CDZ Gun Control

[Geaux4it]

It really is simple. Just as all of us know the difference between- Up and down, black and white etc. just like we know the difference between right and wrong. Make the wrong choice and pay the price.

-Geaux

 

[Wry Catcher]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

Because once a license is needed the rich can price them to the point that only the rich and the criminals will have them. The criminals will of course enjoy the free range chickens they get to prey on and the rich, well, it is the rich pushing gun control isn't it.

How else can they truly enslave you. So long as you are armed they can't truly oppress you. Once they can get the guns away from the masses though, well then all bets are off aren't they.

I would think that those who claim to be against the one percenters could figure out that it is the one percenters who are working like hell to disarm them.

I think this post ^^^ is the work of a paranoid. But I digress. Consider my posts, wherein I've suggested licensing be done by the States, or those states which require them, and that the license be easy to get with a comprehensive background investigation.

Of course a license could be suspended or revoked for good cause, cause defined by a state legislature, and heard by an administrative law judge whose finding could result with an acqauital, a suspension for a period of time, or a lifetime revocation.

Fines, and other punishments, would become part of the Penal Code as enacted by the state legislature and the governor.

Again....what does licensing actually do....other than generate revenue for the state and create a crime where you can punish people who don't use guns to actually commit crimes.....?

Glenn Reynolds: How gun laws put the innocent on trial

Cottrol noted that crimes like carrying or owning a pistol without a license are what the law has traditionally termed malum prohibitum — that is, things that are wrong only because they are prohibited. (The contrast is with the other traditional category, malum in se, those things, like rape, robbery, and murder, that are wrong in themselves.)

Traditionally, penalties for malum prohibitum acts were generally light, since the conduct that the laws governed wasn’t wrong in itself. But modern American law often treats even obscure and technical violations of gun laws as felonies and —Cottrol noted — prosecutors often go out of their way to prosecute these crimes more vigorously even than traditional crimes like rape or murder.


If it were up to me, I’d find it a violation of the due process clause to treat violation of regulatory statutes as a felony. Historically, only the most serious crimes — typically carrying the death penalty — were felonies.Nowadays, though, we designate all sorts of trivial crimes, such as possessing an eagle feather, as felonies. This has the effect of empowering police and prosecutors at the expense of citizens, since it’s easy to find a felony if you look hard enough, and few citizens have the courage of a veteran like Cort, who went to trial anyway. Most will plead to something.

Meanwhile, on the gun front, I think we need federal civil rights legislation to protect citizens who make innocent mistakes. Federal law already defines who is allowed to possess firearms. Under Congress’s civil rights powers (gun ownership and carrying, after all, are protected under the Second Amendment), I think we need federal legislation limiting the maximum penalty a state can assess for possessing or carrying a firearm on the part of someone allowed to own a gun under federal law to a $500 fine. That would let states regulate reasonably, without permitting this sort of injustice.

Licensing allows a seller of a gun to know that the buyer has been vetted and found to meet the standards set by the legislature. For example, that the applicant is not a felon, has no record of violence, drug or alcohol addiction, has never been detained as a danger to him or her self and other characteristics which most of us agree would make gun ownership or possession a danger to the community.

It would also allow for those who choose to sell or buy a weapon for another who is unlicensed to loose said license, have their guns taken away and fines be assessed and or liberty taken away (jail or prison). The dude in the San Bernadino shooting for example could be arraigned and found complicit in the massacre.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

LOL

You actually believe that................

No. But the facts as stated are true. As single victim of a gun shot - fatal or not - has an enormous cost to local government.

Costs a lot to imprison people to now doesn't it.............Is it cheaper to get patched up with a gun shot or a knife wound............

I'd prefer we not have to patch up a five or six year old child.

keeping criminals locked up is cheaper to society than letting them run around loose.......

We do, and it is very expensive and does little to prevent crime.

 

[Centinel]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Which of Congress' enumerated powers would allow it to enact gun control legislation?

 

[Geaux4it]

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

Because once a license is needed the rich can price them to the point that only the rich and the criminals will have them. The criminals will of course enjoy the free range chickens they get to prey on and the rich, well, it is the rich pushing gun control isn't it.

How else can they truly enslave you. So long as you are armed they can't truly oppress you. Once they can get the guns away from the masses though, well then all bets are off aren't they.

I would think that those who claim to be against the one percenters could figure out that it is the one percenters who are working like hell to disarm them.

