actual risks to criminals…more likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott analysis.
I’m sure that you’ve read all of the studies, even those supporting the other side of the issue, right?
As for poor neighborhoods suffering from higher violent crime rates than poor ones, please explain how it is that the upper class Chicago suburb of Morton Grove that banned the ownership of handguns in the home became substantially more dangerous than the poor to middle class Atlanta suburb of Kennesaw that mandated (providing the option to opt out if desired) gun ownership in every home which showed a precipitous drop in violent crime following the adoption of the pro gun ordinance?
Here’s a link debunking that.
Do you realize that the most restrictive firearms ownership laws in this country are in the cities with the HIGHEST violent crime rates?
Well, of course you provide no links or statistiscs. Do you realize that these restrictive ownership laws were put into place in these areas as a reaction against the amount of handgun related violence (except in the case of Morton Grove–see above) that pre-existed these laws?
Do you realize that 75% of the violent crime in this country is committed by 25% of the criminal population? Were you aware that it has been illegal for a convicted felon to purchase a firearm in this country since 1968?
Wow, nice bit of sophistry. Let’s see: Violent crime is not the same as handgun related crime; not all criminals are “felonsâ€; not all handguns used in criminal activities are purchased illegally.
[Gun Laws] do stop law abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves from people who are not law abiding.
Again, you’re much more likely to kill a family member than a criminal or a foreign invader, as numerous studies have shown, so I guess that gun laws do protect someone. On the other hand, the evidence that gun ownership actually prevents violence seems to be either non-existent or completely compromised.
Did you know that the people who provided the guns to Dylan and Klebold (the two teenage shooters at Columbine high school) have been sent to prison for violating federal firearms laws?
Great. I’m glad that federal firearm laws are in place and that the individuals who provided these kids with guns are in prison. It’s still too bad that the shooters were able to procure the weapons so easily in the first place.
Why do you think Florida rental car companies don’t put the company logo on the backs of the cars?
April 15, 2007 - 10:33 AM on April 15th, 2007
AKD you are as most liberals incorrect in your logic. Have you ever taken a sociology class on criminal behavior? I have. My statistics are directly from the text book.
Well, of course you provide no links or statistiscs. Do you realize that these restrictive ownership laws were put into place in these areas as a reaction against the amount of handgun related violence (except in the case of Morton Grove–see above) that pre-existed these laws?
No, the violent crime rate has consistently RISEN whereever restrictive firearms laws have gone into effect. Do you honestly believe that violent crime in DC was what it is NOW when they enacted the handgun ban over 30 years ago? Do you know that Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have more violent crime than any of the other cities in the state and are the only ones that required that state concealed carry permit holders get police permission before entering the city limits whenever they wanted to come into the city? I believe that has now changed. I know, I used to have a CCW in PA. I now have one in Arizona.
If you actually research the beginnings of gun control laws in this country you will find that they were not put into place to reduce crime, they were put into place to prevent blacks from rising up against their former masters. Gun Control laws have their basis in racism not crime prevention. Learn some history. Same thing goes with the “great lie” that the Democrats are pro black. The KKK was founded by southern white Democrats in order to suppress the black vote.
>
My stating fact is sophistry? Are you brain dead?
” Violent crime is not the same as handgun related crime” True, but all non administrative handgun related crime is violent crime. Also criminals with knives don’t generally go looking for victims with guns.
” Not all criminals are felons” No, but violent crimes that involve the use of a firearm ARE FELONIES, hence your argument has no point. We are discussing the idea that gun laws reduce crime, a completely discredited theory.
“Not all handguns used in crime are purchased illegally”
True, but every handgun used in the commission of a crime is USED illegally. By your logic, the fact that some moron took his Ducati motorcycle down the freeway at 140 mph is grounds for all Ducati motorcycles to be regulated or banned. Your logic would also apply to cars that have been involved in accidents after being stolen. More people are killed in auto accidents in this country than by lawful gunowners. Too bad you can’t seem to extend your argument to those who have entered this country illegally.
“Because tourists (armed or unarmed) tend to travel with a lot of money.”
