On Gun Control
It was on this date in in 1993 that H.R. 1035, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act became law even though it was fought against every step of the way by the NRA. So what gets the gun freaks all worked up of the Brady Act? Waiting periods and background checks. Well la di da. I’m sure we’ll hear the usually arguments that any gun control legislation is the beginning of a slippery slope. My response is that is a path I am willing to take. Next we’ll hear that “guns don’t kill people” and “if the outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns”. Let’s pass some tough gun control legislation and see what happens. I’m all for the Americans for Democratic Action’s gun control propoals which I include here.
A comprehensive ban on the sale of assault weapons.
Prohibiting concealed weapons.
Stricter gun registration requirements, including a lengthening of the “cooling off” period before the purchase of guns.
Holding adults legally culpable for selling or furnishing guns to minors.
Holding adults legally culpable if, because of their negligence, a handgun or other firearm is used by a juvenile to commit a crime.
Strenuous enforcement of existing handgun laws.
So as the gun control lunatics argue about that their rights will be trampled on, remember the two that died in Toys R Us the other day and the eight-year old who shot his father.
If you limit the ability of mental defectives, criminals and children to get their hands on cheap guns, you might inconvenience a hunter.
That is a risk we cannot take.
Look – The NRA is just a front organization for gun manufacturers. Follow the money and it is easy to see who benefits under our system.
You don’t like guns. I get that. That’s fine. Here is the problem – I have a constitutional right to these weapons. We can argue as to whether or not it was a good idea to give me that right, but until a constitutional amendment takes that right away from me I still have it.
A government that can take away one constitutional right can, and inevitably will, take away other constitutional rights.
Furthermore;
“If you limit the ability of mental defectives, criminals and children to get their hands on cheap guns, you might inconvenience a hunter.”
Those categories of persons are restricted from purchasing firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
“A comprehensive ban on the sale of assault weapons.”
What do you define as an assault weapon?
“Prohibiting concealed weapons.”
Blow me.
“Stricter gun registration requirements, including a lengthening of the “cooling off” period before the purchase of guns.”
What “cooling off” period? That is a state’s rights issue.
“Holding adults legally culpable for selling or furnishing guns to minors.”
We already do that.
“Holding adults legally culpable if, because of their negligence, a handgun or other firearm is used by a juvenile to commit a crime.”
We already do that.
“Strenuous enforcement of existing handgun laws.”
Check you state and local listings.
Here we go again.
ME: The Gun Control Act of 1968 does not appear to be working. What do you suggest Tom?
TOM: Blow me.
How about one Drinking Liberally where Jason gives out tickets that limits everyone’s intake to 1 drink every 1.5 hours? Then, when no one gets a ticket or in an accident on the way home, we can say “It works!”
Disbelief, what drinking laws and gun laws have to do with each other, I do not know. Try to stay on topic.
Tom S wrote : A government that can take away one constitutional right can, and inevitably will, take away other constitutional rights.
Have you been asleep during the last 8 years of this administration?
Point Nemski.
Prediction: This is going to be the most boring thread since the last gun thread. Although it will be entertaining to hear all these Bush lover’s pretend to be defenders of the Constitution.
Where’s Mike W.?
“ME: The Gun Control Act of 1968 does not appear to be working. What do you suggest Tom?”
To what extent has it not been working? Folks are always going to break the law, in my opinion this law is adhered to at a very respectable rate.
Your side points to things like the 1993 gun laws so I’ll ask you – did we see some dramatic drop in crime when those laws came into play in 1994? Did we see some unGodly rise in gun crime when they expired in 2004?
“Have you been asleep during the last 8 years of this administration?”
I honestly don’t see where you are going with that one.
Tom S writes We can argue as to whether or not it was a good idea to give me that right, but until a constitutional amendment takes that right away from me I still have it.
Interestingly, there are a plethora of anti-pornography laws throughout the United States and yet we still have the Freedom of Speech.
