Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 112

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #1
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    Gun Control
    Posted by George Berkin February 13, 2009 5:30AM
    Categories: Hot Topics

    I do not own any guns. I do not like guns. I am afraid of guns, even in the right hands. I even think that some people take this Second Amendment stuff too far. Just to make myself real clear, I am not a "gun nut."
    But sometimes, I've got to agree with the "pro-gun" crowd.
    This comes to mind in the wake of last week's news that Gov. Jon Corzine has signed yet another gun-control law.
    In this latest piece of legislation, lawmakers stiffened the penalties for unlawful possession of prohibited assault rifles or machine guns. Violators could get up to 10 years behind bars.
    The new law was welcomed by the executive director of Ceasefire NJ, a gun control group (or see You Tube here), who said such weapons have no legitimate purpose.
    "They're meant to kill as many people as possible," said Bryan Miller "They endanger all of us in the state of New Jersey."
    In one sense, there's a lot of reason to what he said. Hunting? It hardly seems fair to cut down Bambi or another white-tailed wonder with a bazooka.
    But still, I'm somewhat troubled by this, yet another law controlling weapons, for several reasons.
    First, the law assumes that it is the mere presence of weapons that causes crime. Toughen the laws against illegal gun possession, and that will reduce the number of weapons on the street, which will in turn reduce the incidence of crime. Or so the theory goes.
    The "story line," as it were, has the added advantage that it has clearly defined villains: machine guns and assault weapons.
    But the story line is too easy.
    Now, truth be told, a certain amount of gun control is warranted. There should be waiting periods, required training, and careful checks on who buys handguns. All these impress upon law-abiding citizens the responsibilities involved in owning firearms.
    But let's take the case of an assault weapon. The new law assumes that, say, 10 years in prison as opposed to less time will stop a determined gang member from getting his hands on the weapon, and then using it.
    Is that true? I don't know.
    But if it's not, then the law is just posturing. It sounds nice, but it really doesn't have any impact on what happens on the street.
    It makes us feel good, and makes legislators seem busy, but it seems a false security.
    It's a little like passing stricter ethics laws, another favorite pastime for New Jersey legislators.
    New ethics laws are feel good laws. So feel good, in fact, that most times when a new ethics law is passed, it gets laudatory coverage from most reporters.
    But does it do anything?
    It's not that public officials don't know that they should not take bribes. Or that they were about to take a bribe but - oops, almost forgot - there's a law against it.
    According to the Star-Ledger article announcing last week's beefed-up gun-control law, New Jersey has the second-toughest weapons control statues in the nation. Only California's laws are stricter. (However, I'm not sure who judges this, or how.)
    But clearly, there is a lot of crime in Newark, Camden and other New Jersey cities. I'm not convinced of a correlation between strict gun control laws and a reduction of urban crime.
    What bothers me is that that this gun control legislation, it seems, substitutes tougher laws for a recognition of what causes crime - fallen human beings, the wicked human heart.
    From a biblical perspective, evangelicals believe man's fallen state - more than circumstances - causes anti-social and criminal actions.
    And of course, you can't legislate people into better attitudes toward their fellow man.
    But I guess what I'm asking for a little humility on the part of legislators, a little recognition that it is human beings that are causing crime, not simply the absence of laws against high-powered of weapons.
    Maybe even something as simple as a statement to that effect.
    We've all heard the cliche, popular among the "pro-gun" crowd, that "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
    Sure, it's little overdramatic, and has the ring of a slogan. Perhaps, but there's a kernel of truth in it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA, ,
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    Thank God I don't live in NJ.

  3. #3
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    hellfogg wrote:
    Thank God I don't live in NJ.
    Amen to that.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manhattan, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    How dare he!

    He needs to have his writing permit revoked, his Democratic People's Republik of New Jersey party membership stripped, and must be declared an enemy of the peoples of New Jersey!





    In NJ, this must be about as far right fringe as you can get.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    While I obviously don't agree with most of the column, at least he is thinking about the fact that gun control doesn't work. For NJ that is a pretty enlightened thought process.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manhattan, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    While I obviously don't agree with most of the column, at least he is thinking about the fact that gun control doesn't work. For NJ that is a pretty enlightened thought process.
    I don't think he's saying gun control doesn't work, I think he's saying gun control is already there and more legislation is just a feel good measure.

    I get the impression he still thinks guns should be banned and that is the only law that needs to be on the books.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Walleye wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    While I obviously don't agree with most of the column, at least he is thinking about the fact that gun control doesn't work. For NJ that is a pretty enlightened thought process.
    I don't think he's saying gun control doesn't work, I think he's saying gun control is already there and more legislation is just a feel good measure.

