A Radically Moderate Proposal
Dec 21, 2012 10:25:25 #
Keep adding more and more rules and regulations to the point that we don't have time (or will) to complete it all. Yet, are you in favor of showing ID to vote?
All your proposals will do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain a gun. People with criminal intent will bypass all your rules and regulations, like they do now.
The solution is to lock up the criminals and throw away the key and figure out a way to better deal with the mentally ill.
All your proposals will do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain a gun. People with criminal intent will bypass all your rules and regulations, like they do now.
The solution is to lock up the criminals and throw away the key and figure out a way to better deal with the mentally ill.
Dec 21, 2012 10:30:53 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
What about murder by other means? If a lunatic can... (show quote)
Or they could get them by means of our U.S. goverment
Fast and Fury program, You don't ask and We want tell.
Dec 21, 2012 10:38:56 #
RichieC
Loc: Adirondacks
First, this was a crime by a criminally insane individual, laws will not protect us from criminally insane individuals, without infringing on our freedoms and rights.
A bit of history on why this premise would be opposed.
In WW2, all privately owned weapons were registered with the German government. The government, now controlled by the Nazis, made use of this list, as an easy map to go and confiscate all these weapons to disarm the populace. If you didn't have the gun in your name, you were arrested, then gassed. Those that say that weaponry that is owned by the populace is no match for a professional military are right on the surface, but they are not thinking it through. It is one thing for a military of ones own country to go in and arrest an unarmed citizen(s). To keep them down by tiny skirmishes or police action. It is another for them to have to fire upon and kill the masses that would be aligned against them. Some breaks in the ranks would absolutely occur, the army made up of us lowly people, would by and large side with us against the government. This is why Hitler had the Wehrmacht and the SS, the SS being made up of carefully chosen people loyal to him. All this makes a government highly hesitant and desperate to wage war on their own armed populace, as they really don't know how it will end. Once again, if history is any teacher, they'd end up like Gaddafi, or what Assad will face soon.
Disarming the populace is the first step of any totalitarian regime. This is why a registration program for all but handguns and certain other weapons has been opposed, as this is against one of the primary reasons for the second amendment, which is not ambiguous in the least, except by those who don't believe in the second amendment. Our forefathers realized that any government can fail, they were students of history themselves. Every great past civilization has failed, they will fail in the future. They do so by becoming corrupt.
There are those, also on the left, who don't believe in the first amendment, so a liberal point of view in this, is by your nature, contrary to the conservative point of view on personal rights, either to speech, guns and now recently, money. If liberals wrote the constitution and the bill of rights, we would have a king, and states would be non-existent.
Our current and perhaps even distant government is not the issue, but someday it very well may, as history has demonstrated. Then the second followed by the first, will fall. This has happen so many times in the past, it would be ridiculous, shortsighted, (or liberal), to think it can't happen again.
This is the foresight of our forefathers, as they anticipated and made allowances for every contingency, to try and guarantee the freedom of every person. I trust their brilliance, they made a nearly perfect instrument and I for one, wish to continue to follow what they have made.
So if you want to take away your great, great, great, grand-children's tools to fight what history has demonstrated, time and time again, what may become, (I suppose while they are still paying off Obamas and the rest of these overspending pigs, from both sides, debt.), then you are merely exercising your liberal point of view.
I want no part of it. I prefer to prevent a future ( albeit distant, perhaps never) real mass murderer, one that kills in the millions.
A bit of history on why this premise would be opposed.
In WW2, all privately owned weapons were registered with the German government. The government, now controlled by the Nazis, made use of this list, as an easy map to go and confiscate all these weapons to disarm the populace. If you didn't have the gun in your name, you were arrested, then gassed. Those that say that weaponry that is owned by the populace is no match for a professional military are right on the surface, but they are not thinking it through. It is one thing for a military of ones own country to go in and arrest an unarmed citizen(s). To keep them down by tiny skirmishes or police action. It is another for them to have to fire upon and kill the masses that would be aligned against them. Some breaks in the ranks would absolutely occur, the army made up of us lowly people, would by and large side with us against the government. This is why Hitler had the Wehrmacht and the SS, the SS being made up of carefully chosen people loyal to him. All this makes a government highly hesitant and desperate to wage war on their own armed populace, as they really don't know how it will end. Once again, if history is any teacher, they'd end up like Gaddafi, or what Assad will face soon.
