The Supreme Court and Gun Control

[candyman]

As I said... control and banning are not the same thing IMO.

They are not but in some cases they get pretty close.

A bill here in Wisconsin was being voted on and I was at the meeting in the capital where they were talking on the major points that should be included. I will try and list them here and will be leaving out the obvious ones like hunter's safety and required permits and certifications.

1. Each firearm will be taxed on a yearly basis...the tax money will go towards "training courses" and "prevention programs"

2. A registration fee on $50 per firearm that must be renewed each year...the registration card for the firearm must be with it at all times if it is in use. (I would owe $400 and I don't as many guns as other people!)

3. Ammunition should have a shelf life of no more than 2 months.

4. Maximum of 20 rounds of ammunition may be purchased at a time...no more than 20 rounds per person in the field and at the range.

5. LOWER THE HUNTING AGE TO 10...WTF?

6. Rifle ammunition not to exceed 180 grains...FMJ banned completely

7. No hand-loading of ammunition...the stuff is already expensive and taxed to hell anyways so whatever.

8. Firearm owners must have a log on each firearm and shots from those firearms...this one was not pushed as hard but it still was pushed.

They can control things without making us pay more money. They can probably figure out a way to control firearms better without punishing those of us that use them properly. If I can't shoot anything more than 180 grains I am screwed because my rifle will not function properly with that light of a projectile. Hand-loading used to be cheaper and gave us an option to save money and shoot better rounds...but apparently all the gangsters are doing that now so we should not. Ammo with a shelf life of 2 months...hell even 5 months is not going to make any sort of difference except for more accidents because of bad ammunition.

No they are not banning it but I have yet to read, see, or hear about a bill that really just focuses on control. Shit if it was just strict licensing, testing, training, and sales of firearms and ammunition most of us that deserve the guns WILL be able to keep them...but most of these people are going overboard with their "control". I don't think you have to remind us of the difference between control and banning...but you should probably tell the people making the laws...they aren't very bright you know.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Here's my point. Nobody will ever take away the guns...ever. Gun rules have actually been eased under the current administration and congress. So why is everyone under the ridiculous impression that the people who just eased your gun laws are doing that as a ploy so when they take you gun it'll be a surprise attack and the black helicopters will follow you and the communists are flourdizing(*) our water.

No one is saying anything about the the current admin or congress. We are talking about that states (notice the small s) and cities ability to ban guns. Like the nearly 30 year old ban on hand guns in Chicago. No one sid anything about a ploy either. We are talking about a case that the Supreme Court is currently deciding. If the plantiffs win, states and cities will not be able to ban guns in anyway and the hand gun ban in Chicago will belifted. If the City of Chicago wins, states and cicties will have constitutional power to ban guns.

BTW, Chicago's ban on hand guns amounted to a 25% rise in violent crime.

[Rayne]

What exactly is the issue with gun control? I feel like I am missing something here. I'm not for banning, not at all (personally I think if you want to own a gun as long as you follow the laws, then you should be able to) ... but I don't understand what is so wrong with control.

We have driver's licenses for driver control. We take people's license if they can't follow directions, we suspend them for not listening, we enact tag renewal and insurance requirements to weed out people who can not afford to deal with a potential accident, we don't allow people with certain medical conditions drive ... a car is a deadly weapon (or can be very easily) ... same as a gun. We say as long as you can pay for it, drive it properly, you can own a car, or in some cases more than one. Isn't that essentially the same thing?

Yet I see no arguments against vehicle restrictions ....

Edited March 7, 2010 by Rayne

[candyman]

What exactly is the issue with gun control? I feel like I am missing something here. I'm not for banning, not at all (personally I think if you want to own a gun as long as you follow the laws, then you should be able to) ... but I don't understand what is so wrong with control.

We have driver's licenses for driver control. We take people's license if they can't follow directions, we suspend them for not listening, we enact tag renewal and insurance requirements to weed out people who can not afford to deal with a potential accident, we don't allow people with certain medical conditions drive ... a car is a deadly weapon (or can be very easily) ... same as a gun. We say as long as you can pay for it, drive it properly, you can own a car, or in some cases more than one. Isn't that essentially the same thing?

Yet I see no arguments against vehicle restrictions ....

I don't think anyone has an issue with gun control. However, we already have hunters safety, you need a permit to hunt with a rifle and bows, purchasing a rifle (from controlled dealers) requires hunters safety and a background check, and so on and so forth. How can this be controlled anymore? I guess since ATF and the government can get their shit together with controlling illegal firearms and background checks we need further control...but I can't see that much else we can do. Most of the "control" they speak about isn't control...it's bullshit regulations that will affect legitimate gun owners and won't affect those that use them the wrong way.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

What exactly is the issue with gun control? I feel like I am missing something here. I'm not for banning, not at all (personally I think if you want to own a gun as long as you follow the laws, then you should be able to) ... but I don't understand what is so wrong with control.