    I get the impression he still thinks guns should be banned and that is the only law that needs to be on the books.
    I think perhaps I phrased that badly. What I was trying to get at is that at least he realizes that at some point gun control doesn't work to reduce or stop crime and is thinking about where the line gets drawn.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manhattan, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote
    I think perhaps I phrased that badly. What I was trying to get at is that at least he realizes that at some point gun control doesn't work to reduce or stop crime and is thinking about where the line gets drawn.
    Maybe we need to just admit he's from NJ and there's virtually no way of understanding his message or intent.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Walleye wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    While I obviously don't agree with most of the column, at least he is thinking about the fact that gun control doesn't work. For NJ that is a pretty enlightened thought process.
    I don't think he's saying gun control doesn't work, I think he's saying gun control is already there and more legislation is just a feel good measure.

    I get the impression he still thinks guns should be banned and that is the only law that needs to be on the books.


    He clearly states what is he is for:



    "Now, truth be told, a certain amount of gun control is warranted. There should be waiting periods, required training, and careful checks on who buys handguns. All these impress upon law-abiding citizens the responsibilities involved in owning firearms."



    Just so happens to be the same things I'm for and for the exact same reason. He then mentions law biding citizens owning firearms, so how you could come up with him as being for a total ban is baffling.



  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Walleye wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    While I obviously don't agree with most of the column, at least he is thinking about the fact that gun control doesn't work. For NJ that is a pretty enlightened thought process.
    I don't think he's saying gun control doesn't work, I think he's saying gun control is already there and more legislation is just a feel good measure.

    I get the impression he still thinks guns should be banned and that is the only law that needs to be on the books.


    He clearly states what is he is for:



    "Now, truth be told, a certain amount of gun control is warranted. There should be waiting periods, required training, and careful checks on who buys handguns. All these impress upon law-abiding citizens the responsibilities involved in owning firearms."



    Just so happens to be the same things I'm for and for the exact same reason. He then mentions law biding citizens owning firearms, so how you could come up with him as being for a total ban is baffling.
    The only problem is that these measures do nothing to stop or even slow crime as criminals don't obey them. Once again, the only people who are affected by gun control are the people who you don't really worry about.

    Waiting periods:

    These come in real handy if you need to protect yourself from a stalker or some other threat today.

    Required training:

    Who sets the requirements?

    Would you also be in favor of training requirements for your other rights? Who would decide the training required to speak freely, choose your religious beliefs, or when, where, or with whom you can assemble? How much training should be required to earn the right to be free from illegal search and seizure?

    Careful checks on who buys handguns:

    Most BGs don't bother with background checks.

    This is also open to abuse by people who set the bar so high that no one can be allowed to buy guns.

    "All these impress upon law-abiding citizens the responsibilities involved in owning firearms."
    No, they serve as hurdles to law abiding citizens, and do nothing to stop criminals.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    It sounds to me like the author is starting to apply logical thought process to the issue of gun control. I think if he continues to ponder on it, using logical thought and dumping emotional reaction, he'll realize that there is no form of gun control that works to curb crime.

    Except, of course, the sort of control that produces tight round placement patterns on a target.

  12. #12
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    It sounds to me like the author is starting to apply logical thought process to the issue of gun control. I think if he continues to ponder on it, using logical thought and dumping emotional reaction, he'll realize that there is no form of gun control that works to curb crime.

    Except, of course, the sort of control that produces tight round placement patterns on a target.
    +1. It's baby steps in the right (or is it "Rights") direction. The poor man is a product of his dysfunctional liberal environment. The fact that he is even QUESTIONING the liberal altar of gun control is a step in the positive. Further independent thinking on his part might turn him in to a moderate. Heck, with encouragement, he may even become an American.



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Weatherford, TX
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    AZkopper wrote:
    Heck, with encouragement, he may even become an American.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!:celebrate

    Great comment!


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Walleye wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    While I obviously don't agree with most of the column, at least he is thinking about the fact that gun control doesn't work. For NJ that is a pretty enlightened thought process.
    I don't think he's saying gun control doesn't work, I think he's saying gun control is already there and more legislation is just a feel good measure.

    I get the impression he still thinks guns should be banned and that is the only law that needs to be on the books.


    He clearly states what is he is for:



    "Now, truth be told, a certain amount of gun control is warranted. There should be waiting periods, required training, and careful checks on who buys handguns. All these impress upon law-abiding citizens the responsibilities involved in owning firearms."



    Just so happens to be the same things I'm for and for the exact same reason. He then mentions law biding citizens owning firearms, so how you could come up with him as being for a total ban is baffling.

    now let me state why I am against federal regulations such as the ones mentioned

    Ammendment 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.


    Ammendment IX-The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the peopl

    Ammendment X-The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    now If you'll kindly point me to the article of the constitution which allows for the infringements of individual rights ( besides the 14th ammendment) I'll retract the statements made inthis post.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Gordie wrote:
    No, they serve as hurdles to law abiding citizens, and do nothing to stop criminals.
    Prove it.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    unreconstructed1 wrote:
    now If you'll kindly point me to the article of the constitution which allows for the infringements of individual rights ( besides the 14th ammendment) I'll retract the statements made inthis post.


