(Amendment II Democrats) Gun advocacy or thoughtcrime?

Sugarmann took exception to Hain's approach to gun-rights advocacy by claiming that "gun homicides, unintentional deaths and suicides were events that happened to other people who lacked the temperament, training or personal fortitude to own a gun" as far as Hain's mindset was concerned. He continued: "In essence, Hain, like many of her fellow pro-gun advocates, lacked an ability to think in the abstract: Her gun experience was positive and whatever negative effects others felt from firearms, the gun, and gun owners like herself, were never to blame."

Let's consider that for just a moment. If you do not blame the handgun for Hain's untimely death, Sugarmann seems to imply that you are incapable of abstract thought. I find such an attitude to be smug and, frankly, a little worrisome. Someone with criminal intent still had to obtain the handgun and point it at Hain with the desired outcome of inflicting death or serious bodily injury on her. But then again, that wouldn't be abstract thinking, also known in this context as "thinking like Josh."

More at the link:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=161038273&blogId=514623724

or stabbed herself with a butter knife.

People who chose to felate their gun before pulling the trigger made their choice. My concern with gun violence are the people that don't make that choice.

American's, when compared to Canadians or nearly any other civilized nation where there is no active war, are a particularly violent people. If there were no guns, some idiot would walk into a 7-ll, pull out brick bat, and beat people to death for a buck and a quarter. Sensible gun regulations have been used since those enacted by the founding fathers. The love affair with the gun is a modern psychosis. Sensible rules for public safety can be applied without outlawing the American toy of choice.

Goblins don't obey the laws anyway, so adding yet another layer of laws to guns will have no effect on goblins. It will only create problems for the law-abiding. Some of the law-abiding voters will then leave the Democrats, as they did in 1994.

The gun issue cost Ann Richards her governorship and gave Bush the platform he needed to run for President.

The gun issue cost Al Gore his home state of TN. Without that hanging around his neck, FL would not have mattered.

The gun issue cost Kerry in several key states, Ohio among them.

Haven't we had enough of Democrats shooting themselves in the foot over this?

The only sensible rules change that I have seen suggested would be to allow NICS checks for private sales. All the rest that I have seen are useless feel-good suggestions.

If Mr Gore had won his own state florida would have meant shit and the gun grabbers are partly to blame for that

Honest people don't rob banks. By your logic, since criminals still rob banks we should just abolish all laws against theft since crooks will violate them anyway. Laws don't stop people stealing and they won't stop criminal from violating gun laws.

Those that violate the laws, we hunt down, try, and throw in prison. There are always people who will break the laws, that doesn't me we should abolish all the laws. It doesn't mean that, like the founding fathers, we shouldn't establish sensible laws designed to protect the innocent.

Winning isn't everything. Sometimes we must do what is right, even if it will lead to a loss at the polls, or even our lives. Protecting the innocent is more important. Sensible gun laws protect the innocent from predators. It doesn't stop predators, you can't do that. But we can make sure that when they violate other peoples rights they are punished.

Rather, they provide a standardized punishment system for those who violate the social contract. Gun Control laws are inherently flawed because they attempt to prohibit illegal activity rather than punishing it. We already have the laws needed to punish the misuse of firearms. Possession by a felon is illegal. Concealed Carry without a license is illegal in most states. Murder is illegal, mugging is illegal, rape is illegal.

We need to enforce or strengthen existing laws. How about a mandatory 10yr sentence for the commission of a crime with a firearm? Don't let the prosecutor bargain it down and require it to be served concurrently with no parole. That might make an effect in crime rates.

The law prohibits such activity. That doesn't stop you. So I must assume that traffic laws are inherently flawed because they attempt to prohibit an illegal activity rather than punishing it.

Except that laws do both. Laws against theft prohibit the activity and set up punishment. Laws against carrying a weapon into a school or a police station prohibit that activity and set up a punishment for those who violate the law. Laws against selling flame throwers (except as far as I know in the state of Georgia) prohibit that activity and set up a punishment for selling a flame thrower.

Some laws do go to far, and are typically struck down. That doesn't mean we should not write sensible laws to protect the public from criminals.

I strongly suspect that you will have more prohibitions and restrictions and will yield nothing in the way of relaxing some restrictions.

What relaxations of current laws would you allow? Would you let us buy silencers just the way we buy telescopic sights now?

