Survey: What "Reasonable Gun Law Reform" would/could you accept?

[Blackout]

Im going #21

Easy choice IMO.

 

[japartridge]

First, a right is not subject to official permission, as opposed to a conditional/revocable privilege.

Second, if a mentally disturbed person is sufficiently disturbed to be a threat to society, he will be such regardless of the tools available to him, unless you intend to put legal restrictions on axes, chainsaws, machetes (which incidentally are the murder weapon of choice in some countries), mechanic's tools, most carpenter's tools, ice picks, kitchen knives, bricks, rocks, and sharp sticks. That said, a person too dangerous to possess a full set of rights should be institutionalized. Not only does that protect the rest of us from members of the 2% +/- of the population who are criminally insane, but also protects us from the government having a reason to arbitrarily deny the rest of us a critical right.

Third, if a felon is too dangerous to be turned loose with all the rights due any citizen, he should either be in prison or else have already been executed. Again, establishing a second-class citizenship with significantly abridged rights invites criminalization of common behavior to the point at which reliably following the law is not a viable solution and/or spurious prosecutions with the primary purpose of demoting people to second-class status with a truncated set of rights. If we explore this further, why stop with the Second Amendment? Should felons have Fourth Amendment protections as strong as the rest of us? After all, they have proven to have a propensity toward crime. What about the First Amendment? Are we going to let them 'corrupt the youth' with the things they may write or say? Socrates may have a little to say about this. The Sixth Amendment? These miscreants are a burden to society, so why should we bend over backwards for them? We'll try them when we get around to it.

We must also consider the circumstances under which you can become a felon. Is a person dangerous to me because he enjoys consuming a proscribed substance in the privacy of his own home? Is a person too dangerous to have his rights after he defends himself (by hand) from a belligerent drunk, then the police show up, are about to arrest the perp--who surprise--turns out to be a cop himself, so the sober cops drag the man who defended himself outside, beat the f**k out of him, and haul him in for assaulting an officer. Ask NYFelon about this some time.

The answer to your final answer is yes. All citizens who are not sufficiently dangerous to be under incarceration should have full access to all their rights, unless, of course, you prefer to have a society in which anyone can be demoted to second class status without all or even any of their rights. This is the foundation for creating a modern reincarnation of a feudal aristocracy--and you can rest assured that you will not be one of the chosen few.

Mind if I use this on FB and a few other places? I will accredit it to you of course.

 

[Stschil]

This is what Feinstein, Schummer, and their ilk consider "reasonable".

Please, Good Sir, can you provide a link to what you've quoted above. I would sorely like to add it to my arsenal of arguments with the uninformed.

Thanks much.

PS: for some reason, I cannot give you rep, nor IndyDave. But rest assure gentleman, you have been repped in spirit. :-)

 

[Pitmaster]

Please, Good Sir, can you provide a link to what you've quoted above. I would sorely like to add it to my arsenal of arguments with the uninformed.

Thanks much.

PS: for some reason, I cannot give you rep, nor IndyDave. But rest assure gentleman, you have been repped in spirit. :-)

I received the above in an email. I cut and pasted it and cleaned up a little of the grammar. I was aware of the Tony Martin case portrayed above. Per your request I googled Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England to confirm the accuracy of the story. This has been passed around for several years. What I found is that the way this story is written is not perfectly accurate. There are literary and factual slants from the Google search on both sides. But, in my opinion the general principles regarding self-defense, English gun laws, and the tragedy of what happened to Tony Martn are true and factual.


I received the below email from a friend in Chicago a little bit ago. His take on the Illinois gun law situation.

The worse of the two bills on the floor- they were voted out of Executive Committee on a straight party-line vote- would ban about 80% of all guns in the state, including pump shotguns and guns with detachable magazines. There likely will be a Senate vote today or tomorrow. It actually could pass if the party line holds.

The House might be tougher. The party line is less strong there.
The governor gets a lot of money from anti-gun people in Chicago and will sign anything anti-gun in a blink.

Whether or not these two bills goes, the maneuvering is what this is all about. The Machine- read: Emanuel- wants to get us back on our heels as battlespace preparation for the carry fight, which has five months to go.

We had them by the short ones with the Moore/Shepard decision so this is a counterattack. We're expending political capitol by the trainload and they want to wear us down so that we won't fight so hard when carry-bill time comes.
It's really bad here.