• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

With health care out of the way, time to define 'reasonable gun control' looms

SemperFiTexan

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
68
Location
, ,
imported post

The only 'rule' I would every agree to is to prohibit the ownership or carrying of weapons by anybody convicted of committing a violent crime. The rest of the citizens who have done the time for their crime should be allow to posses weapons.

I firmly believe that the citizens of America should be able to own any weapon that the police and military has in their arsenal ( to exclude WMD and NBC weapons). If we allow the police and the military to have weapons that outclass the citizens than it will allow the government to control the citizens.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

One_Shot wrote:
The only 'rule' I would every agree to is to prohibit the ownership or carrying of weapons by anybody convicted of committing a violent crime. The rest of the citizens who have done the time for their crime should be allow to posses weapons.
"Convicted" and "done" seem the same tense, is there a way in your rule to become un-convicted?

If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony' as has been done in the case of "criminal domestic violence" et cetera.
 

SemperFiTexan

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
68
Location
, ,
imported post

Good point! While I am not a lawyer, hence I tend to think in straight lines and straight talk, I do not have an answer for you. I just don't think it is right for people who have not committed a violent crime to be barred from a basi right to carry.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

One_Shot wrote:
Good point! While I am not a lawyer, hence I tend to think in straight lines and straight talk, I do not have an answer for you. I just don't think it is right for people who have not committed a violent crime to be barred from a basi right to carry.
What about violence? Do we even know what is violent - anymore?

Noun Singular
violence (uncountable)
  1. Extreme force. The violence of the storm, fortunately, was more awesome than destructive.
  2. Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering. We try to avoid violence in resolving conflicts.
  3. Widespread fighting. Violence between the government and the rebels continues.
  4. (figuratively) Injustice, wrong. The translation does violence to the original novel.
 

SemperFiTexan

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
68
Location
, ,
imported post

Like I said before, I am not a lawyer that wraps plain words so that nobody is sure what is meant when one speaks anymore. Nobody takes responsibility for their words, much less their actions in the world of today.

Anybody that needs a fine line definition of 'violence' is also the kind of person that contributes to the mess our country is in now.
 

SemperFiTexan

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
68
Location
, ,
imported post

Like I said before, I am not a lawyer that wraps plain words so that nobody is sure what is meant when one speaks anymore. Nobody takes responsibility for their words, much less their actions in the world of today.

Anybody that needs a fine line definition of 'violence' is also the kind of person that contributes to the mess our country is in now.
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

Nothing is going to happen on the gun control issue, ever. Stop worrying, right now everything is going our way.

Let's focus on educating people what is going to happen, how they can get access to firearms and making them on our side.
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Obama will go after guns before the end of his term.

Obama's list of things to do...

1. Health Care ....DONE
2. Pull Troops out of IRAQ & A-Stan
3. Assault Weapons Ban
4. Get voted out of office
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,072
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
imported post

Both Obama and Hillary have made it very clear that they support CIFTA. It has also been made clear by the democrats in the senate that they didn't dare ratify CIFTA because they would lose too many seats if they did.

After the health care vote, they have nothing left to lose, so I will be very surprised if they don't bring CIFTA up for a vote before the end of the year. I really expect it to be in December since by then they will know they have lost their stranglehold.
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,072
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
imported post

rpyne wrote:
Both Obama and Hillary have made it very clear that they support CIFTA. It has also been made clear by the democrats in the senate that they didn't dare ratify CIFTA because they would lose too many seats if they did.

After the health care vote, they have nothing left to lose, so I will be very surprised if they don't bring CIFTA up for a vote before the end of the year. I really expect it to be in December since by then they will know they have lost their stranglehold.
Well, my timing was off, in a statement today:

"Clinton promised to step up U.S. efforts to prevent guns from flowing southwards -- a major source of arms for traffickers ... "

http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArticle/CWOR/nworldNews_uUSTRE62M48S20100323?src=RSS-WOR
 

A_Berkowitz

New member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
9
Location
, ,
imported post

I think that reasonable gun control would be a good thing. Too many people are getting killed by guns because of the relaxed gun laws in our country. I'm from New York City, and around here the only people that have guns are the police.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

NEWSFLASH! All the criminals in New York City no longer have guns!

I shall turn in my gun and move to NYC. Since only the police have guns, it must now be the safest place in the world to live.

Moving on.
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

A_Berkowitz wrote:
I think that reasonable gun control would be a good thing. Too many people are getting killed by guns because of the relaxed gun laws in our country. I'm from New York City, and around here the only people that have guns are the police
If Your for Gun Control , then why are you on this board ? There is no such thing as REASONABLE gun control.
 

JamesIan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
113
Location
Ecorse, Michigan, USA
imported post

Glock34 wrote:
A_Berkowitz wrote:
I think that reasonable gun control would be a good thing. Too many people are getting killed by guns because of the relaxed gun laws in our country. I'm from New York City, and around here the only people that have guns are the police
If Your for Gun Control , then why are you on this board ? There is no such thing as REASONABLE gun control, Moron.
Someone is missing the irony.
 
Top