by harsher penalties i did not mean longer prison sentances. our other laws need looking into as well. not just guns. prison isn't the deterent for many crimes as some would like to think.

What do you have when you disarm citizens?  Subjects. 

"Gun-Free" zones are a mistake.  They too often get targeted by killers and the people inside are left defenseless. 

We have high incarceration rates because we jail people for some of the stupidest stuff around wanna decrease our inmate popultions by a signifigant percentage? End this silly war on drugs legalize it regulate it's manufacture and tax it for governmental revenue, you have just knocked organized crime out of a huge portion of it's business, reduced the cost of drugs a signifigant amount so fewer crimes are committed to come up with the cash to buy drugs , created a source of funding for the .gov and treatment programs which are effective and do work for those who have addiction problems cost less than incarceration which does not work.

Outside of Muslim nations we have some of the worlds goofiest f%$king alcohol laws. No wonder we have so many criminals in jail that did stupid shaZam! when they were drunk, our entire lives we're told growing up we can't drink and whats the first thing a huge majority of post tennagers do on their 21st bday? Drink to excess, at that point though it's okay because now their of legal age, we don't teach responsible behavior and moderation.

For christs sake most states don't even teach drivers ed anymore nimrod parents that can barely drive are teaching their idiot kids how to drive and I bet you over 50% of them lie on when they sign off on the hours of instruction because they want to be friends with their kids not parents.

There's a comma in the second ammendment between the militia portion and the shall not infringe that means both portions of that sentance are equal, a militia is necessary and the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no vaugeness about it.

Personel ownership of nukes and chemical/biological wepons, is a bit disingenous

There is no such thing as reasonable gun control, and I feel sorry for you TG but you do realize one of these former vets that snaps won't be prevented from carrying on campus by the current law right? Alsio the last bill introduced only allowed faculty staff and students who were currenlty commisioned law enforcemnt officers attending class off duty to carry not me as a visitor or the avergae student.

Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 12:10:50 PM

1.  Personel ownership of nukes and chemical/biological wepons, is a bit disingenous

2.  There is no such thing as reasonable gun control...

3.  There's a comma in the second ammendment between the militia portion and the shall not infringe that means both portions of that sentance are equal, a militia is necessary and the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no vaugeness about it.

1.  How is it disingenuous?  All of the items discussed are arms.  The second amendment gives the right to bear arms, not guns.  How is that disingenuous?

2.  And some think there is no such thing as reasonable gun freedom.  Do you have any reasoning to back up your completely subjective statement?

3.  No vagueness?  Is the constitution addressing state militias (what is now the National Guard), or the ability of citizens to form their own militias at any given time?  Is membership in some sort of militia necessary?  Why not just clearly say "Everyone has a right to bear arms"?  District judges were mixed in their opinions on this subject until a recent S.C. ruling, which tells me it isn't as clear as it could be.

Quote from: lawman on April 07, 2009, 08:39:45 PM
ATLRIDER, would you like me to point out  a few places where the constitution says "shall not" and the congress and court have defined that to mean "eh, usually not"?  I can go in amendment order if you like...  Besides that, did you miss the part where I keep saying guns are fine, just not handguns?  Go back and read the rest of the thread, monkeyboy.

aimin low, you're again focusing on anecdotes.  How many more times does that other guy blow your brains out with his gun than you defend yourself with yours?  An awful, awful lot, according to the murder and unsolved homicide rates.

monkeywha?  Name calling... What the heck is that.  Anyways, goes to show the mentality.  Sheesh

So how are we planning to get rid of all the guns that aren't registered with the govt? Like a bunch that I own. Are we going to send a UHaul around for me to go give them away out of the goodness of my heart? Even the pistols passed down from my grandfather? How about the guy who bought his 38Sp from a guy in a back alley with the numbers pinned off it? As you can tell, I don't think banning guns or even just banning handguns will work. You'll never be able to get them all w/o searching each and every house top to bottom, and you'll still fail.

For civilians not being able to carry concealed, I'm against that. My carry pistol is licensed and I'm licensed to carry it. So if I'm out hiking or on a river bank and a couple guys think they're going to take all I own and leave me for dead, they're mistaken. It'll be a short confrontation. Kinda hard to wade fishing with my Mini-14 strapped to my back so the pistol goes with me. Rifle/shotgun gets caught on too many limbs.  I work in a pharmacy. Many people I know carry in pharmacies because we get robbed, a lot.  All that I know who carry aren't the trigger happy crazies like CCW holders are made to appear. Just people who want to see their kids at the end of a day. If you come in and rob them, they're the nicest people you've ever robbed. Put it in a bag and give you all you want. Just don't try hop the counter and hurt them or their friends/coworkers. And yes, I know pharmacists who've been injured at work by robbers. Guy was stabbed in the stomach after he gave the crook what he wanted.  He came across the counter because he thought they had more oxycodone.

Don't get me started on the prison system since it was brought up. Let's just say it'd be far less comfortable if it was ran they way I'd like to see it done.

Sorry for my rant, but I just don't think you can tell everyone you can't carry/own a weapon. Weapons have a reason, and are great when used in the hands of a trained person. It's when used by untrained people they're bad. I've been around firearms all my life. I have a deep respect for them and their uses. I make it a duty of mine to teach any friend I have who wants one about them and how to handle them safely.

Thanks for you time,

Chris

Well put.

I think part of the problem here is everyone takes anecdotes from the areas in which they reside, and assume it is the same throughout the country.  Weapons are fine in some areas.  In other areas, you want as few as them around as possible.

which, sounds nice in fairy tale land, but it's not gonna happen. as someone else stated,  YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET ALL THE GUNS OFF THE STREET!! it won't happen. not even if the govt tried to go house to house and take them by force. it won't happen. you'd have civil war on your hands. i'm not saying that because i'm some trigger-happy hippy. it's fact. and let's not forget, it's the CRIMINALS who are mis-using firearms, not law-abiding citizens. and the criminals don't care about the law. they don't go to walmart and purchase their weapons. they buy them out of the back of some dudes van. they don't obtain them legally so why should they worry about using them legally? and pretty much any machinist with the right amout of time and materials can make a firearm in their shop..........

Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 12:10:50 PM
We have high incarceration rates because we jail people for some of the stupidest stuff around wanna decrease our inmate popultions by a signifigant percentage? End this silly war on drugs legalize it regulate it's manufacture and tax it for governmental revenue, you have just knocked organized crime out of a huge portion of it's business, reduced the cost of drugs a signifigant amount so fewer crimes are committed to come up with the cash to buy drugs , created a source of funding for the .gov and treatment programs which are effective and do work for those who have addiction problems cost less than incarceration which does not work.

+1000  -- We agree on this one!!!

Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 12:10:50 PM
Outside of Muslim nations we have some of the worlds goofiest f%$king alcohol laws. No wonder we have so many criminals in jail that did stupid oh my goodness when they were drunk, our entire lives we're told growing up we can't drink and whats the first thing a huge majority of post tennagers do on their 21st bday? Drink to excess, at that point though it's okay because now their of legal age, we don't teach responsible behavior and moderation.

Germany has this down.  You can drink at sixteen, but you cannot get a drivers license until AT LEAST 21.  Even then, it costs you thousands for school and testing, which is more than can you freaking steer a car.

Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 12:10:50 PM
There's a comma in the second ammendment between the militia portion and the shall not infringe that means both portions of that sentance are equal, a militia is necessary and the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no vaugeness about it.

I disagree.  A period would make them equal.  A comma means the first clause MODIFIES the second, even takes precedence over it.

Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 12:10:50 PM
Personel ownership of nukes and chemical/biological wepons, is a bit disingenous

There is no such thing as reasonable gun control, and I feel sorry for you TG but you do realize one of these former vets that snaps won't be prevented from carrying on campus by the current law right? Alsio the last bill introduced only allowed faculty staff and students who were currenlty commisioned law enforcemnt officers attending class off duty to carry not me as a visitor or the avergae student.

The current law (in OK) allows institutions to ban concealed weapons by posting a sign on building entrances.  We have those signs, so it is NOT legal to have weapons on our facilities.  I have not kept track of every bill -- there have been a few with various provisions.

I do not believe that all gun control is unreasonable.  I don't believe you should be able to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.  I do not believe that EVERY abortion should be legal, either.  No issue is 100% black or 100% white.  To say that it is is to completely eliminate discussion and to close of your mind from considering any alternative but your own.  A miserable way to live, IMHO!

