Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

Why have a high cap magazine?

[URL="http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/"]Here's why[/URL]:


[I]A woman hiding in her attic with children shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety Friday.

The incident happened at a home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville around 1 p.m. The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar.

But the man eventually found the family.

"The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he's staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver," Chapman told Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh.

The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.

"She's standing over him, and she realizes she's fired all six rounds. And the guy's telling her to quit shooting," Chapman said.[/I]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

So lead is to blame, but not in bullet form:

[URL="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline"]America's Real Criminal Element: Lead[/URL]

[I]Intriguingly, violent crime rates followed the same upside-down U pattern. The only thing different was the time period: Crime rates rose dramatically in the '60s through the '80s, and then began dropping steadily starting in the early '90s. The two curves looked eerily identical, but were offset by about 20 years.

So Nevin dove in further, digging up detailed data on lead emissions and crime rates to see if the similarity of the curves was as good as it seemed. It turned out to be even better: In a 2000 paper (PDF) he concluded that if you add a lag time of 23 years, lead emissions from automobiles explain 90 percent of the variation in violent crime in America. Toddlers who ingested high levels of lead in the '40s and '50s really were more likely to become violent criminals in the '60s, '70s, and '80s.

[/I]It's an interesting idea, I'd like to see more research. I was tempted to set this as a new thread.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

Here we go....welcome to totalitarian America.

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/politics/gun-control-battle/index.html?hpt=hp_t2]Biden: Obama exploring executive orders to combat gun violence - CNN.com[/url]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;987281]Here we go....welcome to totalitarian America.

[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/politics/gun-control-battle/index.html?hpt=hp_t2"]Biden: Obama exploring executive orders to combat gun violence - CNN.com[/URL][/quote]

I predict that by the end of The One's second term guns will be banned. All guns.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;987341]I predict that by the end of The One's second term guns will be banned. All guns.[/quote]

Well yea, maybe, if the wrong people lose the civil war.
:silly:

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

From the CNN article:

[I]"I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own, nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime."[/I]

I wonder if people are actually taking notice of how they're being led by the nose on this issue. Anyone remember how after Hurricane Katrina registered gun owners had their firearms confiscated?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

Ridiculous:


[url=http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gawker-publishes-complete-446-page-list-of-all-the-aholes-who-own-guns-in-new-york-city/]Gawker Publishes Complete 446-Page List of ‘All the A**holes Who Own Guns in New York City’ | TheBlaze.com[/url]



[URL="http://azstarnet.com/news/national/website-publishes-names-of-licensed-nyc-gun-owners/article_ff8b2c6c-18a3-565c-afce-ed4c5a23fc4d.html"]Website publishes names of licensed NYC gun owners[/URL]


[URL="http://gawker.com/5974190/here-is-a-list-of-all-the-assholes-who-own-guns-in-new-york-city?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow"]Here Is a List of All the Assholes Handsome Law-Abiding Citizens Who Own Guns Some People in New York City[/URL]

[url]http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1[/url]


[QUOTE]The website Gawker has [URL="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fury-after-paper-publishes-names-addresses-of-legal-pistol-owners-in-new-york/"]outdone New York’s “Journal News”[/URL] and [URL="http://gawker.com/5974190/here-is-a-list-of-all-the-assholes-who-own-guns-in-new-york-city?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow"]published the names of all licensed gun owners in New York City[/URL]. With the provocative headline, “Here Is a List of All the A**holes Who Own Guns in New York City,” John Cook provides a 446-page list of every licensed gun owner in NYC, obtained two-and-a-half years ago via a Freedom of Information Act request.
“Below is a 446-page list of every licensed gun owner in New York City…Because the NYPD is more interested in raping and/or eating ladies and spying on Muslims than it is in honoring public records law, the list contains only the names, and not the addresses, of the licensees,” Cook writes.
[B](Scroll down for updates to this story)[/B]
The Journal News sparked outrage when it published the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland Counties. The paper wanted to also publish the information of gun owners in Putnam County, N.Y., but so far [URL="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-county-clerk-not-backing-down-releasing-gun-owner-information-puts-my-public-in-danger/"]the county has refused[/URL], saying providing the information would put the public in danger.
As Cook correctly points out, [URL="http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article400.htm"]section 400.00 of the Penal Law of New York[/URL], entitled “Licenses to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms,” makes addresses of licensed gun owners public information. “The name and address of any person to whom an application for any license has been granted shall be a public record,” the law states.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] NEW YORK - Gawker, a Manhattan-based gossip site, has posted a searchable list of licensed gun owners in New York City, following a move last month by a newspaper in nearby Westchester County to publish a map of pistol permit holders.
The information was obtained from the New York Police Department via a Freedom of Information Law request in 2009, Gawker writer John Cook said Tuesday in a posting on the blog, which is owned by Gawker Media. The 446-page list dates from 2 1/2 years ago and contains names but not addresses.
The move thrusts Gawker into a growing debate over gun control and the privacy rights of firearms owners, sparked by the shooting deaths of 20 children at a Connecticut elementary school on Dec. 14.
The White Plains, N.Y.-based Journal News drew an outcry last month when it published a map showing the names and addresses of area handgun owners, seeking to better inform readers about firearms in their neighborhoods.
Other community newspapers have criticized the Journal News for singling out people who have obtained permits legally and putting them at risk.
"What they've done is point out all these homes to criminals and burglars," William J. Pape II, publisher of the Waterbury, Conn., Republican-American, said in an interview.