We have driver's licenses for driver control. We take people's license if they can't follow directions, we suspend them for not listening, we enact tag renewal and insurance requirements to weed out people who can not afford to deal with a potential accident, we don't allow people with certain medical conditions drive ... a car is a deadly weapon (or can be very easily) ... same as a gun. We say as long as you can pay for it, drive it properly, you can own a car, or in some cases more than one. Isn't that essentially the same thing?

Yet I see no arguments against vehicle restrictions ....

This thread isn't really about Gun Control. It's about the ultimate decision being decided on the ability of states to BAN guns. I used the word "control" in the thread header because banning guns is what passes for gun control in some of the more "progressive"/"liberal" areas of the country. Chicago, San Fransico and Washington DC are a few areas that come to mind.

BTW. People need to read more of American history. We have the right to own guns for a reason. It's not hunting or protecting ourselves from criminals. We have the Right to own guns so that if the government trys to take any of our Rights away, we have the DUTY to raise arms against it. We have guns so that the government fears us and not the other way around.

Also, we have no Right to drive a vehicle where as we do the Right to own and bear arms.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[Destroit]

So, the court has signaled that it is going to decide with the plantifs. Which means that they are going to say that We the People, do in fact, have the Right to own guns and there isn't much the states or cities can do about it. What are your thoughts?

'Bout fucking time that someone finally had the balls to stand up and say "hey...this is bullshit!" in this country. Now if someone would do that with things like the bailout, forced healthcare "reform", and other inane laws then we'd be set .

[Rev.Reverence]

What exactly is the issue with gun control? I feel like I am missing something here. I'm not for banning, not at all (personally I think if you want to own a gun as long as you follow the laws, then you should be able to) ... but I don't understand what is so wrong with control.

We have driver's licenses for driver control. We take people's license if they can't follow directions, we suspend them for not listening, we enact tag renewal and insurance requirements to weed out people who can not afford to deal with a potential accident, we don't allow people with certain medical conditions drive ... a car is a deadly weapon (or can be very easily) ... same as a gun. We say as long as you can pay for it, drive it properly, you can own a car, or in some cases more than one. Isn't that essentially the same thing?

Yet I see no arguments against vehicle restrictions ....

I agree, we let to many peoples have a license for an auto...so much so, I'ld say: We have never been in such fervent agreeance on anything.

This thread isn't really about Gun Control. It's about the ultimate decision being decided on the ability of states to BAN guns. I used the word "control" in the thread header because banning guns is what passes for gun control in some of the more "progressive"/"liberal" areas of the country. Chicago, San Fransico and Washington DC are a few areas that come to mind.

BTW. People need to read more of American history. We have the right to own guns for a reason. It's not hunting or protecting ourselves from criminals. We have the Right to own guns so that if the government trys to take any of our Rights away, we have the DUTY to raise arms against it. We have guns so that the government fears us and not the other way around.

Also, we have no Right to drive a vehicle where as we do the Right to own and bear arms.

Very, very true.

Not even a right to a wagon

...The Constitution always gave me the impression (from youth, & still)...that in the event of an all out invasion on American soil...that all the local armouries, would throw open their doors, & start handin' out rifles to Citizens.....am I the only one that reads the line like that???

[Destroit]

...The Constitution always gave me the impression (from youth, & still)...that in the event of an all out invasion on American soil...that all the local armouries, would throw open their doors, & start handin' out rifles to Citizens.....am I the only one that reads the line like that???

Yeap. That's what I got out of it.

You take away from the good decent citizens of America the right to bear arms and the only ones left with guns after that would be criminals, the military, and the militaries of other countries.

Personally with all three of those groups stacked against you, I believe every individual in this country (sans criminals of course) should have the right to own a gun. Not only that but I believe these citizens should own a gun and have a CCW for it. If more good people walked around with guns the second you got that nutjob that started shooting then at least someone would be right there immediately to take the guy out. Much better than standing helplessly watching him wander about mowing down citizens left and right before it takes the police 15 minutes to get there and to even start taking action. Case in point, statistically speaking, police precincts are the least suseptable to work place shootings and violence. Why? What idiot gunman is going to walk into a station and pull a gun out on a bunch of people who are all armed and all on the same side?

