General discussion

NOW --- LET'S TALK A BIT ABOUT GUN CONTROL

I mentioned this above .. but let's bring it up again. Gun control. For decades the left has been eager to disarm the American people. Democrats and liberals have been dedicated to the idea that only government should have guns, that the people should totally and completely put their right of self defense to government. How would you like to have been one of the people in New Orleans who sat out the storm in their house, only to now find to now find predatory looters trying to come through the front door ... and no police help available. One shot through the door to take out that first looter and the rest would run. They're looking for safe targets, not homeowners with guns. And what about the hospitals? I'm almost dead certain that the rules in these hospitals forbade any employees from having guns on the premises. Now we hear about doctors and nurses moving patients to higher floors of hospitals while looters make their way upstairs. Do they wish they had guns now? How about that children's hospital that was under siege a few nights ago?

Now you know. In times of disaster and civil unrest the government isn't - can't be there to help you. You will, at least for some period of time, be on your own. You have a responsibility to your children, to your family members, to protect them. Are you up to it? Do you have a gun?


wow i wonder if a stun gun would help with all the looters?
we wouldnt want to hurt the scum would weHappy

just think about it
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: NOW --- LET'S TALK A BIT ABOUT GUN CONTROL
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: NOW --- LET'S TALK A BIT ABOUT GUN CONTROL
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
when my children lived with me

i had 1 of many in a slideing bed rail safe 1 button or more was needed to release door.

now as im alone there free placement

- Collapse -
When my son was 5 years old

I kept the ammunition seperate from the pistol. The .45 clip was easy to fetch and load up. Some 5 year olds may find the pistol and play with it, and possibly some may find the ammunition, and possibly maybe one out of ___will know how to put the clip in and have the strength to pull the slide back & take it off safety. Course my current Glock doesn't use a safety switch. Perhaps a key lock trigger guard would be appropriate for those with small kids, which would be a lot faster than a combination safe that may be in a closet or quite away from the bed. Police in my area strongly encourage & area recommend them.

- Collapse -
Actually the IDEA was...

NOT based on a militia but on British Common Law that provided for a citizen's right to self defense and hunting as well as the DUTY to provide for the common defense.

You might want to read Tucker's Blackstone which was his commentaries on Law and used as THE definitive text even by the Supreme Court and still is today.
http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm

I hope you will bookmark that link because it is not something one will sit down and read in a matter of minutes or even days. I am providing the following link from NRA-ILA that points out some of the specific particulars and with the link to the commentaries EVERY SPECIFIC can easily be verified (in other words if you don't happen to believe what the NRA is saying you can look it up in the original source). This is a relatively short read but do read the whole thing past the list of Treatises addressing the Second Amendment as it is AFTER that list that Tucker is mostly quoted.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=21

The following is quoted from the link above -

*************************************
Tucker`s American Blackstone reprinted Blackstone`s commentary on what Blackstone called the five "auxiliary rights of the subject." These were rights (such as the right to seek legal redress in court, and the right to petition) whose main purpose was to safeguard primary rights (personal liberty, personal security, and property). Blackstone had written:

"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2 c. 2, and its indeed, a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural rights of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

Blackstone was explaining the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which provided: "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law."

Tucker added his own analysis in two footnotes:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to the C.U.S. Art. 4 and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government."

In other words, the American right to arms (like the American right to freedom of the press) was broader than its British counterpart; the American right contained none of the limitations expressed in the British right. (Tucker cited what we today call "the Second Amendment" as "article 4" because the Bill of Rights, as originally proposed to states, contained two amendments which were not immediately ratified by the states, while the latter ten amendments were speedily ratified. Thus, the modern First Amendment was originally proposed as the third amendment.)

