What gun control measures do you support?

[Nitrogen]

convicted, violent felons only, and only if they specifically have that right removed as a condition of release.

If they are fully released, having served their complete sentence, the right should be restored.

 

[71Commander]

I don't understand this under 21 BS. If a 18 years can fight and die for his country, he can fight for his life and the life of his loved ones at home.

 

[simpleguy]

Nitro, good on you, I agree. Though I also voted to get rid of junk guns.

 

[Officers'Wife]

I'm assuming that what you're referring to is A) traffic laws, B) drug laws and C) crimes of office (bribery, official misconduct, etc)

Traffic laws are financial tools not criminal law. Crimes of office are crimes against property under color of law. If you want specifics, drug laws, so called victimless crimes such as gambling, public intox, prostitution,et al. And yes I know about Denmark don't even bother.

And we're back to funding...the real reason for pleas, "good time", early parole, etc. is that THESE THINGS SAVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS BY REDUCING INCARCERATION COSTS. I kicked around some numbers (non-scientifically) recently to examine the effect of extended incarceration and, just for NJ, came up with an annual taxpayer hit of $5-1200 depending on the percentages you use for recidivism rates and numbers of taxpayers.

And with fewer inmates the cost would become a push. Plus, with real enforcement the executive branch would become a true deterrent to crime further lowering the numbers.

It goes back to risk/gain. If a person sees crimes being committed with only a 10% chance of consequence that crime is more profitable than real work. Up the odds of getting caught you lower the incident of those crimes. The so called 'war on drugs' has caused a criminal niche in supply that has further increased violence much the same as prohibition in the twenties. Yes, addicts will steal to support their habits. That's a crime against property and since the LEO's are no longer wasting time and resources on drug supply crimes the addicts will be more likely removed from society via incarceration.

Selena

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Tab,

having worked on a assembly line, I can tell you, it is cruel and unusual.

Doing the same thing hundreds of times a day, drove me crazy. I lasted two weeks.

It may be boring and repititious but it is honest labor. When honest labor is declared 'cruel and unusual' this country is in real trouble.

Selena

 

[Werewolf]

:
Not a bad idea.

so tell us how much do you want YOUR taxs raised to pay for that?

Deleted by Werewolf: Too radical.

 

[sqlbullet]

I find the perspective of our society very interesting. In essence, we are denying an entire (rather large) class of people the full right of self-defense.

I am not a big fan of Lyndon Johnson. I am a fan of this quote. "You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and harms it would cause if improperly administered."

So, consider for a moment. You grab your gun bag, and head to the range. You get pulled over for speeding, and the bag is on the seat next to you, and is not locked, only zipped. The officer asks about the contents, and you tell him it is your range bag, with your gun. Now, imagine that you have either, three or more guns in the bag (common for me) or you have accidentally left a magazine in the gun.

Congratulations....You are now guilty of criminal possession of a dangerous weapon, a violent felony, in many jurisdictions. Not only is your trip to the range today destroyed, but, based on this thread, you no longer have the right to a gun.

So, think carefully, not about how you define 'violent felon', but how a bureaucrat who thinks no one should have a gun will define this phrase.

 

[FLA2760]

This is a good thread. I voted for VIOLENT felons. Others that have a non violent felony should be able to have their rights restored through a standard process.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Rulz For Sake Of Rulz

You know, I see a LOT of "talking past each other" here.

Some of us ask "explain why it's okay to make every law-abiding citizen prove he's not a felon" and there is no response.

Instead, we see arguments that we can't improve on this system of letting untrustworthy felons out because keeping them is expensive.

We see arguments explaining why bad people shouldn't have the tools of violence. We see nothing that explains how you tell good people from bad people.

We see it suggested that we should keep the bad people (the ones we've caught) in prison until we feel we can trust them. It is argued that this is cruel and unusual.

But it strikes me that it is actually MORE cruel and unusual to intervene every time someone -- a law-abiding citizen -- wants to buy a defensive tool and say, "prove to me that you're not a criminal."

One part of my training is business data analysis.

When stuff isn't working, we're trained to look back at the historical data to determine when it WAS working, and what has changed since then.

Why is this so hard?

We used to be able to mail order guns. We used to be able to buy just any old damn thing. It didn't matter whether you'd done jail time or even for what.

And the crime stats for those years . . . ?

Way better than the crime stats we have now.

And, what everyone seems to be missing is this: the regulations didn't follow a general increase in societal violence, the regulations preceded increases in violence.

Now, from a business analysis point of view, I would say a person managing this state of affairs would have to be nuts to want MORE regulation in the face of that analysis.

You know, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

We find that, in states where the carry laws have been relaxed, allowing more people to carry, we have reductions in violent crime.

And yet, what I'm seeing here is this continued insistence that, if we just wish hard enough, and make the right kind of rules, criminals will start following the rules.

It's not like we have to WONDER what it's like when the population has unrestricted access to weapons. That is, in fact, how it used to be.

It distresses me considerably to see how many people have been so throughly fooled by the propaganda crafted by governments.

I see red herring arguments and strawmen about OMG kidz will have missle launchers!

