SkyDekker 1,465 #26 March 2, 2011 QuoteIf we made it mandatory that all cars had to have an alcohol interlock device, limited the HP to 100HP and limited the tip speed to 75 we would certainly make driving safer.... But would that be fair to those that do not speed, and don't drink and drive? They wouldn't be impacted. QuoteFL has a 10-20-25 to life that works fine when they use it. One of the police officers that was killed executing a warrant was for a guy that had already committed an armed robbery. The Judge did not give the mandatory 10 year sentence since he was 17 when he committed the crime. You mean there is a loophole in the law? How do you propose this loophole is closed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #27 March 2, 2011 QuoteThanks. I thought the number seemed extremely high. It always sounded like one of those numbers that is so high it must be true, else why would someone quote such an obviously ridiculous number? On the other hand, 300 seems low. That's only six per state, leaving none for localities or the feds. Methodology is the major issue between the numbers. One takes into account things like mandatory gun locks being provided, the requirement of an FFL to point out the "youth firearm safety notice"... Things that do not have any impact on crime and others only looking at things like prohibitions to carry or own. QuoteI don't think we need to add more laws, but there's no question that improving some existing laws might be a good idea. IMO the last good gun law was the Gun Control Act of 1968. The following list of prohibited persons[5] are ineligible to own firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968.[6] * Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors * Fugitives from justice * Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs * Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness. * Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S. * Illegal Aliens * Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship * Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces * Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen. * Persons subject to a restraining order * Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition Those who already own firearms would normally be required to relinquish them upon conviction This was added later * Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition) Now, what additional laws should be added to that? Remember any 'bad' thing you can do with a gun is already illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #28 March 2, 2011 QuoteThey wouldn't be impacted. So being required to 'blow start' your car is not an impact to you? Not being able to pass on a two lane road would not impact you? Cool, so you support: * Banning cars with over 100hp * Banning cars that go over 75MPH * Requiring all cars to be equipped with an alcohol interlock QuoteYou mean there is a loophole in the law? No loophole. The law allowed the judge to choose to treat him like an adult or a minor. He choose to handle him like a minor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #29 March 2, 2011 QuoteSo being required to 'blow start' your car is not an impact to you? No QuoteNot being able to pass on a two lane road would not impact you? Now you are just pulling statements out of a hat. QuoteCool, so you support: * Banning cars with over 100hp * Banning cars that go over 75MPH * Requiring all cars to be equipped with an alcohol interlock You know from asking these same questions in another thread, that is is not true. I do not support the first two, but would support the alcohol interlock. QuoteNo loophole. The law allowed the judge to choose to treat him like an adult or a minor. He choose to handle him like a minor. Right, but you wanted the judge not to have that option. So, how do you fix that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #30 March 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteIf I make it against the law for you, a presumably honest citizen, to not have nuclear material, then dishonest terrorists have less access to them because they can't steal them from you. Then you should be fine with not allowing individuals to have airplanes since a terrorist could use one. And model rocket motors! Don't forget those! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #31 March 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteFL has a 10-20-25 to life that works fine when they use it. Obviously it doens't work fine, there is still crime in Florida. My question was, what punishment will eradicate crime? It stops those particular criminals from committing more crimes, by putting them behind bars. Yet some people will never be deterred in advance from committing crimes, because of the threat of being caught and punished. Thus, as you point out, crime will always happen, no matter what you do to try and prevent it. And that's a darned good reason to allow citizens to be armed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #32 March 2, 2011 A large difference between gun-rights and gun-control people is whether or not you approve of prior restraint. The fact is that everything you can do to affect another person with a gun is already covered under some sort of criminal law/code/statute. So if bad things happen with guns, there are laws and systems in place to address those wrongs. If we needs harsher sentences, or better investigations, or better police response, we can push for those, but they are not evidence that we need more laws to control guns. Look at the ideas John posted. Most of them cover sales, registration, dealers, and record keeping. One covers barring citizens from ownership after crimes not related to guns (that could include an affray charge for defending yourself from assault, or simple misdemeanors from thirty years ago). Not a single one of them addresses "gun crime" that they are supposed to fight. I don't see anything in there about armed robbery, shootings, homicide, suicide, brandishing, or even concealed carry. These laws are not meant to address gun violence. They are meant to address gun ownership. If you think gun ownership is a terrible thing, supporting them makes sense. If you think gun violence is a terrible thing, then you alreaady know that there are laws against that, and we need to focus our efforts elsewhere. NOT on legislation.