Printable View
Esten, it is no more unconstitutional to deny a criminal a firearm than to deny him the right to vote. For certain conduct you lose rights granted under the constitution, two of those rights are the right to own firearms and the right to vote. I would think a person as educated as you would not raise such an absurd question which has been settled by the Supreme Court years ago.
[QUOTE=SilverStar;432777]How can a criminal have a gun when he is in jail?[/QUOTE]He had one before he went to jail!
First, he didn't have a gun. (He was ok). Then, he purchase one. (No problem, but is he ok?) Then, he misused it. (Went to jail).
[QUOTE=Esten;432748]Sounds like Constitutional support for responsible gun control.[/QUOTE]Yes and we already have "responsible gun control". We do however need to prosecute people who violate the law.
[QUOTE=Esten;432775]So if we deny a criminal a gun, is that unconstitutional?[/QUOTE]"The FBI said it conducted 16.5 million background checks for gun purchases in 2011. Of those, 78,211 ended in denials of eligibility because of a past conviction, a warrant for an arrest, drug abuse or other reason. Forty-four attempted buyers faced prosecution in 2010." Forty-four out of 78,211, unbelievable!
[QUOTE=Esten;432747]Maybe look at the homicides by gun:
Gun Murders per 100,000 (2010)
Texas 3.2%
Illinois 2.8%
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state[/URL][/QUOTE]Is the goal public safety or a political agenda? Why just homicide by gun, why not all murders?
Could it be because the murder rate is historically low and is already trending downward? In fact, the murder rate in 2011 was the lowest since 1961:4.7 murders per 100,000 people. In only 5 years since 1910 has it been lower: 1955-59, when it was only slightly lower at 4.5 or 4.6.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28736[/ATTACH]
Data source: The Federal Bureau of Investigation. For years 1900-1991 [URL]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/[/URL] hmrttab. Cfm. For years 1992-2011: [URL]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1[/URL].
"Today's murder rate is essentially at a low point of the past century. The murder rate in 2011 was lower than it was in 1911. Whatever we've been doing over the last 20-30 years seems to be working, more or less. The murder rate has been cut by more than half since 1980: from 10.7 to 4.7. ".
Surely Esten wouldn't be trying to mislead us by only wanting us to look at gun murders, or would he, remember when he didn't want us to look at the U6 unemployment numbers? I think I see a trend here.
Here are some possible reason why the murder rate is down, I'm sure Esten and the gun grabbers don't want you to consider.
"From 1980 to 2000 our prison population more than quadrupled."
"From the 1980's to 2000, the number of prisoner executions more than quadrupled."
And here's the one I'm sure they really don't want to talk about.
"From 1986 to 2006, the number of states adopting "shall issue" Concealed Carry permits nearly quadrupled."
I think it's time we started enforcing the laws we have and stop demonizing law abiding gun owners.
Much of the above data came from the American Thinker which I much prefer over so called "critical thinkers".
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;432778]Esten, it is no more unconstitutional to deny a criminal a firearm than to deny him the right to vote. For certain conduct you lose rights granted under the constitution, two of those rights are the right to own firearms and the right to vote. I would think a person as educated as you would not raise such an absurd question which has been settled by the Supreme Court years ago.[/QUOTE]It doesn't matter what kind of reasoned argument you have, the Constitution states very clearly:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms [B][u]shall not be infringed[/u][/B].
Esten it's not an argument, its the law. So if you have a problem with that you need to go argue with the Supreme Court, who upheld the right to own firearms recently while letting stand past rulings which affirmed certain conduct can result in the loss of constitutional rights.
What I love about liberals is one minute the Constitution and Bill of Rights are "living documents" and the next they are the 10 Commandments carve in stone.
Regarding the new "universal background check" proposed by the Democrats, Canada tried the same thing a few years ago. After spending millions of dollars trying to implement it and finding it impossible they quietly terminated the program last year. As an additional note we don't need more laws we just need to enforce the laws we have. According the ATF, there were over 80,000 violations of the laws on the books regarding purchasing a firearm but less than 100 prosecutions. So what is ATF's problem? I guess they are too busy smuggling arms to Mexico to enforce our laws.
Doppel, what part of [B][u]shall not be infringed[/u][/B] don't you understand? Are you saying there is more to the gun debate than simply quoting the second amendment? This is what the gun lovers repeat over and over, like it's supposed to end all discussion.
For the sarcasm-impaired:
Crackpot anti-gun control argument #1: Quoting the second amendment.
Quite frankly Esten, I am a bit disappointed that an educated person such as yourself falling back on name calling again.
Of course the 2nd Amendment is quoted first and foremost in the argument against the knee jerk reaction the liberals have to gun violence, but it is not the only argument.
What is being proposed now has already been attempted in Canada and was a dismal failure, being abandoned last year by the Canadian government.
Look at Mexico, which has stringent gun laws that have for years failed to curb violence there.
The latest atrocities which occurred were committed by known severely disturbed people but guess what it is the liberals who have written the laws which prohibit that information being posted for background checks.