Yes, and like the late Willy Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks “Because that’s where the money is.” Florida rental car companies removed their company logos from the backs of their cars because tourists were being targeted because the criminals knew that they’d be easy prey. Predators (two or four legged) ALWAYS look for the weakest animal to attack.
“Again, you’re much more likely to kill a family member than a criminal or a foreign invader, as numerous studies have shown, so I guess that gun laws do protect someone.”
Your complaining that I don’t provide links then you post this nonsense?
“On the other hand, the evidence that gun ownership actually prevents violence seems to be either non-existent or completely compromised.”
And exactly which gun control group did you get this bit of “knowledge” from? There are thousands of crimes that are prevented by lawful gun owners annually, more often than not without firing a shot. You can believe what you want, but I know that the guy who was becoming overly interested in the proceeds of a moving sale a few years ago was up to no good until I stood up and he saw the sidearm I was carrying. He kept wanting to know how much money I had made, and for me to show him what was in the back bedroom despite my telling him there was nothing for sale there. I have little doubt that he was intending to try and rob me. Upon seeing the handgun, he lost all interest in what was in the back room or the proceeds of my sale. Likewise, I doubt your argument would hold much water with my friend whose stepdaughter’s ex-boyfriend (a wanted felon from Florida) got loaded up on a variety of drugs, broke into my friend’s home and took a shot at him. My friend, who is a former SEAL, put 3 rounds through the felon’s chest. End of attack. Also, I’m certain that the Asian shop owners who protected their stores with Uzis during the LA riots while every store around them was being looted and burned would disagree with you. I’m also certain that my neighbor down the street was happy to have someone to protect her from her abusive ex-boyfriend that she had a restraining order against when he broke into her apartment two Christmases ago. She ran from the house screaming. Hearing the screams, I stuck my pistol into my belt, grabbed my cordless phone and went into my front yard. I called her over, calmed her down and called the police. Her ex didn’t follow her, but I and a man walking down the street stayed with her until the police arrived. The police went over to the house and arrested the ex-boyfriend. Had her ex-boyfriend followed her down the street with a weapon, I would NOT have allowed him to hurt her or anyone else. I would’ve shot him.
The ONLY type of gun laws that have effectively reduced crime were passed in Delaware in the mid 80s. They did nothing to restrict who could own a gun, only the penalties for using one illegally >. They automatically added 5 years to the prison sentence of anyone convicted of a crime that involved the use of a firearm. That 5 years was NOT negotiable, it simply added an additional 5 years to the time before the convict would be eligible for parole. Before the law went into effect, armed robbers got 3-5 years and were out in 18 months, after the law went into effect if they robbed someone with any weapon other than a firearm, they got 6-8 years with no parole for at least 4 1/2 years, with a firearm that went to 8-10 with no parole for 6 1/2 years. The laws went after the people who were using weapons illegally versus disarming those who were not inclined to do so. These laws worked for two reasons:
A. The cost of committing an armed robbery now exceeded the rewards. All lifestyle choices are based on risk versus reward. 6 1/2 years for the $50 in the cash register at 7-11 is one hell of a risk for very little reward.
B. It took the violent felons off of the streets for extended periods. With recidivism rates being what they are, this reduced the number of crimes by reducing the number of criminals to commit them.
If you’d rather have a cell phone than a handgun when being chased down an alley by someone with a knife, have it your way. You can be another unnamed body in the morning, I’ll take the other option and read about your demise in the morning paper. Why is it that Liberals think that abortion is a legitimate choice, gun ownership is not, criminal activity is a legitimate choice but self defense is not? Why do they insist on trying to restrict lawful behavior while refusing to punish those who commit crimes? Wouldn’t it simply be easier to say “If you want a gun, buy one. If you don’t, don’t. As long as you use it in a legal manner, no problem, but the minute you use it illegally we’re going to slam you into a cell and lose the key? ” That is the difference between us, I believe in personal freedom and responsibility, you believe in a totalitarian nanny state.
