DC Handgun Ban Overturned

[dolcezena]

...do you have any objection to licensing and registration requirements? How about requirements for taking safety courses and passing tests like driving?

I said earlier (well, implied) that I'm not a big fan of guns, but even I have to admit Canada went about the whole gun registry thing ENTIRELY the wrong way.

My DFi admits the logic in having his gun's descriptions, serial #'s, etc in a central database, so if they are ever stolen A) It'll help with insurance, & B) IF a crime is committed with them, it gives the police one more lead (although why a criminal would use a 1943 M1 Garand, I don't know).

BUT the government essentially "criminalized" all gun ownership by fining people who didn't register their guns. If it had been a voluntary program, I think most LEGITIMATE gun owners would have happily signed up & paid the fee.

Still have to admit I might be even more freaked out by his collection if he had a handgun. Unless he did competitive shooting.

 

[Charade]

I said earlier (well, implied) that I'm not a big fan of guns, but even I have to admit Canada went about the whole gun registry thing ENTIRELY the wrong way.

My DFi admits the logic in having his gun's descriptions, serial #'s, etc in a central database, so if they are ever stolen A) It'll help with insurance, & B) IF a crime is committed with them, it gives the police one more lead (although why a criminal would use a 1943 M1 Garand, I don't know).

BUT the government essentially "criminalized" all gun ownership by fining people who didn't register their guns. If it had been a voluntary program, I think most LEGITIMATE gun owners would have happily signed up & paid the fee.

Still have to admit I might be even more freaked out by his collection if he had a handgun. Unless he did competitive shooting.

The other bad thing about a national database is it's easy to confiscate them by the federal government or in the (unlikely) event of us being invaded by a foreign power. Hilter did it. He got all the citizens to register their guns. Then confiscated them.

 

[dolcezena]

The other bad thing about a national database is it's easy to confiscate them by the federal government or in the (unlikely) event of us being invaded by a foreign power. Hilter did it. He got all the citizens to register their guns. Then confiscated them.

Yeah, that was a pretty common argument when the registry was announced. Call me a Pollyanna, but I seriously can't picture an "enlightened" (for lack of a better word) gov't doing that. I can easily imagine that happening in a country that has political & economic instabilty, but here? Not so much.

My real point is that legitimate gun owners shouldn't be "penalized" for owning guns. I don't like them, I will never personally own one (although I did have to sign an affadavit thingy saying I was aware they were in our house) & I'm far more likely to shoot my own foot off with one if confronted with a home invader - but that's my choice.

 

[sha_lyn]

I agree. I think you missed my point. I meant that some criminals (who probably couldn't care less about gun OWNERSHIP laws) most likely DO care about laws that hand out mandatory sentences if one is used in the commission of a crime.

Sorry 'bout that. I was caught up in arguing with those that think handguns should be banned

 

[Andy B]

Forgive me, but what exactly makes you think that you know better what should be in our Constitution than did the founding fathers of this country?

I did not say I knew better than the founding Fathers I was just discussing Sheesh!

Yes, I would. And whether or not I needed one, I would want to keep the ones I have.

Why would you feel you needed one.

There would be no way for me to know for a fact whether an intruder is armed or not.

I agree that under normal circumstances it would be highly unlikely to be able to tell if someone was armed or not which is why I have been stressing the theoretical nature of my questions as a starting place for my understanding

Anyone that comes into my home uninvited and without my prior knowledge and consent is a threat to my family, period. They can choose to turn and leave or be shot. Completely their choice.

Do you think under those circumstances you would issue a warning or not, It must be a very stressfull time and it would be understandable to act instinctively.

Do you know how you would be treated by the law for shooting someone in your home both armed and not? We have little experience of that her the only one I can remember was a reclusive Farmer who had been the subject of a break in and had left it easy for a break in to occur again, he was waiting for the two intruders but shot them both in the back killing one. He was prosecuted as acting in a way to entrap them.

 

[Charade]

Do you know how you would be treated by the law for shooting someone in your home both armed and not? We have little experience of that her the only one I can remember was a reclusive Farmer who had been the subject of a break in and had left it easy for a break in to occur again, he was waiting for the two intruders but shot them both in the back killing one. He was prosecuted as acting in a way to entrap them.

I remember reading about that case. The only thing the farmer did wrong IMO, was shooting them in the back. The "entrapment" and "leaving it easy for a break in" parts are BS. So in the end, all parties were wrong. And if I remember right, the criminal was in jail for the break in. In most circumstances the same thing would happen here in the US for an identical scenario. Over here you can't set a trap as in a ****ytrap.

 

[JPN4265]

Look for the crime rate to drop in DC.

 

[Andy B]

I remember reading about that case. The only thing the farmer did wrong IMO, was shooting them in the back. The "entrapment" and "leaving it easy for a break in" parts are BS. So in the end, all parties were wrong. And if I remember right, the criminal was in jail for the break in. In most circumstances the same thing would happen here in the US for an identical scenario. Over here you can't set a trap as in a ****ytrap.

There was much debate of that case here, I should add that the gun was not licenced also. The surviving criminal did go to jail either for the break in or other matters. Not sure quite what you meany by ****ytrap if honeytrap I don't see a problem

 

[Charade]

There was much debate of that case here, I should add that the gun was not licenced also. The surviving criminal did go to jail either for the break in or other matters. Not sure quite what you meany by ****ytrap if honeytrap I don't see a problem

The message board is filtering out a woman's upper body part. There are two. And I don't mean eyes, arms or ears!