Edited March 7, 2010 by Chernobyl

[Rayne]

This thread isn't really about Gun Control. It's about the ultimate decision being decided on the ability of states to BAN guns. I used the word "control" in the thread header because banning guns is what passes for gun control in some of the more "progressive"/"liberal" areas of the country. Chicago, San Fransico and Washington DC are a few areas that come to mind.

BTW. People need to read more of American history. We have the right to own guns for a reason. It's not hunting or protecting ourselves from criminals. We have the Right to own guns so that if the government trys to take any of our Rights away, we have the DUTY to raise arms against it. We have guns so that the government fears us and not the other way around.

Also, we have no Right to drive a vehicle where as we do the Right to own and bear arms.

Okay, I was just wondering if I was missing something.

[Destroit]

People seem to think that if you take away all legal ownership of guns, the criminals will magically not have guns or ways to get them.

Ooooh trust me, I live a mile from Detroit, I will vouche for this statement. You drive below 8 Mile, you've got people coming up to your car flashing unregistered "non-existant" guns in your face for you to purchase.

And there will always be criminals. It's nice to idealize about a false utopia that does not have them, and hell, it is even better to strive for this goal, but there will always be a select few that are dysfunctional as such in our society. We need a way to defend ourselves against such people and against corrupt people in power if they turn the military on the citizens.

It's nice to imagine a world where true peace can happen and everyone on the Earth stopped fighting, hurting each other, and trying to fuck each other over. On the same sentiment, however, it would be nice if pigs could fly, and they've also been trying for years .

Edited March 7, 2010 by Chernobyl

[candyman]

Ooooh trust me, I live a mile from Detroit, I will vouche for this statement. You drive below 8 Mile, you've got people coming up to your car flashing unregistered "non-existant" guns in your face for you to purchase.

And there will always be criminals. It's nice to idealize about a false utopia that does not have them, and hell, it is even better to strive for this goal, but there will always be a select few that are dysfunctional as such in our society. We need a way to defend ourselves against such people and against corrupt people in power if they turn the military on the citizens.

It's nice to imagine a world where true peace can happen and everyone on the Earth stopped fighting, hurting each other, and trying to fuck each other over. On the same sentiment, however, it would be nice if pigs could fly, and they've also been trying for years .

It isn't even just Detroit. I worked at Autozone in Madison, WI which is "progressive" and "clean" and has "gotten rid of crime and drugs" and there were three times when people came up to me personally while I was outside to sell me speakers, other appliances, and pistols...all of which I assume were stolen...I do have to say that there were some nice pistols though. My boss told me it happens at least once a week though...

If you wanna know how easy it is for someone to get an illegal FULL AUTO weapon I can tell you but DON'T do it this way. AK47's and the copied versions are all demilled, taken apart and the receiver or barrel is cut, and then they are put into bags and sold for about $200. You DO NOT need anything special to purchase these kits you only have to be 18 years of age. After you get the kit its another $100 in parts and you have a full-auto rifle that has no serial numbers due to the European demilling process. By law they must be 25% US parts which MUST include the trigger to switch it to semi-auto but that is not tracked as far as I know...at least not very well. The Spanish CETME is another more potent rifle that shoots .308 in semi trim but all of them and their clones come from the factory with the ability to go full-auto...you just need a screwdriver.

This is the stuff that worries me because even the bills that just speak of control won't help this at all. If its not being controlled now no new "control" bill will help it...and an all out ban certainly won't fix this either.

[n0Mad]

Came across this article today:

Good News for the Good Guys: FBI Crime Data Proves Gun Grabbers Wrong

by Jim Irvine and Chad D. Baus

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (and other supporters of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign), "more guns = more crime." The logical conclusion they hope lawmakers reach is that guns should be banned, or at least be severely restricted.

But changes to gun laws over the past five years, and data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), suggest something else entirely.

From an FBI press release announcing the release of the latest data:

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program is a nationwide, cooperative statistical effort of more than 17,000 city, university and college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies voluntarily reporting data on crimes brought to their attention. Since 1930, the FBI has administered the UCR Program and continued to assess and monitor the nature and type of crime in the Nation. The Program’s primary objective is to generate reliable information for use in law enforcement administration, operation, and management; however, its data have over the years become one of the country’s leading social indicators. Criminologists, sociologists, legislators, municipal planners, the media, and other students of criminal justice use the data for varied research and planning purposes. In 2007, law enforcement agencies active in the UCR Program represented more than 285 million United States inhabitants–94.6 percent of the total population. The coverage amounted to 95.7 percent of the population in Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 88.0 percent of the population in cities outside metropolitan areas, and 90.0 percent of the population in nonmetropolitan counties.[1]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recently released the 2007 edition of Crime in the United States, which shows that both violent and property crimes fell in 2007.