    You haven't been around for awhile, andbelieve itor not I like you,so I'll give you the heads up,we've been down this road already.

    There is no way, other thanjust spouting opinion, for you to prove that the second amendment is unlimited or to define what constitutes "infringement." Go read Heller. No right is unlimited and placing limitations does not necessarily constitute infringement on what is a very vague and general "right."

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Gordie wrote:
    No, they serve as hurdles to law abiding citizens, and do nothing to stop criminals.
    Prove it.
    You just can't get over stuff, can you. :quirky


    Gordie wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Walleye wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    While I obviously don't agree with most of the column, at least he is thinking about the fact that gun control doesn't work. For NJ that is a pretty enlightened thought process.
    I don't think he's saying gun control doesn't work, I think he's saying gun control is already there and more legislation is just a feel good measure.

    I get the impression he still thinks guns should be banned and that is the only law that needs to be on the books.
    He clearly states what is he is for:

    "Now, truth be told, a certain amount of gun control is warranted. There should be waiting periods, required training, and careful checks on who buys handguns. All these impress upon law-abiding citizens the responsibilities involved in owning firearms."

    Just so happens to be the same things I'm for and for the exact same reason. He then mentions law biding citizens owning firearms, so how you could come up with him as being for a total ban is baffling.
    The only problem is that these measures do nothing to stop or even slow crime as criminals don't obey them. Once again, the only people who are affected by gun control are the people who you don't really worry about.

    "All these impress upon law-abiding citizens the responsibilities involved in owning firearms."
    No, they serve as hurdles to law abiding citizens, and do nothing to stop criminals.
    And, he already provided proof. Such measures do NOT stop criminals, and where does the writer of the original article prove HIS point that "these impress upon law-abiding citizens the responsibilities involved in owning firearms?" The article author is projecting a thought process upon those who choose to jump through the legal hoops. The criminal chooses to NOT jump through those hoops, and is not encumbered.


    Now, do you want to discuss the topic, or do you want to turn this into yet another 30-page monstrosity that no one will wish to read?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Gordie wrote:
    No, they serve as hurdles to law abiding citizens, and do nothing to stop criminals.
    Prove it.
    You just can't get over stuff, can you. :quirky


    No, I just love how easy it is. Why argue fairly when you can make them do all the work. Thanks for the new E-arguing technique.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Gordie wrote:
    No, they serve as hurdles to law abiding citizens, and do nothing to stop criminals.
    Prove it.
    You just can't get over stuff, can you. :quirky
    No, I just love how easy it is. Why argue fairly when you can make them do all the work. Thanks for the new E-arguing technique.
    In this case, you are simply being obtuse because you can, as opposed to honestly discussing the topic. You should "get over it."
    Oh, and it isn't a "new E-arguing technique," it is a simple matter of separating opinion from fact.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  20. #20
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    All those in favor of waiting periods, should only be allowed to spew their opinion once every 30 days.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    All those in favor of waiting periods, should only be allowed to spew their opinion once every 30 days.
    Quality!
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    In this case, you are simply being obtuse because you can,
    Not even close. I'm separating fact (no on really knows, let alone has proven) from opinion (what everyone thinks they know).

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    In this case, you are simply being obtuse because you can,
    Not even close. I'm separating fact (no on really knows, let alone has proven) from opinion (what everyone thinks they know).
    That just doesn't make sense. What did you intend to say?

    "Fact" is by definition something the people know, and that has been proven.

    "Opinion" is just what one person thinks.
    What differentiation did you intend to state?


    If the definitions give you trouble, I provide for your education the following:

    Fact
    –noun
    1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
    2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
    3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
    4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
    5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.
    Opinion
    –noun
    1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Now that we have definitions out of the way, on to the topic at hand.

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Walleye wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    While I obviously don't agree with most of the column, at least he is thinking about the fact that gun control doesn't work. For NJ that is a pretty enlightened thought process.
    I don't think he's saying gun control doesn't work, I think he's saying gun control is already there and more legislation is just a feel good measure.

    I get the impression he still thinks guns should be banned and that is the only law that needs to be on the books.
    He clearly states what is he is for:
    "Now, truth be told, a certain amount of gun control is warranted. There should be waiting periods, required training, and careful checks on who buys handguns. All these impress upon law-abiding citizens the responsibilities involved in owning firearms."



    Just so happens to be the same things I'm for and for the exact same reason. He then mentions law biding citizens owning firearms, so how you could come up with him as being for a total ban is baffling.

    I see no supporting data, and I conclude that the enlarged bold statement is the opinion of the author. In my opinion, it is not the case. Such regulations merely cause delay and difficulty for a law-abiding person. A criminal will circumvent such regulations, and get a firearm in spite of them.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    That just doesn't make sense. What did you intend to say?

    Honestly man, just GTFO with your neverending lack of reading comprehension. Learn to understand the written word or except your plate of fail with a smile.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •