OT - My take on gun control laws ...

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:51 pm

My take on gun control laws is simple. They are illegal.

REPEAL THEM ALL!

Let every body have guns. EVERY BODY! The only exception would be those actually in prison.

No background checks
No 4473 forms
No registration
No restriction on carrying
No restriction on possession for ANY reason.

Then, when someone committed a crime hammer them like they used to.

AND LEAVE THE REST OF US THE HELL ALONE.

Joe

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:57 pm

Lets get Ron Paul in the big seat!

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:00 am

Joe -

You'll get no argument from 99% of us here!!!

Papa · Post by **Papa** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:10 am

Here, Here

Papa

JReed · Post by **JReed** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:14 am

Darn right!

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:42 am

Huzzah!! And yes, go Ron go!

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:50 am

If you say "completed terms of their parole" I'm on board.

claybob86 · Post by **claybob86** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:46 am

As Mr. Heinlein said, an armed society is a polite society.

dbateman · Post by **dbateman** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:39 am

homefront · Post by **homefront** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:50 am

All the wrong people get them easily enough now anyway - WE are the ones who are given the hard time; BECAUSE we are law -abiding and fill out all the forms, document who and where we are, pay taxes, bend to all the unfair rules. They can control us, and so they do. We haven't had a "Tea Party" in a while....

ByronG · Post by **ByronG** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:23 am

Background checks are not infallable but they at least try to filter out the ones who should not be allowed guns

After the event you might hammer the loony massacerer who could have been stopped by the background check but that won't bring back the dead victims

ByronG · Post by **ByronG** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:27 am

Papa wrote:Here, Here

Papa

Wear, Wear ?

oregon73 · Post by **oregon73** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:40 am

Sounds good, Joe. I've always thought that gun control laws are unconstitutional, and that Vermont and Alaska are the only states that treat concealed carry correctly--that is, no permit required at all.

Rob

Post by **AmBraCol** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:05 am

ByronG wrote:Background checks are not infallable but they at least try to filter out the ones who should not be allowed guns

After the event you might hammer the loony massacerer who could have been stopped by the background check but that won't bring back the dead victims

You're forgetting how easy it is for the criminally inclined to obtain firearms via the black market. You're also forgetting that the massacres are committed in "gun free zones" - where technically they aren't even supposed to HAVE a gun in the first place. So if gun laws and background checks are so effective in stopping crime, why are the cities with the toughest gun laws (including onerous waiting periods) are the ones with the highest crime and why are those places "off limits to guns" exactly the places chosen for such massacres?

Where I live the laws are much stricter than in the US - and yet without asking around I've been offered about a half dozen guns on the black market over the past couple of months. Gun laws hobble only the law abiding. Background checks the same.

Idahoser · Post by **Idahoser** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:23 am

Eric M. · Post by **Eric M.** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:37 am

It must be Christmas!!!

I actually agree with you 100% Joe.

Great Post!!!

Just not to be too nice during Christmas, I DO think that Ron Paul is a RETARD, and Huckabee will be our next GREAT President.

Eric

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:47 am

Eric M. wrote:It must be Christmas!!!

I actually agree with you 100% Joe.

Great Post!!!

Just not to be too nice during Christmas, I DO think that Ron Paul is a RETARD, and Huckabee will be our next GREAT President...

He'd better be great at SOMTHING besides the "Christian Socialisim" (as opposed to Hillary/Obama's Humanist Socialisim) he espouses...

Back On Topic:

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. "

That about covers it.

Bogie35 · Post by **Bogie35** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:03 am

I'll go for that!

Humbly,
bogie

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:33 am

I'm with ya too Joe!

Johnny

BAGTIC · Post by **BAGTIC** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:01 pm

BlaineG wrote:If you say "completed terms of their parole" I'm on board.

J Miller has it right. I approve for parolees too. If a man is trustworthy enough to be allowed to run free he is trustworthy enough to be armed. If he isn't keep him in jail.

BAGTIC · Post by **BAGTIC** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:03 pm

Eric M. wrote:It must be Christmas!!!