I think this post ^^^ is the work of a paranoid. But I digress. Consider my posts, wherein I've suggested licensing be done by the States, or those states which require them, and that the license be easy to get with a comprehensive background investigation.

Of course a license could be suspended or revoked for good cause, cause defined by a state legislature, and heard by an administrative law judge whose finding could result with an acqauital, a suspension for a period of time, or a lifetime revocation.

Fines, and other punishments, would become part of the Penal Code as enacted by the state legislature and the governor.

Again....what does licensing actually do....other than generate revenue for the state and create a crime where you can punish people who don't use guns to actually commit crimes.....?

Glenn Reynolds: How gun laws put the innocent on trial

Cottrol noted that crimes like carrying or owning a pistol without a license are what the law has traditionally termed malum prohibitum — that is, things that are wrong only because they are prohibited. (The contrast is with the other traditional category, malum in se, those things, like rape, robbery, and murder, that are wrong in themselves.)

Traditionally, penalties for malum prohibitum acts were generally light, since the conduct that the laws governed wasn’t wrong in itself. But modern American law often treats even obscure and technical violations of gun laws as felonies and —Cottrol noted — prosecutors often go out of their way to prosecute these crimes more vigorously even than traditional crimes like rape or murder.


If it were up to me, I’d find it a violation of the due process clause to treat violation of regulatory statutes as a felony. Historically, only the most serious crimes — typically carrying the death penalty — were felonies.Nowadays, though, we designate all sorts of trivial crimes, such as possessing an eagle feather, as felonies. This has the effect of empowering police and prosecutors at the expense of citizens, since it’s easy to find a felony if you look hard enough, and few citizens have the courage of a veteran like Cort, who went to trial anyway. Most will plead to something.

Meanwhile, on the gun front, I think we need federal civil rights legislation to protect citizens who make innocent mistakes. Federal law already defines who is allowed to possess firearms. Under Congress’s civil rights powers (gun ownership and carrying, after all, are protected under the Second Amendment), I think we need federal legislation limiting the maximum penalty a state can assess for possessing or carrying a firearm on the part of someone allowed to own a gun under federal law to a $500 fine. That would let states regulate reasonably, without permitting this sort of injustice.

Licensing allows a seller of a gun to know that the buyer has been vetted and found to meet the standards set by the legislature. For example, that the applicant is not a felon, has no record of violence, drug or alcohol addiction, has never been detained as a danger to him or her self and other characteristics which most of us agree would make gun ownership or possession a danger to the community.

It would also allow for those who choose to sell or buy a weapon for another who is unlicensed to loose said license, have their guns taken away and fines be assessed and or liberty taken away (jail or prison). The dude in the San Bernadino shooting for example could be arraigned and found complicit in the massacre.

California already has these ideas, and law discussion on the books. And they did not stop the crime. The dude is being prosecuted for committing a straw purchase.

-Geaux

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why I'm for the Brady Bill
"Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.
It was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk.
I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.
Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.
Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a bullet in his neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve damage to his left arm forced his retirement in November 1981.
Tim McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to duty.
Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance.
This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981.
Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.
The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser's sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill -- on a nationwide scale -- can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.
And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.
Critics claim that "waiting period" legislation in the states that have it doesn't work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don't. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.
Even with the current gaps among states, those that have waiting periods report some success. California, which has a 15-day waiting period that I supported and signed into law while Governor, stopped nearly 1,800 prohibited handgun sales in 1989. New Jersey has had a permit-to-purchase system for more than two decades. During that time, according to the state police, more than 10,000 convicted felons have been caught trying to buy handguns.
Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns.
This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.-Ronald Reagan
Why I'm for the Brady Bill

Wow!

 

[Wry Catcher]

LOL

You actually believe that................

No. But the facts as stated are true. As single victim of a gun shot - fatal or not - has an enormous cost to local government.

Costs a lot to imprison people to now doesn't it.............Is it cheaper to get patched up with a gun shot or a knife wound............

I'd prefer we not have to patch up a five or six year old child.

and in a country of over 74.2 million children...how many children are accidentally killed with guns?

69.

46,471: Drug Overdoses Killed More Americans Than Car Crashes or Guns

The war on drugs is a failure, and yet The Congress continues to fund it. One more example of a body of men and women whose job security is job #1

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

LOL

You actually believe that................

No. But the facts as stated are true. As single victim of a gun shot - fatal or not - has an enormous cost to local government.

Costs a lot to imprison people to now doesn't it.............Is it cheaper to get patched up with a gun shot or a knife wound............

I'd prefer we not have to patch up a five or six year old child.

