What is gun control?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Or, in your opinion, what should it be?


I'm expecting a variety of opinions, maybe extending to the extremes. My opinion is that the extremes are not only unworkable but wrong. Having no laws whatsoever is foolish. Banning anything that even resembles a firearm is equally foolish.

I'm hoping for some reasoning here. Quoting a famous person on either side of the subject as your sole reason for your view IMHO makes your position more religious than logical.

Here's wishing all of you a nice weekend.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. "I'm hoping for some reasoning here"?

[Remmah2]

2. Political smoke.

You can't argue with an object that can't defend itself or argue back. Rather than calling people on bad behavior (because they will argue with you and they are voters) call out an object with the same IQ as the politicians attacking it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. Just playing devil's advocate, here...

...would you say that, generally, the less gun control the better?

If so, where should the control reduction stop? (As in where should the line be drawn?)

[Remmah2]

64. Gun control is not a substitute for criminal control.

Less criminals, less crime. If a criminal is a repeat offender, then they're truly not rehabilitated. I'm for rehabilitation, if a person can be rehabilitated.

Politicians/people respond to crime by calling for restraints and restrictions on inanimate objects because criminals have civil rights and guns do not. People can take responsibility for their actions, guns can not. The laws need to be sorted out to determine which ones are actually aimed at dealing with criminals and those that are aimed at a piece of steel.

Gun laws need to be revisited and reviewed to look at their impact. If a person is not hurting, abusing, or impacting another person I see no need to impose laws on them regulating their behavior. Regulations and laws are necessary but not to the extent of acting like a babysitter.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

65. Albert Einstein said...

"Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom."

Niccolo Machiavelli said:
"When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred."


Arms are tools as are laws. If the purpose of laws is to ensure freedom and control crime, laws aimed otherwise are evil.

"Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade....where I choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself, and I will obey every law, or submit to the penalty."
- Guess who?

[Remmah2]

66. Good quotes.

Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce. It's a pretty profound quote especially in the era it was written. The liberty and freedom that have been stolen from the American Indian should be a lesson to the rest of us.

Seems a bunch of damn immigrants ruined America.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

71. One of my favorite stories...

...is the life of Zitkala-Sa. She was amazing.

[DWC]

68. Hinmaton-Yalaktit aka Chief Joseph? n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

70. Yes... a great man. :) n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. "enough control to keep the government honest"

How much is needed? How should that be accomplished?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. "it takes what it takes"

I think I just need a better idea of what you are looking to accomplish in "keeping the government honest". Obviously there is an element of protection for the RKBA but is there something aspect of your ideals not found in current law and custom here in the US?

(BTW, yes I also have questions about the other three.)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. Let me be specific.

Are you accepting of the current NICS implementation or should be changed and how?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. Yes n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. My take on what should change:

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year -delete this

Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year -delete this

Is a fugitive from justice -change this to "Is a fugitive from justice for misdemeanor or felony charges of any kind."

Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance -leave unchanged

Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution -leave unchanged

Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States -leave unchanged

Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions -leave unchanged

Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship -leave unchanged

Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner -leave unchanged

Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence -change this to "Has been convicted in any court of a crime of domestic violence"

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. My point of view:

I don't think Martha Stewart (for example) or any other convicted non-violent offender should be restricted unless one of those other conditions would apply.

As far as cases of mental incapacity are concerned. I do believe that state standards for that issue and its impact on privacy need to be challenged in court and a level field set nationally.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. Let phrase this as POORLY as I can.

I'd like to state-by-state close the Cho loophole. Cho was able to pass the NICS because even though he was adjudicated deficient, he voluntarily committed when faced with an order of involuntary commitment. Voluntary acceptance kept his name out the database per VA law. The law should read that your name goes into the database if adjudicated or if a doctor testifies in court uncontested as to your mental disability.

