Outlaws
Member
Could that part of the ruling be used for a lawsuit to remove the all out restriction of civilians from current production full auto?
U.S. News & World Report on gun control
- Thread starter Robert Hairless
- Start date
- Status
Could that part of the ruling be used for a lawsuit to remove the all out restriction of civilians from current production full auto?
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Eloi
El T wrote:
>I don't see why East Coast Eloi were so concerned about the commoners carrying guns.<
*************
Because guns are...wait for it...Ready?...baaaaaaad!
Gotta little news flash for all the ninnies who were squealing about "Blood in the Streets" and the "Modern-Day Dodge City" silliness. If they really believed that nobody ever, ever carried concealed before Florida gave the green light...Well...I've got this bridge over in Brooklyn...
Law-abiding people have been carrying for decades. Of course, 99.9% of these people were technically in violation of the laws against such terrifying self-reliance...but aside from that, they were law-abiding and peacefully disposed.
News flash #2!
There were a lotta cops who knew that people were carrying...and even knew who many were, and simply looked the other way. Good cops, who understood why these good people were violating the law. Cops who used discretion in their enforcement of what many considered to be an unjust law.
Good cops...friends and neighbors, who knew that they couldn't protect anybody, except in rare instances. In other words...Cops who knew the score, and ignored the signs that the guy walkin' past was carrying...largely because of the circumstances. I was told that it depends heavily on where you are and what you're doing at the instant that you're "made" as to whether you get a pass or not.
And if anybody really believes that a cop with as much as a year on the street can't spot your Roscoe in about 30 seconds flat...Well...I've got this bridge...
Eloi...Listen up! It's been a tradition since before most of you were born, and it won't suddenly cease to happen because you get some toughy-feely law passed.
Get used to that.
El T wrote:
>I don't see why East Coast Eloi were so concerned about the commoners carrying guns.<
*************
Because guns are...wait for it...Ready?...baaaaaaad!
Gotta little news flash for all the ninnies who were squealing about "Blood in the Streets" and the "Modern-Day Dodge City" silliness. If they really believed that nobody ever, ever carried concealed before Florida gave the green light...Well...I've got this bridge over in Brooklyn...
Law-abiding people have been carrying for decades. Of course, 99.9% of these people were technically in violation of the laws against such terrifying self-reliance...but aside from that, they were law-abiding and peacefully disposed.
News flash #2!
There were a lotta cops who knew that people were carrying...and even knew who many were, and simply looked the other way. Good cops, who understood why these good people were violating the law. Cops who used discretion in their enforcement of what many considered to be an unjust law.
Good cops...friends and neighbors, who knew that they couldn't protect anybody, except in rare instances. In other words...Cops who knew the score, and ignored the signs that the guy walkin' past was carrying...largely because of the circumstances. I was told that it depends heavily on where you are and what you're doing at the instant that you're "made" as to whether you get a pass or not.
And if anybody really believes that a cop with as much as a year on the street can't spot your Roscoe in about 30 seconds flat...Well...I've got this bridge...
Eloi...Listen up! It's been a tradition since before most of you were born, and it won't suddenly cease to happen because you get some toughy-feely law passed.
Get used to that.
@Outlaws
That's the thinking. Right now, you can own current production bombs, missiles, howitzers, RPGs, and mortars if you can find someone to sell them to you. Post-1986 machineguns are the only arm that is outright prohibited, and that's illegal.
That's the thinking. Right now, you can own current production bombs, missiles, howitzers, RPGs, and mortars if you can find someone to sell them to you. Post-1986 machineguns are the only arm that is outright prohibited, and that's illegal.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
One reason I enjoy reading these Constitutional debates is that everything posted here becomes a Constitutional issue. Even an article that seems to help gun owners a lot gets torn apart for that reason. I'm tempted to send the magazine a stern e-mail saying that it should stop publishing articles that attack gun control unless they do one that creates a "perfect utopia," whatever that means.
Another reason why I like these debates it that they help me learn about the Constitution. I didn't even know until now that the Constitution uses the term "inalienable freedoms" or that the right to keep and bear arms is one of them.
It's wonderful to see how even a harmless thread like this one can get steered away from the topic so quickly.
Another reason why I like these debates it that they help me learn about the Constitution. I didn't even know until now that the Constitution uses the term "inalienable freedoms" or that the right to keep and bear arms is one of them.
It's wonderful to see how even a harmless thread like this one can get steered away from the topic so quickly.
Smokehouse
Member
Well said, Geister.The danger of government control of firearms is much more pervasive, farther reaching and almost impossible to reverse once it has taken hold. The odd case of a gun in the wrong hands is unfortunately, (sometimes tragically) the price of our freedom.
