Gun Control
Responses: 7
2
2
0
Maj John Bell
LTC (Join to see) - I said "IF" that was the litmus test. I don't actually think helicopter gunships or destroyers are appropriate sporting platforms. I also think there is a valid reason to put some reasonable restrictions on what weapons are available to the general public. I asked the original question because I think the use of the phrase "common sense gun laws" is too easy. I want candidates or advocates to be specific about what they propose so I can legitimately evaluate where they stand on the issue. The Chelsea Clinton clip is what prompted me to start this thread.
I believe in making the illegal use of firearm more difficult. As an example, I would voluntarily turn in a fired round annually so that my State police lab could quickly eliminate my weapon in an investigation. (I know that in some weapons the barrel can be changed). But I would not make that submission of a round compulsory, because of the 5th amendment.
I believe in making the illegal use of firearm more difficult. As an example, I would voluntarily turn in a fired round annually so that my State police lab could quickly eliminate my weapon in an investigation. (I know that in some weapons the barrel can be changed). But I would not make that submission of a round compulsory, because of the 5th amendment.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Maj John Bell - I think we pretty much agree. I don't know why you think you have to debate with me as I'm not an ultra-left liberal.
My only blatantly liberal issue is keeping all aspects of any religion out of law or government and not giving religion or the religious any special privilege. I am just as against the government trying to control what a priest or pastor does (government cannot force a religion to perform same-sex marriages or allow women as priests, for example), but government actually can, and in my opinion should vigorously prevent religion or the religious from impinging upon any individual's constitutional rights including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Pursuit of happiness means Christians, Jews, Muslims or anyone else cannot dictate where a gay person can shop unless with regards to a non-profit store that is purely part of the religious organization itself.
A private for-profit religious school could certainly choose not to accept a student and a non-profit store that is part of a religious denomination (i.e. bakesale, Catholic temple store) could restrict, but a for-profit business doing business in the public sphere cannot.
Yes, that is a pretty liberal view, but on just about everything else I fall slightly left of center moderate, and on guns, foreign policy and national defense I fall right of center.
My only blatantly liberal issue is keeping all aspects of any religion out of law or government and not giving religion or the religious any special privilege. I am just as against the government trying to control what a priest or pastor does (government cannot force a religion to perform same-sex marriages or allow women as priests, for example), but government actually can, and in my opinion should vigorously prevent religion or the religious from impinging upon any individual's constitutional rights including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Pursuit of happiness means Christians, Jews, Muslims or anyone else cannot dictate where a gay person can shop unless with regards to a non-profit store that is purely part of the religious organization itself.
A private for-profit religious school could certainly choose not to accept a student and a non-profit store that is part of a religious denomination (i.e. bakesale, Catholic temple store) could restrict, but a for-profit business doing business in the public sphere cannot.
Yes, that is a pretty liberal view, but on just about everything else I fall slightly left of center moderate, and on guns, foreign policy and national defense I fall right of center.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
LTC (Join to see) - Once again we agree. Debate might not have been the best choice of words. Too many people discuss the issues on RP in emotional terms vs. rational. I have some emotional views that will not stand up to analysis by scientific method (i.e. near complete distrust of Federal Government, belief in God, etc.) but I believe I'm reasonably good (not perfect) at recognizing it.
Quite often religion is part of a person's moral compass. It's not possible to remove all of the chicken from the chicken broth. Some political decisions are also decisions of our collective morality. So religion is going to encroach into secular issues that have some moral aspect. I also respect that sometimes the collective morality is outside my personal envelope. It is part of the social contract that I restrict my active opposition to legal means and respectfully live with outcomes with which I do not agree.
I am a "heretical" free will Christian. I have no problem with someone exercising their free will, as long as they don't interfere with someone else exercising their free will. I am not compelled to judge them, dislike them, or "convert" them to my spiritual beliefs. I don't think I or anyone else has the ability to "convert" someone else. I view treating people differently because of any of the currently hot social issues as stupid as treating them differently based on whether the prefer butter or margarine.
Quite often religion is part of a person's moral compass. It's not possible to remove all of the chicken from the chicken broth. Some political decisions are also decisions of our collective morality. So religion is going to encroach into secular issues that have some moral aspect. I also respect that sometimes the collective morality is outside my personal envelope. It is part of the social contract that I restrict my active opposition to legal means and respectfully live with outcomes with which I do not agree.
I am a "heretical" free will Christian. I have no problem with someone exercising their free will, as long as they don't interfere with someone else exercising their free will. I am not compelled to judge them, dislike them, or "convert" them to my spiritual beliefs. I don't think I or anyone else has the ability to "convert" someone else. I view treating people differently because of any of the currently hot social issues as stupid as treating them differently based on whether the prefer butter or margarine.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Maj John Bell - Well sad. I will absolutely defend your right to believe as you will, up to the instant before it discriminates against the beliefs, freedoms or dignity of another.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The next time someone brings up common sense gun laws, simply ask them whether or not common sense dictates that a criminal will obey the law. That usually ends the debate.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Background checks WITHOUT LOOPHOLES and funding to law enforcement and state judicial systems to make sure conviction databases are kept up-to-date.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
I am all for state data bases. I am also for coordination between states and sharing of information. I am absolutely opposed to Federal involvement/access to the database, unless the individual has crossed the line. For me I would establish the line at a gun-related violence conviction or illegal transfer of weapons conviction. I know that is closing the barn door after the mare is gone, but I do not trust the Feds with very much power or personal information.