As would we all. However not one of your schemes prevents that from happening.

The ideas I proffered are not "schemes"; they are reasonable responses to horrific incidents of mass murder and the proliferation of gun violence in America. There is nothing I've postulated that is especially devious or an intent by me to do something illegal or wrong.

I've written before many times that gun control is not a panacea for violence in America. And the possession of a gun is no guarantee that the gun owner is always protected by his or her possession of a gun. Note how many police officers / deputy sheriffs die on duty when fully armed. Note too how many were shot when President Reagan was shot, and he was protected by several highly trained men with a lot of fire power.

 

[PredFan]

Why I'm for the Brady Bill
"Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.
It was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk.
I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.
Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.
Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a bullet in his neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve damage to his left arm forced his retirement in November 1981.
Tim McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to duty.
Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance.
This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981.
Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.
The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser's sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill -- on a nationwide scale -- can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.
And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.
Critics claim that "waiting period" legislation in the states that have it doesn't work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don't. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.
Even with the current gaps among states, those that have waiting periods report some success. California, which has a 15-day waiting period that I supported and signed into law while Governor, stopped nearly 1,800 prohibited handgun sales in 1989. New Jersey has had a permit-to-purchase system for more than two decades. During that time, according to the state police, more than 10,000 convicted felons have been caught trying to buy handguns.
Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns.
This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.-Ronald Reagan
Why I'm for the Brady Bill

And no gun control measure has ever stopped the killings.

 

[Geaux4it]

LOL

You actually believe that................

No. But the facts as stated are true. As single victim of a gun shot - fatal or not - has an enormous cost to local government.

Costs a lot to imprison people to now doesn't it.............Is it cheaper to get patched up with a gun shot or a knife wound............

I'd prefer we not have to patch up a five or six year old child.

As would we all. However not one of your schemes prevents that from happening.

The ideas I proffered are not "schemes"; they are reasonable responses to horrific incidents of mass murder and the proliferation of gun violence in America. There is nothing I've postulated that is especially devious or an intent by me to do something illegal or wrong.

I've written before many times that gun control is not a panacea for violence in America. And the possession of a gun is no guarantee that the gun owner is always protected by his or her possession of a gun. Note how many police officers / deputy sheriffs die on duty when fully armed. Note too how many were shot when President Reagan was shot, and he was protected by several highly trained men with a lot of fire power.

Again, California has these laws on the books already, and.......... it was irrelevant.

1- Gun a month
2- 10 day wait
3- Gun is registered
4- Have to pass a written test to obtain a gun card from the state authorizing one to purchase a weapon
5- 10 Round max magazine capacity
6- Device on AR-15, M4 etc that requires a 'tool' to release the magazine
7- Domestic violence results in confiscation
8- Most counties require a 'Just Cause' and a 'Moral Character' review as qualifiers for issue of CCW

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

LOL

You actually believe that................

No. But the facts as stated are true. As single victim of a gun shot - fatal or not - has an enormous cost to local government.

Costs a lot to imprison people to now doesn't it.............Is it cheaper to get patched up with a gun shot or a knife wound............

I'd prefer we not have to patch up a five or six year old child.

As would we all. However not one of your schemes prevents that from happening.

The ideas I proffered are not "schemes"; they are reasonable responses to horrific incidents of mass murder and the proliferation of gun violence in America. There is nothing I've postulated that is especially devious or an intent by me to do something illegal or wrong.

I've written before many times that gun control is not a panacea for violence in America. And the possession of a gun is no guarantee that the gun owner is always protected by his or her possession of a gun. Note how many police officers / deputy sheriffs die on duty when fully armed. Note too how many were shot when President Reagan was shot, and he was protected by several highly trained men with a lot of fire power.

Most LEO are not as trained as the average gun owner. Meaning, we train on our weapons far more. That is why the cops employ, 'Spray and Pray' when discharging their weapons

-Geaux

 

[PredFan]

A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.

Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?

Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.

We on the side of gun rights have been talking about a solution for years. No one on the left wants to hear it.

The problem is not the tool used, but the motivation. As we just saw, any crazy idiot can kill, a woman in Las Vegas just used her car to kill. If we really want to stop the violence, we need to find out why it's happening, and stop trying to blame the tool.

 

[PredFan]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Ok, you put this in the CDZ and you got defeated. Now you can stop making the same erroneous claims about guns and gun control.

 

[Geaux4it]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Ok, you put this in the CDZ and you got defeated. Now you can stop making the same erroneous claims about guns and gun control.

