How many are changing their vote?

[shanek]

I think there is only one state that I know of that has a permit. That is Illinois. I am not aware of any other states.

North Carolina does.

The mentally challenged people,

Someone would have to be judged mentally challenged, and therefore a danger to themselves and others by the courts, and if they can do that to remove someone from society and have them committed then I don't see any reason why they couldn't do it with their ability to carry guns.

children,

Up to the parents.

and felons?

Take guns from felons if you want, but make it a part of their sentencing so that they can have the proper hearing.

You're really arguing like a liberal here...It's either restrict everyone, making them get permits, or wholesale allowing it to everyone; no regards for the possibility of not doing anything to anyone until they show they're irresponsible.

Do you view it as the same way for driver's license?

A driver's license only applies to government roads. You don't need a license to drive on private roads.

The law says they do have the authority to delegate this.

The SUPREME law of the land says they don't.

 

[shanek]

Driving a priviledge? Then isn't free speech and gun ownership a priviledge?

A privilege is something you need permission for. A right you don't. You need permission if you want to take your car onto government property (the roads), just like you need permission to enter someone else's house. You DON'T need permission to exercise free speech or gun ownership. But if you go onto someone else's property, you need their permission. You can't force your way into a TV studio and have them broadcast your speech, and a private company is perfectly within their rights to tell you not to carry guns onto their property. If you don't like that, don't go onto their property.

I think civil disobedience is different from breaking the law.

No, with civil disobedience, you actually do break the law. That's what you're being disobedient towards: you're disobeying the law.

Was there actual laws that they had to sit on the back of the bus?

Yes.

 

[merphie]

North Carolina does.

What I found says you only have to have a permit to get a handgun. It sounds like an extension of the instant check. It's probably excessive and should be repealed.

Someone would have to be judged mentally challenged, and therefore a danger to themselves and others by the courts, and if they can do that to remove someone from society and have them committed then I don't see any reason why they couldn't do it with their ability to carry guns.

Exactly. I believe that is part of the check.

Up to the parents.

That could be a dangerous prospect. Some parents don't care what their kids do. Although I guess I could agree because those kids would probably have no respect for the law as is. However, even if a kid is of good nature and good home, is he mentally able to tell when lethal force should be used? I understand what you are saying.

Take guns from felons if you want, but make it a part of their sentencing so that they can have the proper hearing.

I don't follow you. Being convicted of a felony means you can't vote and you can't own a gun.

You're really arguing like a liberal here...It's either restrict everyone, making them get permits, or wholesale allowing it to everyone; no regards for the possibility of not doing anything to anyone until they show they're irresponsible.

Liberal? I don't think so. From my understanding most places do exactly that. Anyone can get a CCW permit unless they have proven themselves irresponsible by commited (And convicted) of a felony. With exception to a few states, what is your point?

A driver's license only applies to government roads. You don't need a license to drive on private roads.

The SUPREME law of the land says they don't.

Which would include city roads. I don't know of any private roads in my area. So it is safe to say that you must have a license to drive. You couldn't even get to a private road without a license. So the restrictions are set so that you must have a license to legally drive.

 

[merphie]

A privilege is something you need permission for. A right you don't. You need permission if you want to take your car onto government property (the roads), just like you need permission to enter someone else's house. You DON'T need permission to exercise free speech or gun ownership. But if you go onto someone else's property, you need their permission. You can't force your way into a TV studio and have them broadcast your speech, and a private company is perfectly within their rights to tell you not to carry guns onto their property. If you don't like that, don't go onto their property.

See comment above.

No, with civil disobedience, you actually do break the law. That's what you're being disobedient towards: you're disobeying the law.

Yes. [/B]

I see. I did't know there were actually laws. From what I understand a place here could post a sign banning concealed weapons on their property, but if you do there is not penalty under the law. They can ask you to leave. I figured that was the context.

 

[shanek]

What I found says you only have to have a permit to get a handgun.

Isn't that bad enough?

Exactly. I believe that is part of the check.

But many of these laws pass blanket restrictions on anyone who has committed a felony, regardless of their sentencing. Besides, enforcing the sentence is the job of the police, not the dealers.

That could be a dangerous prospect.