(1) Nobody needs to own an automatic weapon, a sniper rifle, a tank, or most military grade weapons. I've carried an M-16 and fired an AK-47. There is no reason a civilian would need a comparable weapon.

(2) Taking a weapon into an airport, school, national park, police station, or public building (excepting only a school that teaches firearm safety) should be a felony and punishable by the permanent loss of the right to own a firearm. (With great power comes great responsibility. The power of life and death is the greatest power)

(3) Any crime committed with a gun should be punishable with permanent loss of the right to own a firearm as well as the punishment for the crime. This includes misdemeanors, such as discharging a firearm in the city limits. (You will find that law in most cities.) If your right is revoked and you are caught, you go to prison for the rest of your natural life, no parole allowed.

(4) All guns should be registered. Until the gun is registered, the new owner doesn't get the gun. The US government should maintain records, including ballistic data. Selling a gun without changing the registration would be punishable by the permanent loss of the right to own a firearm. Anyone that fails to register a weapon should be punished by the permanent loss of the right to own a firearm.

(5) If a weapon is stolen and used to commit a crime, the owner will be responsible for any damages by the weapon. You want to own a firearm, you are responsible for its use.

(6) All ammunition would be required to have an ability to trace it to the person that bought the ammunition. This is already done. If you want load your own ammunition, they still require the use of material that can be traced. All ammunition would have to be registered and traced by the US Government. Those records would be available to all police organizations.

That is a beginning.

(1) Nobody needs to own an automatic weapon, a sniper rifle, a tank, or most military grade weapons. I've carried an M-16 and fired an AK-47. There is no reason a civilian would need a comparable weapon.
Full auto has been extremely tightly regulated since 1934. Since then there have been exactly two crimes with legal full auto. All crimes with full auto involve already illegal weapons. So you want to make them doubleplusillegal?

A tank, without the weapons is just a vehicle. The weapons are already extremely tightly regulated. What is you problem with certain types of vehicles? I have never seen anybody driving a tank on the road. I have seen one at an exhibition. (No weapons, turret had been removed.)

Sniper rifle. All center-fire, bolt-action, hunting rifles would fit into that category. So would many single-shot rifles. So you have just outlawed hunting with rifles. And you call that sensible?

Semi-auto versions of M-16 and AK-47 are fairly low power weapons. What make you think they are so dangerous? In fact, the .223 is too low powered to be legal for deer hunting in most states.

(2) Taking a weapon into an airport, school, national park, police station, or public building (excepting only a school that teaches firearm safety) should be a felony and punishable by the permanent loss of the right to own a firearm. (With great power comes great responsibility. The power of life and death is the greatest power)
If I have a CCW I have shown myself to be trustworthy. Do you think that upon entering a park, or other place, that a strange spell, cast by the gun, will overcome me? There have already been several cases of mass shooting that had started and were stopped by a citizen with a gun. The police almost always get there way too late. Do you think that national parks are crime free? "Gun free" zones are nothing more than "easy victims" signs to criminals. Why should it be illegal for me to be able to protect myself in those areas?

(3) Any crime committed with a gun should be punishable with permanent loss of the right to own a firearm as well as the punishment for the crime. This includes misdemeanors, such as discharging a firearm in the city limits. (You will find that law in most cities.) If your right is revoked and you are caught, you go to prison for the rest of your natural life, no parole allowed. No provision for self-defense shooting?

(4) All guns should be registered. Until the gun is registered, the new owner doesn't get the gun. The US government should maintain records, including ballistic data. Selling a gun without changing the registration would be punishable by the permanent loss of the right to own a firearm. Anyone that fails to register a weapon should be punished by the permanent loss of the right to own a firearm.
Registries, in CA, have already been used to generate confiscation lists. I don't trust the government to keep its word. Ballistic data on any individual gun changes as the gun is used. The reason that it is useful for forensics is that a criminal weapon normally doesn't have very many, if any, rounds fired through it after the criminal usage. The ballistic fingerprint of a barrel are very easy to change. All it takes is a steel bore brush and a few minutes.