According to the FBI, "the UCR program gathers offense data for violent and property crimes. Violent crimes are the offenses of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault; property crimes are the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The program also collects arrest data for violent and property crimes as well as 21 additional offenses that include all other offenses except traffic violations."

Before we dig into the UCRs, let us first consider the changes made to our gun laws from 2003 through 2007. During that five-year period, firearms laws have become less restrictive. We have seen passage of concealed carry laws in Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico and Ohio. We have seen the sunset of the Joe Biden-authored Federal "assault weapons" ban. No state has enacted significant bans on purchase or bearing of firearms. Firearms sales have been strong, and we have seen spikes in the purchase of firearms related to events such as hurricane Katrina and the Northeast Blackout of 2003. There are more gun owners and millions more firearms in the United States today than five years ago.

More guns, more crime? Not hardly. In fact, according to the past five years of FBI data, the murder rate has declined.

That’s right, the murder rate declined. You will hear from the anti-gun media and gun ban lobby that the number of murders increased (by 2.5%), but what they won’t tell you is that in the same time period, the American population has grown by 3.8% [2]. That means the murder rate (the "odds of being murdered") has decreased.

Drilling further into the data, we see that while the increase in use of firearms was 4.4%, we see a decrease of 5.0% (from 7,745 to 7361) in the number of murders committed with a handgun. Note — that is not a just a per capata decrease but a decrease in the total number of murders committed by a handgun over the last 5 year period. This decrease occurred in the midst of an explosion in handgun sales. Clearly the FBI data is exactly opposite of what the anti-gun groups have been preaching.

Anti-Gun = Anti-Good Guy

When considering killings by criminals (murder), we see that the instrument used by the criminal is a firearm 67% of the time, and more specifically a handgun 51% of the time. (Over the last five years, the percentage of killings by gun has remained fairly consistent, so we shall use the average for our comparison. Results would be very similar for specific data in any given year.)

The gun ban lobby uses these numbers to try to justify banning guns. If two-thirds of murders are committed with guns, and over one-half with handguns, they argue, then surely banning these things would decrease murders. But a closer examination reveals something interesting. For each murder, there is a victim. Sometimes those victims fight back and win the deadly encounter. When the intended victim kills the person trying to murder them (or do great bodily harm to them) it is called a "justifiable homicide."

Justifiable homicide –Certain willful killings must be reported as justifiable, or excusable. In the UCR Program, justifiable homicide is defined as and limited to:

*The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.

*The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are tabulated separately from murder and nonnegligent manslaughter. Justifiable homicide information, which is collected by the FBI via the UCR Program’s SHRs, are included in this section and in Expanded Homicide Data Table 13, "Justifiable Homicide, by Weapon, Law Enforcement, 2003–2007" and Expanded Homicide Data Table 14, "Justifiable Homicide, by Weapon, Private Citizen, 2003–2007."

Using five-year averages from the UCRs, we see that 78% of these defensive killings are with firearms, and 63% with handguns. In other words, the good guy is 16% more likely to use a gun, and 23% more likely to use a handgun to save a life than a criminal is to take a life. So while there are many ways to kill another person, it is more likely for a good person to save their life with a gun, than for a bad person to take it with a gun.

Data on law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty was not available at the time of publishing, but there is still something to be learned about our police and their safety as it relates to guns. Using the same 5 year average data, we see that when law enforcement kills someone, they use a gun 99% of the time, and a handgun 86% of the time. There is a reason for these staggering statistics; police have studied and trained on the most effective and safe way to stop violent criminals. Use of a firearm is clearly the best and safest way to deal with violent aggressors. Police who want to go home to their families after a day’s work know how to defend their life with a firearm. Increasingly, citizens are doing the same thing.

A Few Observations From State Data

We often hear about differences in "rural and urban" areas and the need for different gun laws. States have vastly different gun laws and self-defense laws, and as one might expect, vastly different crime data. Looking at state by state data for 2007, we see that guns as a murder weapon ranged from 25% for Hawaii and North Dakota, to 79% for Louisiana. Looking only at handgun data, we see a variance from 11% in Iowa to 71% for Illinois.

Let us consider that last figure for a moment. 71% of Illinois murders are carried out with a handgun, despite the fact that Illinois suffers under what are arguably the most severe handgun restrictions in the country. It is one of only two states (along with Wisconsin, where it is also more likely than the average for murders to be committed with a handgun) that do not allow any form of concealed carry for its citizens. The state’s largest city (where close to one-half of Illinois residents, as well as Sen. Barack Obama, live) has a complete ban on handgun ownership. Even a retired police chief is not permitted to have a handgun in his house to defend his life. The FBI data prove that banning handguns does not stop murders from using them.