ETA: Not that local judiciary should not be involved but just that clearly many states are not entering some names that really should be there.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. Quite true. n/t

[SteveW]

56. "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" -- CHANGE...

This is potentially sweeping prohibition. I will accept a felony conviction of using an unlawful substance, but not a prohibition based on the mercurial nature of another prohibition; this one on currently illegal drugs. You will note that there is no restriction for "user of or addicted to any intoxicating substance (including alcohol)."

The question in my mind: Of all misuse of firearms which can be mainly attributed to intoxication/mind alteration, which substance (controlled or otherwise) contributes the most?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. The others:

2. enough control to keep me and mine free from harm.

3. enough control to keep my castle free from the uninvited.

4. to be free to use defensive tactics against offensive maneuvers.

Could you characterize how you would identify those using offensive maneuvers, please.

[DWC]

5. Proper sight alignment and smooth trigger squeeze

by a law abiding, responsible citizen.

Quick and speed trials with severe punishment for offenders of our laws will provide the best, most effective gun control possible in a free society.

The problem is not the inanimate gun. The problem is our milk-toast treatment of criminals that use guns to violate our society.

Semper Fi,

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. DWC

"Proper sight alignment and smooth trigger squeeze by a law abiding, responsible citizen."
"Quick and speed trials with severe punishment for offenders of our laws will provide the best, most effective gun control possible in a free society.'

~ I have said frequently that the NICS is very close to the best idea I can think of. There have been cases where some states under report or under qualify the standard for those who should be mentally unfit.

~ What is a correct/better sentencing standard for convicted violent criminals?

ETA: Your reply had an eye toward training. What level of training should be mandatory and how should that be ensured?

[S_B_Jackson]

15. A sentencing enhancement

Q: What is a correct/better sentencing standard for convicted violent criminals?

A stackable penalty enhancement (by his I mean that many states allow for only 1 sentencing enchancement condition, use of a firearm should be and exception and should be "stackable" onto others) of a minimum of +20 years to any sentence. (this 20 years is not subject to reduction for good time and each day of that 20 years must be served in addition to whatever underlying time is served for the underlying offense.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. Personally...

I would prefer if those convicted of violent felonies had automatic life sentences, no parole, ever.

[ellisonz]

18. How would you pay for this drastic expansion of the prison system? n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. That would mean releasing many of those currently locked up...

...for non-violent offenses, which would be appropriate if marijuana and some other drugs were decriminalized.

[oneshooter]

20. By raising taxes and fees on criminals of course.

Isn't that the way you want to fund your gun control schemes? Raise taxes and fees on gun owners.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[DWC]

22. Personally...

I would prefer to see sentences:

1. much shorter
2. require actual hard labor (punishment) every day of the sentence

Make prison the last place on earth anyone would want to be which is absolutely not the case in our current system.

Semper Fi,

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. Which sentences would you favor shortening?

I favor life for serious violent offenses because rehabilitation is almost unknown among violent pedators.

As far as punishment goes, I don't care if the violent ones are punished as long as they earn their keep and are forever prevented from hurting another person. I don't much care if any of them are punished but they need to earn their keep and be productive.

[DWC]

53. I would shorten all prison sentences

IMO
1. No prison sentence should be longer than 7 years. After that period of time, the person being held is psychologically no longer the same person that committed the crime.
2. Parole should not exist.
3. Reduced sentence opportunity should be available once per year after 50% of the sentence is served.
4. On serving the required sentence, all rights of citizenship should be restored BUT the facts of the criminal act and court findings should be available to the jury in future criminal cases.
5. Capital crimes should result in Capital Punishment following a through appeals process but definitely within 7 years of sentencing.
6. Every convict should be responsible for their cost to the State via produce from hard labor and liqudation of their assets.
7. Rehab and educational opportunities should be made available on request to convicts, but not to interfere with their work day.

I have observed the Japanese prison system. Recidivism simply does not exist.

Semper Fi,

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

55. Questions...

After that period of time, the person being held is psychologically no longer the same person that committed the crime.