[/QUOTE]
Then:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/law-enforcement-latest-critics-on-public-display-gun-owner-data-officers/"]Inmates using newspaper's gun owner map to threaten guards, sheriff says | Fox News[/URL]

[QUOTE]Law enforcement officials from a New York region where a local paper published a map identifying gun owners say prisoners are using the information to intimidate guards.

Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco, who spoke at a news conference flanked by other county officials, said the Journal News' decision to post an online map of names and addresses of handgun owners Dec. 23 has put law enforcement officers in danger.

"They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said, according to Newsday.

Robert Riley, an officer with the White Plains Police Department and president of its Patrolman’s Benevolent Association, agreed.

"You have guys who work in New York City who live up here. Now their names and addresses are out there, too," he said adding that there are 8,000 active and retired NYPD officers currently living in Rockland County.

Local lawmakers also say that they intend to introduce legislation that prevents information about legal gun owners from being released to the public.

The newspaper published the online map last month alongside an article titled, "The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood." The map included the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

While the paper ostensibly sought to make a point about gun proliferation in the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., the effort may have backfired. A blogger reacted with a map showing where key editorial staffers live, and some outraged groups have called for a boycott of parent company Gannett’s national advertisers. Ironically, the newspaper has now stationed armed guards outside at least one of its offices.

[/QUOTE]







The fair follow-up:

[IMG]https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/206113_4940696042795_713296378_n.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-signs-law-giving-himself-bush-lifetime-secret-184305122--politics.html"]Marie Antoinette style policy making[/URL]

[I]President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into a law a measure giving him, George W. Bush and future former presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protection, the White House announced.[/I]

We don't need guns for protection, we have people for that.

<puke>

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

...and these two are gun owners.


[url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gabby-giffords-mark-kelly-launch-anti-gun-violence-campaign-article-1.1235517]Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly launch campaign against gun violence on second anniversary of Tucson shooting - NY Daily News[/url]

Former [URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Gabrielle+Giffords"][COLOR=#0066cc]Rep. Gabrielle Giffords[/COLOR][/URL] and her astronaut husband launched a campaign to change America’s gun policies on Tuesday — the second anniversary of the Tucson, Ariz., shooting that killed six and left her critically wounded.

They announced the formation of a political action committee called Americans for Responsible Solutions to counter the influence of the gun lobby and fight for tougher gun controls.

Giffords and her husband, [URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Mark+Kelly"][COLOR=#0066cc]Mark Kelly[/COLOR][/URL], said they envisioned a life out of the public eye following her shooting and retirement from Congress — but that changed after the shooting that killed 26 people, mostly children, in Newtown, Conn., last month.

Giffords, who was shot in the head, walks with a limp and struggles to say more than a few words at a time, but her message is clear.
[URL="http://sparq.nydailynews.com/pages/4YSLXP/6g6h/Ban_all_assault_weapons_and_highcapacity_magazines_and_institute_comprehensive_gun_control?log=0"][U][B][COLOR=#0066cc]CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE DAILY NEWS ONLINE PETITION TO BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS.[/COLOR][/B][/U][/URL]
[COLOR=#0066cc][/COLOR]
“Enough,” she told ABC’s Diane Sawyer in an interview broadcast Tuesday.
Her husband was more vocal.

“After the shooting in Tucson, there was talk about addressing some of these issues,[and] again after [the movie-theater shooting in] Aurora, Colo.,” Kelly said.

“I’m hopeful that this time is different, and I think it is. Twenty first-graders being murdered in their classrooms is a very personal thing for everybody.”

The couple visited Newtown last week to meet with some of the families of the 20 young victims.

“Strength,” Giffords said she told them.

Kelly added: “Gabby often told them, ‘You got to have strength. You got to fight for something.’ ”


Read more: [url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gabby-giffords-mark-kelly-launch-anti-gun-violence-campaign-article-1.1235517#ixzz2HcQ24pw5]Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly launch campaign against gun violence on second anniversary of Tucson shooting - NY Daily News[/url]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

So what, in your opinion, GiantOne, did they (the Gifford's) actually say?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;987493]So what, in your opinion, GiantOne, did they (the Gifford's) actually say?[/quote]



If you read the link you can read what it is they are saying and trying to do.AND THEY ARE GUN OWNERS.

"Kelly said the new political action committee will raise money to support tougher gun controls and will lobby elected officials to pass tougher legislation, including measures to require rigorous background checks of gun purchasers and to eliminate the sale of high-capacity magazines.

It was not immediately clear if the PAC also would campaign for or against individual candidates. More than 10,000 people liked the group on Facebook in the first hours of its existence.

The PAC may coordinate some efforts with the anti-gun group founded by Mayor Bloomberg, City Hall sources said. Giffords and Kelly met with Bloomberg last week before traveling to Newtown."

Read more: [url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gabby-giffords-mark-kelly-launch-anti-gun-violence-campaign-article-1.1235517#ixzz2HenFyNBf]Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly launch campaign against gun violence on second anniversary of Tucson shooting - NY Daily News[/url]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;987594]If you read the link you can read what it is they are saying and trying to do.AND THEY ARE GUN OWNERS.[/quote]That's just as pathetic as begging BUT I HAVE LOTS OF BLACK/GAY/REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT FRIENDS. And kind of revealing that line has to be used to push a gun control argument here.

[quote=Giantone;987594]"Kelly said the new political action committee will raise money to support tougher gun controls and will lobby elected officials to pass tougher legislation, including measures to require rigorous background checks of gun purchasers and to eliminate the sale of high-capacity magazines.

It was not immediately clear if the PAC also would campaign for or against individual candidates. More than 10,000 people liked the group on Facebook in the first hours of its existence.

The PAC may coordinate some efforts with the anti-gun group founded by Mayor Bloomberg, City Hall sources said. Giffords and Kelly met with Bloomberg last week before traveling to Newtown."

Read more: [url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gabby-giffords-mark-kelly-launch-anti-gun-violence-campaign-article-1.1235517#ixzz2HenFyNBf]Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly launch campaign against gun violence on second anniversary of Tucson shooting - NY Daily News[/url][/quote]Made the mistake of reading the link. Gifford's wasn't shot with an assault weapon. And her shooter showed many warning signs which were ignored. But hey, why let facts get in the way here?

Typical liberal "solution", try to use a crisis to push through something desired by those in power. Just like the "fiscal cliff" crisis was used to keep discretionary spending at status quo.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=HailGreen28;987603]

Made the mistake of reading the link. Gifford's wasn't shot with an assault weapon. And her shooter showed many warning signs which were ignored. But hey, why let facts get in the way here?
.[/quote]


My mistake,I apologize I thought the title of this thread was"[B]Gun Control Thread- Should we?[/B] "
1)Fact ,Nobody is going after the 2nd amement

2)Nobody said you can't own a gun

3)Fact,changes are coming and it would be in the best interest of the NRA and the rest of the gun toting gun culture to be part of the solution instead of crying to everyone under the sun that the "libs"your word not mine,are killing us .
Want some cheese with your whine?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;987844]My mistake,I apologize I thought the title of this thread was"[B]Gun Control Thread- Should we?[/B] "
1)Fact ,Nobody is going after the 2nd amement

2)Nobody said you can't own a gun

3)Fact,changes are coming and it would be in the best interest of the NRA and the rest of the gun toting gun culture to be part of the solution instead of crying to everyone under the sun that the "libs"your word not mine,are killing us .
Want some cheese with your whine?[/quote]

1) Where you getting that FACT from?

2) Yet.....

3) "Do what we say, you have no choice." GTFOOH!

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;987844]My mistake,I apologize I thought the title of this thread was"[B]Gun Control Thread- Should we?[/B] "[/quote]No problem. The links you post prove that as far as your proposals for more gun control, the answer is "no".

[quote=Giantone;987844]1)Fact ,Nobody is going after the 2nd amement

2)Nobody said you can't own a gun[/quote]Stop lying, Giantone.

Re. 1): From a link you posted [URL="http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2013/01/opinions_civilians_have_no_rig.html#incart_m-rpt-1"]HERE[/URL], and described as "Pretty good opinion peace" second paragraph of the link:

"The Amendment, which is one of the most awkwardly written sentences in American history, has always been fraught with ambiguity. Traditionally, the Court had ruled in cases such as United States vs. Miller (1939) that the Amendment’s first clause, about “a well regulated Militia,” expressed its true purpose. In Heller, however, Justice Scalia was able to convince the Court that the Amendment’s second clause, about “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” trumped the first clause, and that the word “people” somehow refers to individuals rather than to a militia or a collective."