In late 2006, the Ohio General Assembly passed a bill that preempted local gun control laws, over the objections of big city mayors and even a veto by then-Gov. Bob Taft. Despite claims from big-city mayors that taking away their ability to enact still more oppressive gun control laws was robbing them of a valuable crime-fighting too, the many Republican and Democrat legislators who supported this bill recognized gun control as a failure, and understood that there was nothing to fear from trained, law abiding citizens being armed. The law went into effect in the early months of 2007, and the last FBI data support what Buckeye Firearms Association and pro-gun legislators knew all along: Crime is down in Ohio in nearly every sector.

Forty-eight states now have some form of concealed carry laws. No state has ever revoked their law once enacted. Each year, many states revise their firearms laws and remove restrictions on gun owners and permit holders. Every year formerly anti-gun people learn the truth and then starting supporting concealed carry laws, often becoming gun owners and license-holders themselves.

The FBI’s 2007 edition of Crime in the United States simply adds to the enormous pile of evidence showing that guns in the hands of good people are the best way to stop a violent criminal from harming you or a loved one.

Jim Irvine is the Buckeye Firearms Association Chairman. Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman.

Footnotes:

[1] FBI Releases 2007 Crime Statistics, http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel08/ucr091508.htm

[2] Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007, http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2007-01.xls

[Nightgaunt]

The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that a state or municipality cannot interfere with the Constitutional rights of a citizen. The Second Amendment says that citizens have the right to bear arms, therefore no governing body can interfere with that right. Right? If you misuse said arms in a criminal fashion, that's when the law is supposed to step in and smack you around.

“The state cannot diminish rights of the people.” - Hertado v. California, 110 US 516

“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.” - Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60

“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” - Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are in volved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” - Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” - Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

So, the Second Amendment. What did the Framers mean by:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

?

As with the rest of the rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights the Second Amendment was intended to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Although the need for a militia is emphasized, it was not meant to serve as a prerequisite for an individual to bear arms. Think about it: the spirit of the Constitution is the guarantee of individual rights and a limit on the power of government. The Founders had just come through a long and bloody war and were well aware that without strict limits and being overseen by the people, a government will become tyrannical. What sense would it make then, for them to intend that only the government be permitted to bear arms? They knew that without an armed population, the Constitution would have been burned within a couple of generations as the power-hungry were drawn to positions of power. It's a lot more difficult to round up and throw into camps an armed population.

Yet I see no arguments against vehicle restrictions ....

Weeellllllll...many, myself included, would like to see driver licenses and vehicle registration go the way of the dodo. The "common wisdom" that you always hear is that driving is a privilege, not a right. Here's what the Supreme Court has to say:

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579

Now, just because the Supreme Court rules one way, doesn't mean that state and local governments are going to follow it. That's where the people are supposed to stand up and demand that their rights not be abridged. We don't do that in America anymore, so we just silently put up with things that the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional, like:

The government selling off or leasing highways to foreign interests for the purposes of creating toll roads. The government holds the highways in trust for the people.

The rules of Traffic Acts are there to regulate the use of highways in the public’s interest, but not to destroy your rights to use them, yet the state will forbid you to drive at the drop of a hat.

An execution of a right can not be charged a fee, yet we put up with it.

Insurance fees can not be mandatory. Hahahahahaha.

You wouldn't put up with having to buy a free speech license, so why a driver license?

[Nightgaunt]

and the communists are flourdizing(*) our water.

Actually, the idea of fluoridating drinking water was brought to England by a member of the Russian Communist party named Kreminoff. In the 1930s, Hitler envisioned a program of mass control by drugging the water supply, and sodium fluoride was the cornerstone of this plan. Repeated doses of small amounts of fluoride affects a specific portion of the brain - actually eats holes in it - and makes a person more compliant and submissive. When the Nazis invaded Poland, the German and Russian General Staffs exchanged information and compared notes, and the water fluoridation scheme was adopted by the Communists.

"I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years` research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluoride--any person who drinks artificially fluoridated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically." CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October 1954.

There is a list a mile long of the health problems associated with the ingestion of fluoride. You can find a wealth of information concerning the degenerative effects of fluoride via Google searches, like this place.

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

actually....Gun CONTROL does start with gun REMOVAL, but everyone is too far up the Constitution's ass to realize it.