~why does that justify release?

Parole should not exist.
Reduced sentence opportunity should be available once per year after 50% of the sentence is served.

~what's the difference?

[DWC]

58. Answers

~why does that justify release?

I can envision nothing outside a Capital Crime that justifies more than 7 years of social isolation, absolute submission to authority, and punishingly hard labor.

~what's the difference?

Parole is continuous supervision and a serious added expense to an individual legitimately working to re-establish in society. The individual is at liberty - but not really. Reduced sentence holds the individual has fully paid the "debt to society" and is fully at liberty to seek a positive, productive future.

Semper Fi,

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

59. I'll be thinking on this, thanks. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. IMHO...

I don't like the death penalty but for other crimes I can see that 7 years really ought to be the max.

[DWC]

67. Rather than the death penalty,

what do you think about giving those who are found guilty of a Capital Crime a lobotomy? They would no longer be a threat to society and could live out their natural lives without society having to provide prison bars and guards.

Semper Fi,

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

69. Sorry, I find both options repugnant. n/t

[DWC]

72. So do I but

Both beats the option to spend decades in a 6x8 foot box with 1 hour per day in an exercise cage and the only possibility to escape is death from natural causes.

IMO Both are more humaine than a life sentence.

Semper Fi,

[DWC]

21. Because a law abiding, responsible citizen

is law abiding and responsible, that citizen will determine for themselves the type and amount of firearms training they individually need.

An individual owning, carrying, deploying, and/or using a firearm is not a group exercise. It is specific to the individual. Always has been. Always will be.

If owning, carrying, deploying, and/or use of forearms became illegal, only LAW ABIDING citizens would be disarmed. RESPONSIBLE citizens would continue to arm themselves, prepared to face the consequences of their actions if necessary.

"It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

Semper Fi,

[Simo 1939_1940]

10. 1) First and foremost, ridiculous......since there's nothing *to* control.

The genie is out of the bottle, and he sure as hell ain't going back in.

2) Insane - since demand creates it's own supply.

3) An accurate descriptor in only one respect. Pro-restrictionistas aren't in the game for the public good. They're in it to exert control.

[rrneck]

13. The cultural management of potentially dangerous technology.

Such control should attempt to deny that technology to people who show a likelihood of misusing it, and educate others regarding its proper use.

That process cannot be applied to individuals under individual circumstances.

[provis99]

14. smartass flamebait.

you are now on ignore.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. I was trying...

...to leave open what directions anyone wanted to take.

Sometimes a person will misconstrue an ideology and not see an issue as others see it. This can lead to ideologies that those opposing may characterize as "heresy". One of my fundamentals is that most "heresies" derive from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of one or more guiding principles. As an example, a religion holding another's views as heretical, generally arises over a differing on the nature of God.

I don't think most people argue that there is no RKBA, only what about the nature of the Right.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[ellisonz]

17. Responsible public policy...

How about if I quote the Constitution of the United States of America...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If a "well-regulated Militia" doesn't meet that standard, it's not "well-regulated" at all.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Still confused about what 'well regulated' means, aren't you?

Also confused on what constitutes a prefatory clause, rather than a conditional sentence.

[ellisonz]

30. Still repeating...

...that Federalist Society interpretation, aren't you?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. Are you denying that...

...this country is Federalist as founded and constitutionally constructed?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. TY

[ellisonz]

42. "Federalist Society" - not Federalist

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, most frequently called simply the Federalist Society, is an organization of conservatives and libertarians seeking reform of the current American legal system[1] in accordance with a textualist and/or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. The Federalist Society began at Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, and the University of Chicago Law School in 1982 as a student organization that challenged what its members perceived as the orthodox American liberal ideology found in most law schools. The Society asserts that it "is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be."[1]

The Society is a membership organization that features a Student Division, a Lawyers Division, and a Faculty Division. The Society currently has chapters at over 200 United States law schools and claims a membership of over 10,000 law students. The Lawyers Division comprises over 30,000 practicing attorneys (organized as "lawyers chapters" and "practice groups" within the Society's Lawyers Division) in sixty cities.[1] Its headquarters are in Washington, D.C. Through speaking events, lectures, and other activities, the Federalist Society provides a forum for legal experts of opposing views to interact with members of the legal profession, the judiciary, law students, and academics.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

I'm a tremendous supporter of Federalism, but the Federalist Society doesn't represent Federalism very well IMHO.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. Specifically...