Quote from: jserio on April 08, 2009, 06:47:35 PM
which, sounds nice in fairy tale land, but it's not gonna happen. as someone else stated,  YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET ALL THE GUNS OFF THE STREET!!

Cash for guns programs have been very successful in Compton, where violent crime rates have plummeted.  In all fairness, the cash for guns program was combined with a massive police outreach program. 

You are right, you can't get ALL the guns off the street.  However, you just need to get enough guns off the street to improve certain communities. 

Disclaimer: Remember, I have no qualms with guns in most areas, just areas where gun crimes are a problem.

Gun buy back programs...LOL that's funny right there. $100 gun any gun no questions asked, I wonder what happened to the burglary rate statistics. Criminals sell back stolen or extremely cheap POS firearms in exchange for cash becauses they have no money in the gun and can always go steal another one later. In the mean time law enforcement gives criminals amnesty when they should be arrested for poseesion of stolen property and the numbers should be checked and the property returned to it's rightful owner. Sorry I despise gun buy back programs rewarding criminals is assinine. Just getting law enforcement into that community and getting them to to do their damned jobs had more effect than gun buy back programs.

I remember compton from the mid to late 80's yeah it was bad and cops wouldn't go there, what'd they finally do to get the police into compton? 

Of course in my opinion our whole nation would benefit if the big one ever hits and Kommiefornia falls off in the ocean. Screw spending money on that state erect a wall around it and let it become it's own little island nation.   

what it took to get police into compton was the murder/shooting of a 3 year old girl by a gang member. the family took a wrong turn. wrong place, wrong time. Former president clinton made a speech about it actually. within weeks, there was a massive raid on that area. they took down close to 100 people if i remember right.  it was about as close to martial law as you can get i suppose.

Quote from: trumpetguy on April 08, 2009, 07:57:18 PM


I do not believe that all gun control is unreasonable.  I don't believe you should be able to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.  I do not believe that EVERY abortion should be legal, either.  No issue is 100% black or 100% white.  To say that it is is to completely eliminate discussion and to close of your mind from considering any alternative but your own.  A miserable way to live, IMHO!

What do you define as reasonable? As far as shouting fire in a crowded theater theres nothing preventing you from doing it, you can if you want to it's free speech but their are legal consequences to doing so after the fact. There is no law abridging your right to free speech. But there's laws against causing a public panic. There should be no law abridging gun ownership in the US but there should be, and in fact there are laws with legal consequences to pulling a wepon in public improperly.

I won't discuss WMD's after all this is the interwebz and big brother is always watching.

Quote from: jserio on April 09, 2009, 06:02:00 AM
what it took to get police into compton was the murder/shooting of a 3 year old girl by a gang member. the family took a wrong turn. wrong place, wrong time. Former president clinton made a speech about it actually. within weeks, there was a massive raid on that area. they took down close to 100 people if i remember right.  it was about as close to martial law as you can get i suppose.

I vaugely remember that now thanks dude.

Quote from: bettingpython on April 09, 2009, 06:08:33 AM
What do you define as reasonable? As far as shouting fire in a crowded theater theres nothing preventing you from doing it, you can if you want to it's free speech but their are legal consequences to doing so after the fact. There is no law abridging your right to free speech. But there's laws against causing a public panic. There should be no law abridging gun ownership in the US but there should be, and in fact there are laws with legal consequences to pulling a wepon in public improperly.

You yourself said guns should not be available to the mentally unstable.  That's "abridged" ownership for them.  Aren't they citizens?  And you do agree that the unabridged right to bear "arms" should not include bombs or chemical weapons, so you can't be too sanctimonious about ANY infringement of rights.

What do I consider reasonable?  I don't think .50 sniper rifles or larger caliber weapons should be available to the general public (terrorists would disagree, of course).   I don't think full auto weapons should be, either.  I think all new handguns should be equipped with technology that allows only their owner to fire them -- they would never be stolen nor would they ever be used in a suicide of someone else in the home or accidental shooting by a child.

I'm far more concerned (as I alluded earlier) about the CULTURE of violence in America than I am the number of guns.  In Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore points out that several other countries have as many guns in private hands (per capita) as the US, but none have the gun violence rate that we do.  Why?