Time to take it outside the box

Lets pretend that the Constitution is a document that was written some 200+ years ago, by men in sharply cut frocks, powdered wigs, and still hand loaded powder into their guns. Lets pretend that this document was written after a war where the majority of the male population of our country HAD to protect themselves (key word is "protect" btw). Lets pretend that times have changed and somewhere down good ole Time Blvd. people OTHER then those sharply dressed gentlemen of the 1700's decided to far outstretch the meaning and terms in which our forefathers wrote down.

Good...and now that your wonderfully in this mindset, realize that the forefathers wrote that to mean that you had a right to PROTECT yourself, not that every Tom, Dick, Harry, Sally, & Billy Ray could have a gun because they wanted one.

Now, lets snap out of that mindset and make some realizations.

Most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, without use of the gun purchase restriction laws that our goverment laid down a while ago.

The said Illegally obtained guns are much more then not stolen, often from homes where the gun was not put away safely, or in plain sight (a gun cabinet with glass doors is NOT a safe place for guns of any kind).

Said guns used in crimes are traced back to purchasers, not the criminal.

Now...follow with me...if you REMOVE the guns from people, then they can't be stolen, because there is not a gun to steal...lack of gun theft, lack of crime involving guns.

Sure..we could try to up the "gun safety awareness", but most people don't give a damn about that enough to do something about it, and when some do buy the products for gun safety, they either get cheap products or don't use them.

You can lead a duck to water, but you can't make it swim....so to keep the fucker from drowning himself, remove the water.

[n0Mad]

Most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, without use of the gun purchase restriction laws that our goverment laid down a while ago.

The said Illegally obtained guns are much more then not stolen, often from homes where the gun was not put away safely, or in plain sight (a gun cabinet with glass doors is NOT a safe place for guns of any kind).

Said guns used in crimes are traced back to purchasers, not the criminal.

Now...follow with me...if you REMOVE the guns from people, then they can't be stolen, because there is not a gun to steal...lack of gun theft, lack of crime involving guns.

True, some guns are stolen from homeowners who didn't secure them properly, but did you miss my post explaining that a majority of guns on the black market are stolen from police, FBI, and military caches or are smuggled in from China (where guns are banned, go figure), Mexico (and they blame us for guns entering their country), the middle east, and elsewhere? I just read recently that the US gave thousands of weapons to Afghanistan to help gain independence and secure their democracy then the Afghans turned around and sold most of the weapons or traded them for other goods. Now many of those weapons are filtered through various markets and ended up in the hands of Al-Qaida. So, our soldiers are being shot with their own weapons.

So, you are correct that some privately owned weapons are stolen by criminals, but that percentage is very small compared to how many government owned weapons end up in criminal hands. I would much rather trust the stranger who lives next door with weapons than any bureaucracy.

[prick]

It actually is much harder to buy a gun now then it was before. All gun salesmen must call a 24/7 government number with your info to make sure your name clears. Any little glitch and its put on hold. I once had to wait several days to buy a shotgun and they told me that someone out there has the sdame name as me and they just got to make sure I wasnt him. Im more about guns for hunting then home defense. I think anyone who eats meat should be forced to at least once look an animal in the eyes and kill it to have a better understanding.

[taysteewonderbunny]

It actually is much harder to buy a gun now then it was before. All gun salesmen must call a 24/7 government number with your info to make sure your name clears. Any little glitch and its put on hold. I once had to wait several days to buy a shotgun and they told me that someone out there has the sdame name as me and they just got to make sure I wasnt him. Im more about guns for hunting then home defense. I think anyone who eats meat should be forced to at least once look an animal in the eyes and kill it to have a better understanding.

Wanna work on Spook's and my farm? We're gonna have rabbits and chickens and goats, oh my!

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

True, some guns are stolen from homeowners who didn't secure them properly, but did you miss my post explaining that a majority of guns on the black market are stolen from police, FBI, and military caches or are smuggled in from China (where guns are banned, go figure), Mexico (and they blame us for guns entering their country), the middle east, and elsewhere? I just read recently that the US gave thousands of weapons to Afghanistan to help gain independence and secure their democracy then the Afghans turned around and sold most of the weapons or traded them for other goods. Now many of those weapons are filtered through various markets and ended up in the hands of Al-Qaida. So, our soldiers are being shot with their own weapons.

So, you are correct that some privately owned weapons are stolen by criminals, but that percentage is very small compared to how many government owned weapons end up in criminal hands. I would much rather trust the stranger who lives next door with weapons than any bureaucracy.

nope..didn't miss it...I just don't think the numbers are right, thats all.

While not an "offical" report, I did watch "It Takes a Thief" almost religiously, and the amount of guns that were "stolen" in that show, per season, is mind-boggling.