Indeed. All these common sense as they call them proposals, are already on the books in California and it stopped nothing. I would like to see what would happen if we eliminated gun free zones. Lets do it and find out.

One show me is better than 1000 tell me's

-Geaux

 

[Wry Catcher]

No. But the facts as stated are true. As single victim of a gun shot - fatal or not - has an enormous cost to local government.

Costs a lot to imprison people to now doesn't it.............Is it cheaper to get patched up with a gun shot or a knife wound............

I'd prefer we not have to patch up a five or six year old child.

As would we all. However not one of your schemes prevents that from happening.

The ideas I proffered are not "schemes"; they are reasonable responses to horrific incidents of mass murder and the proliferation of gun violence in America. There is nothing I've postulated that is especially devious or an intent by me to do something illegal or wrong.

I've written before many times that gun control is not a panacea for violence in America. And the possession of a gun is no guarantee that the gun owner is always protected by his or her possession of a gun. Note how many police officers / deputy sheriffs die on duty when fully armed. Note too how many were shot when President Reagan was shot, and he was protected by several highly trained men with a lot of fire power.

Again, California has these laws on the books already, and.......... it was irrelevant.

1- Gun a month
2- 10 day wait
3- Gun is registered
4- Have to pass a written test to obtain a gun card from the state authorizing one to purchase a weapon
5- 10 Round max magazine capacity
6- Device on AR-15, M4 etc that requires a 'tool' to release the magazine
7- Domestic violence results in confiscation
8- Most counties require a 'Just Cause' and a 'Moral Character' review as qualifiers

-Geaux

And don't forget, Use a gun, go to prison legislation, and the enhancement when a gun is present in any crime, adding years to a sentence.

What is "gun a month", and how do you know such laws have not saved lives?

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

 

[Geaux4it]

Costs a lot to imprison people to now doesn't it.............Is it cheaper to get patched up with a gun shot or a knife wound............

I'd prefer we not have to patch up a five or six year old child.

As would we all. However not one of your schemes prevents that from happening.

The ideas I proffered are not "schemes"; they are reasonable responses to horrific incidents of mass murder and the proliferation of gun violence in America. There is nothing I've postulated that is especially devious or an intent by me to do something illegal or wrong.

I've written before many times that gun control is not a panacea for violence in America. And the possession of a gun is no guarantee that the gun owner is always protected by his or her possession of a gun. Note how many police officers / deputy sheriffs die on duty when fully armed. Note too how many were shot when President Reagan was shot, and he was protected by several highly trained men with a lot of fire power.

Again, California has these laws on the books already, and.......... it was irrelevant.

1- Gun a month
2- 10 day wait
3- Gun is registered
4- Have to pass a written test to obtain a gun card from the state authorizing one to purchase a weapon
5- 10 Round max magazine capacity
6- Device on AR-15, M4 etc that requires a 'tool' to release the magazine
7- Domestic violence results in confiscation
8- Most counties require a 'Just Cause' and a 'Moral Character' review as qualifiers

-Geaux

And don't forget, Use a gun, go to prison legislation, and the enhancement when a gun is present in any crime, adding years to a sentence.

What is "gun a month", and how do you know such laws have not saved lives?

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Meaning, your limited to purchasing one gun a month. We know as fact, that its a senseless law just like the 10-day cool off period.

-Geaux

 

[Wilbur Right]

Stop selling guns to that group of people who commit the most gun crimes; young men under 30.

This aint xxxxxxx rocket science.

After age 30, you can buy as many guns as your pocket will allow. Of any type.
Under 30, you can still shoot, hunt, go to gun ranges. etc.

Ther reason the NRA stops the CDC from studying this issue is that the CDC will show what age group and sex commits the most henious gun crimes;
young men under 30.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

First of all it's unreasonable to assume gun owners want to take on the government

SO start with reasonable premises

 

[PredFan]

Stop selling guns to that group of people who commit the most gun crimes; young men under 30.

This aint xxxxxxx rocket science.

After age 30, you can buy as many guns as your pocket will allow. Of any type.
Under 30, you can still shoot, hunt, go to gun ranges. etc.

Ther reason the NRA stops the CDC from studying this issue is that the CDC will show what age group and sex commits the most henious gun crimes;
young men under 30.

Again, it won't do a thing to stop gun violence.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

First of all it's unreasonable to assume gun owners want to take on the government

SO start with reasonable premises

I didn't make that up, the fear of the government is one of the most common arguments for the need for the 2nd A.