I actually agree with you 100% Joe.

Great Post!!!

Just not to be too nice during Christmas, I DO think that Ron Paul is a RETARD, and Huckabee will be our next GREAT President.

Eric

Unfortunately if I were betting it would be that Hillary would be our next ignoble President. It seems to run in the family.

BAGTIC · Post by **BAGTIC** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:08 pm

ByronG wrote:Background checks are not infallable but they at least try to filter out the ones who should not be allowed guns

After the event you might hammer the loony massacerer who could have been stopped by the background check but that won't bring back the dead victims

Every free person should have the right. If they can not be trusted they should not be running free.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:13 pm

ByronG wrote:Background checks are not infallable but they at least try to filter out the ones who should not be allowed guns

After the event you might hammer the loony massacerer who could have been stopped by the background check but that won't bring back the dead victims

Funny how, by in large, those victims were (gasp) DISARMED by the rules that the CRIMINALS ignore.

You can't fight crime if you can't shoot back.

Andrew · Post by **Andrew** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:17 pm

I am in total agreement Joe.

LeverBob · Post by **LeverBob** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:03 pm

Yep Joe...you're right on the $. IMHO, this election will hopefully put the final nail in the coffin of the 60's radicals.

Here's how...

LeverBob

DDude · Post by **DDude** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:15 pm

Better men than me made it plain and simple a few years back...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:17 pm

DDude wrote:Better men than me made it plain and simple a few years back...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Unless you are from the NRA/Brady and think that ex-cons and sick people aren't People...

DDude · Post by **DDude** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:55 pm

Old Ironsights wrote: Unless you are from the NRA/Brady and think that ex-cons and sick people aren't People...

No worries there. Never been a NRA member. The closest "gun group" I ever was a part of was the 2854 SPS at Tinker AFB in Oklahoma for few years. I've been riding solo since.

cubrock · Post by **cubrock** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:03 pm

BAGTIC wrote:
BlaineG wrote:If you say "completed terms of their parole" I'm on board.
J Miller has it right. I approve for parolees too. If a man is trustworthy enough to be allowed to run free he is trustworthy enough to be armed. If he isn't keep him in jail.

+1! If someone has truly paid their "debt to society" then it should be truly paid. They shouldn't have to keep paying by denying them rights.

Jeeps · Post by **Jeeps** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:45 am

Seeing as "laws" can't keep firearms out of felons reach and only hurt the good people......

The ONLY law I could stand behind would be "if your a convicted violent felon and use a firearm to commit another crime...DEATH PENALTY"

And yes they really have to go back and decide what makes a felon, these laws are getting rediculous.

Bruce Scott · Post by **Bruce Scott** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:46 am

cubrock wrote:
BAGTIC wrote:
BlaineG wrote:If you say "completed terms of their parole" I'm on board.
J Miller has it right. I approve for parolees too. If a man is trustworthy enough to be allowed to run free he is trustworthy enough to be armed. If he isn't keep him in jail.

+1! If someone has truly paid their "debt to society" then it should be truly paid. They shouldn't have to keep paying by denying them rights.

Does anyone have any ideas on the recidivism rate in the US? I think we run at 45-50%.

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:36 am

Which candidate would actually be a force in repealing all gun laws? Ron Paul a retard? Back Thompson? Go ahead and back Thompson without me, I'll try without you to face the facts and restore OUR Constitution. I'll write in Ron Paul before I back Huckabee or Thompson or any others. Which candidate tells me I'm responsible for my life? Which candidate said airlines packin' heat would've been good on 9-11? Which candidate offered the solution of the Constitutional tool of marque and reprisal - don't know this one? Be a responsible American and look it up yourself. It's beyond me why anyone on a levergun forum would not vote for Ron Paul and less government interference in their lives. It is my firm belief if your not amped about having an opportunity, to vote for a guy that actually champions personal responsibility, and OUR Constitution, you don't know enough about the guy. Please point out your favorite candidates strong points or others weak points but don't call someone a "retard" or try to guilt me out about not voting for Fred.

And again, repeal all gun laws, -parolees and completion of terms Yes!