WeThePeople
Member
YY:
I see your point and I think that it is a rather good one. I definitely do not think that any constitutionally protected right is somehow sanctioned by the government. What I do believe is that someone who poses a very real threat to our society should be barred from the ownership of firearms and here is why:
When a person commits a violent crime, they do so fully knowing that they are putting their freedom and their life at risk. If they get caught and are forced to give up those rights, so be it. They accepted the risk.
A person who has been adjudicated to be mentally unstable does not, by definition, have the ability to make sound judgments. No, they have not voluntarily consented to the relinquishment of their rights, they do not have the mental capacity to do so.
I have a very difficult time understanding how firearms ownership by these two groups is beneficial to society. I do not believe that preventing them from owning firearms requires some type of government sanctioning of everyone else's right to do so.
Respectfully,
Jim
I see your point and I think that it is a rather good one. I definitely do not think that any constitutionally protected right is somehow sanctioned by the government. What I do believe is that someone who poses a very real threat to our society should be barred from the ownership of firearms and here is why:
When a person commits a violent crime, they do so fully knowing that they are putting their freedom and their life at risk. If they get caught and are forced to give up those rights, so be it. They accepted the risk.
A person who has been adjudicated to be mentally unstable does not, by definition, have the ability to make sound judgments. No, they have not voluntarily consented to the relinquishment of their rights, they do not have the mental capacity to do so.
I have a very difficult time understanding how firearms ownership by these two groups is beneficial to society. I do not believe that preventing them from owning firearms requires some type of government sanctioning of everyone else's right to do so.
Respectfully,
Jim
How can you, or anyone, determine who is a threat to society?
I remember watching a major newsmagazine show several years ago that featured interviews with both Jeffrey Dahmer and Charles Manson as they sat behind bars for their horrific crimes.
It struck me how calm and articulate-- and everyman-- Dahmer was, having committed some of the most brutal and sadistic serial murders in history, all under the pretense of some pathological and fantastic mind-warps he was enslaved to; while Manson came across as a incoherent lunatic who never layed a finger on any of "his" victims.
I also viewed, many years later, a poignant piece on 60 Minutes highlighting the story of a middle aged schizophrenic and his battle to maintain the natural right to own a handgun.
The ideas about living in a free society that exercises real civil liberties for all doesn't or shouldn't end where mental illness simply is a factor. It's almost always difficult to determine who is a real threat to society, as is always been the case for policies regarding prior restraint.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Good, rational points Jeff.
Mr.V.
Member
It isn't. And no one here would argue that an armed loony is good for society's cholesterol. However, I think the prevailing viewpoint here is that attempts and regulations to prevent those groups from obtaining guns is a cure worse than the disease...WeThePeople said:
Well, it sort of does, though...It requires the government to determine whether you're "fit" or not. With violent crime where an individual has gone through due process by a jury of his peers to be stripped of certain rights (liberty, property...and maybe even life), I have less sympathy.
But crazy people are "crazy" because frequently a doctor says so and a judge agrees. Not quite the same level of "due process" is it?
Milkmaster
Member
Nice email sent. Looks like all hope is not lost yet!
WeThePeople
Member
Jeff and Mr. V:
I think that we stand together on violent felons.
Regarding mental illness, you both make very good points. I have worked one-on-one with many institutionalized people. None, and I mean not one, of those people, in my opinion, was fit to possess a firearm.
I think that due process is in play during incompetency hearings. The "defendant" is entitled to put forth his or her own expert regarding his or her competence to refute the opposing expert viewpoint. Yes it is expensive, but no more so than purchasing a firearm. I hire such experts on a regular basis.
I do not, nor will I ever, advocate that the vast majority of psychiatric patients be barred from firearms possession. I am focused on prohibiting ownership by those with proven violent tendencies.
A man with intermittent explosive disorder should not own a firearm, no matter how you slice it. A woman with severe depression should likewise not have a firearm. A woman with an Axis I diagnosis of delusional disorder should not have a firearm.
The three people above have all hurt someone but were not convicted of a crime due to mental incompetency. Without a mental health prohibition, these people would be able to legally get a firearm.
I understand and respect your opinion that no prohibitions on firearms ownership would mean that the rest of us could defend ourselves from such armed mentally ill people. However, the people that they hurt were all family members in their own homes and the outcome would have been much worse had the ill person had a gun.
I think that we stand together on violent felons.
Regarding mental illness, you both make very good points. I have worked one-on-one with many institutionalized people. None, and I mean not one, of those people, in my opinion, was fit to possess a firearm.
