Next time someone says they are for gun controll...

[Christy]

I'll tell you what I'd like to see (and I think this would really make a difference) - MANDATORY penalties for committing a crime with a gun. They can't be plea-bargained, they can't be thrown out. If you commit a crime with a gun, you're going to do some time.

How about mandatory penalties for ANY violent crime?

Getting killed by a gun rather than a knife, doesn't make you anymore deader! Kinda goes along with the ridiculousness of "hate crime" penalities.

I don't think there should be plea bargaining for any form of violent crime whatsoever.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Although I think background checks really go against privacy issues, I think they are necessary evil. I am all for keeping firearms out of the hands of known felons and the mentally ill. When the population was small and everyone knew their neighbor and "neighborhood justice" would prevail when there was no system or the system failed, background checks were not needed.

I personally think that if someone ever pleaded innocent by reason of temporary insanity or any insanity plea, that person should be barred from owning a firearm of any type. If a person has a history of mental illness, that person should be barred from owning a firearm of any type. Same for convicted felons even if they served out their time.

I say any type because right now, anyone can go and buy a black powder rifle off the shelf in Wal-mart. They are considered by the gun control lobby as "safe." Some black powder rifles shoot 58 caliber bullets that weigh more than an ounce. With modern black powder substitutes, these rifles can reach out and touch you from beyond 100 yards and hit you like a freight train. Some of these are bolt action rifles, not muzzle loaders, and can be fired rather rapidly because they use powder cartridges.

I certainly agree with punishing criminals including juveniles. You are no less dead if you are killed by a fourteen year old than a forty year old. Remember when you were fourteen; you knew right from wrong. So do these young killers, robbers, and rapists. Some gangs make the young members do the "deed" because they are more likely to get off and almost never will do hard time.

And the juvenile justice system, especially in Maryland is a joke. There is virtually no punishment. Plea bargains and "slap on the wrist" punishments. I've seen it first hand. The "juvi" kids tell the new comers not to worry, they won't do nothing, and they are right most of the time. What does this teach them? Wow, crime does pay. You get off every time.

JMHO

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by demsformd
I disagree with the assertion that we need guns to respond to a despotic government.

It simply amazes me how little time has to pass before folks get comfortable enough to believe their government will never be a threat to their lives and their freedom. I highly recommend you sit down and have a conversation with a Holocaust survivor. They'll quickly tell you what a foolish belief that is.

 

[Kizzy]

I highly recommend you sit down and have a conversation with a Holocaust survivor.

I can give him the phone number of my grandmother, who would agree with that statement. She may be old, but she will never forget.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by 2ndAmendment
When the population was small and everyone knew their neighbor and "neighborhood justice" would prevail when there was no system or the system failed, background checks were not needed.

Alas, I seem to be doomed ever to disagree with 2ndAmend. (Actually not true: I agree with him that mental illness should preclude gun ownership. I'm impressed with his attitude on this--not invoking a "slippery slope" argument to say "first you ban gun ownership by the mentally deficient, and the next thing you know they ban all guns." The only problem I can see is that we today live in a world where it seems everyone has a mental illness: lots of kids prescribed Ritalin, vast numbers of adults swallowing Prozac and god knows what else for various depressive mental illnesses. You'd have a hard time writing a law that separated the true kooks from the people that just like taking pills.)

My disagreement is with the concept of "neighborhood justice." 2ndAmend would have us believe that history went as followed:
Step One: Nazis ban guns.
Step Two: Nazis starting rounding up Jews, who can't fight back and protect themselves.
Step Three: Lots of dead Jews.
I'd argue that in reality it was closer to:
Step One: Nazis start spewing out anti-Semitic propoganda.
Step Two: The German citizenry as well as Nazis start REALLY hating Jews
Step Three: Neighborhood justice starts with the harrassing of Jews--burning of stores, bricks through windows, name-calling, etc.
Step Four: Once hating Jews is second nature, then the Nazis start rounding them up and we end up with lots of dead Jews.

Neighborhood justice=tyranny of the minority (factions). This was a sentiment discussed in quite a number of the Federalist Papers.

Oh, sometimes it's good. I remember reading about some guys in Michigan a while back that took offense to a child molester in their neighborhood. A few broken bones and burned genitals (stove, metal spatula, you get the picture) later, he wasn't in much position to bugger kids anymore. Hard to see anything wrong with that. On the other hand, some would call the death of that gay kid in Montana a few years back (Matthew Sheppard, beaten and tied to a fence post), or the black guy that got dragged behind a truck until most of his limbs fell off examples of neighborhood justice too.

The point is, the reason we have law enforcement (and laws to be enforced) is to preclude the need for vigilateeism (yeah, I can't spell, I'm too lazy to look it up), which doesn't always provide "justice."

I certainly agree with punishing criminals including juveniles.

Look! Something else we agree on. I knew right from wrong at least at age five, and maybe earlier. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

 

[Voter2002]

Another favorite rant from the anti-gun freaks is that the 2nd amendment refers only to the National Guard and does not refer to militia as everyday joes (sorry ladies) having the Constitutional right to own guns. Well...here is a direct cut/paste from Title 10 of the United States Code...

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

The USC does identify and recognize an unorganized militia as being all able-bodied men between the ages of 17-45 WHO ARE NOT members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

SO...when the fanatic anti-gunners spout spittle about only the militia having the right to own guns - throw it right back in their face and tell them you are the militia and you WILL own a gun as allowed by the U.S. Constitution and backed by the Untied States Code!



"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Voter2002
The USC does identify and recognize an unorganized militia as being all able-bodied men between the ages of 17-45 WHO ARE NOT members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

SO...when the fanatic anti-gunners spout spittle about only the militia having the right to own guns - throw it right back in their face and tell them you are the militia and you WILL own a gun as allowed by the U.S. Constitution and backed by the Untied States Code!