I additionally believe there must be some form of due process, right of appeal, and "speedy trial" equivalent in the decision to deny the exercise or the right to keep and bear arms.
I also have a problem with the fees associated with gun purchases. What other exercise of Constitutional right requires a fee/tax payable to the government or required class (private or public) to exercise?
I additionally believe there must be some form of due process, right of appeal, and "speedy trial" equivalent in the decision to deny the exercise or the right to keep and bear arms.
I also have a problem with the fees associated with gun purchases. What other exercise of Constitutional right requires a fee/tax payable to the government or required class (private or public) to exercise?
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Maj John Bell - Sorry I disagree. Commit a felony or violent misdemeanor and you're out.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Not sure we're completely disagreeing.
__The right to appeal doesn't guarantee winning the appeal.
__I'm not sure (admittedly need to think about it more) that I would deny a felony tax evader or similar type, their 2nd Amendment rights.
__I think that a violent misdemeanor might merit a judicial review after some substantial probationary period, perhaps 5-10 years.
__The right to appeal doesn't guarantee winning the appeal.
__I'm not sure (admittedly need to think about it more) that I would deny a felony tax evader or similar type, their 2nd Amendment rights.
__I think that a violent misdemeanor might merit a judicial review after some substantial probationary period, perhaps 5-10 years.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Maj John Bell - There already is judicial review in all fifty states. Its called returning to court with a petition to dismiss, expunge etc. (terminology differs). Such petitions also exist for federal crimes.
Similarly most non-violent felonies can, after completion of probation, be reduced to misdemeanors in most states if the state as an equivalent misdemeanor version of the same crime, known as a "lesser included".
So if you are convicted of felony tax evasion, drug possession, theft, etc., once probation is over you could return to court, have it reduced to a misdemeanor and so long as the misdemeanor was not violent (many violent crimes can also be reduced) then you would no longer be precluded from buying a gun UNDER CURRENT LAW.
The only federal exception is domestic violence under the Adam Walsh Act, which is a whole other matter.
Similarly most non-violent felonies can, after completion of probation, be reduced to misdemeanors in most states if the state as an equivalent misdemeanor version of the same crime, known as a "lesser included".
So if you are convicted of felony tax evasion, drug possession, theft, etc., once probation is over you could return to court, have it reduced to a misdemeanor and so long as the misdemeanor was not violent (many violent crimes can also be reduced) then you would no longer be precluded from buying a gun UNDER CURRENT LAW.
The only federal exception is domestic violence under the Adam Walsh Act, which is a whole other matter.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Let's make murder illegal. Oh, wait. Unfortunately criminals do what criminals do. Infringing on the constitutional rights of good people will not stop bad people from doing bad things. Most gun crime is committed by people who are inelidgible to legally buy and carry a firearm. You do not have the right to decide how law abiding people choose to protect their families because you oppose guns. If you don't agree with guns. Don't buy one. Just like if you don't agreee with abortion, don't have one.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
I am a legal owner of several types of long arms and handguns. (Not the hood ornament photo I chose). But I am starting to think that before I go to my grave, there will be a significant government push to severely curtail my rights to those weapons. One of the things I have been looking into is collapsible "night sticks". I modestly claim to have been "AWESOME" with a PR-24.
Imagine my surprise. In Michigan, I may not own ANY type of baton, slapper, or blackjack; collapsible or otherwise, that is designed for the primary use of self-defense. I can be arrested and charged if they think I put that orange in a sock for purposes of self-defense. Do you think people will be suspicious if I carry the biggest Maglite on a holster at noon?
Imagine my surprise. In Michigan, I may not own ANY type of baton, slapper, or blackjack; collapsible or otherwise, that is designed for the primary use of self-defense. I can be arrested and charged if they think I put that orange in a sock for purposes of self-defense. Do you think people will be suspicious if I carry the biggest Maglite on a holster at noon?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I seriously doubt there is such a thing, the government has its thought, and gun owners have theirs. There's no happy medium.
(1)
(0)
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
MAJ (Join to see) - to outlaw guns in it's self dumb. Let the honest people keep and own their guns, let the dishonest beware retribution.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I always felt like the second amendment was pretty common sense. There's also the fact it's the supreme law of the land as well, so it pretty well takes care of "common sense gun laws" in that regard.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
I am a legal owner of several types of long arms and handguns. (Not the hood ornament photo I chose). But I am starting to think that before I go to my grave, there will be a significant government push to severely curtail my rights to those weapons. One of the things I have been looking into is collapsible "night sticks". I modestly claim to have been "AWESOME" with a PR-24.
