BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...

Subject: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 07:36 PM

Wel, well, well...

Looks as if a federal court says the governemnt of Washington DC has no right to say, "Hey, we're alot safer without guns in folks homes" and has struck down that law which has been on the books 'bout 30 years...

According to a Washington Post article recently there are studies that show that there is 22 times greater danger of someone in the home diein' from a gun if there is a gun in the house but, hey, gotta keep them well kept militias stocked, don't we???

Have it, Dickey and BB... This thread is for you...

Okay, Rap... I know I'll gonna have to get a little from you as well but, hey, your one of the good guys...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 08:04 PM

I don't care much what DC does, Bobert. As long as they don't do it to me I'm okay with it.

Actually, I have no beef with reasonable firearms regulations. Illinois licenses gun owners and I have not problem with that. I have no problem with being checked out by the cops before I get a concealed weapons permit, or attending mandatory classes.

It's the irrational that I object to. It's the knee-jerk, thoughtless, feel-good laws that make the legislators feel like they've solved a problem (and not just firearms!) that I object to. One very good example is the USA Patriot Act, another is "airline security."

As for crimes -- if you have a firearm in your possession when you commit a crime, any crime, tack at least an additional 5 years without parole onto the sentence. If you wound someone with firearm while commiting a crime, tack on 10 years. If you kill someone with a firearm while you are committing a crime, sorry Charlie -- merely having the firearms should be prima facie evidence that you planned to use it and hence you face a Murder One rap as well as the crime time.

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 08:04 PM

Oh, yeah. That's my last word on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 08:19 PM

You want an extreme perspective on this, come to the UK. Basic requirements are as follows:

Handguns: Banned since 1997, as one nutter who should not have been allowed them under the previous strict license scheme shot up a school full of 7 year olds.

Shotguns: license relatively easy to obtain. Full police check and well secured gun cupboard, with regular inspections required.

Rifles (single shot): Hold shotgun license for some years, demonstrate your competence with and need for a rifle.

Rifles (semi auto or above): Firearms or Terrorism charges, depending on circumstances.


Guess what proportion of Guns used in criminal acts are legally Held... roughly 0%



And it's a cultural thing, as ( the 0% figure) that was true a decade ago, when hand guns were legal, and the police were less strict on the other licenses.

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 09:39 PM

Let me change one thing to my previous post:

If you commit a crime and have a gun in your possession and someone dies during your commission of the crime, it should be prima facie evidence of Murder One. This would be regardless of whether or not you even displayed the weapon -- the death could be due to a heart attack or slipping on a wet floor to open the safe. Take a gun with you to a crime and you'd better be ready to do the time...or more.

And this would include replica firearms, toy guns, and even putting your finger in your coat pocket and pretending you had a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 11:36 PM

Serious question here, Rap. Are you saying that your listings are among the irrational laws pertaining to firearms?

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 02:40 AM

America already incarcerates a higher proportion of its population than any other allegedly civilised country. Spot the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:13 AM

No, Ebbie.

I'm saying that they are reactive, conceived in a rush and without sufficient thought and discussion. Airport security is a fine thing, but it hasn't progressed beyond what was done in the 1970s -- due, in my opinion, to a lack of imagination and understanding of today's traveling public. For example, baggage handlers were arrested this week for loading guns and drugs on a plane bound for Puerto Rico; no one seems to know how many guns and drugs have already been shipped by them. On the other hand, since September 11, 2001 there are example after example of passengers assisting crew members in subduing drunks, psychotics, and even the notorious "Shoe Bomber."

I'm not at all sure that ANY government makes laws that are well conceived, well thought out, and proactive.

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Sorcha
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:19 AM

I'm with Rap. And why would any American household need assault weapons??????

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:26 AM

Bobert,

I am glad to see that you feel the Bill of Rights should be altered for political reasons, bercause it would " make us safer".

I expect you to approve all future laws that restrict your freedom of speech, right to assemble, and freedom of religion. After all, limiting those "rights" can certainly be claimed to make us a lot safer....


Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.

The court stated that the law prohibiting firearm ownership was unconstitutional, by a 2 to 1 decision. The dissenting opinion was that DC was NOT a state, NOT that the law was in accordance with the Constitution.

Please give me an example of any place that had a lower crime rate after gun laws were enacted.

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:27 AM

So you can go broke from the cost of ammunition? So you can turn an animal into hamburger BEFORE you field dress it? To show your testosterone level is higher than that of the guy who knows how to shoot accurately?