Tucker`s other footnote explained: "Whoever examines the forest and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England. The commentator himself [Blackstone] informs us, Vol. II, p. 412, that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance [sic] to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws.`"
*********************

"In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty."
--St. George Tucker

- Collapse -
PS - Additionally the case of US vs. Emerson...

in 2001 again found that the Second Amendment protects an Individual right not predicated upon any militia. The Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms is an Individual right in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939) and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). In U.S. v. Cruikshank, the Court also recognized that the right preexisted the Constitution.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=45

Most of the 40,000-word decision, written by Fifth Circuit Senior Judge, William L. Garwood, is devoted to Second Amendment issues and finds entirely in favor of its conventional, individual rights interpretation. In summary, the court said:

"We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states . . . or applies only to members of a select militia. . . . All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans. We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training. We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms. . . ."

- Collapse -
I smell smoke...

I smell a historical smokescreen. 9 shot clip limit in the past when you were, as I understand, living in the U.S.? Could you be refering to the common 3-shot magazine limit for hunters? Note: there was a physical (and removable) block in a larger capacity magazine that limited them to 3 shot. Only some states allowed the possession of an automatic weapon, and before they would allow that possession you had to go thru the quite long and complex Federal checks and application.
Oh, by the way for the sake of trivia since you said you were interested in it: Remember that post on the Forum quite a long tome ago that said that Canada controled 25% of the earth's land? I think that I Finally found the source of that distortion, it was England's political control and in the early 1900's.

- Collapse -
No, my memory of US gun regulations in the 50's was that

there was a limit to the size of the magazine in a handgun. Yes I remember the limit of 3 shells plus 1 in the breech) for a shotgun, but I don't remember it applying to hunting rifles since my .250/3000 Savage held 5. (It was a good gun for a kid.) Automatic weapons were forbidden, period. Collectors as I remember (correct me if my memory is at fault) could only own deactivated automatic weapons. Now I know they're still nominally forbidden, but conversions and kits are fairly easily obtained, or so the media insist.

Any smoke you smell may be my fried neurons but are not a smokescreen, just overheating.

Rob

- Collapse -
lets see

shotguns 3 rounds period if i remember corectly

and as to fully auto you had to get a special permit for them and they could work full function

- Collapse -
Your memory is indeed FAULTY

There were no limits on any handgun's capacity other than those of manufacture and design.

The limits on magazine capacity of a shotgun were for specific hunting purposes ONLY and there was nothing illegal (nor is there now) with extended magazine tubes on shotguns.

Regarding automatic weapons. Since the term is so loosely used this requires some clarification. There is not nor has there EVER been any forbidding of automatic firearms. An automatic firearm simply completes a full firing cycle with each pull of the trigger--in other words the action is not worked manually as is the case with a lever or bolt action.

A fully automatic firearm (or one with a fire control selection) on the other hand was indeed "forbidden" by legislation, The National firearms Act of 1934 along with all other Title II weapons (such as silencers). But even there "forbidden" is a bit strong because it forbid nothing. What it did was TAX ownership of Class III fully automatic firearms (the "Tommy Gun" is a popular example) as well as other weapons such as shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches by requiring the owner of one to have a federal background check and pay a $200 tax stamp.
(Here is a quick read on the National Firearms Act - http://keepandbeararms.com/laws/nfa34.htm )
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_E_20_53.html

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (interestingly enough Senator Thomas J. Dodd (father of current Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut), chairman of the Senate subcommittee on juvenile violence requested the Legislative Research Service translate his personal copy of the Nazi-era National Weapons Law of Germany, (which he had obtained while serving as a war-crimes prosecutor at Nuremburg in the post war era) and to adapt its language to the American legal system. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership or JPFO is a group dedicated to the preservation of gun rights in the United States) did go a little farther in restricting ownership of specific fully automatic (or machine guns) as it disallowed importation or re-importation of any firearm not deemed to have a "sporting purpose" by BATF.

Then the Firearms Act of 1986 prohibited the manufacture of new NFA (Title II) firearms but All legally owned machine guns manufactured prior to 1986 are still legal and can be bought and sold freely and openly.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/National-Firearms-Act

At no time has legal private ownership of a machine gun been illegal (and it is interesting to note that only ONE legally owned fully automatic firearm has been used in a commission of crime and that was by a police officer).

