Obamessiah says...

[warpedskydiver 0]

This is what the Messiah said in his speech last night........

"Don't tell me we can't preserve the second amendment and keep AK47's out of the hands of criminals"

That is Liberal speak for "I want an assault weapon ban"

Obama understands how "rural hunters in Ohio" want their bolt guns yet "cities plagued with gang violence" don't

Expect an assault weapon ban if Obama were to win.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

This is what the Messiah said in his speech last night........

"Don't tell me we can't preserve the second amendment and keep AK47's out of the hands of criminals"

It's already illegal for criminals to have them, O-stammer.

Quote

Expect an assault weapon ban if Obama were to win.

Expect me to turn belligerent if ordered to turn mine in.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

This is what the Messiah said in his speech last night........

"Don't tell me we can't preserve the second amendment and keep AK47's out of the hands of criminals"

It's already illegal for criminals to have them, O-stammer.

Quote

Expect an assault weapon ban if Obama were to win.

Expect me to turn belligerent if ordered to turn mine in.

It may be illegal but criminals still get them and there is a heavy flow of weapons getting from the US into Mexico.
I support the 2nd and the right for an individual to have guns but I do not think the 2nd means that we should not have laws and measures that really prevent guns getting into criminal hands.
Today it is more difficult to get on an airplane than it is to get a gun. If we had an administration that made a real effort to cut down on illegal gun trafficking it would have an effect.
The bullshit I don't buy is that any gun control is against the 2nd.

[billvon 3,120]

>It's already illegal for criminals to have them, O-stammer.

But currently difficult to enforce. It would be cool to see that changed.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>It's already illegal for criminals to have them, O-stammer.

But currently difficult to enforce. It would be cool to see that changed.

Propose a method.

Down here, the other day, a Sheriff's Deputy left his SWAT AR-15 in his car. The car was burglarized, and now unknown felon or felons possess his rifle, five loaded magazines, his badge, his Sheriff's Office I.D. card, among other items.

You can make legal sales difficult or impossible. Hell, you could even ban civilian ownership. What you will NOT do is EVER dry up the supply that will make its way inevitably into criminal hands.

Would you state your proposal for what you think would do the trick, yet not make it difficult or impossible for the peaceable citizens to purchase and own and carry their guns for defense, Billvon?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[billvon 3,120]

>Would you state your proposal for what you think would do the trick,
>yet not make it difficult or impossible for the peaceable citizens to
>purchase and own and carry their guns for defense, Billvon?

I don't have one. I don't understand the legalese surrounding the issue enough to try to solve the problem. But I will definitely listen to someone who thinks they _do_ have a solution, rather than assume they either want to "take everyone's guns" or "arm all criminals."

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I do not think the 2nd means that we should not have laws and measures that really prevent guns getting into criminal hands.

As soon as you point out a law to us that criminals will obey, we'll listen. Can you? There are 20,000 gun laws on the books now, and apparently you think that none of those are working. But you've got some magic proposal for us that will succeed where all these others have failed?

Quote

Today it is more difficult to get on an airplane than it is to get a gun.

I can see that you haven't bought a gun in the last 15 years. I've never had to have an FBI background check done on me to board an airplane.

Heck, if I could buy a gun just by taking off my shoes and walking through a metal detector, that would be great!

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

I do not think the 2nd means that we should not have laws and measures that really prevent guns getting into criminal hands.

As soon as you point out a law to us that criminals will obey, we'll listen. Can you? There are 20,000 gun laws on the books now, and apparently you think that none of those are working. But you've got some magic proposal for us that will succeed where all these others have failed?

Quote

Today it is more difficult to get on an airplane than it is to get a gun.

I can see that you haven't bought a gun in the last 15 years. I've never had to have an FBI background check done on me to board an airplane.

Heck, if I could buy a gun just by taking off my shoes and walking through a metal detector, that would be great!

Criminal laws need to be enforced, thats why we have law enforcement, we have locks on banks and fences on our borders to prevent criminals breaking the law, I think we could have more measures that prevent criminals buying guns, we have spent billions preventing criminals taking guns and other weapons on aircraft, we can do the same with the street, it wont be 100% effective but it will reduce the illegal supply of weapons. Registration and better tracking of individual weapons from manufacturer to customer (like they do with cars) would go a long way to help. It would make gun owners have to deal with more paperwork but I think that would be a fair trade for the reduction in crime.

Been to a gun show recently? I didn't get screened to enter and I didn't buy a gun but it didn't look like everyone was even showing ID.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Criminal laws need to be enforced, thats why we have law enforcement, we have locks on banks and fences on our borders to prevent criminals breaking the law, I think we could have more measures that prevent criminals buying guns

I can see that you've drunk the gun-control kool-aid. You're saying all those nice-sounding things, but the problem is, you aren't providing any specifics. And without that, all the nice-sounding things are absolutely worthless.

What "more measures", specifically, would prevent criminals from buying guns?

Quote

we have spent billions preventing criminals taking guns and other weapons on aircraft, we can do the same with the street

And you want every public street to be treated like airport security? You want people walking through metal detectors everywhere we go? Sheesh, there goes the Bill of Rights. You would turn America into a gulag in order to catch criminals with guns?

Quote

Registration and better tracking of individual weapons from manufacturer to customer (like they do with cars) would go a long way to help ...that would be a fair trade for the reduction in crime.

How, specifically, does having my gun's serial number in a computer stop some criminal from committing a crime? You're suggesting that registration reduces crime, when there is no evidence anywhere in the world of that actually being effective.

I can tell that you're naive on this issue, and you've got a lot to learn.

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

Criminal laws need to be enforced, thats why we have law enforcement, we have locks on banks and fences on our borders to prevent criminals breaking the law, I think we could have more measures that prevent criminals buying guns

I can see that you've drunk the gun-control kool-aid. You're saying all those nice-sounding things, but the problem is, you aren't providing any specifics. And without that, all the nice-sounding things are absolutely worthless.

What "more measures", specifically, would prevent criminals from buying guns?

Quote

we have spent billions preventing criminals taking guns and other weapons on aircraft, we can do the same with the street

And you want every public street to be treated like airport security? You want people walking through metal detectors everywhere we go? Sheesh, there goes the Bill of Rights. You would turn America into a gulag in order to catch criminals with guns?

Quote

Registration and better tracking of individual weapons from manufacturer to customer (like they do with cars) would go a long way to help ...that would be a fair trade for the reduction in crime.

How, specifically, does having my gun's serial number in a computer stop some criminal from committing a crime? You're suggesting that registration reduces crime, when there is no evidence anywhere in the world of that actually being effective.

I can tell that you're naive on this issue, and you've got a lot to learn.

So you are throwing in the towel and saying it is too so to control so don't bother.

If serial numbers are tracked then when an illegal gun is used it makes it easier to trace the history and track the person who made it an illegal weapon. Yes I know numbers can be removed, but more could be done to make this harder and not all guns have the serial removed.

I think banning sales at gun fairs would also help. Yes it would piss some people off but would not prevent you exercising your 2nd amendment rights.
More verification of gun sales, a significant amount of verifying registration data will prevent illegal sales.

Are you opposed to better enforcement of existing gun laws, and if so on what grounds?

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Criminal laws need to be enforced, thats why we have law enforcement...

Agreed. Clinton touted his Brady Law, and then when hundreds of thousands of criminals broke it, where were the prosecutions?

Quote

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 15) -- Standing before a crowd of congressional gun-control supporters and delivering a stern warning to the House of Representatives, President Bill Clinton Tuesday released a study on the effectiveness of the Brady Bill, adding "now is the time for those of us in government to act by strengthening the Brady law."

"We have stopped over 400,000 gun sales that were dangerous since 1994 because Congress listened to the American people and not the NRA and passed the Brady Bill," Clinton said, citing numbers from a new Justice Department study. "Every single red flag they threw up about all the danger ... this would be to gun owners was wrong, wrong, wrong."

Justice report hails Brady law
The new Justice Department study reports that under the first five years of the Brady law, 312,000 handgun purchase applications were rejected and two-thirds of those rejected buyers were felons or under current felony indictment.

But critics argue that if so many people were prevented from buying handguns, why weren't more prosecuted? Justice Department figures show that in 1998, for example, only one person faced prosecution for violating the Brady Law.

Quote

I think we could have more measures that prevent criminals buying guns, we have spent billions preventing criminals taking guns and other weapons on aircraft, we can do the same with the street

Are you proposing we put metal detectors on the street??

Quote

it wont be 100% effective but it will reduce the illegal supply of weapons. Registration and better tracking of individual weapons from manufacturer to customer (like they do with cars) would go a long way to help.

Actually, we DO have tracking of ALL firearms from manufacturer to customer. If they find a gun, they use the serial number, make and model to go to the maker, who divulges records of the distributor, who divulges records of the retailer, who is obligated by law to keep detailed records of the purchaser, including the now-famous Form 4473. Of course, that leads to the last legal owner of the gun, not to the criminal who might have stolen it, used it, and then dropped it at the scene of the crime.

You say your plan won't be 100% effective. Just like the laws you're not enforcing now, I guess.

Quote

It would make gun owners have to deal with more paperwork but I think that would be a fair trade for the reduction in crime.

You treat it as a given that there would be a resulting reduction in crime. Since the majority of criminals with guns do not obtain them legally in the first place, tell us why you even think this would reduce crime.

Quote

Been to a gun show recently? I didn't get screened to enter and I didn't buy a gun but it didn't look like everyone was even showing ID.

I guarantee you that EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO BOUGHT A GUN FROM A LICENSED DEALER showed I.D., and had a phone call made to the F.B.I. to make sure that the most current records indicate his eligibility to purchase a firearm.

Anyone buying from a private owner, no, he doesn't have to show I.D. That doesn't change the fact that it is still illegal for him to buy a gun if he's a felon (or crazy, or a drug abuser); and it's still illegal for the seller to sell to a prohibited buyer. And that seller has the option (although not the legal obligation) to have a background check done just to cover his ass and make sure he's not committing the felony of selling to a prohibited buyer.

Your plan still does nothing to defeat gun sales by unscrupulous but as-yet-unconvicted legal owners of guns to those who may not legally purchase them. You cannot get compliance from those who are simply willing to break whatever law you enact.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

If serial numbers are tracked then when an illegal gun is used it makes it easier to trace the history and track the person who made it an illegal weapon.

Doesn't STOP CRIME though, DOES IT.
You still have to HAVE that crime HAPPEN.
YOU said it would help REDUCE CRIME.

Besides, don't you have to actually have the gun to know the serial number to begin this trace? What do you do when the criminal shoots someone and walks off still in possession of the gun?

Quote

I think banning sales at gun fairs would also help. Yes it would piss some people off but would not prevent you exercising your 2nd amendment rights.

Oh, so you wouldn't mind the fact that you were destroying an American tradition -- and trampling on the FIRST Amendment right of FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION while you're at it??

There seem to be a lot of rights you don't mind eradicating in your quest to stop something under 100% of gun crime. What is your bottom threshold for still considering shitting on the Constitution worthwhile? Down as far as stopping only 20% of gun crime? 5%?

Quote

More verification of gun sales, a significant amount of verifying registration data will prevent illegal sales.

How?

Maybe we should just have the guns sold right out of government offices, to make sure accurate records are kept.

Look, we ALREADY REQUIRE gun sellers to verify the things you are asking for.

Every licensed gun dealer has a paper trail that leads directly to him for every gun he gets from the distributor. You cannot do more than make him aware that IF he sells a gun without the right documentation (forms, background check), he will face prosecution. The only other step is to simply not allow these folks to sell guns as a business in the first place. EVERY business is ON ITS HONOR, under PERIL OF PROSECUTION, to abide by the laws that govern its business conduct.

Quote

Are you opposed to better enforcement of existing gun laws, and if so on what grounds?

To start with, I propose that we "better enforce" sentencing of violent gun criminals. Use a gun in a crime, even if you don't fire it, hell, even if it's a replica, and you go to prison, no parole, for thirty years.

As they get caught, they disappear from the streets but they don't return. Before long, there are fewer and fewer of them because they seem to always get caught at least once. If they got a 30 year sentence, just like Jack Black's "cock-pushups," one's all you need.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>Would you state your proposal for what you think would do the trick

I don't have one. I don't understand the legalese surrounding the issue enough to try to solve the problem. But I will definitely listen to someone who thinks they _do_ have a solution, rather than assume they either want to "take everyone's guns" or "arm all criminals."

I have never in my life met a single gun-rights advocate who wants to "arm all criminals" -- or even any criminals.

On the other hand, in word and in deed, I have met or seen many gun-control advocates who avow a desire to eliminate guns from civilian hands.

And even if you say that most of them only want certain guns banned (the so-called "deadly assault-weapons," for instance), well, you still can't find a pro-gunner who says, "Let's just let the criminals have only these single-shot .22s..." The pro-gunners draw a 100% "don't allow criminals ANY guns" line.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Gawain 0]

What's worse is that these guys wouldn't know what a real assault weapon looked like or functioned versus another semi-automatic rifle.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

What's worse is that these guys wouldn't know what a real assault weapon looked like or functioned versus another semi-automatic rifle.

That would change their opinion?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[birdlike 0]

Quote

What's worse is that these guys wouldn't know what a real assault weapon looked like or functioned versus another semi-automatic rifle.

They know.

They are capitalizing on the fact that many other people don't know.

You can't possibly convince me that the gun-control advocates, especially those who head-up the gun-control organizations, have never been exposed to the factual definitions and functions of the different types of weapons.

They don't CARE!

They want Jane Q. Public to think that their "assault weapons ban" will be taking fully automatic machine guns out of the hands of gang members in her town! So, they play up the lie.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[billvon 3,120]

>I have never in my life met a single gun-rights advocate who wants to
>"arm all criminals" -- or even any criminals.

I have never in my life met someone who wants to take all guns away from all legal gun owners, either.

On the other hand, right here on Speaker's Corner, I recall a poster (Kennedy) gleefully telling me that there was a legal loophole that prevented a felon from being prosecuted from obtaining a gun. So there's one example right there.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>I have never in my life met a single gun-rights advocate who wants to
>"arm all criminals" -- or even any criminals.

I have never in my life met someone who wants to take all guns away from all legal gun owners, either.

On the other hand, right here on Speaker's Corner, I recall a poster (Kennedy) gleefully telling me that there was a legal loophole that prevented a felon from being prosecuted from obtaining a gun. So there's one example right there.

Absolutely not, and your example is dishonest.

What Kennedy probably meant was that case law has settled that a felon who is found in possession of a firearm (which is agaist the law [unless his rights have been restored]) cannot be prosecuted in a jurisdiction that requires registration of firearms for failure to register his firearm, because compelling a felon (prohibited possessor) to register a firearm was found to constitute a violation of his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.

Kennedy's example is NOT talking about prosecuting the felon for "obtaining a gun." He would still be prosecutable for that, as well as for any criminal manner in which he used the gun.

Are you really trying to convince us that there is a "loophole" that means we can't go after criminals for obtaining guns?

The only loophole I know of that prevented us from prosecuting felons for attempting to obtain guns was named "Bill Clinton." (400,000 attempts, something like 3 prosecutions under the Brady Law that he pushed through.)

Come on, Billvon, did you really think you'd slip this one past?

Besides, you said you've never met a gun control advocate who wants to take away all guns from legal gun owners. Do you at the same time allege that there are none? I do believe there are. I also do believe that there are no legal gun owners who think WANT criminals to be armed, or want to help them be so.

Meanwhile, if I wanted to twist your answer around some, I could say, "Of course you've never met someone who wants to take all guns away from all legal gun owners, either, because they'd leave it be LEGAL for the COPS to have them!" (Hence, not taken away from "all legal owners.")

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Nomad 0]

I was sitting in the stadium and it took every ounce of control not to start booing. That and the comment about better funding for our troops, as his record displays something very contrary.

All that is gold does not glitter, Not all who wander are lost.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

I was sitting in the stadium and it took every ounce of control not to start booing. That and the comment about better funding for our troops, as his record displays something very contrary.

Democrats? Saying one thing but doing another? Nawwww! Never happens!


... Oh, wait...

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

I was sitting in the stadium and it took every ounce of control not to start booing. That and the comment about better funding for our troops, as his record displays something very contrary.

Democrats? Saying one thing but doing another? Nawwww! Never happens!

"Nation Building - absolutely not", G.W. Bush

"Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term.", G. W. Bush

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W. Bush

"Reforming Social Security will be a priority of my administration", G.W. Bush

More examples available on request.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>because compelling a felon (prohibited possessor) to register a firearm
>was found to constitute a violation of his 5th amendment right against
>self-incrimination.

Correct.

>Kennedy's example is NOT talking about prosecuting the felon for "obtaining a gun."

Also correct. It is an example of protecting a felon who wishes to own a gun, not about prosecuting a felon "for obtaining a gun."

>Besides, you said you've never met a gun control advocate who wants to
>take away all guns from legal gun owners. Do you at the same time allege that
>there are none?

I am sure there are nuts that believe that, just as there are nuts that believe that owning any weapon up to and including surface-to-air missile batteries should be 100% legal.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I am sure there are nuts that believe that, just as there are nuts that believe that owning any weapon up to and including surface-to-air missile batteries should be 100% legal.

There you go again..... seeking to limit our rights to bear arms in todays world as part of a well regulated militia.. to protect from THEIR all too well armed militia. The Canadians could invade the NW at any time.. we must be prepared.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I was sitting in the stadium and it took every ounce of control not to start booing. That and the comment about better funding for our troops, as his record displays something very contrary.

Democrats? Saying one thing but doing another? Nawwww! Never happens!

"Nation Building - absolutely not", G.W. Bush

"Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term.", G. W. Bush

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W. Bush

"Reforming Social Security will be a priority of my administration", G.W. Bush

More examples available on request.

By all means, post more, please. Tie up your time for a while. [;P]

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>because compelling a felon (prohibited possessor) to register a firearm
>was found to constitute a violation of his 5th amendment right against
>self-incrimination.

Correct.

>Kennedy's example is NOT talking about prosecuting the felon for "obtaining a gun."

Also correct. It is an example of protecting a felon who wishes to own a gun, not about prosecuting a felon "for obtaining a gun."

Well, I was charitable at first because you posted, "...there was a legal loophole that prevented a felon from being prosecuted from obtaining a gun," which is an incoherent construction and has no clear meaning. How does one "prosecute a felon "FROM" obtaining a gun? Did you mean "prosecute for?" Or did you mean "prohibit from"?

I'll assume "prosecute for." The fact is, felons CAN be prosecuted for obtaining a gun (laws make doing so illegal) and for possessing a gun, but not for failing to register a gun, because compelling them to register them is viewed by the courts as compelling them to bear witness against themselves, which is a big no-no in American jurisprudence.



>Besides, you said you've never met a gun control advocate who wants to
>take away all guns from legal gun owners. Do you at the same time allege that
>there are none?

I am sure there are nuts that believe that, just as there are nuts that believe that owning any weapon up to and including surface-to-air missile batteries should be 100% legal.