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #33 March 2, 2011 Orininal text in print. Translations in bold. 1) Close the" Gun Show" Loophole: Extend Brady Background Checks to All Gun Purchases Bring government oversight into your living room. Register all sales, sellers and buyers. Make selling a gun so legally dangerous that most won't do it. 2) Close the Terror Gap: Prohibit Gun Sales to Suspected Terrorists Deny due process to anyone wishing to buy a gun. 3) Stop the Sale of Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines (aka Big Bullet-Blasting Boxes) Ban an item that has no effect on crimes or the number of victims. Because we can. 4) Restore Justice to Gun Violence Victims: Repeal the Gun Industry Legal Protection Act Go after gun makers. They haven't done anything wrong, but they make the guns. Next we'll go after Budweiser and Ford for drunk drivers. 5) Repeal Tiahrt Restrictions on Disclosure of Crime Gun Data Register every gun. Impede law enforcement investigations. Misrepresent what traces mean. 6) Require Licensing of Gun Owners and Registration of Gun Purchases Register every gun owner, seller, and buyer. Obviously this has nothing to do with confiscation. We just want to know where every gun and every gun owner are at all times. 7) Strengthen ATF Authority to Regulate Gun Dealers and Crack Down on Corrupt Dealers Right, because we can trust bureaucracy to never abuse power or overstep its bounds. Even the BATFE, that has been repeatedly scolded by congress for exceeding its legal authority and mandate. 8) Require Gun Owners to Report Lost or Stolen Guns Blame victims for crimes committed with what used to be their property. Next we'll go after car owners when their stolen vehicle is used in a crime. 9) Improve the National Violent Death Reporting System Date, and restore firearms research funding for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention So what do guns have to with disease control and prevention again? Particularly when the CDC has put out trash "research" that even they can't support. Maybe when doctors take advice from armorers and shooters, this will make sense. 10) Restrict Large-Volume Gun Sales Make it so hard to own or buy a gun that no one bothers. Maybe next we'll bring back "one gun a month" laws. 11) Require Licensed Dealers to Adopt Safeguards to Prevent Gun Thefts Put gun dealers out of business by forcing overhead through the roof. 12) Require Licensed Dealers to Perform Background Checks on Employees Actually I don't have an issue with this one, provided it's the same standard as required for ownership (pass an instant check and never look back). I doubt that's what they have in mind, though. 13) Prohibit The Transfer of Gun Inventory Without Background Checks After a Dealer's License Has Been Revoked Not even sure what they're talking about here... 14) Prohibit Gun Possession by People Convicted of Violent Misdemeanors If you've ever looked at someone funny, you can't have a gun. Unless you're a politician. Or famous. Or anyone we want to give a pass. But not the peasants. 15) Prohibit Gun Possession by Persons Convicted of Violent Acts as Juveniles See above, but include school yards scuffles and fighting with your siblings. 16) Repeal the 24-hour Brady Record Destruction Requirement Register every gun owner, seller, and buyer. Obviously this has nothing to do with confiscation. We just want to know where every gun and every gun owner are at all times. 17) Support new technologies to help law enforcement more effectively trace crime guns and supporting development of safety features to childproof guns make guns so expensive no one can afford them, and so slow to use and likely to fail that no one wants one, anyway. A good judge of this is if the police won't use it, citizens shouldn't be required to use it.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #34 March 3, 2011 >You already kill people as punishment, that doesn't stop criminals. What punisment >should be introduced that you think will eradicate crime? Put Mike and Jeanie in a room and make the criminal listen to the resulting argument 24/7. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #35 March 3, 2011 Nah, Jeanne is a lot more human in person than here. I'd wager anyone that's met Mike would say the same thing. You need to put Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, and a bunch of conspiracy theorists in a room, and make them listen to that 24/7. But that pesky eighth amendment gets in the way of that...witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #36 March 3, 2011 QuoteJust want to chime in here. Wendy: No Law will ever prevent anything without the consent and obedience of the individual faced with the choice. Whether they be gun laws, traffic laws, etc. For those who choose to violate those laws there is only punishment after the fact. Kallend: Making a comparison between Gun Laws and Drunk driving laws are not valid. There is no clearly stated constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle. According to SCOTUS, restrictions forbidding felons and whackos from owning guns are perfectly constitutional. TRY HARDER NEXT TIME.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #37 March 3, 2011 Gun control is even killing law enforcement officers, who are usually exempt from such stupidity. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry confronted Mexican smugglers with AK rifles, and before using deadly force, was required to first fire bean bag rounds. When the smugglers refused to drop their weapons, Terry fired bean bags, while the smugglers fired real bullets. Guess who won? Terry is dead. Two Immigration agents traveling in Mexico were stopped on the highway by a drug gang. They were not allowed to carry their firearms while they were in Mexico, and had no means to fight back. Jaime Zapata is dead, and Victor Avila was injured. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #38 March 4, 2011 QuoteGun control is even killing law enforcement officers, who are usually exempt from such stupidity. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry confronted Mexican smugglers with AK rifles, and before using deadly force, was required to first fire bean bag rounds. When the smugglers refused to drop their weapons, Terry fired bean bags, while the smugglers fired real bullets. Guess who won? Terry is dead. Two Immigration agents traveling in Mexico were stopped on the highway by a drug gang. They were not allowed to carry their firearms while they were in Mexico, and had no means to fight back. Jaime Zapata is dead, and Victor Avila was injured. Now let's put these two government policies together and see how the look: 1) U.S. agents in Mexico must go unarmed. 