Disarming the populace is the first step of any totalitarian regime. This is why a registration program for all but handguns and certain other weapons has been opposed, as this is against one of the primary reasons for the second amendment, which is not ambiguous in the least, except by those who don't believe in the second amendment. Our forefathers realized that any government can fail, they were students of history themselves. Every great past civilization has failed, they will fail in the future. They do so by becoming corrupt.
There are those, also on the left, who don't believe in the first amendment, so a liberal point of view in this, is by your nature, contrary to the conservative point of view on personal rights, either to speech, guns and now recently, money. If liberals wrote the constitution and the bill of rights, we would have a king, and states would be non-existent.
Our current and perhaps even distant government is not the issue, but someday it very well may, as history has demonstrated. Then the second followed by the first, will fall. This has happen so many times in the past, it would be ridiculous, shortsighted, (or liberal), to think it can't happen again.
This is the foresight of our forefathers, as they anticipated and made allowances for every contingency, to try and guarantee the freedom of every person. I trust their brilliance, they made a nearly perfect instrument and I for one, wish to continue to follow what they have made.
So if you want to take away your great, great, great, grand-children's tools to fight what history has demonstrated, time and time again, what may become, (I suppose while they are still paying off Obamas and the rest of these overspending pigs, from both sides, debt.), then you are merely exercising your liberal point of view.
I want no part of it. I prefer to prevent a future ( albeit distant, perhaps never) real mass murderer, one that kills in the millions.
Dec 21, 2012 10:45:41 #
Sounds pretty good.
I notice that when the media mentions past massacres the they never include the first one in this country: Springfield, Oregon, or the one-room Amish school where the shooter targeted girls.
I notice that when the media mentions past massacres the they never include the first one in this country: Springfield, Oregon, or the one-room Amish school where the shooter targeted girls.
Dec 21, 2012 10:52:15 #
Sounds pretty good.
I notice that when the media mentions past massacres the they never include the first one in this country: Springfield, Oregon, or the one-room Amish school where the shooter targeted girls.
I notice that when the media mentions past massacres the they never include the first one in this country: Springfield, Oregon, or the one-room Amish school where the shooter targeted girls.
Dec 21, 2012 10:53:03 #
liebgard wrote:
The travel agent serves the interest of the travel providers; the fashion show serves the interest of the designers and clothing manufacturers; wine tastings serve the interests of the vintners; etc. it's not a salient point.
Blurryeyed wrote:
I agree with you that the NRA serves the interest of manufacturers...
The travel agent serves the interest of the travel providers; the fashion show serves the interest of the designers and clothing manufacturers; wine tastings serve the interests of the vintners; etc. it's not a salient point.
The point is that those organizations do not try to hide their industry, but the NRA tries to show itself merely as an organization of gun owners. In point of fact, most of its funding comes from gun manufacturers, and many of their most radical positions are not supported by the rank and file.
Dec 21, 2012 10:55:23 #
jkaye65
The solution is to lock up the criminals [b wrote:
The solution is to lock up the criminals [b wrote:
and throw away the key[/b] and figure out a way to better deal with the mentally ill.
Your proposal s overly simplistic and would not have prevented the Newtown massacre. The shooter had no criminal record, so your solution would not have mattered.
Dec 21, 2012 11:00:04 #
Robert Graybeal wrote:
I am firmly convinced that the world would be better place if you learned how to turn off your brain.
tschmath wrote:
This is the kind of stuff obsessives like me do at 2:30 in the morning when they cannot turn their brains off.
This is the kind of stuff obsessives like me do at 2:30 in the morning when they cannot turn their brains off.
I am firmly convinced that the world would be better place if you learned how to turn off your brain.
Until your asinine comment, this thread had remained completely civil. Many people have disagreed with what I wrote, but you took it to a personal level. Shows how shallow and mean a person you are.