Doesn’t it make more sense to simply make the penalties for breaking the laws so onerous as to deter people from breaking them? There is a reason why three time loser laws work. When the risks exceed the rewards, criminal behavior comes to a screeching halt for all but the dumbest of criminals. And for those that don’t change, they’re removed from the streets so they can’t commit more crimes anyway.
April 15, 2007 - 11:46 AM on April 15th, 2007
They determined that right to carry laws have no effect on violent crime.
Except for in every place it has been tried.
April 15, 2007 - 11:54 AM on April 15th, 2007
Again, you’re much more likely to kill a family member than a criminal or a foreign invader, as numerous studies have shown, so I guess that gun laws do protect someone.
Even if that were true, how does someone else’s poor judgement translate into a reason to infringe on the rest of our 2nd Amendment rights? Because people drive carelessly and cause accidents, should we take away your car?
Because people shoot of their mouths irresponsibly, should we eliminate the 1st Amendment right to free speech (which Liberals do want to do)?
April 15, 2007 - 12:15 PM on April 15th, 2007
Register Communists, not guns…
April 15, 2007 - 12:42 PM on April 15th, 2007
I see nothing wrong with using the law to force legal gun owners to have their fingerprints, photographs, Social Security numbers along with a host of other personal information put into some state and federal database.
I think most Americans will agree that this is a good idea.
April 15, 2007 - 02:32 PM on April 15th, 2007
AKD you are as most liberals incorrect in your logic.
Uh-oh, I hate to be incorrect in my logic.
Have you ever taken a sociology class on criminal behavior? I have. My statistics are directly from the text book.
Which statistics? You made a bunch of unsupported statements in the last post and you didn’t link to anything. You sure as hell didn’t supply any statistics. Are there going to be statistics in this post?
No, the violent crime rate has consistently RISEN whereever restrictive firearms laws have gone into effect. Do you honestly believe that violent crime in DC was what it is NOW when they enacted the handgun ban over 30 years ago? Do you know that Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have more violent crime than any of the other cities in the state and are the only ones that required that state concealed carry permit holders get police permission before entering the city limits whenever they wanted to come into the city?
Again, no evidence; just a bunch of assertions. Yawn.
If you actually research the beginnings of gun control laws in this country you will find that they were not put into place to reduce crime, they were put into place to prevent blacks from rising up against their former masters. Gun Control laws have their basis in racism not crime prevention.
This is called the “genetic fallacyâ€: it occurs when one attempts to reduce the significance of an idea, person, practice, or institution merely to an account of its origin (genesis) or earlier form. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
More people are killed in auto accidents in this country than by lawful gunowners. Too bad you can’t seem to extend your argument to those who have entered this country illegally.
What do the previous two sentences have to do with one another? Is your impeccable logic slipping away from you? (I respond to the “guns don’t kill people; bad drivers kill people”argument below.)
Florida rental car companies removed their company logos from the backs of their cars because tourists were being targeted because the criminals knew that they’d be easy prey. Predators (two or four legged) ALWAYS look for the weakest animal to attack.
Let’s see: your post ends with what we call a “false analogy.” We all know that predators attack weak animals; unarmed germans are like weak animals. Of course, one could just as easily argue that predators attack edible animals. A tourist with money is like an animal with edible meat. I guess that this is why it’s usually not too useful to argue by analogy.
As for the “substance”of what you’re saying: I’ve been googling “Florida,”"logos,”"guns,”"rental,”etc. and while I’ve read about fifteen articles on the unfortunate death of Mr. Jensen (to whom, I assume, you’re referring), I’ve found no evidence that car rental agencies in FL have removed the logos from their cars because criminals know that European tourists (and how do they know that they’re European?) don’t carry guns. Do you have any evidence to support what you’re saying or is this another one of those things that I’m just supposed to accept?
Your complaining that I don’t provide links then you post this nonsense?
I am indeed complaining that you don’t link or provide any statistics (you just shoot your mouth off). You can find a discussion of these statistics (and the debate between Kleck, Kellerman, Lambert, etc. by googling Tim Lambert; you also could have found it off the link I actually included).
And exactly which gun control group did you get this bit of “knowledge”from?
From the multiple refereed journal articles that I cited.