2) The BATF is intentionally allowing weapons to be bought in America and taken to Mexico, knowing they'll fall into the hands of the drug cartels. What's wrong with this picture? We're giving guns to the bad guys, and taking them away from the good guys. That's what "gun control "does... And then we're surprised when a U.S. agent is murdered with a U.S.-puchased rifle, in Mexico, in the hands of a drug cartel member? This so-called "Project Gun-Walker" is just now finally hitting the mainstream media. It's going to blow-up in the ATF's face, and they sure as hell deserve it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #39 March 4, 2011 Quote>You already kill people as punishment, that doesn't stop criminals. What punisment >should be introduced that you think will eradicate crime? Put Mike and Jeanie in a room and make the criminal listen to the resulting argument 24/7. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 . . .I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #40 March 5, 2011 QuoteQuote Kallend: Making a comparison between Gun Laws and Drunk driving laws are not valid. There is no clearly stated constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle. According to SCOTUS, restrictions forbidding felons and whackos from owning guns are perfectly constitutional. TRY HARDER NEXT TIME. And those laws are already in place. So why do we need more? Did you get the idea that anything on that list is meant to affect felons and mentally ill obtaining fireams? Or are you just pointing out that no right is absolute, and then using that as justification to make that right so difficult and dangerous to exercise that it becomes more trouble than it's worth? And if you're not happy with current laws proscribing same, do you have any better ideas? Or should we punish everyone else, just in case?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #41 March 7, 2011 Quote Now you are just pulling statements out of a hat. No, limiting a car to 100HP would make passing on a two lane road much more difficult that having 400HP. So you are missing again. I can't help but think this is your your attempt to dodge the point. Quote I do not support the first two, but would support the alcohol interlock. Why would you NOT support banning cars with over 100HP??? Why would you NOT support banning cars that go over 75???? QuoteRight, but you wanted the judge not to have that option. So, how do you fix that? Not agreeing does not make it a loophole like you claimed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #42 March 7, 2011 QuotePut Mike and Jeanie in a room and make the criminal listen to the resulting argument 24/7. Hey Mods... Isn't that a personal attack???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #43 March 7, 2011 QuoteAccording to SCOTUS, restrictions forbidding felons and whackos from owning guns are perfectly constitutional. TRY HARDER NEXT TIME. Yes, people that have been FOUND GUILTY in a TRIAL, or committed. I guess you would support tighter regulations on airplanes and toy rocket engines? They are not even covered in the Constitution. Try harder next time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #44 March 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteAccording to SCOTUS, restrictions forbidding felons and whackos from owning guns are perfectly constitutional. TRY HARDER NEXT TIME. Yes, people that have been FOUND GUILTY in a TRIAL, or committed. I guess you would support tighter regulations on airplanes and toy rocket engines? They are not even covered in the Constitution. Try harder next time. Non sequitur. The discussion is about guns, used in thousands of homicides each and every year.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #45 March 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Kallend: Making a comparison between Gun Laws and Drunk driving laws are not valid. There is no clearly stated constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle. According to SCOTUS, restrictions forbidding felons and whackos from owning guns are perfectly constitutional. TRY HARDER NEXT TIME. And those laws are already in place. So why do we need more? Did you get the idea that anything on that list is meant to affect felons and mentally ill obtaining fireams? Or are you just pointing out that no right is absolute, and then using that as justification to make that right so difficult and dangerous to exercise that it becomes more trouble than it's worth? And if you're not happy with current laws proscribing same, do you have any better ideas? Or should we punish everyone else, just in case? I have stated my position very clearly, there's no need to invent yet another strawman.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #46 March 7, 2011 QuoteNon sequitur. The discussion is about guns, used in thousands of homicides each and every year No, the discussion is removing RIGHTS in the Constitution and how you are fine with that, but not fine with your toys being legislated. You really should be able to do better than that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #47 March 7, 2011 QuoteWhy would you NOT support banning cars with over 100HP??? Why would you NOT support banning cars that go over 75???? Because I do not believe in banning anything. I do like the idea of rendering the car useless if intoxicated. QuoteNot agreeing does not make it a loophole like you claimed. Who is dodging again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #48 March 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteNon sequitur. The discussion is about guns, used in thousands of homicides each and every year No, the discussion is removing RIGHTS in the Constitution and how you are fine with that, but not fine with your toys being legislated. You really should be able to do better than that. Cars and airplanes and their users are already subject to very strict legislation - come out from under your rock sometime.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #49 March 7, 2011 Quotecome out from under your rock sometime. Personal insults! Oh boy, this discussion is really getting intellectual now! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #50 March 7, 2011 QuoteCars and airplanes and their users are already subject to very strict legislation - come out from under your rock sometime. I don't have to register or get a license for a vehicle that I operate on my own property, and I can build an airplane in my garage. Come out from under your own rock, perfesser.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