The DoJ's Office of Juvenile Justice did a study where they divided kids into three groups: those that got guns legally (from a parent), those that got them illegally, and those who didn't get them at all. It's probably no surprise that the kids who got guns illegally had the highest rate of violence of the three groups (especially considering the fact that usually they got them from gangs), but the ones with the LOWEST rate of violence were the LEGAL GUN OWNERS!

Amazing how you don't see that statistic in the press much...

Some parents don't care what their kids do.

Then their kids are going to be trouble no matter what.

However, even if a kid is of good nature and good home, is he mentally able to tell when lethal force should be used?

If anyone would know that, it would be the parents.

I don't follow you. Being convicted of a felony means you can't vote and you can't own a gun.

Once your sentence is up, your full rights as an American citizen should be completely restored.

Liberal? I don't think so.

Note: I said you were arguing like the liberals do on this point, not that you actually are one.

From my understanding most places do exactly that. Anyone can get a CCW permit unless they have proven themselves irresponsible by commited (And convicted) of a felony.

But you fail to recognize that someone who gets a gun who didn't jump through the state's hoops can be prosecuted. Some right!

Which would include city roads. I don't know of any private roads in my area. So it is safe to say that you must have a license to drive. You couldn't even get to a private road without a license. So the restrictions are set so that you must have a license to legally drive.

Well, the problem there is a government monopoly on roads.

 

[shanek]

I see. I did't know there were actually laws. From what I understand a place here could post a sign banning concealed weapons on their property, but if you do there is not penalty under the law. They can ask you to leave. I figured that was the context.

They can do more than ask you; they can have their private security evict you. It's their property; they get to do that.

 

[merphie]

Isn't that bad enough?

But many of these laws pass blanket restrictions on anyone who has committed a felony, regardless of their sentencing. Besides, enforcing the sentence is the job of the police, not the dealers.

Absolutely. I don't agree with those restrictions. I have argued, laws only keep the guns from the law abiding citizens. I seem to have the minority opinion here. People keep arguing that they don't report these things in the media so they don't exist. They also show that the violent crimes are higher here than the UK, so guns must be the problem.

It's enough to fight to keep what is left of the second amendment. I don't think the politicians would go for no restrictions.

I think the felony restrictions depends on what kind of felony. I don't think it is a blanket. I'm not a lawyer so I am not sure on that.

The question would then become, should we try to prevent someone from obtaining a gun if they are irresponsible? The police don't track everything that is bought. I could tell you a lot of short commings in the laws here that I have seen that make it hard to track criminals.

Without a background check it would be almost impossible to find criminals. Granted I think the rejection on the NCIC instant check is very low. Like 1%.

The DoJ's Office of Juvenile Justice did a study where they divided kids into three groups: those that got guns legally (from a parent), those that got them illegally, and those who didn't get them at all. It's probably no surprise that the kids who got guns illegally had the highest rate of violence of the three groups (especially considering the fact that usually they got them from gangs), but the ones with the LOWEST rate of violence were the LEGAL GUN OWNERS!

Amazing how you don't see that statistic in the press much...

Then their kids are going to be trouble no matter what.

I have seen similar studies and I agree.

If anyone would know that, it would be the parents.

You would think. I understand what you are saying. I think the parents should be held responsible. I have been preaching gun safety to my kids since there were old enough to walk.

Once your sentence is up, your full rights as an American citizen should be completely restored.

I could agree with that but we would have to have some serious changes in the legal system before that could be. My brother-in-law is in jail for 30 years for dealing drugs. If he gets out some day, what kind of life will he have? He's been in there since he plea bargined at 18. (I think it's been 6 years) What skills will he have? How will he support himself? He would be more likely to go back to dealing. That would apply for anyone who has been in for a year or more. Jails only warehouse people. They leave with skills no better than what they came in as.

Note: I said you were arguing like the liberals do on this point, not that you actually are one.

Understood. I don't use such labels so I don't know their definitions.

But you fail to recognize that someone who gets a gun who didn't jump through the state's hoops can be prosecuted. Some right!

This is true. But what kind of people would do such a thing? In Oklahoma it is possible to buy a gun without any check. (Sales between private citizens. ) I have several guns that my grandfather gave to me and one I bought at a gun show from a private citizen. No check whats so ever.

Well, the problem there is a government monopoly on roads.

Exactly. So because of that fact you must have a driver's license.
They employ this method on many things. Just like they are trying to do away with hunting. They restrict the lands available for hunting and require high dollar hunter's license. This makes it impossible for the average hunter to hunt. It's legal to hunt, but impossible for joe citizen.

 

[Atlas]

Think what you want but I'm completely serious. If gun ownership becomes a serious issue in this campaign, and I suspect it just might, then you are very likely to see newsreels of Kerry snowboarding near his mountian cabin with a six-shooter holstered to his side. I know that comes off as rhetoric but I honestly think he will do or say anything if he thinks there's a polling point-gain in it for him.

Geez what a cynic. A six shooter??!!??

Kerry likes to take reporters with him when he relaxes. Here's a photo I saw on Drudge yesterday.

Don't you feel silly? A six shooter indeed!

 

[merphie]

Geez what a cynic. A six shooter??!!??

Kerry likes to take reporters with him when he relaxes. Here's a photo I saw on Drudge yesterday.

Don't you feel silly? A six shooter indeed!

But a nice staged photo non the less.

 

[evildave]

What? You don't think Dubya's photo opportunitiess, interviews and press conferences are carefully arranged?

 

[merphie]

What? You don't think Dubya's photo opportunitiess, interviews and press conferences are carefully arranged?

What does that have to do with anything? I was commenting on Kerry's attempt to look good to the "pro-gun" people. His voting record speaks volumes. It's a poor attempt at a cover up.

 

[evildave]

As opposed to Dubya stating that Bin Laden isn't a priority in March of 2002, after stating he wanted him 'Dead or Alive' in september 2001?

 

[merphie]

As opposed to Dubya stating that Bin Laden isn't a priority in March of 2002, after stating he wanted him 'Dead or Alive' in september 2001?

So what is your point? Why is they someone makes a comment and some has to point fingers on the other guy? Should John Kerry plan Par for the course or should he rise above it?

 

[gnome]

Sure I agree. From what I read of it, it was not a blanket protection. If only protected them if they were being sued for their product being used for criminal purposes. Or for claims that had no proof of wrong doing.

These kind of lawsuits don't prove any wrong doing by the manufacturer. They have all been dismissed to date. This would protect them from having to pay legal defense fees for cases that have mo merit.

Well, let me give you a for instance... and see what you think... there might not be any actual cases like this, but I'm curious where you draw the line.

Suppose you have a gun manufacturer... they are supplying gun dealers. They happen to be aware that one of the dealers they supply are operating illegally and selling weapons without doing proper background checks. If they continue to sell the weapons to that dealer, would the tort reform protect them from liability... and do you agree that it should?

If your answer is that they DO have liability because they are aware of the wrongdoing... then can they play the game of "hear no evil, see no evil" to avoid liability, and is that a problem?

 

[gnome]

So what is your point? Why is they someone makes a comment and some has to point fingers on the other guy? Should John Kerry plan Par for the course or should he rise above it?

It's been said before: if you bring up a point as a reason to vote against someone, it's a fair argument if the other guy is no better. Rationally, in an issue stalemate like that you should look to other issues to decide it for you...

 

[Just thinking]

That's a really dumb reason not to vote for Kerry. If you give him a month or two, he's certain to change it.

That's an excellent reason why not to vote for Kerry !!

 

[merphie]

Well, let me give you a for instance... and see what you think... there might not be any actual cases like this, but I'm curious where you draw the line.

Suppose you have a gun manufacturer... they are supplying gun dealers. They happen to be aware that one of the dealers they supply are operating illegally and selling weapons without doing proper background checks. If they continue to sell the weapons to that dealer, would the tort reform protect them from liability... and do you agree that it should?

If your answer is that they DO have liability because they are aware of the wrongdoing... then can they play the game of "hear no evil, see no evil" to avoid liability, and is that a problem?

Sure they would have liability to report the infraction to the police. So far none of the cases brought forth had any merit and were dismissed. So the What Ifs are academic at this point. All they are doing is abusing the legal system achieve their opinion.