Natural selection isn't always pretty.

Sure, in a fever of suddenly relaxed rules in a climate of pervasive social rudeness and me-first indulgence, there's gonna be some fallout. There will be some people who can't think from one end of a concept to the other.

Some morons are gonna die. Some idiots will take innocent people with them. And this has been true throughout history.

The system will self-correct though. The more intelligent will recognize that, with EVERYONE armed, certain kinds of behavior are terminally hazardous to their health.

Eventually (and probably sooner than later) a certain politeness will settle over society. Heinlein's truth will, at last, be borne out.

And, as a society, we will be the stronger for it. As a race, we will be more robust for it. As people, we will, of necessity, become more civilized toward one another.

Not everyone will live through it.

Well, naturally selection isn't always pretty.

There will always be those whose mantra is save the morons! and those who complete the bumper sticker with "collect the whole set."

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Lets re-check the 2nd Amendment.
What does it say?
What does "shall not be infringed" mean?
That's why my answer is, and always will be, "absolutely none" to the OP's question.

Well, is the whole prison system unconstitutional? After all, it deprives U.S. citizens of the right to liberty, to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and sometimes even life. RKBA is just another right, and it can be removed by due process.

I also don't think the government has the authority to increase someone's prison sentence just because "we feel they are dangerous". Should we imprison people because "we believe they are dangerous" if they have not been convicted? Let's see, that guy has a different religion, that guy is an NRA member, and that guy is from a different political party, we must imprison them!:banghead:

And I really don't think that George Washington would want gang members and drug dealers perverting the second amendment!

 

[BADUNAME37]

Using BOTH hands.

 

[Duke Junior]

And I really don't think that George Washington would want gang members and drug dealers perverting the second amendment!

Jimbo,just re-read the 2nd Amendment over again.
Duke over and out,10-7.
Shall not be infringed.
Got it now?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Personal Comments

We're not doing personal comments today.

In fact, we're not doing them any day.

Posts containing personal remarks often disappear in a puff of digital smoke.

Members who persist in making personal remarks sometimes do the puff of smoke thing, too.

Must be a high-voltage thing.

Let's be careful out there.

 

[KBintheSLC]

I voted "convicted, violent felons only"... borderline on "none whatsoever".

The second amendment is a right, and says nothing about restrictions. Even felons will quickly be removed by way of Darwin... anyway it's not like our stupid laws stop them from getting guns in the first place.

 

[Blackbeard]

Let's look at it this way. In our ideal world, everyone has total gun freedom. In the Brady's ideal world, guns are totally banned. The real world is going to be a compromise position somewhere in the middle. Do you want to choose where that falls, or do you want the Bradys to? Our hard-line stance isn't going to win any sympathy among the fence-sitters.

 

[Scoutsout2645]

Happiness:

By your logic changing the statute to say all crime in any form has a punishment of at least 50 yrs to life would be neither "cruel or unusual"? Hardly. First time robbery 50yrs, first time car theft, 50 yrs. It is never going to fly.

Actually, legally speaking, the issue of imprisonment is what would be judged as "cruel and unusual". The extent of the term of imprisonment is determined under a principle termed proportionality. This is why we have gradations in punishment--both theft and homicide are considered crimes where incarceration was a fair punishment, but imprisoning someone for life on a theft charge is disproportionate to the crime and would be challenged on this merit. So, we have a system where a 1st degree crime/A felony/whatever your state calls it gets a more lengthy period of incarceration than a 4th degree/D felony/etc. It still is not a sentence intended to reform or rehabilitate, just to punish in a manner and degree proportionate to the crime.

ArrogantBastard:

The only restrictions that might make sense is on people who are law-abiding, but have poor impulse control -- poor impulse control + guns is a bad idea. However, practically, this opens up a very slippery slope.

1) a great many convicted felons are in prison precisely because they have poor impulse control--"I wanted his watch so I punched him and took it"..."he looked at me wrong so I shot him"...etc. Unfortunately we cannot punish a person for what he might do, only for what he has already done (and before people jump all over this--a convicted felon has already committed his crime, therefore opening him to the punishment of losing the right to vote and the right to possess guns).
If a standard of poor impulse control is all we need, let's also apply that to getting a driver's license, using alcohol, having children...poor impulse control+all of these things is also a bad idea.
(side note--saw your namesake in the local liquor store this weekend and had to try it. Very nice.)

Officer's Wife:

Traffic laws are financial tools not criminal law. ... If you want specifics, drug laws, so called victimless crimes such as gambling, public intox, prostitution,et al.

I will disagree with the intent of traffic laws as financial tools, but sadly have to agree that in some jurisdictions they are abused to become such. Incarceration as punishment for traffic violations (as well as DP or misdemeanor offenses) is seen as excessive and disproportionate, therefore financial penalties are all that is left as a punishment. It's not a great answer, but it's all we have available.
As far as the second part, you essentially want Amsterdam with open carry and casinos. Gotta say I'm basically on your side here.