The use of so called "conversion kits" is illegal although posession is not. Actually using one to convert a semi-auto to full auto is not a simple task and generally requires a little knowledge of tooling. Then again saying that using "conversion kits" is illegal is not totally accurate because there is a small hand cranked mechanism that can be fitted to many semi-auto firearms to increase the rate of fire because the excentric crank compresses and releases the trigger rather than having to press it manually for each shot. These mechanisms are completely legal to both own and use and are NOT the "conversion kits" various media sources have claimed them to be.

A faulty memory that contributes to a smoke screen should not be trusted nor used in public.

- Collapse -
Relying on memory...

Sometimes relying on memory is not the best thing, especially in this age of the internet and it's making things so easy to check. Memory errors happen. Others in following posts covered the points in yours. BTW, lest I be accused of sandbagging, I held a FFL (Federal Firearms License) for many years due to my being a gunsmith in my spare time. I mention that because I've been on the forum for many years and you might have not seen my posts in the past mentioning it. It might explain why I have more than a passing interest and knowledge of what might seem to others to be familiarity with some parts of the law relating to firearms that rarely come up.

- Collapse -
How about the right to defend yourself...

By whatever means available or necessary?

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) in some eyes not allowed
- Collapse -
Eugene Ferbos
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9313005/

The gun owner had 96 weapons, including rifles, revolvers and a 50 caliber machine gun.

(...)

The gun owner, Eugene Ferbos, we talked to him, and he said the reason he stayed was not because of the guns but rather because he simply wanted to help some of his neighbors get out. He said he spent the last 11 days helping them get out of the water, flagging down police so that people could get hooked up and leave.

And then he said that by today, the 11th day, he said there was simply nothing left for him to do.

(...)

REP. TOM TANCREDO
- Collapse -
he used good gun control

he didnt lose them to the looters, plus how big was the snake?

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) 50 Cal. machine gun not all that uncommon
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) That is another empty and vapid claim
- Collapse -
Carjacker shot dead....
- Collapse -
yes and no charges will be pressed yet

he did the right thing.

and maybe just maybe if the lady was armed it might have turned out diferent

- Collapse -
Explain to me how

a bunch of yahoos shooting at rescue helicopters constitutes a "well regulated militia" and we can go from there.

Dan

- Collapse -
Explain to me how

Someone can not understand the different between criminal control rather than gun control or between CRIMINALS and "well regulated militia".

It is the CRIMINALS that are shooting at the helicopters.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) he cant thats whats scares me
- Collapse -
Well Mark your right

He does not know the deferent?s, he does not know what a criminal is and he simply can?t explain why he can?t distinguish the difference between CRIMINALS and "well regulated militia". Another example of in pursuit of an agenda, facts or knowledge need not apply.

- Collapse -
there not they were thugs

so if they were the only ones with guns we be in deep doo doo.
thankfully others who were law bideing had there guns to keep them safe.
so your point is makeing guns ileagle would only hurt the honest man

- Collapse -
They were thugs when they used the guns.

What were they when they bought them?

Dan

- Collapse -
did they

buy them? or steal them?
you have link showing they bought them.

because most honest gun owners wouldnt be doing that

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Who said they bought them? Who said what the source was?
- Collapse -
You explain how...

even you can confuse " bunch of yahoos shooting at rescue helicopters" with "well regulated militia".

Your logic is quite similar to that of someone who would claim a dog and a tree to be one and the same because they are both associated with a bark.

Your explanation should be rather humorous albeit ludicrous.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Your typical, insulting post is ignored.
- Collapse -
In short you CAN'T explain.

Just go ahead and admit it and avoid embarassing yourself even more.

- Collapse -
Here.
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) DAN AND ED STOP IT.

CNET Forums