IOW, you can't set up a trip wire to fire a gun at a window when someone attempts to break in.

 

[DancingBear]

My response regarding the AK-47 is that I don't think it should be illegal to own one. As far as a grenade, that isn't a firearm, so I don't see that it is part of this argument.

Well, the Amendment just says "arms," right, not "firearms"? Is there something out there that makes it clear they were talking about firearms?

What about armor-penetrating bullets? Would you allow those?

 

[DancingBear]

The other bad thing about a national database is it's easy to confiscate them by the federal government or in the (unlikely) event of us being invaded by a foreign power. Hilter did it. He got all the citizens to register their guns. Then confiscated them.

Maybe not exactly.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

 

[DancingBear]

BUT the government essentially "criminalized" all gun ownership by fining people who didn't register their guns.

I don't understand this logic. The criminal act is not owning the weapon, but failing to register it. It's mandatory for me to get a dog license in my county, but I wouldn't claim that the county has criminalized pet ownership.

 

[Charade]

Well, the Amendment just says "arms," right, not "firearms"? Is there something out there that makes it clear they were talking about firearms?

What about armor-penetrating bullets? Would you allow those?

It appears that a NY representative is attempting to reathorize (and enhance) the Clinton gun ban from the 90's. Which I believe had zero impact on the crime rate (with firearms involved).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022

I'll agree that 2nd is a little vague on what types of "arms" people can bear. Hand grenades, RPGs and the like should be restricted.

Most crimes committed with firearms usually are handguns. It's the sensational crimes (like the DC sniper) that brings long arms into the debate. Of all the legal AK-47 (or other "assualt" type weapon) owners out there, it's rare that any of them are used in the commission of a crime.

 

[DancingBear]

Now I think disabling a store attendant with a cup of coffee in the face is a better tactic (not so great for the attendant) than using a gun. It's non-lethal and gets them out of the way for easy access to the cash drawer (cause it's open at the time of the coffee tossing).

You've given this entirely too much thought.

 

[Charade]

Maybe not exactly.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

While German's didn't have the constitutional right to keep arms, the end result was the same. They made the people turn their weapons. The article you linked states that the Jews probably couldn't have defended themselves against their slaughter but they could have at least tried.

In the US it's an incremental encroachment on law abiding citizens Constitutional right to keep arms. No one has the balls to attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment. So what they do instead is slowly whittle away at it with overbearing restrictions and condition the public that it's and antiquated right. With the current stability of the US, the need for a public militia is probably not necessary but that doesn't mean the right of a person to defend themselves with a firearm isn't.

 

[Andy B]

It appears that a NY representative is attempting to reathorize (and enhance) the Clinton gun ban from the 90's. Which I believe had zero impact on the crime rate (with firearms involved).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022

I'll agree that 2nd is a little vague on what types of "arms" people can bear. Hand grenades, RPGs and the like should be restricted.

Most crimes committed with firearms usually are handguns. It's the sensational crimes (like the DC sniper) that brings long arms into the debate. Of all the legal AK-47 (or other "assualt" type weapon) owners out there, it's rare that any of them are used in the commission of a crime.

Just got what you meant in the asterixed out part, a little harsh to prohibit that word I feel, But I had a go at that in another thread.

Was the DC sniper gun(s) legally or illegally owned. Those type of crimes, like the school shootings and disgruntled employee shootings garner a lot of media attention. Do you think those weapons were legally held, illegally obtained from a legitimate source or black market?

 

[CapeCodTenor]

One of the judges commented that currently in DC, the only people that are effectively barred from having handguns are the law abiding citizens of the city.

This has been my arguement about gun control all along. The only thing gun controls do is take the guns away from the law abiding citizens.

 

[Charade]

I don't understand this logic. The criminal act is not owning the weapon, but failing to register it. It's mandatory for me to get a dog license in my county, but I wouldn't claim that the county has criminalized pet ownership.

You may not want to make that claim but the fact is not get a dog license does criminalize pet ownership.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

In the US it's an incremental encroachment on law abiding citizens Constitutional right to keep arms. No one has the balls to attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment. So what they do instead is slowly whittle away at it with overbearing restrictions and condition the public that it's and antiquated right. With the current stability of the US, the need for a public militia is probably not necessary but that doesn't mean the right of a person to defend themselves with a firearm isn't.

Thank you. Great way of putting it.

 

[Charade]

Just got what you meant in the asterisked out part, a little harsh to prohibit that word I feel, But I had a go at that in another thread.

Was the DC sniper gun(s) legally or illegally owned. Those type of crimes, like the school shootings and disgruntled employee shootings garner a lot of media attention. Do you think those weapons were legally held, illegally obtained from a legitimate source or black market?

I don't recall in the case of the DC sniper but in the case of school shootings, the shooter was not the owner. You can't legally buy a long gun unless you're 18 and for a handgun, you must be 21. I have no problems with those restrictions.

If any of the weapons used were illegal to own, or illegally acquired, that is a separate issue. Any parties involved should be held accountable. But that doesn't mean the arms manufacturer themselves as the anti-gun people have been pushing for. That would be the same as holding Ford or GM accountable for drunk drivers. IOW, ridiculous.