(5) If a weapon is stolen and used to commit a crime, the owner will be responsible for any damages by the weapon. You want to own a firearm, you are responsible for its use.
If any of your property is stolen and used to commit a crime, you are responsible for it. If your car is stolen and involved in a high speed police chase with multiple accidents with fatalities, you are responsible for each one. If your computer is stolen and used to print forged checks, you are responsible for those forged checks. If your hammer is stolen and someone uses your hammer for a weapon and kills another, you are responsible for that crime being committed with the hammer.

(6) All ammunition would be required to have an ability to trace it to the person that bought the ammunition. This is already done. If you want load your own ammunition, they still require the use of material that can be traced. All ammunition would have to be registered and traced by the US Government. Those records would be available to all police organizations.
No, it isn't already done. To serial number each and every bullet would be hideously expensive, which would result in a back-door ban on guns. Further, bullets can be homemade directly from lead. Bullet molds are easy to make too. They aren't cutting edge technology, but have been around for hundreds of years. So all a criminal has to do is pull out the serial numbered bullets and replace them with home cast bullets. Easy to do.

Your beginning would ban all hunting rifles, reduce the ability of the most trustworthy of citizens to defend themselves, and would make ammunition so expensive that few could afford it, and require some citizens to be responsible for the further actions of persons who have victimized them. And you call that sensible, and a beginning? I shudder to think of what you would want next.

Fortunately, you don't have the votes to even dream of getting your wish list.

My wish list would be for a national CCW that would allow carry anywhere, with no restrictions of any kind for those who could pass the testing for it. The test would be at about the same level as current Texas CHL.

that public safety must be subservient to your right to own a means to kill.

YOu are appear to be offended at the idea of personal responibility.

...to your right to own a means to kill", why did he say (emphasis mine)

I didn't see him advocating the abolition of laws regarding the criminal use of firearms, which puts paid to your

Your laws would have the effect of a total ban. I do indeed believe there should be limits, and I listed some. Obviously you skipped over them.

You carried an M16. You know what shooting an AK feels like. And yet you feel that the hoi polloi is so beneath you that they cannot be trusted with anything related to the Kalashnikov and Stoner families of rifles?

I'm not talking about punk kids with delusions of grandeur. I'm talking about sober, rational American citizens. Citizens that you apparently do not think are covered by the Second Amendment.

responsible for the actions of another. LOL

What exactly is a 'sniper rifle'? Especially as a 'sniper rifle' compared to hunting rifles with scopes? (You do realize that the same Remington M700 that hunters use is the platform that the Marines use as a sniper rifle, right? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M40_%28rifle%29 )

(1) re automatic weapons, tanks (the tank gun, actually).. those have been heavily regulated since 1934, and prices start at $7,500. Heard of any crime committed with an actual automatic weapon? Two legally registered ones, two used in the Hollywood shootout, and a few that come up from Mexico via Central America (not going to be fixed by more regulation, they're _already_ in the black market.)

(2) Spiderman credo aside, what 'power' would that entail in your world? Carrying a firearm in one's home? See there's this whole part of the second amendment about 'bear' (and it's part of the operative clause, not the adjunct.)

(3) That's already the law. I'm surprised you didn't already know that.

(4) Registration? Forget it. It's led to confiscation in both NY & CA. "Ballistic fingerprint"? You watch too much CSI (or Quincy, MD, or Crossing Jordan, or..) I can change my "ballistic fingerprint" by firing five boxes of ammo through my gun, or simply changing the barrel, firing pin, and / or extractor.

(5) Are you going to apply the same standard to anything that can be used to kill? Cars? Steak knives? Bottle of muriatic acid you keep by your pool to clean the tiles? Can of MEK that I use to strip paint?

(6) This is not currently done, and is impossible. From 1968 to 1987, dealers were required to keep logs of ammunition sales. Want to know why it was scrapped? It proved to be burdensone and absolutely useless.

"That is a beginning." -- no, that is the end- of whatever politician tries to push those asinine, 'I want a pony', bullshit laws.

1. Vague, far too vague. Full-autos have been controlled since the 30s. And you know basically any rifle with a scope could be called a sniper rifle? You would end hunting. Just too vague.

2. Utter bullshit. I'm a CCW holder. I've carried into parks, public places and been just fine. I managed not to kill anyone. Your Spidey quote is redundant. CCW holders are already have responsibility. Thousands carry everyday with no problem. You'd allow be gutting the Second Amendment. So my right to bear arms is limited to my home or private property?