ArfinGreebley:

I absolutely agree with you about open carry, but the arguments that people make regarding "it was better in the old days" don't carry water. Society has changed significantly in the last 100 yrs. Population density has increased significantly, demographics have changed, general attitudes about responsibility and accountability have changed...and not for the better. I remember not needing to lock my front door as a kid (and we didn't have guns in our neighborhood, either)--no way I'd do that today, even though I live in the same "good" neighborhood. While part of me finds an appeal to the Darwinian "natural selection through firepower" argument, the reality is that we don't live in a society where the majority would tolerate the "innocent" body-count that would go up before we reached Heinlein's truth. The reality is that a LOT of victims would be killed before that equilibrium is reached, and that criminal acts-by necessity-would need to jump to lethality IMMEDIATELY to prevent a counter-strike (no more "give me your wallet", now it's "boom"...rifles through victim's pockets). Such a scenario could play out to your utopia a-la Heinlein, or a Mad Max-like dystopia where visits to the grocery store require Kevlar and running gun battles. Personally, I think it'll fall somewhere in the middle where order will exist, but where more innocent people will be hurt than bad guys.

Blackbeard: +1

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Ideal World

The real world is going to be a compromise position somewhere in the middle.

Well, there's a little problem with this formula.

I'm in my home, secure in my person and possessions, and a bad guy shows up at the door.

He wants all my money.

I don't want him to have any of my money.

If a "real world" compromise consists of the two of us negotiating how much of my money he should get, then we have a morally busted world.

We started out with our rights intact. We have been "compromising" for decades. And every single time we do, we lose more rights.

I work in an industry that supports casino gaming. We've come up with a variety of random number systems that guarantee that you'll get back 97% of your money when you play these games.

Which, seen from the other side, is a guarantee that the "house" will always get 3% of your money.

But that's okay, because it's a compromise. The casino actually wants all of your money, but is willing to settle for 3% each time you play.

Pop quiz: how many times can you play a game, using a starting amount of $100, losing a guaranteed 3% each time through, before you're broke?

Answer: it doesn't matter, because eventually the casino will have it all.

And, if we continue to "compromise" our rights with those who want to take them all, how many compromises will be required before we lose all our rights?

It doesn't matter, because . . . eventually the agents of tyranny will have them all.

Compromise sux.

You heard it here first.

 

[Realbigo]

For my doubters, I'm more than comfortable w/ Full Auto anything. If you've seen it, there's a real possibility that I've fired it at one time or another. If it would do any actual good, I'd be up for a IQ test to go along w/ that ATF background check. If you want to stand next to some ignoramus w/ a full auto on range and let him spray away w/ no regulation, you have the fun, i'll be in the back being anal for the regulations. Cause we all know that common sense doesn't come w/ your new rifle.

 

[JCMAG]

I, too, nearly agree with Nitrogen.

It is very bracing to read of so many freedom-loving Americans discuss, quite civilly (or as civilly as the internet may allow), the philosophical dilemma of their rights. I say dilemma because so many varied interests and beliefs are congregating in what may appear a tug of war. This diversity is responsible for collaring radicalism in either extreme of beliefs and conducive to a healthy republic.

 

[pharmer]

Currently, 122.97% response. Outstanding. Joe

 

[Zedo]

"Convicted, violent felons . . . " what? Besides being a sentence fragment, it doesn't explain itself.

If you're legal to own it, you're legal to carry it. Period. CCW is just short of allowing states to register guns -- by registering the owners.

The operating concept in "shall not be infringed" is that the people control the guns, not the state.

 

[JCMAG]

Currently, 122.97% response. Outstanding. Joe

I believe this is one of them polls where you can select multiple responses. How this works I do not know, but apparently neither does the poll.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi ArfinGreebly,

I have nothing to add to this thread after that. Nicely done.

Selena

 

[dmxx9900]

No gun control whatsoever if you are in prison then you have no rights till you are released and considered safe to be in society again.
Bans dont work like a new assault weapon ban I will still get a certain type of gun even if its not legal anymore you just get it through secret connections and keep your mouth shut about it.
Age restrictions do not work I am 18 and I bought a Yugo AK a few days ago am I any more dangerous if I bought a Sig Sauer pistol before 21 then I am with a Yugo Ak rifle at 18.
And there are always ways to get around them same with alcohol age limit I find ways to get around it or if nothing else works I violate it.

At some point gun control becomes stupid,worthless, and annoying thats why I dont support any gun control since it infringes on peoples rights no matter how little the restriction.

 

[Soybomb]

Let's look at it this way. In our ideal world, everyone has total gun freedom. In the Brady's ideal world, guns are totally banned. The real world is going to be a compromise position somewhere in the middle. Do you want to choose where that falls, or do you want the Bradys to? Our hard-line stance isn't going to win any sympathy among the fence-sitters.

Arfin's comments reflect most of what I wanted to say, but neglected a few. Do you really believe the brady group has any interest in compromise? The goal of gun control groups is for no one to have guns except police and military. Look at DC. They had the strictest gun control laws in the nation and the gun control people are outraged that Mr. Heller might get to keep his revolver at his home to protect himself.

Don't give them anything because its just footing to take the rest of it.