Quote from: bettingpython on April 07, 2009, 10:01:16 AM

Quote from: bombadillo on April 07, 2009, 09:27:00 AM
62 pages!!!   Cliff notes.  I'm pro gun 100% of the time but good god thats a lot to read.

Theres part of the problem, pop culture wants single page summaries, blanket statements and buzzword driven policy. Instead of deep thoughtful detailed analysis.
Not picking on you Bombadillo just using your post to highlight an example.

Anyone ever read a book called the bell curve, pretty controversial and some even said racist if you didn't take the time to read and understand the whole book the pop culture inference that was drawn from the book was that skin color made a difference in intellect, which was completely disengenious because the standard deviation within the data sets could explain that shift in the curve the importnat point that everyone missed that was upring education and oppurtunities affected intellect.

Aw, come on now.  I read more than most here and am on a gun forum 10x as much as I'm on here.  I read so much more than most ever would about firearms but that is just a ridiculous amount to post on something like this.  I am too busy working and stocking up on ammo to go through all that crap.

Quote from: jserio on April 09, 2009, 06:02:00 AM
what it took to get police into compton was the murder/shooting of a 3 year old girl by a gang member. the family took a wrong turn. wrong place, wrong time. Former president clinton made a speech about it actually. within weeks, there was a massive raid on that area. they took down close to 100 people if i remember right.  it was about as close to martial law as you can get i suppose.

You do give us a nice little narrative, but that single police action isn't what turned Compton around.

Compton wasn't changed overnight, check the crime statistics there.  Change has been gradual.  Check Newsweek's feature on the multifaceted approach that has worked there.

Quote from: spc on April 08, 2009, 07:34:07 AM

Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 06:21:44 AM
 I suspect lawman is a law student.

PD for life.  Liberal lawyers get stuck there.

We'll add that to the list of things you're wrong about.

Quote from: spc on April 08, 2009, 07:34:07 AM
lawman, does this sound familiar?
..............in order to prevent misconstruction of abuse of its' powers, the further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.........
............Amendment II  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.........

I'm not sure how you can construe that as anything other than protecting the people's SELF EVIDENT right from the government.   It does not say 'the people shall be permitted to carry arms.  It says the government shall not infringe on that right.  The forefathers worded these first ten amendments very purposefully.  Anything the government has the right to give it can take away, thus having the government allow the carry of weapons would permit them also to ban the carry of weapons.  THIS IS NOT THE CASE.  The forefathers saw the right to defend ones self and home as an inalienable right and merely wanted to ensure the government would never get any ideas about abusing it's power so they removed ALL power in this aspect.

I don't care how many copies of the constitution you own, I'm sure there are a few in the oval office, READING, COMPREHENDING, AND FOLLOWING are the problems at hand.  f%$k, time to send DC back to kindergarten.

I'm unimpressed by both your selection of points and your argument.  The Supreme Court backed away from Heller within months.

The "self-evident" right is abridged left and right.  From restrictions on sales and background checks to limits on certain weapons and restrictions on where you can bring them.

I don't believe in shaking my fist at the sky - I'm not going to argue with an opinionated idiot who self-selects to support his argument.  At this point, you're right only because of the present conservative bent of the country.  I expect you will be wrong within my lifetime.  I am convinced the present interpretation of the law is wrong now.

Quote from: Juan1 on April 09, 2009, 11:33:20 AM

Quote from: jserio on April 09, 2009, 06:02:00 AM
what it took to get police into compton was the murder/shooting of a 3 year old girl by a gang member. the family took a wrong turn. wrong place, wrong time. Former president clinton made a speech about it actually. within weeks, there was a massive raid on that area. they took down close to 100 people if i remember right.  it was about as close to martial law as you can get i suppose.

You do give us a nice little narrative, but that single police action isn't what turned Compton around.

Compton wasn't changed overnight, check the crime statistics there.  Change has been gradual.  Check Newsweek's feature on the multifaceted approach that has worked there.

i'm sorry if i'm implying that the change to compton was "immediate" following this incident. but it's hard to argue that this incedent is not what preceded the change, motivated it so to speak. without this incident, i doubt we'd see the change in compton today.