Re. 2): This isn't going after gun ownership?

[URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/48456-gun-control-thread-should-we-16.html#post977534"]FRPLG: ".....but guns are absolutely part of the problem. Or more accurately the fact that we own so many guns in this country is an indicator of a deeper problem that is caused by many different things. But the pro-gun crowd seems to want to ignore the "fact" that we own TOO MANY guns in this country. Perhaps gun control isn't the answer to effectively reducing them but we do need to reduce them." [/URL]

More than a few posts this thread about this. [URL="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/08/gawker-publishes-complete-446-page-list-of-all-the-aholes-who-own-guns-in-new-york-city/"]Here Is a List of All the Assholes Handsome Law-Abiding Citizens Who Own Guns Some People in New York City[/URL]

Oh and it bears repeating, first tangible result of this "outing" like you Giantone posted saying "I would be beneficial for Gun owners to help rather then fight against new gun laws." Monkeydad posted this: [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/law-enforcement-latest-critics-on-public-display-gun-owner-data-officers/"]Inmates using newspaper's gun owner map to threaten guards, sheriff says.[/URL] "They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said, according to Newsday."

[quote=Giantone;987844]3)Fact,changes are coming and it would be in the best interest of the NRA and the rest of the gun toting gun culture to be part of the solution instead of crying to everyone under the sun that the "libs"your word not mine,are killing us .[/quote]You've demonstrated many times this thread that you are not part of the solution. The history of gun control in this country, particularly in urban areas today, point to your way of thinking making problems worse. And creating new problems like above.

[quote=Giantone;987844]Want some cheese with your whine?[/quote]You insult redskinrat, then complain about being insulted, now this?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=HailGreen28;987905]No problem. The links you post prove that as far as your proposals for more gun control, the answer is "no".

Stop lying, Giantone.

Re. 1): From a link you posted [URL="http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2013/01/opinions_civilians_have_no_rig.html#incart_m-rpt-1"]HERE[/URL], and described as "Pretty good opinion peace" second paragraph of the link:

"The Amendment, which is one of the most awkwardly written sentences in American history, has always been fraught with ambiguity. Traditionally, the Court had ruled in cases such as United States vs. Miller (1939) that the Amendment’s first clause, about “a well regulated Militia,” expressed its true purpose. In Heller, however, Justice Scalia was able to convince the Court that the Amendment’s second clause, about “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” trumped the first clause, and that the word “people” somehow refers to individuals rather than to a militia or a collective."

Re. 2): This isn't going after gun ownership?

[URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/48456-gun-control-thread-should-we-16.html#post977534"]FRPLG: ".....but guns are absolutely part of the problem. Or more accurately the fact that we own so many guns in this country is an indicator of a deeper problem that is caused by many different things. But the pro-gun crowd seems to want to ignore the "fact" that we own TOO MANY guns in this country. Perhaps gun control isn't the answer to effectively reducing them but we do need to reduce them." [/URL]

More than a few posts this thread about this. [URL="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/08/gawker-publishes-complete-446-page-list-of-all-the-aholes-who-own-guns-in-new-york-city/"]Here Is a List of All the Assholes Handsome Law-Abiding Citizens Who Own Guns Some People in New York City[/URL]

Oh and it bears repeating, first tangible result of this "outing" like you Giantone posted saying "I would be beneficial for Gun owners to help rather then fight against new gun laws." Monkeydad posted this: [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/law-enforcement-latest-critics-on-public-display-gun-owner-data-officers/"]Inmates using newspaper's gun owner map to threaten guards, sheriff says.[/URL] "They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said, according to Newsday."

[B]You've demonstrated many times this thread that you are not part of the solution. The history of gun control in this country, particularly in urban areas today, point to your way of thinking making problems worse. And creating new problems like above.[/B]

You insult redskinrat, then complain about being insulted, now this?[/quote]

The bolded part of your statement is my issue. Creating a policy in one city/state doesn't really stop anything. It's still easy to go outside the city /state to obtain what you want. Until it is impossible to do so inside the entire country, it isn't possible to use past regulation as a barometer for future regulation.

I do agree that setting regulations in certain areas is pointless, but when a law becomes federal that adds many unique and much stronger implications. I feel the pro-gun argument on this site, and in general, have not really given any real justification for the necessity for assault rifles. I'm not looking for people to be unable to get hunting rifles, but I do want to keep assault rifles from being widely available.