Its rainy, cold, and I guess the only thing to do is whomp up a huge, high cholesterol breakfast then hibernate. I can’t even get worked up about gun control today.
Oooh. Haven’t had French Toast in a while. Maybe I’ll think about banning stove-tops because of all the injuries and bad food that occurs when using them.
I would like to enter into the assault weapons issue in a bit greater detail as that seems to be such an obsession of liberal gun policy. To all of you policy wonks out there – can any of you actually tells me what makes one gun an assault rifle and another gun not an assault rifle?
Wait. Didn’t some state already take a stab at banning fatty foods in order to protect us from ourselves because Legislators know better than us?
Tom,
I’m not a gun buff by any sense of the word. Have never shot a gun in my life, though I hope to change that very soon with the help of a friend.
However, without doing any Wikipedia-ing, I’ve always thought assault rifles as weapons that could spray hundreds of rounds per minute. I’m a big supporter of the Second Amendment, but I think it’s fair to assume the Founding Fathers never considered that technology 230 years down the road would produce the weapons we have now.
Tom S, in my mind, any gun that is semi-automatic and automatic should be considered an assault weapon.
“I’m not a gun buff by any sense of the word. Have never shot a gun in my life, though I hope to change that very soon with the help of a friend.”
Kudos to sir for keeping an open mind and trying new things
“However, without doing any Wikipedia-ing, I’ve always thought assaults rifles as weapons that could spray hundreds of rounds per minute.”
Most of the folks I talk to assume the same thing, it is a very reasonable assumption and one that I secretly think is fostered by the media. Any weapon that is capable of automatic fire (that is to say, spray hundreds of rounds per minute) has been heavily regulated by the federal government since 1934 and is banned outright in the state of Delaware.
“Tom S, in my mind, any gun that is semi-automatic and automatic should be considered an assault weapon.”
I appreciate you honesty, but should even my little antique semi-automatic .22 that would have a hard time of hurting a squirrel be taken away?
Tom S writes Any weapon that is capable of automatic fire (that is to say, spray hundreds of rounds per minute) has been heavily regulated by the federal government since 1934 and is banned outright in the state of Delaware.
Odd that anti-gun legislation has been passed in Delaware, and yet, I can go and buy a gun this afternoon. Hmm.
Ah the old hunting gambit. Actually, I’m all for hunting and more hunting. Though I’ve never hunted ever in my life, I do understand that hunting is a valuable conservation technic employed by states through out the union.
I’m willing to negotiate on hunting rifles.
Jason wrote:
Actually, we’re more interested in what you suggest? Some of us suspect that it would be to eliminate the Second Amendment and ban firearms ownership completely.
Just as a suggestion, do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, gun control laws don’t work because only law-abiding people obey them in the first place?
Mr Matthews wrote:
I’m fairly certain that they never anticipated the internet, either, or the spread of what they’d have called Mohammedism to the United States; do you think that such means that the First Amendment ought to ignored or altered?
I’ve suggested this in comments on this fine site many times: if people don’t like the rights recognized by the Second Amendment, why don’t they propose another constitutional amendment to either modify or repeal the Second? Somehow, nobody is ever interested.
“Odd that anti-gun legislation has been passed in Delaware, and yet, I can go and buy a gun this afternoon. Hmm.”
But you can’t buy anything listed under the NFA of 1934, even after the federal government checks you out and says you are OK. In this regard we are less free than people in PA and MD and most other states and though I can’t quote you specific figures I suspect we have little to show for it.
“Ah the old hunting gambit. Actually, I’m all for hunting and more hunting. Though I’ve never hunted ever in my life, I do understand that hunting is a valuable conservation technic employed by states through out the union.
I’m willing to negotiate on hunting rifles.”
Oh no, I want to steer clear away from that. Hunting is a fine and a necessary ecological service but I’ve never been hunting in my life and frankly I probably never will go. I own that .22 for fun at the range, I just wanted to point out that if we go for a broad classification like anything semi-automatic the pitiful hunk of wood and metal in closet that was probably made in the 1940’s becomes an assault weapon.