3. "Any crime committed with a gun should be punishable with permanent loss of the right to own a firearm as well as the punishment for the crime." Doesn't this already happen most of the time? But misdemeanors? "If your right is revoked and you are caught, you go to prison for the rest of your natural life, no parole allowed." Careful, your authoritarianism is showing.

4. No thank you. I'm already on the CCW list. That's enough. If I'm an adult and have no criminal record/mental health problems, the government has no right to know what firearms I own. Just like they no right to know what books I read or what god I might worship. Ballistic data? You watch too much CSI.

5. If someone steals your car and runs someone over, are you responsible? If someone steals your laptop and uses it to download kiddie porn and commit an identity crime, are you responsible? If someone steals a can of gas from your garage and burns down another house, are you responsible?

6. Never happen. They government can barely share the data it already has. What's to stop people from driving to Canada and Mexico and buying ammo? You just created another black market.

If Obama even suggest something like your list, we'd have Republican presidents for the next 20 years.

Don't hold your rights so loosely. Don't be so eager to give them away.

You quoted Stan Lee? I'll raise you. "Those who would give up freedom for security, deserve neither."

That the legal framework for dealing with the misuse of firearms is already in place. The problem is that the Brady Campaign and the Joyce Foundation are getting rich off of liberal fear money, and will continue to spout crap about evil black rifles, kevlar bullets and the "gun show loophole". (Private Citizens do not have access to NICS for privacy reasons, and it is still illegal for them to sell to a felon or prohibited person) They refuse to confront the roots of crime, which are poverty, ignorance, desperation and strife. The Democratic Party has been bewitched away from a mission of helping the inner cities recover to this strange crusade against guns led by the former republicans Sarah Brady and Paul Helmke.

:toast:

The laws against robbing banks aren't working, so why not add another layer of laws on top of them? That's what you want to do with guns, add more laws on top of what we already have.

Those who advocate gun ownership, not necessarily you, fight the very idea of registration. I need a license for my dog. I need a license to drive. I need a specific license to drive professionally.
I need to get insurance. I need to register my car.

For all of the Bush administration, and even now, ATF agents are not allowed to go into gun shows.

There are no comparable laws for ownership of a gun.

The laws we have are enforeced. We hunt down, capture, and punish bank robbers. Police spend most of their time giving out traffic tickets. None of those things stop people from breaking the law. The whole argument that gun laws mean that only criminals own guns is illogical and wrong.

You do not need to register or have any kind of license to buy a car. You can buy one and put it in your garage, or you can drive it on private property. In fact, many ranches have work trucks that are not registered.

You need all of that stuff if you want to be able to drive on the public roads.

A person can buy a gun at keep it on their private property, or private property of another with permission. But to carry the gun in public requires special licensing and testing, just like a car does.

ATF agents certainly can go into gun shows. There just aren't that many of them. Due to their actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco the agency got a bad black eye that they still haven't recovered from. And there isn't much for them to find in gun shows. Have you ever been to one? I doubt it. Anyway, the organizers of gun shows do an excellent job of making certain that the shows are run according to the law. The flaws in Bloomberg's undercover videos have already been pointed out in another thread.

You don't appear to really know that much about guns and gun laws. It looks like you are getting a bunch of talking points from an extremist gun-control site.

provided they are never allowed to get ammunition or the weapon is permanently and irrevocably disabled. You want to own a gun, it should be registered, and police should have that information available instantly.

A law abiding citizen would never consider using the gun in an illegal way. So it would be no problem.

"If you don't have anything to hide, it should be no problem.."

along with it.

I don't understand why you wish to remove guns that badly from currently legal owners.

For public safety, all ammunition should be tractable to the owner. This is well within current technology, and is already done in many cases.

Like your car, your gun should be registered. That doesn't take you gun away from you.

And if you should violate the law with your gun, even so much as discharging your weapon in the city limits, then you forfeit your right to own a gun. That is called personal responsibility.

Nothing there violates the 4th amendment, unless you would construe registering your car and getting a drivers license as a violation of the 4th amendment (or for that matter, requiring you to have a social security number.)

Nothing there requires self incrimination. If you buy a weapon and ammunition with the purpose of murdering somebody, or just do so out of rage, it merely makes you easier to find. But I am sure that you are a law abiding gun owner who would not use your weapons unless necessary.