Dec 21, 2012 11:05:50 #
tschmath wrote:
Your proposal s overly simplistic and would not have prevented the Newtown massacre. The shooter had no criminal record, so your solution would not have mattered.
jkaye65
The solution is to lock up the criminals [b wrote:
The solution is to lock up the criminals [b wrote:
and throw away the key[/b] and figure out a way to better deal with the mentally ill.
Your proposal s overly simplistic and would not have prevented the Newtown massacre. The shooter had no criminal record, so your solution would not have mattered.
From what I have heard on the local news, the shooter in Newtown had mental issues. Should I have mentioned the mentally ill before I mentioned criminals.
You wanted us to read your whole page of (mostly) idiotic solutions yet you can't read my small paragraph?!?
Dec 21, 2012 11:06:27 #
The problem with your proposal is that it is directed and addressed to only law abiding citizens. Citizens who obey the law do not commit crimes. Your proposal merely places additional restrictions and burdens on the lawful while ignoring the passions of the criminal and criminally insane. It is trite, but also true, that guns don't kill people - only people kill people. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, perhaps even more restrictive than your proposal. And yet, it also has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.
Anytime there is a sensational murder rampage such as Sandy Hook, the knee-jerk reaction is to either propose outlawing guns altogether or push for more stringent gun control. Left out of these draconian proposals is the uncomfortable fact that the murder rate in the U.S. Has been stagnant or falling for for over 20 years. It is now the lowest it has been in 100 years.
Anytime there is a sensational murder rampage such as Sandy Hook, the knee-jerk reaction is to either propose outlawing guns altogether or push for more stringent gun control. Left out of these draconian proposals is the uncomfortable fact that the murder rate in the U.S. Has been stagnant or falling for for over 20 years. It is now the lowest it has been in 100 years.
Dec 21, 2012 11:09:54 #
Birdog9999
Loc: New Jersey
I guess you never bothered to read the article by professor Lund that was linked here. He presented a case that clearly shows that the founding fathers were talking about individual rights when they wrote the second amemdnent. I'm sure that after you read it, if you take the time to do so, you will still disagree.
http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php#c4
http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php#c4
Dec 21, 2012 11:10:20 #
Congratulations, you have put one heck of a lot of thought and work into this. Are you sure you weren't watching Hannity? This is quite a piece of work. IMHO it's the best answer to a difficult question. I agree with what you say about the 2nd Amendment. You just have to read it several times out loud. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Dec 21, 2012 11:20:24 #
I'd like to add 2 cents here, well maybe a few more pennies. To start drivers licenses are a state's right issue. That is why each state issues their own license; they have a right to do it and refuse anyone who doesn't meet their qualifications. The gun issue is a Constitutional right of an individual. No state can deny this rigth to an individual. So it's mixing oranges and apples. You don't go to the grocery store and demand that the cheaper price of apples be applied to your purchase of oranges when checking out. A state right is not in the same ball field as a Contitutional right.
As for being totally responsible for someone else using a weapon I own in a criminal activity; here is where apples are apples eventhough it is a gun vs a car. I had a car stolen from my drive way earlier this year. It was legally parked in my driveway and locked, so I was taking all the reasonable care I could to prevent an illegal activity. I was in my bed and the activity happened between 11pm and 5am when I woke up and saw it gone. So you are stating that I am responsible for that criminal stealing my car and if any criminal activity happens while it is in his possession, I am totally resposible for it. What happend to the sins of the father are not the sins of the son, or just plain old personal responsibility (the criminal is totally responsible for his own actions). I and the police still don't know who did it.
Oh and while at it of personal responsibility, why is the root cause of these horrible situations not really being addressed. Why under the definition from MADD the driver is totally responsible for drunk driving and not the car? They work and work very hard to get the offender off the road and into jail, while you are working to get the gun off the road (I mean the car) and not the criminal. The bigger the engine, the higher speed, the more gas millage, the larger the gas tank, is the cause of all drunk driving, yet MADD seems to be working to get to the root cause, personal responsibility.