There are thousands of crimes that are prevented by lawful gun owners annually, more often than not without firing a shot.
Statistics? Evidence?
You can believe what you want, but I know that the guy who was becoming overly interested in the proceeds of a moving sale a few years ago was up to no good until I stood up and he saw the sidearm I was carrying. He kept wanting to know how much money I had made, and for me to show him what was in the back bedroom despite my telling him there was nothing for sale there. I have little doubt that he was intending to try and rob me.
Nothing like some unverifiable anecdotal evidence to set everyone straight, huh FAO?
The ONLY type of gun laws that have effectively reduced crime were passed in Delaware in the mid 80s.
Evidence?
All lifestyle choices are based on risk versus reward.
Is this what you mean by “knowledge of sociology?” It sounds an awful lot like a platitude: Again, no statistics.
If you’d rather have a cell phone than a handgun when being chased down an alley by someone with a knife, have it your way.
I don’t spend much time in dark alleys since I gave up hustling: Regardless, I’d rather that if my son or daughter were playing at a friend’s house, that friend’s idiot father wouldn’t leave a loaded .45 on his desk that he owned because he was paranoid enough or stupid enough to think that the Queen of England was going to steal his land or something.
You can be another unnamed body in the morning, I’ll take the other option and read about your demise in the morning paper. Why is it that Liberals think that abortion is a legitimate choice, gun ownership is not, criminal activity is a legitimate choice but self defense is not?
Who thinks that criminal activity is a “legitimate choice?” If I think that abortion is a legitimate choice, it’s because I don’t believe that human life begins immediately after conception. On the other hand, the lives lost because of idiots playing with their guns seem pretty tragic. If you could promise me that the only gun-related deaths would befall gun-owners, I’d be with you. Why is it that conservatives argue that gun use is legitimate while Marijuana use is not?
Why do they insist on trying to restrict lawful behavior while refusing to punish those who commit crimes?
Huh?
That is the difference between us, I believe in personal freedom and responsibility, you believe in a totalitarian nanny state.
Says someone who no doubt supports wiretapping and the criminalization of blue crimes. I believe in personal freedom, too; it’s just that I don’t trust you to be responsible with your toys.
Doesn’t it make more sense to simply make the penalties for breaking the laws so onerous as to deter people from breaking them? There is a reason why three time loser laws work. When the risks exceed the rewards, criminal behavior comes to a screeching halt for all but the dumbest of criminals.
Is this why the death penalty has been so successful in lowering murder rates? The US currently has more people in prison than any other country (3-8 times higher than any country in Europe); we also have one of the highest murder rates of any first world country (only Northern Ireland is higher in Europe). Do you see a disconnect (and you can check Guncite and other pro-gun websites for this info if you think its liberal BS).
And on to Robert (and the cars are more dangerous than guns argument):
Even if that were true, how does someone else’s poor judgement translate into a reason to infringe on the rest of our 2nd Amendment rights? Because people drive carelessly and cause accidents, should we take away your car?
Again with the tricky analogies. Well, the initial post was about fingerprinting and social security numbers, not taking guns away. But should we take away cars? Lets see, we have speed limits, seat-belt laws, requirements that cars don’t explode on impact, age limitations, mandatory driver’s tests, etc. So it seems to me that cars are already pretty regulated. Still, we haven’t taken them away (kind of like the initial post wasn’t about taking guns away), right. Of course, if we took cars away (without setting up a viable alternative means of transportation) the economy would grind to a halt and the nation would collapse. In this sense, cars are a necessary evil; guns aren’t.
April 15, 2007 - 04:47 PM on April 15th, 2007
Register Liberals. When AlQaeda attacks this country again, round them up and hold them until AlQaeda and their supporters are dead. Now, If that includes Pdlosi, and other Democrats, so be it.
April 15, 2007 - 05:43 PM on April 15th, 2007
Guns in a free society are an absolute necessity.
April 16, 2007 - 04:04 AM on April 16th, 2007
Now that’s what I call the peak of hypocrisy:
If I enter your country my fingerprints are taken, also a picture and I am asked about my reason for immigration, but if the same/similar method is applied to you when you want to own a gun you get upset…
But I guess in your country foreigners are expected to be a greater danger to the society than gun owners!