...what is your concept of Federalism?

[ellisonz]

44. What is your concept of Federalism?

If, therefore, as has been elsewhere remarked, the people should in future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration, as will overcome all their antecedent propensities. And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due; but even in that case the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

Fortunately, the well-regulation of the "Militia" seems to be within that sphere. Madison also posits that "the federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes." Clearly, the issue of national defense and the role of the Militia thereof is within the purview of the Federal Government, which literally is of and for the people.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

45. I'm listening.

Before I ask, "How would this governmental evolution would take place?" I want to know what would characterize "such manifest and irresistible proofs"?

[ellisonz]

46. Since you didn't answer my question of what you think Federalism is...

...I will simply ask a different question, what do you think Madison means by that?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

47. Oops.

The current federal government with self governed states as we have now is an example of Federalism. (Sorry about that.)

As far as your question on Madison's statement: I believe he was referring to the type of change described in the first half of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

The populace was more interested in state government than in the federal government.

I still want to know what would characterize "such manifest and irresistible proofs"?

[ellisonz]

51. I think such things are in the eye of the beholder.

I don't buy this cult of social scientific proof we seem to have; some forms of knowledge are matters of the heart.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. Matters of the heart, indeed.

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2012, 04:12 AM - Edit history (1)

This brings us to rest of the second paragraph of the DoI:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

While the degree to which the laws of one state remain askew and even confounding of those of another, one must ask himself if the abuses and usurpations, perpetrated by criminals through illegal advantage, would an expansion and the risk expanding past and possible future abuses and usurpations by a government more distant and more powerful than that of any state government be preferred?

Heart and history answer for each of us.

[Simo 1939_1940]

54. "I don't buy this cult of social scientific proof we seem to have......"

Of course you don't - because the scientific proof refutes your dogma. I'm betting you have no problem with scientific proof when it supports your position.

........some forms of knowledge are matters of the heart.

So of course you'd have no problem with someone stating that "as a matter of the heart" he/she calls bullshit on your scientific evidence supporting global warming.

[ellisonz]

60. Do you understand the difference...

...social science and hard sciences?

[Simo 1939_1940]

63. Yes. NT

[gejohnston]

50. Are you saying

we should adopt a unitary system like Japan instead of having a federal system similar to Canada, Germany, Australia?
Yeah, the Federalist party wanted a stronger central government, but that is not really what it means today.

[SteveW]

57. My proposals:

(1) Drop the language about use of "controlled substances." This is hazy and depends on a prohibitionist scheme. The trip-up is this: someone can say he is not a user or addicted to controlled substances, yet because of governmental abuse, there may be a determination (legal or otherwise) which points to someone using, say, pot. At that point, the government can take action to confiscate firearms, arrest someone for a felony (lying on 4473), and prevent this person from obtaining firearms in the future. This is especially problematical in the transition from pure prohibition to medical marijuana usage.

Junk this provision.

(2) I think the states have powers to reasonably restrict the means of bearing arms: Either make shall-issue laws for concealed-carry OR make shall-issue laws for open-carry, OR both.

(3) Courthouse restrictions are reasonable, as this institution is an extension of a state's authority, and does not apply to private entities, nor to other branches of government. Here also, is where volatile issues/trials are settled, and the state has taken the responsibility to have an armed presence.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

61. I can respect all of those. n/t