Dana, a new amendment is not necessary. Thanks for playing.
Nemski wrote:
Yes, because with the exception of child pornography, the anti-pornography laws on the books are virtually unenforced — and unenforceable — any more. You can find any kind of porn you want on the internet, in seconds; you can even find kiddie porn, though that might take longer to find since search engines like Google try to screen that stuff out. I’d guess that most of the child porn sites are overseas, outside of the reach of American law, so the only one who gets in trouble in the US are the people who download the stuff.
Nemski, the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, yet you wish to infringe upon it. Tell me why the Second wouldn’t need to be amended for you to get what you want?
Dana,
Don’t try to equivocate the Internet with weapons that spray hundreds of rounds per minute. I know your comeback: “Well, the Internet allows terrorists to communicate.” And there are laws on the books to handle them.
For people who like to complain about pornography being “speech,” I don’t feel like being lectured on this by you. When a school is shot up and a dozen kids are murdered by these weapons, I think a serious debate is needed.
Again, I am very much pro-Second Amendment, but with reservations. This government is very corrupt and the last thing I want is IT to have all the weapons.
So, my point stands. If the Founding Fathers had seen the weaponry we are producing today, I think they would have at least added an asterisk to the Second Amendment.
Dana, other than this thread is not about child pornography, you’ve missed my point.
Tom S stated that we needed an amendment to have anti-gun laws, I was just pointing out how we have “anti-Free Speech” laws and yet we still have, what many consider, Free Speech.
Does anyone understand the NJ article this morning on background checks? As in, what all the hubbub is about? The only thing I took away after reading it was that the checkers were somewhat sloppy and put the burden of proof on the applicant.
anon, I haven’t read the NJ article yet. This post was just marking the anniversary of passing of the Brady Act.
I do get that, but seeing as how this is a thread of semi-politically-astute people talking about gun control, I figured I might get some helpful feedback.
Mike, if you want to shoot a gun, I can help. The only requirement is that you take the gun safety course given at Omelanden and Bombay Hook first. After that, I can hook you up with a clay target shoot. Plus its fun to watch a ‘newbie’ try to hit one of the pigeons while bitching “Damn my shoulder hurts!”
Everyone I shoot with is first and foremost a gun safety expert. It doesn’t matter too much if you hit the target, but its a really, really big deal if you hit someone else.
MIKE MATTHEWS
MIKE W has been banned on this sight by all those freedom of expression lovers
Ugh…not again. What bitches!
“The only thing I took away after reading it was that the checkers were somewhat sloppy and put the burden of proof on the applicant.”
It goes a bit beyond sloppiness. State and federal laws very clearly delineate who can, and cannot, own or possess a firearm. The gist of the article is that some believe the State Police exceeded their authority by denying people approval in violation of state statute, their own policy (sometimes based on nothing more than hunches), and by using a database for routine background checks tied in to mental health records . As Schwartzkopf said in the article, every officer already has access to the necessary databases at their desks, and even in their patrol vehicles.
I have no problem with the police using whatever tool necessary to ensure our/their safety, but they need to observe the current laws, or get them amended, lest they lose credibility.
Matthews- I’d love to teach you to shoot, boy. I’m a former Delaware LE certified instructor, and own every type of weapon, except full auto. Disbelief is correct, safety is paramount, but you wouldn’t need any gun safety course. Come on down, we’ll blow some shit up.
I’m a liberal fellow, but when I think about the founder’s intent when crafting the 2a, I think overthrow government. Since the government possesed the most deadly of weapons at the time (cannon) and said weapons aren’t expressly banned, no individual should not be prevented from owning assault weapons, RPG, tanks, or fighter aircraft. Simple really.
As a second amendment purist, I think everyone should be able to own as many hand made guns as they want & zero mass produced guns.