If you ever actually NEED an assault weapon you can get one from the guy who has one.

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:35 AM

1. Assult weapons have been illegal for private ownership, except with very high priced goverment permits and strict controls, since the 1933 law prohibiting fully automatic weapons.

2. The definition of an "assult rifle" is

The assault rifle is a term describing a type of automatic rifle generally defined as a selective fire rifle or carbine, chambering intermediate-powered ammunition. They are categorized between the larger and heavier light machine gun, which is intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and the smaller submachine gun, which fires a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful rifles ('battle rifles') such as the WWII-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT. Examples of assault rifles include the AR-15 and its military incarnation, the M16 rifle, the ubiquitous AK-47 genus, and the bullpup FAMAS. More exotic examples include the exquisite LR 300 By Z-M Weapons and the HK G36, which makes extensive use of modern polymers and space-age engineering.

The name is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr coined by Adolf Hitler to describe the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle and effective progenitor of the concept. It gradually became the common (if not technically accurate) term for the sub-family of similar firearms, and also has been used retroactively with earlier weapons possessing such traits. While it is not a completely accepted or technically correct label, it is widely used to differentiate current small-caliber weapons such as the AR-15 and AK-74 from earlier semi-automatic or select-fire rifles that fired larger cartridges, such as the M1 Garand, M14, HK G3, CETME, and FN FAL, which are sometimes referred to as 'battle rifles'. Technically, all are 'rifles' of different caliber, with some being semi-automatic or having select-fire capability, thus being either 'semi-automatic rifles' or 'automatic rifles'. Since the smaller-caliber weapons tend to be distinct in construction and modern use from their counterparts, the term 'assault rifle' has proven useful and popular for referring to them specifically.

Selective fire means that they can be fired in a single-shot ( per trigger pull), burst, or fully automatic mode.

A firearm without the capability to fire more than one round per pull of the trigger is NOT an assult rifle.

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:38 AM

"And why would any American household need assault weapons?????? "

And why would a member of any American household need to yell fire in a crowded theater??????

1. They don't- but this does not mean that they have no freedom of speech.

2. There are already laws in place , SINCE 1933, against automatic weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: GUEST,MarkS
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 09:44 AM

Just one nit to pick.

"Examples of assault rifles include the AR-15 "

The AR 15 is a single shot per trigger pull, just as the M1.

It is an "autoloader" in the same way a revolver is an autoloader - still gives you one shot per trigger pull.

It is not capable of automatic fire - that feature is limited to the military version, the M-16.

Regards all

Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 01:05 PM

bb,

For the record I didn't say anything about the Bill of Rights being altered for political purposes---or any other purposes, for that matter-- so don't go doing yer bb thing by trying to put words into other folks mouths that ***you*** wished they had said... It's becoming a nasty--and dishonest-- little habit of yours...

BTW, if I recall, isn't the Supreme Court supposed to do the interpreting when there are disagreements in interprtin' what the Founding Fathers meant by this or that in the Bill of Rights???

If not, please share your views with the rest olf the world that kinda thought that was one of the purposes of the court, por favor...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 01:19 PM

Bobert,

You stated:

"Looks as if a federal court says the governemnt of Washington DC has no right to say, "Hey, we're alot safer without guns in folks homes" and has struck down that law which has been on the books 'bout 30 years...

According to a Washington Post article recently there are studies that show that there is 22 times greater danger of someone in the home diein' from a gun if there is a gun in the house but, hey, gotta keep them well kept militias stocked, don't we???"


"For the record I didn't say anything about the Bill of Rights being altered for political purposes---or any other purposes, for that matter-- "

The Federal Appeals Court stated that the law in question was not Constitutional. For the first time, it WILL be appealed to the Supreme Court. If your comment was meant to support the removal of a law found to be not constitutional, then I apologize for my misinterpretation: If it was ( as I believe) intended to complain about the court interfering with DC's right to violate the Constitution, then YOU are being dishonest by your comments.

"BTW, if I recall, isn't the Supreme Court supposed to do the interpreting when there are disagreements in interprtin' what the Founding Fathers meant by this or that in the Bill of Rights???"

Federal courts have that responsibility- which can be appealed to the Supreme Court, and should in a casee of this significance.

Yes, the Supreme Court has the final say in matters of law- so please go back and apologize for all YOUR comments about the 2000 election, as they declared the legal standing which had Bush as the winner.