And as for the ninth, this in no way removes rights that are not enumerated and held by a law abiding citizen.

Freedom of speech is absolute, well except for calling out fire in a crowded theater, or revealing classified information, or perjury, or slander. Speech can and is limited in certain ways for the public good. I see the right to own a weapon in the same way. For the public good, it can be limited in certain ways. Our constitution works that way in balancing the rights of individuals.

Encroaching upon Constitutional rights should only come for good reason. The violent and gun crime rates are
going down, even with greater gun ownership. That's the Department of Justice's view, not mine.

So why do you deem these new laws necessary? Did not your avatar, Benjamin Franklin, warn us:

(source: Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759)


You also conflate 'prior restaint' with 'personal responsibilty'. Again, a high standard obtains for those
who would restrain preemptively.

Repeating your points does not help you. We can scroll up to review them. Personal attacks do not help your case either. We are acustomed to those who would ban gun resorting to such attacks. It is routine. What you need to do is read each specific rebuttal and answer the rebuttals.

"I need a license to drive. I need a specific license to drive professionally.
I need to get insurance. I need to register my car."

You need to get a license to drive.. on public roads.

You need to get a license to carry a concealed gun.. in public (in all but two states.)

"For all of the Bush administration, and even now, ATF agents are not allowed to go into gun shows."

Bullshit- http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/final.pdf

"The laws we have are enforeced. " <sic>

No, they're not- they're usually the first charges to be plea bargained away.

Yes, most of us do oppose registration. In most localities in America, one does not need a license for a dog. And in 100% of localities in America, one does not need a drivers license unless one wishes to drive on PUBLIC roads. And the same goes for registering a vehicle. Again, one is not required to register a vehicle unless it is to be used on PUBLIC roads.



Id be very interested in knowing where you came upon that information, knowing the source. A quick search of google yields me this:



Someone has been feeding you false information, deliberately I'd wager. I smell brady bunch/helmke/sugarman here...




You're right. One does not get background checked when buying a new car like they do buying a new firearm. But then again, the concealed carry license allows public carry of firearms, similar to public use of a motor versus nonpublic.



Whos argument is that? Seen it around here?

Theft, assault/battery, robbery, murder, etc. are all actions that directly inflict harm upon an unwilling victim. That is why these actions are criminalized, in the hopes of some measure of deterrent effect. Possession of a firearm, or certain types of firearm, and carrying one in certain areas does not directly inflict harm upon an unwilling victim. Gun control measures do not directly protect anyone; their purpose, at least ostensibly, is to make it difficult to impossible for the people who are inclined to commit violent crimes to acquire a tool that makes committing those crimes easier, but they cannot, in and of themselves, make it difficult to impossible to commit violent crime.

If, as you yourself acknowledge, the existence of gun control laws doesn't stop violent criminals from acquiring firearms, then what is their purpose, except to disarm those who are not inclined to commit violent crime? How do they improve public safety? How do they improve the common interest?

Who in the world are you talking about?

This thread is about Melanie Hain, who was standing in her own kitchen unarmed and talking on her webcam when her estranged law-enforcement-officer husband shot her in the back with what may have been a department-issued pistol, and then killed himself.

Yes, Ms. Hain owned a gun (a third of U.S. gun owners are women). But her gun was not even in the room with her when she was murdered, and she was just as unarmed as if she had been a gun-control advocate who believed that only people in law enforcement (like her husband, ahem) should have access to guns.

"People who chose to felate their gun before pulling the trigger made their choice. My concern with gun violence are the people that don't make that choice.

American's, when compared to Canadians or nearly any other civilized nation where there is no active war, are a particularly violent people. If there were no guns, some idiot would walk into a 7-ll, pull out brick bat, and beat people to death for a buck and a quarter. Sensible gun regulations have been used since those enacted by the founding fathers. The love affair with the gun is a modern psychosis. Sensible rules for public safety can be applied without outlawing the American toy of choice."



Nice to see you're worried more about the lesser choice of tool used in homicides, please keep the emotional-knee-jerk buzz to a dull roar if you will.

"pro-gun advocate"

nope

pro gun RIGHTS advocate.

just like i am not an abortion advocate.

i am an advocate for the RIGHT to CHOOSE an abortion.

huge difference.