On you senario, what if they sold to a dealer who was selling out the back door, but didn't know they were? Do you know what is required of FFL dealers?

I don't think they would sell anything outside the law because the BATF can come in at any time and inspect their records. The BATF can do this without a search warrent. They must be able to show where every gun they receive goes. If they don't they will be carted off to jail.

 

[merphie]

It's been said before: if you bring up a point as a reason to vote against someone, it's a fair argument if the other guy is no better. Rationally, in an issue stalemate like that you should look to other issues to decide it for you...

Absolutely. I don't like either one of them. I don't like the smear tactics. I just have no reason to vote for Kerry. Right now, my major issue has been gun control. I have been reading the vote records of both canidates. I believe most of the problems with Bush I can live with.

I also believe that any major defects Bush tries to push through will not work because they won't make it through congress. I don't like Bush's gay marriage ban amendment, but I don't think it would pass nationally. Although I have read were states have enacted such laws already. I know Oklahoma has it on the ballot in November.

 

[shanek]

It's enough to fight to keep what is left of the second amendment. I don't think the politicians would go for no restrictions.

It's not the politicians we have to convince. We the people create the government. We need to educate the people about guns and debunk the claims of those who would take them from us.

I think the felony restrictions depends on what kind of felony. I don't think it is a blanket.

I meant blanket in that it applies to everyone convicted automatically. It would be different if it were a part of the sentencing hearing where they could present arguments etc. and have due process about the whole thing.

The question would then become, should we try to prevent someone from obtaining a gun if they are irresponsible?

Well, the question really is, whose responsibility is it to keep the guns out of the hands of the irresponsible? I think it's ridiculous to put that on the shoulders of the dealer. That's just one step away from being able to sue the dealer if one of his customers commits a crime.

I don't have any problems if a dealer wants to voluntarily do this, BTW.

Granted I think the rejection on the NCIC instant check is very low. Like 1%.

But again, it's a system that is almost impossible to appeal. You'd have to get a lawyer and set up a whole proceeding to take care of it if somehow you were wrongly rejected. They shouldn't be able to put you on the list in the first place without a sentencing hearing.

I could agree with that but we would have to have some serious changes in the legal system before that could be. My brother-in-law is in jail for 30 years for dealing drugs. If he gets out some day, what kind of life will he have? He's been in there since he plea bargined at 18. (I think it's been 6 years) What skills will he have? How will he support himself? He would be more likely to go back to dealing. That would apply for anyone who has been in for a year or more. Jails only warehouse people. They leave with skills no better than what they came in as.

Well, New York, in an uncharacteristic fit of good sense, has a program where inmates can learn a trade so they can be productive when they get out of jail. Largely, it's been a success, except for cases where, for example, one inmate studied to become a barber, but when he was released the State of New York refused to give him a barber's license because he's a convicted felon. Ah, government thinking...

Understood. I don't use such labels so I don't know their definitions.

It wasn't a matter of labels; my point was that the argument you used employed the same flawed logic as those arguing on the other side. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

[qoute]This is true. But what kind of people would do such a thing?[/quote]

People who don't feel they should have to spend valuable time going to the government to say "Mother, may I?" every time they want to exercise one of their sovereign rights?

They employ this method on many things. Just like they are trying to do away with hunting. They restrict the lands available for hunting and require high dollar hunter's license. This makes it impossible for the average hunter to hunt. It's legal to hunt, but impossible for joe citizen.

Well, the problem there is government ownership of property. The government should own the property it needs to do its job, and no more.

 

[evildave]

So what is your point? Why is they someone makes a comment and some has to point fingers on the other guy? Should John Kerry plan Par for the course or should he rise above it?

So what's my point?

Dubya is campaigning that he's fighting the war on terrorism. Dubya isn't fighting the 'War Against Terrorism' at all. He's fighting daddy's war for oil, and doing a lousy job even at that, while promoting the growth of terrorism.

Of course, those suicide bombers and random killers who do everything exactly like a terrorist in Iraq, they're 'insurgents'. Not 'terrorists'. You see, they're only promoting 'insurgency', rather than blowing the doors wide open for terrorists to operate in fertile new ground.