April 16, 2007 - 05:59 AM on April 16th, 2007
26.
No, you are wrong. You are comparing apple to oranges. The immigration process is to insure a clean naturalization process. Once naturalized, you are no longer a “foreigner” (your words, not mine) and have the same rights to gun ownership as any other citizen of the United States. The fact is that at one time many countries were dealing with their criminal element by shuffling them off to the US and Australia. This is why this process is in place.
Gun ownership is a Constitutional Right, just like free speech, freedom of the press and search and seizure.
There is much you do not understand about the US. I find it amazing you find comfort my critizing it so much yet know so little about it.
April 16, 2007 - 06:36 AM on April 16th, 2007
27 – When talking about immigration, I refer to the meaning of the word (maybe it’s wrong) when (foreign) people are entering your country for a visit. Not in the sense of permanent immigration.
I know that gun ownership is a constitutional right that only applies to US citizens, but I am referring to people (both Americans and non-Americans) in general. I can’t give you any figures, but I guess more offenses/accidents with lethal or serious wounding outcome have occured in connection with armed people in the US than by unarmed foreigners…
“There is much you do not understand about the US. I find it amazing you find comfort my critizing it so much yet know so little about it.”
That is not correct, because I rather understand/can follow opinions as they are provided by liberal Americans than by conservative Americans. I wouldn’t be able to perceive the US as a friendly/civilized country if I had to assume the views in this forum as the reference of American values.
April 16, 2007 - 06:44 AM on April 16th, 2007
Mattias, you own opinion is not fact. Crimes went up in the UK and Australia where they have banned guns. Fools like you just don’t grasp the fact that criminals do not follow the laws and do not give up their guns.
April 16, 2007 - 07:01 AM on April 16th, 2007
Re 28
“When talking about immigration, I refer to the meaning of the word (maybe it’s wrong) when (foreign) people are entering your country for a visit. Not in the sense of permanent immigration.”
Yes, that is an incorrect reference. What you are then refering to is applying for a tempory vivisa.
In that case, I have no problems with said documentation. If they commit a crime, it is easier to have them arrested or extradicted if they leave the US before they are caught. Without such programs, we would have an open border policy and things would soon be out of control. America is in a unique position, as we are one of the few countries who have more people wanting to immigrate here than leave and our rate of immogration is so high.
“That is not correct, because I rather understand/can follow opinions as they are provided by liberal Americans than by conservative Americans. I wouldn’t be able to perceive the US as a friendly/civilized country if I had to assume the views in this forum as the reference of American values.”
No- I am correct and this statement only proves it. Just like anyone else who looks at America from strictly a liberal or conservative tilt, you do not understand what America is about. No single idealogy is best for this country- it takes both to steer this country in the right direction!
The founding fathers consisted of men who were liberal and men who were conservative, but they were wise enough to undersdtand that concept. It was the precepts of how our governemet was formed and why it was structered as it was.
April 16, 2007 - 07:25 AM on April 16th, 2007
30- “No- I am correct and this statement only proves it.”
I don’t want to go again to another timewasting philosophical discussion with you again, Ted. Neither I want to talk against you weapon owning rights- that’s a piece of your culture and even though I don’t like it, I do respect it.
I simply want to say, that I don’t understand how you can complain about a procedure which may support that only the “right” people own guns and that those who should not have owned them (actually when the lethal result shows it) can be identifed and locked away…
April 16, 2007 - 07:39 AM on April 16th, 2007
“I simply want to say, that I don’t understand how you can complain about a procedure which may support that only the “right”people own guns and that those who should not have owned them (actually when the lethal result shows it) can be identifed and locked away:”
Which is the problem- this program doesn’t do that at all. Criminals doen’t go through the legal process to obtain firearms. Most firearms they use are illegal or stolen to begin with. They don’t walk into a gun store and buy a Sig at retail!
All this does is infringe upon American citizen’s Constitutional right to own firearms.