Imagine my surprise. In Michigan, I may not own ANY type of baton, slapper, or blackjack; collapsible or otherwise, that is designed for the primary use of self-defense. I can be arrested and charged if they think I put that orange in a sock for purposes of self-defense. Do you think people will be suspicious if I carry the biggest Maglite on a holster at noon?
Imagine my surprise. In Michigan, I may not own ANY type of baton, slapper, or blackjack; collapsible or otherwise, that is designed for the primary use of self-defense. I can be arrested and charged if they think I put that orange in a sock for purposes of self-defense. Do you think people will be suspicious if I carry the biggest Maglite on a holster at noon?
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/three-common-sense-gun-policies-that-would-save-lives/2015/10/15/3fd8cb80-735f-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html?utm_term=.af2c680ad15e
I hope this helps a bit. It's meant to mean laws that, by common sense, would allow gun control to take place. One such example in this article is a national permit-to-purchase. Meaning that in order to be able to purchase weapons, you would have to get permission from the country. Not sure how exactly that would work but I am still of the mind that such an act could easily limit legal gun owners from purchasing more weapons, plus it would create a tracker of all gun owners in a database.
I hope this helps a bit. It's meant to mean laws that, by common sense, would allow gun control to take place. One such example in this article is a national permit-to-purchase. Meaning that in order to be able to purchase weapons, you would have to get permission from the country. Not sure how exactly that would work but I am still of the mind that such an act could easily limit legal gun owners from purchasing more weapons, plus it would create a tracker of all gun owners in a database.
Three common-sense gun policies that would save lives
The choice between the blood-soaked status quo and the politically impossible is a false one.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
I looked at the studies from the article.
A "mistake" in the methodology of the Missouri "study" was that they looked at total murders instead of per capita murder rates. Missouri's annual population growth rate is about 1.5%. If you further adjust the population growth rate for the urban poor (the demographic for about 70% of the murder victims and murderers in Missouri) the growth rate is closer to 3.2%. Not great methodology but more accurate, they should have applied an adjusted population growth rate of 2.7%. That means a zero percent change in the murder rate would produce an 11% change in the total murders over a 4 year period. That is well within the standard deviation of the study, and thus statistically insignificant. Thus you cannot accurately associate the increase in murder and suicide rate to the repeal of the permit to purchase law.
In Connecticut the 40% decrease in murders is really impressive, until you see that Connecticut was already experiencing an 8 year consecutive decline in the homicide and suicide rate. If the trend continued without the increased gun control for the same period their would have been a 38% decrease over the same 12 year period. Furthermore, for the last year of the baseline data, Connecticut passed a significant change in sentencing guidelines for gun related violence. Certain gun-related misdemeanors became felonies, and gun-related felonies saw a substantial increase in the severity of the penalties.
I don't think the permit to purchase argument holds water based on those two cases. None-the-less, I support the permit to purchase requirement, I do not support the Federal Government's involvement until a gun is missing, stolen, or has been used in a crime.
I cannot support denying a person the right to purchase a firearm if their is no guarantee of a speedy decision (i.e. 45-60 days) and a real "due process" appeal process.
Holding gun manufacturers liable for a product that functions as intended is a dangerous precedent and forces expensive safety measures that have the effect of disarming the lower end of the economic scale.
A "mistake" in the methodology of the Missouri "study" was that they looked at total murders instead of per capita murder rates. Missouri's annual population growth rate is about 1.5%. If you further adjust the population growth rate for the urban poor (the demographic for about 70% of the murder victims and murderers in Missouri) the growth rate is closer to 3.2%. Not great methodology but more accurate, they should have applied an adjusted population growth rate of 2.7%. That means a zero percent change in the murder rate would produce an 11% change in the total murders over a 4 year period. That is well within the standard deviation of the study, and thus statistically insignificant. Thus you cannot accurately associate the increase in murder and suicide rate to the repeal of the permit to purchase law.
In Connecticut the 40% decrease in murders is really impressive, until you see that Connecticut was already experiencing an 8 year consecutive decline in the homicide and suicide rate. If the trend continued without the increased gun control for the same period their would have been a 38% decrease over the same 12 year period. Furthermore, for the last year of the baseline data, Connecticut passed a significant change in sentencing guidelines for gun related violence. Certain gun-related misdemeanors became felonies, and gun-related felonies saw a substantial increase in the severity of the penalties.
I don't think the permit to purchase argument holds water based on those two cases. None-the-less, I support the permit to purchase requirement, I do not support the Federal Government's involvement until a gun is missing, stolen, or has been used in a crime.
I cannot support denying a person the right to purchase a firearm if their is no guarantee of a speedy decision (i.e. 45-60 days) and a real "due process" appeal process.
Holding gun manufacturers liable for a product that functions as intended is a dangerous precedent and forces expensive safety measures that have the effect of disarming the lower end of the economic scale.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google