So, you are saying when you turn 46 you must turn in your gun?

 

[justhangn]

Sadly, a good point, it needs to be re-written to include men and women of any age over 17.

 

[Bruzilla]

People who like to say that there is no need for Americans to maintain their arms to protect themselves from an encroaching government are usually the first ones who scream about the government encroaching on other rights like freedom of the press, free assembly, or religion. These folks waste no time in spreading the warning about the need and importance of defending these rights from a national government that would "just love" to restrict or ban these rights, but gun owners should have nothing to worry about from the government. I am also amazed at how these folks can be so sure that the founding fathers were so right in all these other areas, but so wrong when it comes to the Second Ammendment.

I disagree with those who see Hitlers or Stalins behind every gun control proposition, but that's not the point. Nor is hunting or defending the homestead. The issue behind the second ammendment is the right of the people to defend themselves against tyranny. Is this necessary? Apparently so since the Second Ammendment was written to allow it and every service member reading this has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies Foreign and Domestic, not just foreign invaders.

You can agree or disagree with the continued need to protect ourselves against our own government, but if you feel that this protection is no longer needed you should also "update" all of the other ammendments.

 

[The Eggman]

Defense Free Crime Zone

This About Says It!

DISCLAIMER: Nothing in the above is intended to; a) encourage anyone to do anything that might break any rule, law, regulation, ordinance, covenant, suggestion, official sign, reasonable direction of a police officer or any act ruled inappropriate by any authority, whether or not sanctioned by the current authority or b) offend, threaten to offend or think about offending anyone else, including; every possible combination of cultural, intellectual, physical, philisophical, genetic and other irrelevant differences between various; peoples, individuals, species and all other entities and creatures, living or dead who. either/or were, are, have yet to be, ought to be or never will be in this or any other universe, dimension, reality or quantum entity yet to be discovered.

 

[demsformd]

I would like to rephrase my statement that the argument of fighting against a despotic government. I mean that it would be impractical for average Americans to think that they could fight and defeat the government, which has tanks, bombs, and other high explosive weapons. How can citizens armed with shotguns beat soldiers with AK-47's?
The 2nd Amendment IS meant for the citizens of the nation and I cannot stand my liberal friends who think otherwise. Anyway, my ideology is committed to protecting civil rights, which includes gun ownership. True liberalism in my opinion supports the 2nd Amendment just as much as we support the 1st and the 14th Amendments.
So, you see, I am not a blind follower of liberal dogma.

 

[vraiblonde]

Dems, I'm starting to feel sorry for all the times I flamed you.

Can I take this to mean that you will be casting your vote for Bob Ehrlich tomorrow? I ask because KKT has been very blatant in that she wants to put together more gun bans and went so far as to start talking confiscation. Ehrlich isn't a gun freak - he wasn't even endorsed by the NRA. So thinking that he is some right-wing zealot is just too much listening to KKT commercials and not enough researching the candidate.

What say, girlfriend? Make a vote for democracy tomorrow?

 

[jazz lady]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Dems, I'm starting to feel sorry for all the times I flamed you.

Don't feel too sorry yet...

Can I take this to mean that you will be casting your vote for Bob Ehrlich tomorrow

See other thread here. Something about they'd rather vote for a yellow dog than Ehrlich. Hmmm...think that sums up KKKT very well.

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Dems, I'm starting to feel sorry for all the times I flamed you.

Can I take this to mean that you will be casting your vote for Bob Ehrlich tomorrow? I ask because KKT has been very blatant in that she wants to put together more gun bans and went so far as to start talking confiscation. Ehrlich isn't a gun freak - he wasn't even endorsed by the NRA. So thinking that he is some right-wing zealot is just too much listening to KKT commercials and not enough researching the candidate.

What say, girlfriend? Make a vote for democracy tomorrow?

Hey! Those KKT commercials have made me want to vote for Ehrlich more! I'm for all the stuff she's bashing him about! LOL!

Go Ehrlich! Thanks KKT for letting me know this guy would love to abolish the department of education!

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by demsformd
How can citizens armed with shotguns beat soldiers with AK-47's?

If the soldiers are using AK-47s we are in a world of trouble and we had better be out there with are shotguns, rifles, revolvers, and pistols making the difference. Elsewise we will probably soon be required to speak another language.

 

[Bruzilla]

I think that those who have asked how a populace armed with small arms can defeat a military armed with bombs, fighter planes, bombers, warships, etc., might want to blow the dust off their History books and look up "Vietnam War." There's more ways to win than just using heavy weapons.

I would like to again point out that there is more than just talk in regards to a gun ban. The sale, purchase, or transfer of all pistols is BANNED in the state of Maryland as of 1 Jan 03. That's not a campaign promise... that's the law. If you want to be able to buy a handgun next year you best be hustling out to the polls to vote for Ehrlich.

 

[SmallTown]

Yea, and those 6 guys in that car in yemen had guns ands explosives in their car.. What did they do? Just cause a fireworks display when an unheard aircraft fired a hellfire missle.

 

[Sharon]

Originally posted by Bruzilla


I would like to again point out that there is more than just talk in regards to a gun ban. The sale, purchase, or transfer of all pistols is BANNED in the state of Maryland as of 1 Jan 03. That's not a campaign promise... that's the law.

Does this also affect those with collector's status? I'm still unclear on that part but I would suppose the answer is yes.

 

[Bruzilla]

No exclusions for collectors. This also applies to holders of curio and relic FFL holders who can buy guns direct.

 

[RadioPatrol]

BUMP ........ hehehehe