To be honest, I think that the assault rifle ban is even acceptable by most members of this board and the culture -- at face value. However, there is 'slippery slope' concerns where eventually an assault rifle ban means a rifle ban. I understand the slippery slope argument, but at some point making it [b]difficult[/b], not impossible, for the mentally instable to get assault rifles will lower the amount of deaths from said assault rifles. I just don't think that the benefits of having assault rifles readily available outweigh the negatives of having assault rifles available.

Until there is agreement on what constitutes an 'assault weapon' and both sides agree it's difficult to discuss. A 1911 could be used as an assault weapon. There are third party add-ons for my Glock that can turn it into a sub-machine gun.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=HailGreen28;987905]You've(Giantone) demonstrated many times this thread that you are not part of the solution. The history of gun control in this country, particularly in urban areas today, point to your way of thinking making problems worse. And creating new problems like above.[/quote]

[quote=Daseal;988115]The bolded part of your statement is my issue. Creating a policy in one city/state doesn't really stop anything. It's still easy to go outside the city /state to obtain what you want. Until it is impossible to do so inside the entire country, it isn't possible to use past regulation as a barometer for future regulation.

I do agree that setting regulations in certain areas is pointless, but when a law becomes federal that adds many unique and much stronger implications. I feel the pro-gun argument on this site, and in general, have not really given any real justification for the necessity for assault rifles. I'm not looking for people to be unable to get hunting rifles, but I do want to keep assault rifles from being widely available.

To be honest, I think that the assault rifle ban is even acceptable by most members of this board and the culture -- at face value. However, there is 'slippery slope' concerns where eventually an assault rifle ban means a rifle ban. I understand the slippery slope argument, but at some point making it [b]difficult[/b], not impossible, for the mentally instable to get assault rifles will lower the amount of deaths from said assault rifles. I just don't think that the benefits of having assault rifles readily available outweigh the negatives of having assault rifles available.[/quote]When those cities/states have more crime, including gun usage, than the cities/states that guns can be purchased from, it's not the guns that are the problem. But that would mean politicians would have to look inwards at their own social and economic policies.

When you have the ilk of Diane Fienstein setting definitions that include much more than actual assault rifles, and people like giantone posted willing to abuse existing laws (using legal gun registrations to try "outing" people), discussing reasonable gun control like a new assault weapon ban is impossible. Not that I think the old AWB accomplished a thing. Just saying. As long as there's the inclination of politicians to turn gun control into the travesty of gun regulation in DC, where a DC reporter illustrated the ridiculous hoops needed to legally own a gun [URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/feb/8/miller-emily-got-her-gun/"]LINK[/URL] (and look how well DC turned out), there's no point talking gun control. It'll only do more harm than good.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

Sam Harris - [URL="http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun"]Riddle of the Gun[/URL]

[I]Finally, I have said nothing here about what might cause a person like Adam Lanza to enter a school for the purpose of slaughtering innocent children. Clearly, we need more resources in the areas of childhood and teenage mental health, and we need protocols for parents, teachers, and fellow students to follow when a young man in their midst begins to worry them. In the majority of cases, someone planning a public assassination or a mass murder will communicate his intentions to others in advance of the crime. People need to feel personally responsible for acting on this information—and the authorities must be able to do something once the information gets passed along. But again, any law that allows us to commit or imprison people on the basis of a mere perception of risk would guarantee that large numbers of innocent people will be held against their will.

Rather than new laws, I believe we need a general shift in our attitude toward public violence—wherein everyone begins to assume some responsibility for containing it. It is worth noting that this shift has already occurred in one area of our lives, without anyone’s having received special training or even agreeing that a change in attitude was necessary: Just imagine how a few men with box cutters would now be greeted by their fellow passengers at 30,000 feet. [/I]

The best synopsis of the issue I've read to date.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

Goodness you gunnies are defensive about all this. The mere mention that reducing gun ownership in this country somehow unequivocally amounts to advocating gun control? Not what I meant.


I think part of the problem is that people like me, who doesn't own a gun, think the amount of guns this country has shows a problem. Understand this...when I say "reduce" I mean get our country to naturally not want to own over half the guns in the world. My gut is that taking guns from them isn't the way to achieve that.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=FRPLG;988516]I think part of the problem is that people like me, who doesn't own a gun, think the amount of guns this country has shows a problem.[/quote]

It's the misuse of the guns, not the amount.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[I]You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom. Half-awake and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all:

"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.

The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.


This case really happened:

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerfordmass shooting in 1987.

Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.

Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.
Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed.[/I]

[URL="http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2013/01/stormbringer-sends.html"]Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?[/URL]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=FRPLG;988516]Goodness you gunnies are defensive about all this. The mere mention that reducing gun ownership in this country somehow unequivocally amounts to advocating gun control? Not what I meant.


I think part of the problem is that people like me, who doesn't own a gun, think the amount of guns this country has shows a problem. Understand this...[B]when I say "reduce" I mean get our country to naturally not want to own over half the guns in the world[/B]. My gut is that taking guns from them isn't the way to achieve that.[/quote]


[URL="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2013/01/10/eric-holder-gun-owners-should-cower-shame-smokers"]Eric Holder: Gun Owners Should 'Cower' in Shame Like Smokers | NewsBusters.org[/URL]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]This is kind of like the 1990's Carlton Banks version of Eric Holder.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]But instead of brain washing people to view gun owners like cigarette smokers, perhaps the government should lead by example/action. Why do police departments need military weapons? I would be supportive of a ban that reserved military weapons for the..... military, while empowering private citizens to defend themselves with the capability equal to that of local and federal law enforcement.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I agree it would be preferable to live in a country/world where people dont want to own guns, even though they can. Maybe one day we live in a world where people dont want guns, but that will likely only happen when we live in a world where people dont need guns. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

New York just went full retard.

[URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2013/01/gun-control-deal-close-could-come-as-soon-as-today-source"]Gov. Cuomo and legislative leaders were on the verge Sunday night of finalizing a major gun-control deal that would give New York the nation’s toughest assault weapons ban, sources told the Daily News.[/URL]

I like the tying of mental health to gun ownership. The devil (or angel) of that will be in the details. But the rest... ban of private sales, some weapons, ammunition limits, all this will do nothing to reduce crime or violence.

And the whole pre 1994 thing is NOT a "loophole". Is the mag restriction also non-grandfather clause? Ex post facto if so...and makes previous law abiding citizens into instant felons. While still doing nothing positive.

It'll be interesting to see what emerges, and if anything is struck down judicially.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=HailGreen28;988657]New York just went full retard.

[URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2013/01/gun-control-deal-close-could-come-as-soon-as-today-source"]Gov. Cuomo and legislative leaders were on the verge Sunday night of finalizing a major gun-control deal that would give New York the nation’s toughest assault weapons ban, sources told the Daily News.[/URL]

I like the tying of mental health to gun ownership. The devil (or angel) of that will be in the details. But the rest... ban of private sales, some weapons, ammunition limits, all this will do nothing to reduce crime or violence.

And the whole pre 1994 thing is NOT a "loophole". Is the mag restriction also non-grandfather clause? Ex post facto if so...and makes previous law abiding citizens into instant felons. While still doing nothing positive.

It'll be interesting to see what emerges, and if anything is struck down judicially.[/quote]


Done deal.Maryland next

[url=http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/01/new_york_passes_nations_toughe.html#incart_river_default]New York passes nation's toughest gun control law | NJ.com[/url]

York state enacted the nation's toughest gun restrictions today and the first since the Connecticut school massacre, including an expanded assault-weapon ban and background checks for buying ammunition.
Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law less than an hour after it won final passage in the Legislature, with supporters hailing it as a model for the nation and gun-rights activists condemning it as a knee-jerk piece of legislation that won't make anyone safer and is too extreme to win support in the rest of the country.
"Common sense can win," Cuomo said. "You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with common sense."

[QUOTE=Giantone;988988]Done deal.Maryland next

[url=http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/01/new_york_passes_nations_toughe.html#incart_river_default]New York passes nation's toughest gun control law | NJ.com[/url]

York state enacted the nation's toughest gun restrictions today and the first since the Connecticut school massacre, including an expanded assault-weapon ban and background checks for buying ammunition.
Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law less than an hour after it won final passage in the Legislature, with supporters hailing it as a model for the nation and gun-rights activists condemning it as a knee-jerk piece of legislation that won't make anyone safer and is too extreme to win support in the rest of the country.
"Common sense can win," Cuomo said. "You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with common sense."[/QUOTE]
I have no clue whether this law will have any substantitive effect, but one thing I can guarantee is that laws made on the heels of any major tragedy inevitably include bad parts, and parts that take away rights that most people wouldn't even consider giving up even a few weeks later.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;988988]"Common sense can win," Cuomo said. "You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with common sense."[/quote]

I love the use of words like 'Overpower' and 'Extremists' when discussing law abiding gun owners.

Bravo, noble sheepleherder, bravo!