Thanks Bunkloco

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:44 am

Does anyone have any ideas on the recidivism rate in the US? I think we run at 45-50%.

Probaly close to that. Makes it easy for the anti's to say gun control keeps guns from their hands eh?
Thing is they know when they release most of them that they will be back.
I'd rather they not release people not actually rehabilitated until they serve out their entire term. Then if they do it again thats it. 2 strikes, not 3.
Let the third one happen in prison.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:50 am

bunklocoempire wrote:Which candidate would actually be a force in repealing all gun laws? Ron Paul a retard? Back Thompson? Go ahead and back Thompson without me, I'll try without you to face the facts and restore OUR Constitution. I'll write in Ron Paul before I back Huckabee or Thompson or any others. Which candidate tells me I'm responsible for my life? Which candidate said airlines packin' heat would've been good on 9-11? Which candidate offered the solution of the Constitutional tool of marque and reprisal - don't know this one? Be a responsible American and look it up yourself. It's beyond me why anyone on a levergun forum would not vote for Ron Paul and less government interference in their lives. It is my firm belief if your not amped about having an opportunity, to vote for a guy that actually champions personal responsibility, and OUR Constitution, you don't know enough about the guy. Please point out your favorite candidates strong points or others weak points but don't call someone a "retard" or try to guilt me out about not voting for Fred.

And again, repeal all gun laws, -parolees and completion of terms Yes!

Thanks Bunkloco

Ron Paul is the only one that should even be qualified IMHO. If your record shows a willingness to vote against the constitution after being sworn to uphold it your a liar at the very least & you certainly arent fit for the Presidency.

I said it in another post & I'll say it again. I will not vote against someone or simply for a party again.

DDude · Post by **DDude** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:54 am

Leverdude wrote:
Does anyone have any ideas on the recidivism rate in the US? I think we run at 45-50%.
Probaly close to that. Makes it easy for the anti's to say gun control keeps guns from their hands eh?
Thing is they know when they release most of them that they will be back.
I'd rather they not release people not actually rehabilitated until they serve out their entire term. Then if they do it again thats it. 2 strikes, not 3.
Let the third one happen in prison.

Agreed. A prison that consists of a bunk in a eight by eight cement room with no amenities. A place with no hint of freedom. No books, no television, nothing to make their stay comfortable. Just them and their thoughts and time to reflect on life.

Old Time Hunter · Post by **Old Time Hunter** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:57 am

Bruce,

Actually produced a study awhile back on criminal recidivism in the US. 'Course it's twenty years old now, but updated it in the mid-nineties for the local college (University of Wisconsin). Recidivism is related to the degree of crime used as a starting point, it is hard to label a career criminal because he once served time for a felony crime for stealing a car at 18 years old and now is habitual traffic offender because he has a couple of speeding tickets when he is in his forties. The system catagorizes this as recidivism. If recidivism only relates to equal or greater severity of crime for one person, then the percentage decreases on average. That all being said, in 1983 the US Federal system for feloneous criminals was 68%, in 1996 it was 57%.....so pretty much you have a better than 50/50 chance of a felon commiting another felony. And for Old Ironsides, that include "defacing Federal property" by spitting on the White House grounds

.

DDude · Post by **DDude** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:02 am

Leverdude wrote: Ron Paul is the only one that should even be qualified IMHO. If your record shows a willingness to vote against the constitution after being sworn to uphold it your a liar at the very least & you certainly arent fit for the Presidency.

I said it in another post & I'll say it again. I will not vote against someone or simply for a party again.

When it comes down to the end of the game I vote for the Constitution each and every time. Should Ron Paul not make it to the end game then I won't be voting as I am unable to even vote for the "lesser of two evils" if it means I have to compromise my beliefs. My view is that maybe letting the "greater of the two evils" (Hillary) take the reins will wake people up to the fact that politicians who don't uphold, obey and follow the Constitution means that although they are provided a chicken in their pot, the chicken costs them their Liberty and Freedom.

gunslinger598 · Post by **gunslinger598** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:07 am