Does that clarify things?
April 16, 2007 - 07:42 AM on April 16th, 2007
An addendum to post #32:
here is a very scary part of that article:
“Those who would refuse to register their guns would become criminals, and those denied registration certificates for any reason would have their guns confiscated by the government.”
Governement confiscation of fire arms? Where else have I heard that…
April 16, 2007 - 08:08 AM on April 16th, 2007
#2 Ted surely if guns are strictly banned criminals will comply, won’t they?
I mean, if it is the law, it is absolute, and it is announced that there will be no tolerance for violators? Surely they will obey!!!
(there are a bunch of dopes who apparently think so)
April 16, 2007 - 08:09 AM on April 16th, 2007
32- “Criminals doen’t go through the legal process to obtain firearms. Most firearms they use are illegal or stolen to begin with. They don’t walk into a gun store and buy a Sig at retail!”
If criminals use stolen guns, the former owners have to be identified because they obviously are guilty of not taking enough care of their guns. And apart from that there is also an amount of people who just become (first time) criminals by the use of their legally purchased gun.
Regarding the aspect “confiscation of fire arms for the case of denial of registration”, I would respond with the one argument that conservatives always use when it comes to any cutting citizen rights/privacy:“If you are an honest law-respecting citizen- why should you care about laws that act against criminals? You are not!”… How far I would share such an argument stand on another piece of paper.
April 16, 2007 - 08:32 AM on April 16th, 2007
“If criminals use stolen guns, the former owners have to be identified because they obviously are guilty of not taking enough care of their guns.”
I’m sorry, but I’ve never heard such a ridiculous statement on this BBS.
That’s like sdaying if someone stealyour you are, your purse or your wallet then you are to blame because you didn’t take care of it. Try assigning accountability to those who are to blame.
“And apart from that there is also an amount of people who just become (first time) criminals by the use of their legally purchased gun.”
It occurs, but on an extremely small percentage. BUT, to do that like saying we shouldn’t allow a person to own a car becasue they MIGHT crash it. But your point is moot- becasue these citizens would already own guns, so this law would do nothing to effect them…for now
“Regarding the aspect “confiscation of fire arms for the case of denial of registrationâ€, I would respond with the one argument that conservatives always use when it comes to any cutting citizen rights/privacy:”If you are an honest law-respecting citizen- why should you care about laws that act against criminals? You are not!â€: How far I would share such an argument stand on another piece of paper.”
This is a slippery slope, and an invalid argument as far as I’m concerened in any instance. If one person’s Constitutional rights are removed, then so is everyones. Just because I choose not to exercuse said right is no reason to have it removed.
To the point though- this doesn’t effect criminals and does nothing to do so. This is another step towards limiting the rights granted by the Constitution. That is never good.
April 16, 2007 - 08:54 AM on April 16th, 2007
36- “That’s like sdaying if someone stealyour you are, your purse or your wallet then you are to blame because you didn’t take care of it. Try assigning accountability to those who are to blame.”
I really wonder what exotic dangerous kind of wallet you have…
I can only refer to my time as a soldier when comes to weapon-ownership duties, but if for example you have a gun in your house and due to your blowzy way of storing it somewhere, your child finds it and hurts itself or somebody else, you won’t tell me that it is nobody’s fault, or will you?
April 16, 2007 - 09:07 AM on April 16th, 2007
37, Mattias, talk about being a dishonest debater! You take the cake. You don’t know how Ted or I store our guns. Did you ever hear of gunsafes?
You really are arrogant to take your lack of informatioin, form an uninformed opinion, then treat it as an unassailable fact in a debate really demonstrates your weak character, Mattias.
April 16, 2007 - 09:12 AM on April 16th, 2007
“I really wonder what exotic dangerous kind of wallet you have:”
it’s irrelevant. If someone stole by exotic and dangerous car, the fact that it is exotic or dangerous is irrelevant to the fact that it was stolen.
I can only refer to my time as a soldier when comes to weapon-ownership duties, but if for example you have a gun in your house and due to your blowzy way of storing it somewhere, your child finds it and hurts itself or somebody else, you won’t tell me that it is nobody’s fault, or will you?
