Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
As the burden of proof is on both sides in this discussion, I will need to see some statistic on how many criminals conceal weapons. Also, there are many places in the US where every citizen has the legal right to conceal their guns.
|
Will, are you seriously trying to tell me that criminals carry their weapons openly in this country? If you are, then there are bigger issues here that deal directly with you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
-National firearms act of 1934: the registration, and the taxing of the transfer, of a class of weapons described as NFA Title 2 weapons. This does not keep guns from the hands of law abiding citizens any more than the price of a gun.
|
If a branch of government cannot make something illegal because of the constitution, the next method of removing it from society is to make it too expensive. Look at how the current administration/DoJ is attacking online pornography for an example of this. The NFA has had this exact effect by making it near impossible for the average income citizen to be able to afford the $200 tax. It's also caused the supply of these to go down making the costs very expensive.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
-Gun control act of 1968: prohibited the direct mail order of firearms by consumers and mandated that if a person wants to buy a gun from other than a private individual, he or she has to go to a Federally licensed firearms dealer to buy the gun. The Act also bans unlicensed individuals from acquiring handguns outside their State of residence, although long guns (rifles and shotguns) may (under Federal law) be acquired from Federally licensed firearms dealers located in other States, provided this is allowed by both the State of purchase and the State of residence. So this also doesn't keep guns from law abiding citizens.
|
You missed a few.
Implemented the Form 4473 (yellow form) for purchases - a registration system, a precursor to confiscation.
Attempted to address "Saturday Night Specials" by prohibiting from import small handguns. - The basic removal of inexpensive handguns market to those who don't have alot of money.
establish of minimum ages for firearms purchasers - Back in the days before a 'nanny' state, a 16 year old could go buy a rifle or shotgun. In the more rural areas, this was the mark of a boy becoming a man. Not any more.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
-If you're keeping score, thats 0/2 so far.
|
Not the way I see it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
--registration restrictions in chicago: do you want to be more specific?
|
In 1986, Mayor Daley and the chicago council passed several ordinances. One of them being that there would be no more handgun registration in the city limits. This was grandfathered so that all those that were registered before a certain date could be kept, all others must be turned in. Later, it was extended to long guns. Now, with the Firearm owners ID system, any citizen of chicago that buys a gun gets a visit from the friendly neighborhood jack booted thugs and a search warrant. This keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens only, since criminals do not go out and buy guns legally leaving a paper trail.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
-D.C. gun ban: gun ban is different than gun control. They are not the same.
|
Semantics, they are the same. Gun Control is a Gun Ban with limits. Gun Bans are a total attempt at gun control. They are indeed the same.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
-Firearm owners protection act of 1986: Prohibits the following from owning guns: Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year
|
This removed the right to own a gun from a huge group of people whos sole crime could have been a couple of bounced checks. This is an egregious example abuse of power to limit who owns a gun instead of trying to keep it out of violent criminals hands.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
anyone who is a fugitive from justice, anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance, anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution, any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, anyone who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions, anyone who, having been a citizen of the United states, has renounced his or her citizenship,
|
This was the only thing it had right, so you get half a point here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
- anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner,
|
restraining orders are rubberstamped on the word of the supposed victim and therefore you are removing the right from a person who's accused of something with no proof.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
-anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, a person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information. In other words, criminals and such cannot get guns.
|
Criminals cannot get a gun through legal means, it also makes criminals of people who make simple mistakes and get made examples of. what a great justice system you support.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
-You are making a strong case! That's 0/4, yes?
|
Yes I am, the real score is 3.5 to .5, my favor.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
-Lautenberg amendment of 1996: prevents people with any ‘domestic violence’ convictions from ever owning a gun. So how does that keep guns from law abiding citizens? It doesn't.
|
Lautenberg also made those under a domestic restraining order into prohibited persons. Restraining orders require little to no proof, making it possible to deny a right to someone who never actually committed a crime.
Lautenberg also made those under a domestic restraining order into prohibited persons.None of the cases you cited were cases involving taking the guns from law abiding citizens. You see tyrany where there is none. [/QUOTE]Here you are wrong, as I plainly showed you. You should do more research or use more credible resources instead of relying on biased information. If you want a real life example of removing guns from law abiding citizens, just take a look at post hurricane katrina. Let me know if you need a few links.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Wrong. Preventative measures are the only way to save lives. Arming everyone is an act of desperation that only leads to danger and the spread of fear. I know that while we disagree about gun control, we do agree about the current presidency. What is the greatest tool of the Bush administration? Fear. Would you want to use his weapon?
|
You are wrong, you can take all the preventative measures in the world and unless you live in a mini fort knox, Your life can still be taken by a criminal with a gun/knife/baseball bat. A gun can and will still save your life.
The last part is just your spin. I DO want criminals to fear me, it makes them decide to go elsewhere. In the world we have today, arming everybody is the only answer. You could only get me to acknowledge and decide to turn in my guns on one condition, guarantee me that no criminal will ever be able to lay his hands on a weapon against me. Can you do that? Didn't think so.