Carryover From GD: Gun Control
quote:Originally posted by nunn:
"There should be NO gun control, only behavior control. I agree that certain people, based on their behaviors, should not be allowed to own or possess firearms, but beyond that, I don't believe in laws governing the manufacture, possession, and transfer of firearms.
The 1986 machine gun ban should be repealed, along with the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the National Firearms Act of 1934. If that causes a lot of BATF agents to have nothing to do, oh well. Let them transfer to the Border Patrol and start doing something, not about keeping illegals out, but GETTING illegals out."
***************************************************************
Quote by trfox:
"Sigh..............OK, here I go probably getting in trouble with the major mod on the forum. But truth will out.
In red above. As soon as that sentence is typed/spoken, it introduces gun control in the situation. No way around it. Sorry."
***************************************************************
Quote by lt496:
Correct tr.
America should be all about "punishment" for bad acts, NOT restrictions on individual freedoms.
America was meant to be a free society. As such, a certain amount of hazard exists that, if we are to remain a free society, must be acknowledged and accepted.
Rather than focus on the "control" of access to objects (firearms), which are a fundamental right to keep and bear and rather than the prohibition of those fundamental objects in a general sense, we should restructure our thought process to allow for and mandate, swift, sure and severe "punishment" for bad acts.
This approach would leave the fundamental RTKBA inviolate and facilitate the removal of bad actors from the equation, or deter them from such bad acts out of fear of swift, sure retribution.
Just a thought.
****************************************************************
Quote by Hunter Mag:
But when "they" have finished serving their "punishment" should they be given their guns back?
****************************************************************
Reply by lt496:
If your debt to society is paid in full, the your rights should be restored, period.
Rather, we should be focused on restructuring how we PUNISH, not how we REHABILITATE.
It seems as if American Society is okay with tinkering and restricting a fundamental Constitutional Right, which is clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights and said society is conversely okay (in general) with coddling, or at least moderating punishment for certain bad acts by bad individuals.
If someone is such a danger to society that we are fine with restricting what the Constitution holds to be inviolate, rather then, should we not be thinking about "crime and punishment" to prevent this individual from preying on society instead of restricting an enumerated right?
Crime and punishment is a legislative matter and the Constitution allows for such. The Constitution does NOT allow for restricting the RTKBA. It is that simple.
Regardless, I readily acknowledge that there are many among us who pose a clear risk to society. If the constitution does not allow for their removal from society, then it would be incumbent on the good citizens to address such a "bad actor" on the individual level, thus removing him/her from the equation when that "bad actor" commits a bad act.
Bottom line, if we want freedom, risk accompanies that freedom, BUT society must understand and allow its citizens to take appropriate action when warranted, without fear of becoming the criminal.
We allow far too much bad behavior in America. We seem to accept that we can restrict the Constitution rather than understanding and accepting that we SHOULD be addressing the issue at the behavior and at the "individual's" level and making our society, in general, intolerant of such bad behavior.
Again, just a thought.
******************************************************************
A good discussion, but it will die an early death in GD. Any interest in carrying it on?
I'm feeling "froggy" today.[:o)]
"There should be NO gun control, only behavior control. I agree that certain people, based on their behaviors, should not be allowed to own or possess firearms, but beyond that, I don't believe in laws governing the manufacture, possession, and transfer of firearms.
The 1986 machine gun ban should be repealed, along with the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the National Firearms Act of 1934. If that causes a lot of BATF agents to have nothing to do, oh well. Let them transfer to the Border Patrol and start doing something, not about keeping illegals out, but GETTING illegals out."
***************************************************************
Quote by trfox:
"Sigh..............OK, here I go probably getting in trouble with the major mod on the forum. But truth will out.
In red above. As soon as that sentence is typed/spoken, it introduces gun control in the situation. No way around it. Sorry."
***************************************************************
Quote by lt496:
Correct tr.
America should be all about "punishment" for bad acts, NOT restrictions on individual freedoms.
America was meant to be a free society. As such, a certain amount of hazard exists that, if we are to remain a free society, must be acknowledged and accepted.
Rather than focus on the "control" of access to objects (firearms), which are a fundamental right to keep and bear and rather than the prohibition of those fundamental objects in a general sense, we should restructure our thought process to allow for and mandate, swift, sure and severe "punishment" for bad acts.
This approach would leave the fundamental RTKBA inviolate and facilitate the removal of bad actors from the equation, or deter them from such bad acts out of fear of swift, sure retribution.
Just a thought.
****************************************************************
Quote by Hunter Mag:
But when "they" have finished serving their "punishment" should they be given their guns back?
****************************************************************
Reply by lt496:
If your debt to society is paid in full, the your rights should be restored, period.
Rather, we should be focused on restructuring how we PUNISH, not how we REHABILITATE.
It seems as if American Society is okay with tinkering and restricting a fundamental Constitutional Right, which is clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights and said society is conversely okay (in general) with coddling, or at least moderating punishment for certain bad acts by bad individuals.