“I can only refer to my time as a soldier when comes to weapon-ownership duties,”
What- did you have children in your barracks? How does your time as a “soldier” serve as a reference in this case?
“but if for example you have a gun in your house and due to your blowzy way of storing it somewhere, your child finds it and hurts itself or somebody else, you won’t tell me that it is nobody’s fault, or will you?”
Assigning blame isn’t relevanmt to this Matthias. You are talking about an after the fact instance, and one that seldom occurs. When it does- then yes, the negligenmce of the owner caused the death of the child. If criminal cxharges are brought forth (just like with any other criminal case) then the person responible should be held accountable.
That said: this law is before the fact and would do absolutely nothing to prevent the scenerio you put forth so it is absolutely irrelevant.
Besides- did you have children in your barracks? How does your time as a “soldier” serve as a reference in this case?
April 16, 2007 - 09:14 AM on April 16th, 2007
38- “You don’t know how Ted or I store our guns.”
..neither I referred to it…
I don’t even know/care, if you have any guns…
April 16, 2007 - 09:37 AM on April 16th, 2007
re 38, 39:
“You don’t know how Ted or I store our guns.”
It’s irrelevant to the issue. I can store pistols every 5 feet in my house loaded with WWII ammo in full view of my toddlers and it doesn’t matter. This law does nothing to prevent that.
This law does nothing to prevent anything. All it does is place restrictions on our Constitutional rights.
April 16, 2007 - 10:03 AM on April 16th, 2007
41, Ted, why would you keep WW2 ammo around? Or do you just want ammo that doesn’t have the taggants put in recently made powders?
April 16, 2007 - 10:21 AM on April 16th, 2007
42.
It was a just used to exasperate the example of why Matthias’ examl,e is irrelevent. I used it because WWII is pretty unsafe to shoot.
April 16, 2007 - 10:52 AM on April 16th, 2007
43- Who cares anyway… as we all know that all these gun-discussions are purely theoretical…
Besides, did anybody already wake up Charlton Heston and tell him about his NRA-Summit the next days in Blacksburg?
April 16, 2007 - 11:20 AM on April 16th, 2007
“Who cares anyway: as we all know that all these gun-discussions are purely theoretical:”
The shelter of someone who knows their position has been throroughly collapsed.
April 16, 2007 - 11:51 AM on April 16th, 2007
43, You expressed my concern. I remember that Holland was removing downed aircraft from WW2 from areas they were draining to reclaim land from the sea. They had a disposal problem with the corroded WW2 ammo.
Now, when that group of people retrieved a P-38 from that glacier, the .50 caliber machine guns still worked. The demonstrated it by shooting a “garbage can”, destroying it with 1 shot.
April 16, 2007 - 01:18 PM on April 16th, 2007
I finally got a gun safe. Entry is by electronic keypad. Now I can keep my guns at the ready, with complete child safety. They are totally secure, but in less than 10 seconds I can be fully prepared to send large numbers of rounds downrange.
any vermin come into my house to harm my family and my call to 9-1-1 will be for the coroner…
April 16, 2007 - 01:49 PM on April 16th, 2007
Man, are you guys watching VA Tech on the news? This whole discussion (both sides) turned out to be eerily prescient…
Here’s something from one of the many articles already showing up:
Virginia has lenient gun-ownership laws. Ownership requires only passing criminal background checks, which can be bypassed by buying from an unlicensed dealer. And unlicensed dealers can sell their wares at gun shows without requiring criminal checks. Guns need not be registered unless the owner wants to carry a concealed weapon.
I know someone who teaches architecture there–I hope that he’s alright.
April 16, 2007 - 02:06 PM on April 16th, 2007
AKD,
If you know about VTech, you know it is a gun free area. The bill allowing faculty and students to have guns was not passed. I wonder if they had been allowed to be armed if the toll would have been less? Remember the Luby’s shootings in Texas? Legal gun owners cut short that ***hole’s rampage.
April 16, 2007 - 02:08 PM on April 16th, 2007
oh, AKD, on another board there was a wish to pray for the victims and be silent in mourning without starting the gun debate as you have.