Murder is a personal choice, yet when caught the defense is mental capicity. Why is ignorance of the law not a defense for breaking any law, and mental illness is? Why is a sane man is found guilty becasue he didn't know he was breaking the law and a mentally ill found not guilty because he didn't know right from wrong? Which for the most part is a bunch of malarkey. Only those most mentally incapcitated don't know or connect the dots that murder is wrong.
We need to get to the heart of the matter. A gun can lay loaded a hundred years and never do harm, but let it be picked up, and how it is used is determined by the picker upper and only the picker upper.
Any more regulations will not help our situation. There are thousands of laws on the books already making it illegal. What I see here in these regulations is some searching to weed out mentally ill. But its not regulated to weed them out specifically, only indirectly. How about getting regulations to root out the cause. When one gets cancer, one does not take asprin to relieve some of the pain and ignore the root cause. You go to extremes to get to the core problem. You see many doctors and have many, many visits, have dilibertating operations, that cut you open, then radiation treatments that do horendous thing to your body, just to get to the ROOT CAUSE. Anthing else only leaves you with cancer. We need help in helping the mentally ill. It is these people that are doing it, not the law abiding citizens. Enought pennies.
As for being totally responsible for someone else using a weapon I own in a criminal activity; here is where apples are apples eventhough it is a gun vs a car. I had a car stolen from my drive way earlier this year. It was legally parked in my driveway and locked, so I was taking all the reasonable care I could to prevent an illegal activity. I was in my bed and the activity happened between 11pm and 5am when I woke up and saw it gone. So you are stating that I am responsible for that criminal stealing my car and if any criminal activity happens while it is in his possession, I am totally resposible for it. What happend to the sins of the father are not the sins of the son, or just plain old personal responsibility (the criminal is totally responsible for his own actions). I and the police still don't know who did it.
Oh and while at it of personal responsibility, why is the root cause of these horrible situations not really being addressed. Why under the definition from MADD the driver is totally responsible for drunk driving and not the car? They work and work very hard to get the offender off the road and into jail, while you are working to get the gun off the road (I mean the car) and not the criminal. The bigger the engine, the higher speed, the more gas millage, the larger the gas tank, is the cause of all drunk driving, yet MADD seems to be working to get to the root cause, personal responsibility.
Murder is a personal choice, yet when caught the defense is mental capicity. Why is ignorance of the law not a defense for breaking any law, and mental illness is? Why is a sane man is found guilty becasue he didn't know he was breaking the law and a mentally ill found not guilty because he didn't know right from wrong? Which for the most part is a bunch of malarkey. Only those most mentally incapcitated don't know or connect the dots that murder is wrong.
We need to get to the heart of the matter. A gun can lay loaded a hundred years and never do harm, but let it be picked up, and how it is used is determined by the picker upper and only the picker upper.
Any more regulations will not help our situation. There are thousands of laws on the books already making it illegal. What I see here in these regulations is some searching to weed out mentally ill. But its not regulated to weed them out specifically, only indirectly. How about getting regulations to root out the cause. When one gets cancer, one does not take asprin to relieve some of the pain and ignore the root cause. You go to extremes to get to the core problem. You see many doctors and have many, many visits, have dilibertating operations, that cut you open, then radiation treatments that do horendous thing to your body, just to get to the ROOT CAUSE. Anthing else only leaves you with cancer. We need help in helping the mentally ill. It is these people that are doing it, not the law abiding citizens. Enought pennies.
Dec 21, 2012 11:20:59 #
you've got it backwards, my friend, as it costs California about $40,000 to go thru the whole process to incarcerate a prisoner but millions to get them put to death. My way would be cheaper as they would eventually request to be put to sleep. I would do that in a kind way as well...we do it to animals in a gentle fashion so likewise to humans. After all we would not be punishing them by putting them to sleep but would be freeing their soul for God to punish should He so desire.
Dec 21, 2012 11:25:45 #
So a shotgun that I paid almost $20,000 for and planned on giving to my daughters when I past away. The government would give me $200 or $250 for.... in fact most of my guns I have paid a lot more than $250 for, except for some pellet guns and bb guns. I also don't care for anyone knowing what I have in the way of guns or how many I have.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.