If someone is such a danger to society that we are fine with restricting what the Constitution holds to be inviolate, rather then, should we not be thinking about "crime and punishment" to prevent this individual from preying on society instead of restricting an enumerated right?
Crime and punishment is a legislative matter and the Constitution allows for such. The Constitution does NOT allow for restricting the RTKBA. It is that simple.
Regardless, I readily acknowledge that there are many among us who pose a clear risk to society. If the constitution does not allow for their removal from society, then it would be incumbent on the good citizens to address such a "bad actor" on the individual level, thus removing him/her from the equation when that "bad actor" commits a bad act.
Bottom line, if we want freedom, risk accompanies that freedom, BUT society must understand and allow its citizens to take appropriate action when warranted, without fear of becoming the criminal.
We allow far too much bad behavior in America. We seem to accept that we can restrict the Constitution rather than understanding and accepting that we SHOULD be addressing the issue at the behavior and at the "individual's" level and making our society, in general, intolerant of such bad behavior.
Again, just a thought.
******************************************************************
A good discussion, but it will die an early death in GD. Any interest in carrying it on?
I'm feeling "froggy" today.[:o)]
0
-
Geez, it496, thanks for the support. I opened your topic half-way expecting another one of those oh-so popular "wack the fox" (not necessarily just from you) topics.
But instead I feel the love![:o)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Geez, it496, thanks for the support. I opened your topic half-way expecting another one of those oh-so popular "wack the fox" (not necessarily just from you) topics.
But instead I feel the love![:o)]
Hey tr, credit given where credit is due.
I don't dislike you, just some of the views you express now and then. [:o)]
You're probably a good guy and one that i'd enjoy sitting down having a beer with, "shootin the breeze".0 -
it496, I read with interest your posted answer to my post in the general discussion forum. I have C&P it below:
quote:
Originally posted by lt496
quote:
Originally posted by tr fox
Well, I guess I just like getting beat up.
So does no gun control mean that 10 year old kids can purchase any firearm they want?
Yes, if Mom and Dad are fine with it and accompany little Skippy while the purchase is made. This so that the merchant knows that "parental approval" is there.
Can illegal aliens purchase guns?
No. They are not citizens of America and have no right to be here, therefore, the US Constitution's umbrella is not for them, period.
Can people living in mental health wards own guns?
Why are they living there? If it is a court ordered incarceration, as in involuntary, then until and unless they are released into general society, no.
Can firearms be purchased through the mail?
Yes, why not. Up until the 60's, that was fine. Then more government controls (infringements) were hammered down America's throat.
Can criminals keep their guns when they are sent to jail/prison?
No. Even the Constitution acknowledges and permits incarceration. Don't be ridiculous.
Before you start beating, know that I don't like gun control either. But it is just impossible for me to give a yes or no answer on the question.
There are at least two cases above in which, even though you wish/expect it to happen you would need a "gun control law" in place to make it happen. And I believe the orginal topic posted was asking "yes" or "no" on guns laws. tr fox in red.0 -
Can we "wack the fox" yet? [:o)][:D][:D] 0 -
Ah...................no[;)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Can we "wack the fox" yet? [:o)][:D][:D]
Oddly enough, i'm not in a "fox wackin" mood today.[:o)][:D] Go figure.....0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Can we "wack the fox" yet? [:o)][:D][:D]
Oddly enough, i'm not in a "fox wackin" mood today.[:o)][:D] Go figure.....
When the Prozac wears off that could change.[:0]0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Can we "wack the fox" yet? [:o)][:D][:D]
Oddly enough, i'm not in a "fox wackin" mood today.[:o)][:D] Go figure.....
When the Prozac wears off that could change.[:0]
Good shot. I'm starting to get that old feeling back after that unwarranted slam.[:o)]0 -
0 -
quote:Originally posted by jma2006
No, the 2nd Amendment does not grant us anything. It is a command to the gov't to keep its damned hands off the right to keep and bear arms....0 -
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by jma2006
No, the 2nd Amendment does not grant us anything. It is a command to the gov't to keep its damned hands off the right to keep and bear arms....
True. I believe it recognizes our pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.
I also believe that certain actions/choices should be a surrender of one's right to keep and bear arms. Those actions/choices would include violent crime, such as assault, and property crime, such as burglary.
Surrender of one's rtkba would not be a result of someone else's misconduct, however. cue the post-columbine gun legislation.0 -
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by jma2006
No, the 2nd Amendment does not grant us anything. It is a command to the gov't to keep its damned hands off the right to keep and bear arms....
True. I believe it recognizes our pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.
I also believe that certain actions/choices should be a surrender of one's right to keep and bear arms. Those actions/choices would include violent crime, such as assault, and property crime, such as burglary.
Surrender of one's rtkba would not be a result of someone else's misconduct, however. cue the post-columbine gun legislation.
I disagree. Either it is a right of a freeman or its not. Do you also advocate removal of free speach if one were to use the derogitive "N" word? People make stupid choices sometimes, and they must pay their debt for them. Once the debt is paid, they OUGHT to be freemen again. Howelse could you expect them to try and be productive again?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
12 comments