My kid just got hired to work on some Anna Nicole Smith movie. I wonder how soon a project will get rolling for this incident?
April 16, 2007 - 03:41 PM on April 16th, 2007
subscribe
April 16, 2007 - 10:13 PM on April 16th, 2007
AKD, as a former LICENSED DEALER, I can tell you that there are no such things as unlicensed dealers. There are licensed dealers and people who are ILLEGALLY dealing in guns. Most gun shows seriously limit actual gun dealing to licensed dealers though some collectors do sell or trade weapons from their collections at gun shows. There are far more guns sold illegally out of the trunks of cars than at gun shows. Why? Because the ATF and local law enforcement cruise through gun shows looking for things that don’t add up. Guys with a stack of brand new guns on the table and no Federal Firearms License to prove he’s a licensed dealer sets every law enforcement officer in the place (and there are LOTS of them) on high alert. Yes, most major gun show operators do require that dealers have their license visible on the table. There is no more a gun show loophole than there is a newspaper want ads loophole. If you get caught dealing in firearms (generally more than a few a year, not enough to make a living at it) the penalties are steep.
I have heard that there was a movement to rescind Virginia Tech’s status as a weapons free zone last year, but the university fought long and hard to insure that anyone wishing to come onto the campus to reek havoc would be able to do so unopposed. One armed professor could’ve ended the carnage, but it was not the wish of the University to allow it. It only took the Israelis a few dozen dead school children to realize that trained and armed teachers are a deterrent to terrorist attacks. It only took a handful of dead terrorists for the terrorists to realize that schools were no longer easy targets. Too bad far too many people do not realize that hanging a sign that says “Weapons Free Zone” is the same as hanging a sign that says “Risk Free Target Rich Environment”.
It is a sad day in Virginia and I wish the families of the victims all of the best. Unfortunately the lessons that should be learned from this will be missed in lieu of media hype and moronic hyperbole.
April 16, 2007 - 10:29 PM on April 16th, 2007
AKD, as a former LICENSED DEALER, I can tell you that there are no such things as unlicensed dealers. There are licensed dealers and people who are ILLEGALLY dealing in guns. Most gun shows seriously limit actual gun dealing to licensed dealers though some collectors do sell or trade weapons from their collections at gun shows. There are far more guns sold illegally out of the trunks of cars than at gun shows. Why? Because the ATF and local law enforcement cruise through gun shows looking for things that don’t add up. Guys with a stack of brand new guns on the table and no Federal Firearms License to prove he’s a licensed dealer sets every law enforcement officer in the place (and there are LOTS of them) on high alert. Yes, most major gun show operators do require that dealers have their license visible on the table. There is no more a gun show loophole than there is a newspaper want ads loophole. If you get caught dealing in firearms (generally more than a few a year, not enough to make a living at it) the penalties are steep.
I have heard that there was a movement to rescind Virginia Tech’s status as a weapons free zone last year, but the university fought long and hard to insure that anyone wishing to come onto the campus to reek havoc would be able to do so unopposed. One armed professor could’ve ended the carnage, but it was not the wish of the University to allow it. It only took the Israelis a few dozen dead school children to realize that trained and armed teachers are a deterrent to terrorist attacks. It only took a handful of dead terrorists for the terrorists to realize that schools were no longer easy targets. Too bad far too many people do not realize that hanging a sign that says “Weapons Free Zone” is the same as hanging a sign that says “Risk Free, Target Rich Environment”.
It is a sad day in Virginia and I wish the families of the victims all of the best. Unfortunately the lessons that should be learned from this will be missed in lieu of media hype and moronic hyperbole.
April 19, 2007 - 01:11 PM on April 19th, 2007
subscribe
April 22, 2007 - 07:34 AM on April 22nd, 2007
subscribe
April 24, 2007 - 04:00 PM on April 24th, 2007
subscribe
May 3, 2007 - 06:06 PM on May 3rd, 2007
subscribe
May 8, 2007 - 05:25 PM on May 8th, 2007
subscribe