Also, the black market and what the common criminal gets are two different things. Most often, the common criminal's weapon comes from a household that just didn't have enough security. We also have to remember that sometimes, all the precautions won't make a differance, as almost anything can be broken into with the right knowledge. If you really want the best way to keep your guns safe: go buy one of those large safes with the security glass panel on the inside.

Sure...lots of guns are lost to the Black Market, but that means that maybe we should focus on better military security when it comes to shipments and storage, at least if thats going to be your focus.

Edited April 4, 2010 by IsleofRhodesEnt

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

actually....Gun CONTROL does start with gun REMOVAL, but everyone is too far up the Constitution's ass to realize it.

Time to take it outside the box

Lets pretend that the Constitution is a document that was written some 200+ years ago, by men in sharply cut frocks, powdered wigs, and still hand loaded powder into their guns. Lets pretend that this document was written after a war where the majority of the male population of our country HAD to protect themselves (key word is "protect" btw). Lets pretend that times have changed and somewhere down good ole Time Blvd. people OTHER then those sharply dressed gentlemen of the 1700's decided to far outstretch the meaning and terms in which our forefathers wrote down.

Good...and now that your wonderfully in this mindset, realize that the forefathers wrote that to mean that you had a right to PROTECT yourself, not that every Tom, Dick, Harry, Sally, & Billy Ray could have a gun because they wanted one.

Now, lets snap out of that mindset and make some realizations.

Most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, without use of the gun purchase restriction laws that our goverment laid down a while ago.

The said Illegally obtained guns are much more then not stolen, often from homes where the gun was not put away safely, or in plain sight (a gun cabinet with glass doors is NOT a safe place for guns of any kind).

Said guns used in crimes are traced back to purchasers, not the criminal.

Now...follow with me...if you REMOVE the guns from people, then they can't be stolen, because there is not a gun to steal...lack of gun theft, lack of crime involving guns.

Sure..we could try to up the "gun safety awareness", but most people don't give a damn about that enough to do something about it, and when some do buy the products for gun safety, they either get cheap products or don't use them.

You can lead a duck to water, but you can't make it swim....so to keep the fucker from drowning himself, remove the water.

1. They also thought Free Speech, Freedom of the Press and a bunch of other ideas were good ones too... you going to throw them out with the Constitution?

2. They meant us to have guns to protect ourselves... on that your right... FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

[prick]

Wanna work on Spook's and my farm? We're gonna have rabbits and chickens and goats, oh my!

I actually would love to work on a farm!

[prick]

actually....Gun CONTROL does start with gun REMOVAL, but everyone is too far up the Constitution's ass to realize it.

Time to take it outside the box

Lets pretend that the Constitution is a document that was written some 200+ years ago, by men in sharply cut frocks, powdered wigs, and still hand loaded powder into their guns. Lets pretend that this document was written after a war where the majority of the male population of our country HAD to protect themselves (key word is "protect" btw). Lets pretend that times have changed and somewhere down good ole Time Blvd. people OTHER then those sharply dressed gentlemen of the 1700's decided to far outstretch the meaning and terms in which our forefathers wrote down.

Good...and now that your wonderfully in this mindset, realize that the forefathers wrote that to mean that you had a right to PROTECT yourself, not that every Tom, Dick, Harry, Sally, & Billy Ray could have a gun because they wanted one.

Now, lets snap out of that mindset and make some realizations.

Most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, without use of the gun purchase restriction laws that our goverment laid down a while ago.

The said Illegally obtained guns are much more then not stolen, often from homes where the gun was not put away safely, or in plain sight (a gun cabinet with glass doors is NOT a safe place for guns of any kind).

Said guns used in crimes are traced back to purchasers, not the criminal.

Now...follow with me...if you REMOVE the guns from people, then they can't be stolen, because there is not a gun to steal...lack of gun theft, lack of crime involving guns.

Sure..we could try to up the "gun safety awareness", but most people don't give a damn about that enough to do something about it, and when some do buy the products for gun safety, they either get cheap products or don't use them.

You can lead a duck to water, but you can't make it swim....so to keep the fucker from drowning himself, remove the water.

Taking guns away from citizens wont stop the criminals from obtaining them. There is always a way. More crime would happen because criminals would know the average guy wont have a gun at home. More break ins would happen while families are at home Lets not forget that drinking was at an high during prohibition and who do you know that cant obtain marijuana and how many people die in cental and south america from the drug lords.

Edited April 5, 2010 by prick

[candyman]

nope..didn't miss it...I just don't think the numbers are right, thats all.