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

Cuomo wants to "win" and have it his way. He doesnt have the countrys best interests at heart, just his own. You can tell by the way he words things.
Not to mention the guys idiotic 16 oz soda ban.
New York is a sh1thole of repression.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

NY and CA are perfect examples of a Nanny State.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;989021]I love the use of words like 'Overpower' and 'Extremists' when discussing law abiding gun owners.

Bravo, noble sheepleherder, bravo![/quote]

I agree. I think this might apply here.

[url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_lefts_greatest_mind-trick_politicizing_emotion.html]Articles: The Left's Greatest Mind-Trick: Politicizing Emotion[/url]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;988584][I]You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom. Half-awake and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.[/I]

[I]At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.[/I]

[I]With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.[/I]

[I]You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.[/I]

[I]In the darkness, you make out two shadows.[/I]

[I]One holds something that looks like a crowbar.[/I]

[I]When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.[/I]

[I]The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.[/I]

[I]One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.[/I]

[I]As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.[/I]

[I]In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..[/I]

[I]Yours was never registered.[/I]

[I]Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.[/I]

[I]They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.[/I]

[I]When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.[/I]

[I]"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.[/I]

[I]"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. [/I]

[I]"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."[/I]

[I]The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.[/I]

[I]Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..[/I]

[I]Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.[/I]

[I]But the next day's headline says it all:[/I]

[I]"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."[/I]

[I]The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.[/I]

[I]As the days wear on, the story takes wings.[/I]

[I]The national media picks it up, then the international media.[/I]

[I]The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.[/I]

[I]Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.[/I]

[I]The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.[/I]

[I]After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.[/I]

[I]The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.[/I]

[I]A few months later, you go to trial.[/I]

[I]The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.[/I]

[I]When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..[/I]

[I]Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.[/I]

[I]It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.[/I]

[I]The judge sentences you to life in prison.[/I]


[I]This case really happened:[/I]

[I]On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.[/I]

[I]In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.[/I]

[I]How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire? [/I]

[I]It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. [/I]

[I]This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.[/I]
[I]The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.[/I]

[I]Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.[/I]

[I]Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerfordmass shooting in 1987.[/I]

[I]Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.[/I]

[I]When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.[/I]

[I]The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)[/I]

[I]Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.[/I]

[I]For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.[/I]

[I]Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.[/I]

[I]Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.[/I]

[I]The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.[/I]

[I]During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.[/I]

[I]Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. [/I]

[I]Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.[/I]

[I]Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,[/I]
[I]"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."[/I]

[I]All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.[/I]
[I]Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.[/I]

[I]When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.[/I]

[I]Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.[/I]

[I]Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.[/I]

[I]How did the authorities know who had handguns?[/I]

[I]The guns had been registered and licensed.[/I]

[URL="http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2013/01/stormbringer-sends.html"]Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?[/URL][/quote]

Actually he served 3 yrs of a max 5 yr sentence. From what I read it was not as cut in dry as it made to sound here in your post. He was convicted of murder because of their laws and him not warning the intruders. He lied about how it happened. Same thing would happen here in the US in most states if he did that.

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer[/URL])

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

Thank **** for The One, we're all safe![COLOR=White] /sarc[/COLOR]

[B][FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=3][URL="http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/obama-to-announce-gun-control-proposals-shortly/"]Obama announces 23 exective actions, asks Congress to pass gun laws[/URL][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]



1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."

2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."

3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."

4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."

5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."

6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."

7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."

8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."

9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."

10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."

11. "Nominate an ATF director."

12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."

13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."

16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."

18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."

19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."

20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."

21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."

22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."

23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=firstdown;989076]Actually he served 3 yrs of a max 5 yr sentence. [/quote]

For defending your family and property? I'd call that a travesty.

[quote=firstdown;989076]From what I read it was not as cut in dry as it made to sound here in your post.[/quote]

FD, I'd be interested in any links to the case you have. I just posted from a clearly pro-gun site. Everything I heard from friends still living in the U.K. made it sound like a state scapegoating of a gun owner for the further cowing of any remaining gun ownership.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;989081]Thank **** for The One, we're all safe![COLOR=White] /sarc[/COLOR]

[B][FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=3][URL="http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/obama-to-announce-gun-control-proposals-shortly/"]Obama announces 23 exective actions, asks Congress to pass gun laws[/URL][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]



1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."

2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."

3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."

4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."

5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."

6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."

7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."

8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."

9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."

10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."

11. "Nominate an ATF director."

12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."

13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."

16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."

18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."

19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."

20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."

21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."

22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."