Just as the founding fathers envisioned.
point of fact,
Delaware had a computerized “instanious” background check system in place before Brady became federal law. That was why DE was exempt from the 5 day waiting period in Brady.
How did we get this system in DE…
With the help of the NRA who helped craft the legislation and lobbied for it’s passage.
ok how do you spell instantanious???
“no individual should not be prevented from owning assault weapons, RPG, tanks, or fighter aircraft. Simple really.”
Strike not, please.
Taliban seem to be holding their own with home made weapons (IEDs) and obsolete “muskets” (AKs).
meatball, the Taliban are holding their own because Bush diverted forces for Afghanistan to Iraq.
That must be why our trillion dollar high tech military is doing so well against the musket armed insurgents in Iraq.
Mr Matthews wrote:
You’ve missed the point, Mr Matthews: the First Amendment is as absolute in its construction as the Second: “Congress shall make no law” vis a vis “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Exactly how can you be “very much pro-Second Amendment, but with reservations?” The Second Amendment is written in absolutist terms, yet you believe we should pass laws infringing on those rights. You can’t have it both ways.
At some point, you need to be honest with yourself: you are supporting infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms. Man up and say so! I’d have a lot more respect for the argument that we have to ban some (or all) firearms, and that the Second Amendment must be amended or repealed to allow us to do so, rather than fanciful constructions that someone is “very much pro-Second Amendment, but with reservations.”
Dana, are you really that dense? ARMS should be defined. I realize when we go back and look at the Constitution and ask these questions, you folks on the right tend to scream “judicial activism!”, but the First Amendment isn’t an absolute right. You can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre. Likewise, the Second Amendment shouldn’t be an absolute right, either.
I love that Mike W can’t comment over here….
wooohooooooo
Mr Matthews, there is no law against yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater; you are simply liable for an action which causes a panic and injuries. If there was a warning on the screen, “Hey, Donviti’s going to yell ‘Fire!’ in a few seconds, he could scream it out like a little girl and there wouldn’t be any violation, because no one would be panicked and no one injured. In plain language, it isn’t the speech, but the consequences of the act which can get you in trouble.
And it’s the same thing with the Second Amendment: it is the consequences of people misusing firearms that is the problem, not the lawful ownership by law-abiding citizens.
Donviti (who’s actually resorted to his original screen name; imagine that!) wrote:
While I realize that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to a privately-owned website, one of us finds it surprising that a liberal would take such joy in silencing the opposition.
Well, maybe it isn’t so surprising after all.
Mike W, if you’re reading this, you know that you’re always welcome on my site — as is everyone else, wingnut or moonbat, it doesn’t matter.
This whole “law-abiding” meme is a crock of shit. Gun nuts use it all the time when someone goes killing with a gun, “Well, what do you expect, he’s a criminal.” But prior to the killings, he was a “law-abiding” citizen and yet gun nuts say it is not the gun, its the person. Why can’t you admit that the gun has something to do with the violence? And, maybe, just maybe, the death would not have occurred if there was no gun available.
nemski wrote:
In most cases, the guy who murders was a criminal before he bought the gun. However, a gun is an inanimate object; without a person to hold it and use it, it does absolutely nothing but occupy space.
However, I’ll give you more credit than I have Mr Matthews. When you said, “prior to the killings, he was a ‘law-abiding’ citizen,” you are clearly saying that you favor taking guns from law-abiding citizens, and that your proposals, whatever they may be, have nothing to do with criminals. That, at least, is honest.
Now, the next question: what do you believe should be done about the Second Amendment? Do you think it should be either amended or repealed to put into place whatever restrictions you think ought to exist?
one of us finds it surprising that a liberal would take such joy in silencing the opposition.
oh spare me. I enjoyed silencing an asshole. It had nothing to do with him being the opposition.
I do thoroughly enjoy the fact that gun laws seem to somehow mean that people can’t own guns. It really amazes me the intellectual leap that is made with people on this topic.