I guess the liberals want to insure the insane have the same opportunity as the rest of the sane, law abiding citizens, after all liberals thrive on being "fair" and "equal".
Like a gun-owning Republican has the answers on gun control. LMAO!! If it were up to them, we wouldn't even be talking about the issue, let alone trying to do something about it. And the daily carnage from guns would continue unabated.
What Canada abandoned was a costly effort on a national gun registry. That's not the same thing as universal background checks. Check the firearm-related death rates:
United States: 10.2 per 100,000
Canada: 2.13 per 100,000
That's a huge difference. The reason? Canada's tougher gun laws.
You can see it at the state level as well. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation:
[URL]http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/[/URL]
The common theme: [B][i]More gun control = Less gun violence[/i][/B]
[QUOTE=Esten;432852]Like a gun-owning Republican has the answers on gun control. LMAO!! If it were up to them, we wouldn't even be talking about the issue, let alone trying to do something about it. And the daily carnage from guns would continue unabated.
What Canada abandoned was a costly effort on a national gun registry. That's not the same thing as universal background checks. Check the firearm-related death rates:
United States: 10.2 per 100,000
Canada: 2.13 per 100,000
That's a huge difference. The reason? Canada's tougher gun laws.
You can see it at the state level as well. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation:
[URL]http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/[/URL]
The common theme: [B][i]More gun control = Less gun violence[/i][/B][/QUOTE]I think that's tougher to prove than you think. Take a look at [URL]http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf[/URL] Also, [URL]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=1[/URL].
Finally take a look at this map, which shows homicide rates, not just from firearms: [URL]http://www.city-data.com/forum/general-u-s/1394707-updated-state-state-national-murder-rate.html[/URL]#be. Compare to the map in the Atlantic article showing "number of deaths due to injury by firearms", where states with at least 1 firearm law designed to protect children are crosshatched. Please note that the states with decent-sized populations AND with firearm laws are the following: California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Illinois and Michigan. And please note that all of these states except Virginia and New York have murder rates higher than the national average of 4.8 per 100,000. If there is a basis to your belief that gun control laws reduce gun violence (and I'm not sure there is), then it appears the murderers are just using knives, etc. instead.
What's kind of interesting, some of the states where you're most likely to see "they'll take my gun from me when they pull my cold dead finger off the trigger" bumper stickers, like Wyoming, Idaho and North Dakota, have very low murder rates, comparable to Canada and western Europe.
Btw, if you were just looking at suicides in the USA, you might have an easier time backing up your argument. Out of the 10.2 per 100,000 deaths from firearms, 6.3 are from suicides.
Esten, as always you don't seem to understand the term "gun control". What it means is keeping a solid sight picture and bringing your weapon back on target rapidly for the second shot. Liberals just don't understand what they are talking about.
I remember when Texas was considering "concealed carry" for its citizens. The liberals were all over the place with dire threats of the wild west returning, gun fights in the street at high noon, road rage resulting in shootouts like the OK Corral, and the crime rate would sky rocket. Guess what, none of that occurred and the crime rate went down! Every state that enacted concealed carry laws got the same Liberal treatment and the ACTUAL outcome was the same as Texas.
Canada started out with "registration" but they realized it would not work unless it was national registration which failed totally. Do your home work. What the liberals are pitching is "registration" but what they will attempt to pass is the same as Canada and it will not work here either. Liberal's ideas regarding gun control ignores the firearms already in the hands of citizens. Similar to Liberals social programs always ignoring human nature.
I noticed you did not address Mexico's gun laws, could that be because they have very stringent gun laws but a totally out of control urban war going on with the cartels? Esten, do you really think the cartels are going into their local sporting goods dealers and purchasing M2's, M4's, M16's and ammo?
I noticed you did not address the mental illness aspect of my earlier post, why not? The incidents which caused all this uproar were committed by mentally ill folks. As tragic as all these incidents are, did you ever think they may not have happened if liberals had not insured a person's mental illness history is not permitted into the background check?
I don't notice liberals getting all worked up about traffic fatalities. Why is that? The carnage is certainly great enough. Every day just around Houston there are one or more traffic deaths and many times it is multiple fatalities. So Esten why do we need cars that can exceed the speed limit, better yet why not reduce the speed limit to say 30 MPH in the name of safety?
Liberals and "gun control" are as hypocritical as tree huggers who drive their Escalade to the protest for Mother Earth then drive home to their air-conditioned homes or the electric car driver who plugs in his vehicle to recharge from an outlet powered by fossil fuel electric generation stations.
Yes you are correct, I am a Republican, NRA life member, Safari International member and own a fair number of firearms ranging from 22 to 50 caliber and probably have well over 10,000 rounds of ammunition, which in Texas means I am only a small to medium gun owner. Guess what Esten, I have not killed anyone with them!
Republican gun control.
Cute cartoon.
At least it's more entertaining than Esten's rants.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;432856]Esten, as always you don't seem to understand the term "gun control". What it means is keeping a solid sight picture and bringing your weapon back on target rapidly for the second shot. Liberals just don't understand what they are talking about.