23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."[/quote]

RR. What are [i]your[/i] actual concern with these changes? To me, this seems to really harp on background checks and making sure that people buying guns are permitted to have guns and to look at the mental health of people buying guns. Isn't that something both sides agreed on?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

Doctors are being deputized.....thats nice.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Daseal;989088]RR. What are [I]your[/I] actual concern with these changes? To me, this seems to really harp on background checks and making sure that people buying guns are permitted to have guns and to look at the mental health of people buying guns. Isn't that something both sides agreed on?[/quote]

He's done [U]**** all[/U], that's my problem. We already have shit in place, WTF difference is going to be made by more bureaucracy?

Absolute hot air session and nothing more. It can be summed up by the words 'DO OUR JOB'.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;989082]For defending your family and property? I'd call that a travesty.



FD, I'd be interested in any links to the case you have. I just posted from a clearly pro-gun site. Everything I heard from friends still living in the U.K. made it sound like a state scapegoating of a gun owner for the further cowing of any remaining gun ownership.[/quote]

I gave a link. Sorry but the minute I read your post from that site I knew there was more to the story. He guy had lost his right to own a gun because he had shot at other unarmed people before this happened. He claimed to be up satairs when he shot the intruders and evidence showed he shot them from down stairs. I think if he beat them with a bat he could have also faced the same type of charges from reading more on what happened.

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer[/URL])

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=firstdown;989106]I gave a link. Sorry but the minute I read your post from that site I knew there was more to the story. He guy had lost his right to own a gun because he had shot at other unarmed people before this happened. He claimed to be up satairs when he shot the intruders and evidence showed he shot them from down stairs. I think if he beat them with a bat he could have also faced the same type of charges from reading more on what happened.

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer[/URL])[/quote]

Poor, innocent youths.......:

[I]On 10 January 2000, Fearon and Darren Bark, both admitted to conspiring to burgle Martin's farmhouse. Fearon was sentenced to three years in prison, and Bark to 30 months (with an additional 12 months arising from previous offences). Fearon was released on 10 August 2001. Fred Barras, the dead youth, had accumulated a lengthy criminal record, having been [B]arrested 29 times by the time of his death at the age of 16[/B], and had been sentenced to two months in a young offenders' institution for [B]assaulting a policeman, theft[/B] and being drunk and disorderly. On the night he was killed, the teenager had just been released on bail after being accused of stealing garden furniture.[/I]

This should act as a warning to those who hope we can use medical judgment to limit firearms:

[I]In October 2001, during the appeal.....the defence also submitted evidence that Martin was diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder exacerbated by depression and that his paranoia was specifically directed at anyone intruding into his home.[/I]

You'll see this over and over here in the U.S.. Hindsight and post-victim finger-pointing, how's that going to help?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

FD, this is a more even telling of the Martin story:

[URL="http://www.derbygripe.co.uk/martin.htm"]
THE TONY MARTIN STORY[/URL]

It should be viewed as a blueprint for what we can expect here, when people have no legal recourse to protect themselves.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;988988]Done deal.Maryland next

[url=http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/01/new_york_passes_nations_toughe.html#incart_river_default]New York passes nation's toughest gun control law | NJ.com[/url]

York state enacted the nation's toughest gun restrictions today and the first since the Connecticut school massacre, including an expanded assault-weapon ban and background checks for buying ammunition.
Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law less than an hour after it won final passage in the Legislature, with supporters hailing it as a model for the nation and gun-rights activists condemning it as a knee-jerk piece of legislation that won't make anyone safer and is too extreme to win support in the rest of the country.
"Common sense can win," Cuomo said. "You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with common sense."[/quote]Full. Retard. Cuomo's gun control bill, and your post.

Look at the actual bill. [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/15/nyregion/20130115nygun-document.html"]LINK[/URL] The first idiocy found: Page 22. Starting at line 6. Bold mine, though the whole paragraph is horrible.

"[B]265.01-b Criminal_possession of a firearm. A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she: (1) possesses any firearm or; [/B](2) lawfully possesses a firearm prior to the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section subject to the registration requirements of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter and knowingly fails to register such firearm pursuant to such subdivision.

Criminal possession of a firearm is a Class E felony."

If the Second Amendment's still in existence, and there's any common sense and respect for the law, this law gets completely thrown out in the first court case.

At this point I'm not expecting the president's "proposals" to be any smarter or effective.

edit: Looking here ([URL="http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/part3.tp.a265.html"]LINK[/URL]) and here ([URL="http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0265.01_265.01.html"]LINK[/URL]) to look for context after seeing there's no outrage over the quote I listed elsewhere on the web. And there's even more stringent weapon control in § 265.01 at the second link... It doesn't seem like the above refers to just persons committing other crimes. The language suggests an out-right ban, yet if so 265.01 would already outlaw many weapons and non-weapons. What am I missing here?