“I’m a former Delaware LE certified instructor, and own every type of weapon, except full auto. Disbelief is correct, safety is paramount, but you wouldn’t need any gun safety course. Come on down, we’ll blow some shit up.”
You like to blow shit up? I love blowing shit up! We should go to the range some time. Where do you shoot?
“So, my point stands. If the Founding Fathers had seen the weaponry we are producing today, I think they would have at least added an asterisk to the Second Amendment.”
I doubt it, they wanted you to stand on equal ground with the government.
“Why can’t you admit that the gun has something to do with the violence? And, maybe, just maybe, the death would not have occurred if there was no gun available.”
The gun had a good deal to do with the violence but I’d challenge you to find me a society where no guns are available.
“oh spare me. I enjoyed silencing an asshole. It had nothing to do with him being the opposition.”
So how many people have been banned from here that you agreed with?
DV’s been trying to ban me since Day One.
The gun had a good deal to do with the violence but I’d challenge you to find me a society where no guns are available.
THE RED HAT SOCIETY!
HAH!
“Tom S, in my mind, any gun that is semi-automatic and automatic should be considered an assault weapon.”
Semi-auto and auto? I take it you mean capable of either (I.E. select fire?) If so those are already “assault weapons” as they are capable of full auto firing. They’re already tightly regulated under the 1934 NFA and are NOT used in crime.
If you mean that you think any semi-auto weapon should be illegal…….you must be nuts. You really think only old revolvers and bolt-action rifles should be legal? Would you apply that to the police and tell them they can’t carry a Glock, Sig (or any other modern pistol.
That’s the problem with you folks. You want to ban “assault weapons.” yet you have no clue what said bans actually encompass and you’re ignorant of what the term means. (it’s a politically constructed term BTW)
Really? Hmm….that’s interesting.
“I do thoroughly enjoy the fact that gun laws seem to somehow mean that people can’t own guns. It really amazes me the intellectual leap that is made with people on this topic.”
If a particular gun law bans a whole bunch of guns that I want to own (like say an assault weapons ban) then yes the laws are telling me I can’t own guns.
Telling me I can only buy certain guns but not others is like telling me I can publish an article in the newspaper but can’t publish a blog post. Just because they close access to one medium while allowing the other doesn’t mean they haven’t infringed upon my rights.
AWB’s have nothing to do with the lethality of the weapons by the way. they also limit magazine capacity (which is just plain stupid) and ban guns used by my grandparents in WWII.
just trying to educate you jason. It’s always best not to be ignorant of the topic being discussed.
Really? Super! Thanks!
so what’s your opinion? Are “assault weapons” still evil and do they need to be banned?
Are you with Nemski in calling for a nationwide ban on CCW based on well………nothing but feelings? If we had no CCW would you be OK with myself and millions of others simply open carrying so you could see our guns?
I really don’t get Nemski’s position there. There’s no factual basis whatsoever by which to qualify why CCW should be banned.
I’m a second amendment purists. People can own as many handmade guns as they want.
You can have my handmade gun when you pry it out of my cold dead hand.
Handmade guns don’t kill people – people with mass produced guns kill people.
Mike the Racist,
I am for banning you.
Anonone – So start your own blog and ban whomever you like. This thread isn’t about me, and it isn’t about banning. Stay on topic.
Jason – Do you have a point or argument to make or are you just being stupid with your nonsense comment?
That’s interesting that you thought my comment was nonsense.
I hadn’t thought of that since my logic and adherence to the Constitution is above reproach.
Mike The Racist,
Go away. Your racist, insulting, gun-loving crap isn’t wanted here.
hmmmm, so Jason, when’s Anonone going to get hit with the ban stick or at least a good timeout? After all he did just break Delaware Liberal rules once again
Jason – my point was that neither of your comments had any substance at all.
Oh, and who did I just insult? Oh that’s right, no one.
That is interesting that you thought they had no substance.