While not an "offical" report, I did watch "It Takes a Thief" almost religiously, and the amount of guns that were "stolen" in that show, per season, is mind-boggling.

Also, the black market and what the common criminal gets are two different things. Most often, the common criminal's weapon comes from a household that just didn't have enough security. We also have to remember that sometimes, all the precautions won't make a differance, as almost anything can be broken into with the right knowledge. If you really want the best way to keep your guns safe: go buy one of those large safes with the security glass panel on the inside.

Sure...lots of guns are lost to the Black Market, but that means that maybe we should focus on better military security when it comes to shipments and storage, at least if thats going to be your focus.

Most of the guns that you get on the black market are not made in the US, are not used by government people, and are not shipped by any government company.

The AK47 in any of its many form is one of the most common weapons when weapons are confiscated. Yes some people do own those in their homes but for the most part they are easily purchased elsewhere for very cheap.

A gun kit for a fully automatic AK47 can be purchased online for around $250 and all you have to add would be a stock, receiver, or a barrel depending on the distributor. Government regulation dictate that when you put the kit together that it has to be 25% US made parts which must include the trigger mechanism that would convert it to semi-auto...but they don't keep good track of that since you could just order it and not use it. Also, to purchase a kit for a fully auto AK you don't need and special license or permit...you just need a drivers license that proves you are 18 years old.

Then there is the Spanish CETME and its various clones...all come from the factory with a selector switch that puts them on full auto .308...ALL of them have this and you just need to take the gun apart and grind down the small tab that locks the full-auto option out and now you have a full-auto assault weapon that shoots a very dangerous round.

It is probably just as easy, if not easier, to purchase an imported weapon including full-auto weapons as it is to steal guns...plus if you go in to steal one you better know exactly what they have, if they have ammo, how to operate it properly, and how to take care of the serial number that are not so obvious...the AK kits and the CETME rifles have their numbers ground out.

I honestly don't know how many people keep their AK's, CETME's, MAC 10's, MP5's, and Uzi's in ornate glass cabinets in their homes. If they do I question where they got those weapons in the first place. BTW where did you get your numbers? Do you know cops, ATF, DEA, or military agents that have told you these things?

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

1. They also thought Free Speech, Freedom of the Press and a bunch of other ideas were good ones too... you going to throw them out with the Constitution?

2. They meant us to have guns to protect ourselves... on that your right... FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Wow...way to go on the EXTREME there and take what I said WAY OUT of context...looks like you fit right in with the rest of the Tea Party nutcases, Spin Doctor Gaf.

First off, just because it was put in the Constitution 200+ years ago does not mean that it should BE part of our "rights" anymore, especially when it's a right that causes more harm then good. Should we tally up the amount of adolescent accidental deaths and child-vs-child murders that involved them having access to guns? How about the number of young adults that wanted to know what shooting someone felt like in the past, say...15 years? How about we bring up Columbine, the Branch Davidians, or any other number of incidences that the "right to bear arms" helped with? Oh...and before you decide to tell me that they played no part in those occurances, had those people not had such easy access to guns, because of the right to bear arms, it's more then highly probably that they never would have happened.

Secondly, they NEVER said that we had the right to bear arms against the goverment. Where your getting that from, one can only wonder, but I can gurantee that it's not from the Constitution.

Lets take a look at the line in the Constitution.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Here is the exact line. It is plain to anyone that they are talking about the right to keep and bear arms, in the form of a MILITIA, shall not be infringed. It does not say "the right of every swinging dick to carry a .22 shotgun and a Berreta because he feels like it."

Now, lets look up Militia, in terms of what our forefathers for the past 100+ years seen it as.

"An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces." OMG...a RESERVE ARMY??? You mean to say that we already HAVE these in place (Army Reserve & National Guard) and therefore don't need that group of 100+ redneck hunters as a wanna-be Militia in the backwoods, drinking moonshine and eating squirrel, to protect us? Holy Shit on a Stick, Batman.

If your going to say your defending the Constitution, at least KNOW wtf it says, because if you don't, you'll end up looking less like Gaf The Horse with Tears and more like Gaf The Ass who cried Wolf.

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

I honestly don't know how many people keep their AK's, CETME's, MAC 10's, MP5's, and Uzi's in ornate glass cabinets in their homes. If they do I question where they got those weapons in the first place. BTW where did you get your numbers? Do you know cops, ATF, DEA, or military agents that have told you these things?

Whens the last time you seen a car-jacking with an AK-47 or an Uzi?

Now, how about a stick-up with a normal, everyday pistol like over half of America keeps in their houses?

I rest my case.