I remember when Texas was considering "concealed carry" for its citizens. The liberals were all over the place with dire threats of the wild west returning, gun fights in the street at high noon, road rage resulting in shootouts like the OK Corral, and the crime rate would sky rocket. Guess what, none of that occurred and the crime rate went down! Every state that enacted concealed carry laws got the same Liberal treatment and the ACTUAL outcome was the same as Texas.
Canada started out with "registration" but they realized it would not work unless it was national registration which failed totally. Do your home work. What the liberals are pitching is "registration" but what they will attempt to pass is the same as Canada and it will not work here either. Liberal's ideas regarding gun control ignores the firearms already in the hands of citizens. Similar to Liberals social programs always ignoring human nature.
I noticed you did not address Mexico's gun laws, could that be because they have very stringent gun laws but a totally out of control urban war going on with the cartels? Esten, do you really think the cartels are going into their local sporting goods dealers and purchasing M2's, M4's, M16's and ammo?
I noticed you did not address the mental illness aspect of my earlier post, why not? The incidents which caused all this uproar were committed by mentally ill folks. As tragic as all these incidents are, did you ever think they may not have happened if liberals had not insured a person's mental illness history is not permitted into the background check?
I don't notice liberals getting all worked up about traffic fatalities. Why is that? The carnage is certainly great enough. Every day just around Houston there are one or more traffic deaths and many times it is multiple fatalities. So Esten why do we need cars that can exceed the speed limit, better yet why not reduce the speed limit to say 30 MPH in the name of safety?
Liberals and "gun control" are as hypocritical as tree huggers who drive their Escalade to the protest for Mother Earth then drive home to their air-conditioned homes or the electric car driver who plugs in his vehicle to recharge from an outlet powered by fossil fuel electric generation stations.
Yes you are correct, I am a Republican, NRA life member, Safari International member and own a fair number of firearms ranging from 22 to 50 caliber and probably have well over 10,000 rounds of ammunition, which in Texas means I am only a small to medium gun owner. Guess what Esten, I have not killed anyone with them![/QUOTE]Republicans aren't much better than Democrats on Guns. Gov Pataki and Romney both made the laws more restrictive in their states unfortunately. Better than NRA is Gun Owners of America, and better than Republicans on gun control is Libertarians.
I'm not trying to make a point here one way or the other, just wondering about something. After reading Esten's thought provoking article (really) from the Atlantic, I took a look at a map of the USA that showed % of whites by state and compared it to a map showing homicide rates. The comparison was striking. States with high percentages of whites had lower homicide rates. Some states with the highest % of nonhispanic whites had murder rates similar to places like Canada, Australia and western Europe. Overall, the homicide rate among nonhispanic whites in the USA, at 3.7 per 100,000, is higher than those places, but not that different from Europe as a whole, at 3.5 per 100,000. If you're black in America though, it's far worse. The homicide rate among blacks, 34.4 per 100,000 offending rate and 27.8 per 100,000 victimization rate, puts Black America in the same league as places like Colombia, Brazil, South Africa and Central America.
As far as suicide is concerned though, especially for men, the statistic goes the other way. The suicide rate among nonhispanic white males is 27 per 100,000.
Something that's maybe contradictory, Esten's article shows that the strongest correlation by far is between firearm deaths and the % of people in a state that voted for McCain versus Obama. States that voted for McCain had more deaths from firearms. States that voted for Obama had fewer. Yet black Americans voted for Obama by about a 9 to 1 margin, while white Americans voted for McCain by 6 to 4.
Esten's article also shows a much stronger correlation between poverty level or education level and firearm deaths than it does between firearm controls and firearm deaths.
Anyway, it looks like there are other factors much more important than gun control at work. Maybe the best way to cut down on homicides is to put all the businessmen who voted for McCain and all blacks in jail. Oh, but wait, we're already doing that and it's not working.
Now I'm waiting for WT69 to call me a racist, again.
Are the majority of folks on the thread really becoming prepared for a future revolution? It is of great impostance that there will never be a "master list" of gun owners because some pinko polotician will collect all the guns? You need those 30 round clips for fire fights to preserve your liberty? You qwould rather have 50 crazed obvious unstable wackos have access to arms than take a chance the a true brother of liberty may not be able to own multiple assault weapons with large clips suitable for true combat.
Are you guys planning a right wing revolution?
I understand the nra and wayne lapierre have been coopted by large sum of money from gun manufacturers. That is business as normal in the USA.
This group on AP baffles me.
I have nothing against "responsible gun ownership" with backround checks. It is a right in the USA. Combat gear-I am not sure where to draw the line and have an open mind. Combat weapons are sort of like porno--you know it when you see it. No one would generally need automatic weapons, 30+ round clips and 50 cal snipper rifles--maybe there might be some exceptions--I am open to those possibilities? there are people who live in the wilds of Alaska and might have a grizzly in the backyard and really need some access to firepower==anything might be possible and a legitimate excption.[i remeber watching sarah palin's reality tv show episode about protecting yourself from bears]