I think that due process is in play during incompetency hearings. The "defendant" is entitled to put forth his or her own expert regarding his or her competence to refute the opposing expert viewpoint. Yes it is expensive, but no more so than purchasing a firearm. I hire such experts on a regular basis.
I do not, nor will I ever, advocate that the vast majority of psychiatric patients be barred from firearms possession. I am focused on prohibiting ownership by those with proven violent tendencies.
A man with intermittent explosive disorder should not own a firearm, no matter how you slice it. A woman with severe depression should likewise not have a firearm. A woman with an Axis I diagnosis of delusional disorder should not have a firearm.
The three people above have all hurt someone but were not convicted of a crime due to mental incompetency. Without a mental health prohibition, these people would be able to legally get a firearm.
I understand and respect your opinion that no prohibitions on firearms ownership would mean that the rest of us could defend ourselves from such armed mentally ill people. However, the people that they hurt were all family members in their own homes and the outcome would have been much worse had the ill person had a gun.
Erebus
Member
And what happens if the person that makes the decision decides that the desire to own a firearm indicates insanity?
yy
Member
resurrection!
I am happy to report that the US News and World Report liked my letter to the editor.
US News:
Congratulations! Your letter has been selected for publication in this week's issue of U.S.News & World Report (dated 5/28/07). Your letter is located in a special section of the Letters to the Editor, which, due to local advertising, is only published in certain areas of the country. If you are unable to get a copy with your letter at a local newsstand, we will be glad to send a photocopy of the page on which your letter was printed. Simply call us at 202-955-2397. Thank you for your submission and interest in U.S. News.
Regards,
Kate Lanahan
Reader Services
Me:
I am happy to report that the US News and World Report liked my letter to the editor.
US News:
Congratulations! Your letter has been selected for publication in this week's issue of U.S.News & World Report (dated 5/28/07). Your letter is located in a special section of the Letters to the Editor, which, due to local advertising, is only published in certain areas of the country. If you are unable to get a copy with your letter at a local newsstand, we will be glad to send a photocopy of the page on which your letter was printed. Simply call us at 202-955-2397. Thank you for your submission and interest in U.S. News.
Regards,
Kate Lanahan
Reader Services
Me:
ksnecktieman
Member
Wethpeople? I think you are misumderstanding the two men you selected. Franklin and Jefferson would not have allowed any person or group to limit firearms ownership, because they would trust no one to do it.
The problem with allowing any restrictions is that the restrictions are controlled by people, and people make mistakes.
One of my favorite recent ones is the "domestic violence" restriction. Why would you remove a gun from the hands of a woman that is being abused?
Would you also like age restrictions? Ban anyone over a certain age because they may be senile? Under a certain age beause of inexperience? That is one of my favorites too. I will set the age restrictions for you. Anyone ten years older than I am is too old to have a gun, and anyone ten years younger than I am is too young and inexperienced to own a gun. (Remember that my specific age is not important, someone else will be making the rules in a couple of years.)
This law means what it says, and I do not think it should be distorted.
The problem with allowing any restrictions is that the restrictions are controlled by people, and people make mistakes.
One of my favorite recent ones is the "domestic violence" restriction. Why would you remove a gun from the hands of a woman that is being abused?
Would you also like age restrictions? Ban anyone over a certain age because they may be senile? Under a certain age beause of inexperience? That is one of my favorites too. I will set the age restrictions for you. Anyone ten years older than I am is too old to have a gun, and anyone ten years younger than I am is too young and inexperienced to own a gun. (Remember that my specific age is not important, someone else will be making the rules in a couple of years.)
This law means what it says, and I do not think it should be distorted.
Travis McGee
Member
Wow! Not what I expected!
MrRezister
Member
The sad part is that anyone, particularly those with great power and responsibility (not Spider-Man) had to experience this before they would believe it. That the "people" are trustworthy and reasonable should be a primary assumption of any honorable form of government.
Silver Bullet
Member
Robert Hairless,
Thanks for posting that. I saved that same article to post here, and you just saved me a boatload of typing.
U.S. News and World Report seems much less liberal than Time or Newsweek. I used to subscribe to Time, but when they started their anti-gun dogma I cancelled.
It's not enough to not read the articles. You have to not empower them with your subscription money.
Thanks for posting that. I saved that same article to post here, and you just saved me a boatload of typing.
U.S. News and World Report seems much less liberal than Time or Newsweek. I used to subscribe to Time, but when they started their anti-gun dogma I cancelled.
It's not enough to not read the articles. You have to not empower them with your subscription money.
- Status
