|
Post by James on Dec 25, 2012 14:47:20 GMT -6
I don't see the question as whether new gun laws (or other laws) would make sense, so much as what will help placate the anti-gun hysteria without costing us much.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 25, 2012 15:02:33 GMT -6
the scary thing Jim can be that some "new" laws would make sense to those in power to do so, we can't overlook that either.
A gun has never picked it self up and killed anyone and a citizen that abides by the law every day of life doesn't do that either. Criminals, mental issues are what causes mass shootings. the old saying if there is a will, there is a way. we need to work on the "will" and those issues far more than gun bans and ammo issues.
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 25, 2012 16:23:54 GMT -6
Yeah, I control my guns very well.
I lecture them regularly about not hurting people (unless I tell them to), and keep them confined in a gun safe in case one of them gets a wild hair up its barrel.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by stickbowhntr on Dec 25, 2012 17:08:34 GMT -6
NO prosecution only execution of those that get caught!
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 26, 2012 3:26:52 GMT -6
Say what?
You want summary executions? Who gets to do this? Police? Private citizens?
Jim
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Dec 26, 2012 13:18:00 GMT -6
James I've tried the "placate" strategy in trapping regulation and legislation and watched it in the hunting arena a lot lately.
Doesn't work at all. The other side has no skin in the game so you are the predetermined loser.
One acquiescence is just another touchdown for the other side in a game with no end.
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 26, 2012 16:18:16 GMT -6
Nothing reasonable will ever placate the antis. I'm talking about doing something so the majority of the public turn their attention to something else.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Dec 26, 2012 19:21:39 GMT -6
Strong leadership with the right message would accomplish that as well.
Unfortunately......
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Dec 26, 2012 21:35:47 GMT -6
And the right message is?
Pam
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Dec 26, 2012 21:56:51 GMT -6
That guns dont commit crimes, that there are already laws against shooting others, that out of 300 million people in this country once in a while someone is going to go off the deep end and sane people don't deserve to be punished for that.
There is a second amendment to the constitution, our rights as free people should not be infringed because of an anomaly.
Let's see semi autos are semi autos whether they have a pistol grip or not. 30 round clips hold the same number of rounds as three 10 rounders.
Waiting periods do nothing but inconvenience honest people.
Finally criminals don't, and won't, obey any laws regardless.
|
|
|
Post by jim on Dec 27, 2012 4:26:21 GMT -6
I like your reply Joel.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Dec 27, 2012 10:58:27 GMT -6
Justice Scalia Has Hinted That Powerful Assault Weapons May Be BannedErin Fuchs Business Insider Dec. 17, 2012 Congress arguably screwed up when it let a ban on many semiautomatic weapons expire back in 2004. But in a 2008 opinion that struck down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban, Justice Antonin Scalia suggested the Second Amendment shouldn't stop the U.S. from barring certain weapons. Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms. "We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote, in an opinion first cited by UPI over the weekend. Scalia reiterated that sentiment in July of this year when he told Fox News Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for federal gun control legislation. The conservative justice's views on gun control could come into play if the high court decides to review an appeals court's decision that citizens have a right to walk around with concealed weapons.
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 27, 2012 12:55:58 GMT -6
"Dangerous and unusual weapons"?
Any gun is dangerous, but "assault rifles" are no longer unusual. Millions of them in private hands.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Dec 28, 2012 1:26:05 GMT -6
"30 round clips hold the same number of rounds as three 10 rounders." True, but it takes a second or two to change clips, in that split second opening it's possible that someone could shoot him or tackle him. What practical need is there for 30 round or more clips except in the military? I shot my fair share of squirrels with a single shot .22 Lots of guys use muzzleloaders to hunt deer. If someone needs more than 10 shots to kill something or shoot a bull's eye in a target then they probably shouldn't be let loose with a gun in the first place. "Waiting periods do nothing but inconvenience honest people." How much of an inconvenince is it really to have to wait a day or two to pick up a gun? When you buy a new car you generally have to wait a day or two to pick it up. If you want a loan to buy a house sometimes you have to wait month or more. An honest person should have no problem waiting a day or two for a gun. "There is a second amendment to the constitution,our rights as free people should not be infringed because of an anomaly." When the second amendment was passed in 1771 all guns were single shot. During the Revolutionary War in 1775: While three broad categories of personal firearms existed, both sides most commonly used the musket in the Revolutionary War. Pistols were extremely inaccurate, while rifles took two to four times as long to load as a musket did. Additionally,rifles could not be fitted with bayonets, while muskets could. Because of the inefficiency of the firearms of the period, troops frequently entered close-quarters combat after only a couple of volleys. The result was that every soldier carried hand-to-hand weaponry in addition to their firearms. Commonly, musketmen relied on their bayonets in close-quarters fighting. Many soldiers also carried swords, tomahawks or knives for use in these situations." "The surviving print material from the Revolution reveals that the Americans colonists were not concerned about arming themselves for personal self-defense; they were preoccupied with mobilizing communities so that they could defend themselves." www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw/articles/volume10/issue3/Kozuskanich10U.Pa.J.Const.L.413(2008).pdfI think our Founding Fathers would be aghast that what they wrote 300 years ago would still be applied today as if single shot, highly inaccurate guns, knives, axes, and swords were all the "arms" available for the defense of the country. And certainly the founders of the NRA would be appalled at how it has evolved: "Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church." Times change, Pam
|
|
|
Post by jim on Dec 28, 2012 4:58:34 GMT -6
Times change.
Nothing to do with weapons but early speed limits were as low as 20 mph. How many lives could we save if we went back to those speeds?
Jim
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 28, 2012 6:07:15 GMT -6
so pam we limit technology for the better cause? The internet has screwed up millions of peoples lives maybe we ban it as well?
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Dec 28, 2012 6:57:10 GMT -6
I also said that criminals won't, and don't, obey any laws regardless.
I'll follow that up by saying that if this goes much farther you'll find that it isn't just the criminals that will quit obeying the law. First step toward anarchy.
Pam, so are you saying we should go back to single shot muskets? Sure sounds like it.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 28, 2012 7:12:00 GMT -6
no, what she is saying, is banning super duper lazer ray guns for general public use, really isn't much of a loss, and it certainly doesn't negate the 2nd amemdment
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Dec 28, 2012 9:20:49 GMT -6
How do you know that the founders of the NRA or the founding fathers would be appalled at the changes Pam?
It sounds to me like you're the one that is appalled?
As far as waiting periods, why? Yes it's an inconvenience and your analogies to houses and cars could just as easily be asked about your groceries.
The 10 round argument isn't about whether I need one to shoot shoot an animal or a target, it's about you thinking you have the obligation to tell me what my choices should be?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 28, 2012 10:38:02 GMT -6
so what if its a minor incovenience- if having a waitng period and real background checks stops even one of these shootings- then do it!
I got enough guns I can wait a few days if I need another
oh and PS- worry about the guy who said re-adfirming the 2nd, didn't mean federal controls could not be implemented on guns
|
|