You keep demonstrating that you have a nasty - and dishonest- hypocritical attitude, using the facts you chose to support your viewpoint, yet denying those same facts to others who use them to disagree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 01:22 PM

BTW,
MY comment "I am glad to see that you feel the Bill of Rights should be altered for political reasons, bercause it would " make us safer"."

Was a CONCLUSION reached by looking at what and how you stated your premise- NOT a quote of your words. It was what *I* saw your feelings to be from the words you placed upon this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 01:38 PM

Hmm, rocket scientist with devotion to weapons. Dr Strangelove anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: GUEST,Range Officer
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 02:04 PM

Bunnahabnain - about the UK you stated :-

'Rifles (single shot): Hold shotgun license for some years, demonstrate your competence with and need for a rifle'.

I have never known this to be true - I know many hundreds of Firearm Certificate owners who have never owned a shotgun. Most shotgun owners I know have never owned a Firearm. Also, there has NEVER been any requirement to show compentence with a firearm - only need to prove good cause (as in target shooting, vermin control etc) and opportunity (as in member of target shooting club, permission of land owner for vermin shooting etc.).

'Rifles (semi auto or above): Firearms or Terrorism charges, depending on circumstances.'

Semi-Auto rifles in .22 calibre are legal - only 'full-bore' & centre-fire semi-autos are banned. All fully automatic firearms have been banned for decades. Same rules as above applies.

There is much mis-reporting of the UK firearms laws & when the police carry out their routine checks, the attending officer usually is not fully up to date with legislation.

Since handguns were banned, handgun crime has risen !!!!

(sorry, dont know how to do italics etc in mudcat. Can turn them on but what is the command to turn 'em off)?

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 02:26 PM

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, in MO, as well as those of millions of others, blew it in 2000... But, hey, Bush was awarded the White House because, and I'm not aware of the constitutional basis for their decision, that Bush would have been "harmed" had the recount been continued...

As fir the nasty little habits... I present my arguments without having to misquote others... This is where we differ... I have no proble ms with you making your case but I, as well as others here, have called you repeatedly on making up stuff that you wished someone had said, then present it as if these things were actaully said...

That, my friend, would get you a stern lecture from any debating coach worth his or her salt... Not to mention it is dishonest...

Fell free to state your opinions and let me sate mine... I don't need to invent bb material any more than you need to invent Bobert material... And so I don't... But you do and everyone knows it...   You are a smart 'nuff feller to not have to do that...

BTW, are you aware of how many times that DC law has been upheld???

BTW, part 2, as realted to the above question, are you not concerned about the "judical activism" in this case???

BTW, part 3, do you know the difference between making a "conclusion" and posting that someone esle said something that they didn't say???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Nickhere
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 03:05 PM

My tuppence worth - we have pretty strict firearm laws here (Ireland), though they seem to be in a process of change. Automatic weapons are illegal of course, except for special members of the police, army etc.,
It seems relatively easy to get a licence for a shotgun - mainly you need somewhere to shoot it (at least 80 yards from any houses) and a reason (pest control etc.,). Rifles (mainly in .22 calibre) are a bit more tricky, as police do background checks (fair enough) and you do tend to get put through the hoops a bit more trying to get one. You also need the same criteria as for a shotgun. Though a .22 can travel a good distance, it seems a bit silly, as shotguns tend to be preferred by criminals for their wide spread pattern.

Police are mainly concerned about security - your gun must be secured and locked in a safe. This makes good sense for the owner as well, as the main problem in having a gun in the house is that if it becomes known you have one, it can invite a break-in by the unscrupulous eager to obtain an illegal weapon.

I have seen ads for shops selling a range of pistols, including 9mm, as well as single shot rifles selling calibres like 7.62 and .303, so it must be possible to obtain these guns. I presume you'd need a very good reason for wanting one though.

Some police officers though are a bit silly about giving out licences and try to insist that custom is in fact legislation, especially with higher calibre weapons.

Of course, criminals have whatever they want - pistols, rifles, you name it. Recently there was a shoot-out on a busy motorway near a certain city here involving one car chasing another at high speed while the passenger opened up on the other car with a sub-machine gun.


Having tight gun laws does little to stop criminals getting their hands on whatever weapons they want - apart from the issue of theft of legal weapons - unsurprisingly, since career criminals have already embarked on a path in life where the idea of obeying laws is laughable in the first instance.

That said, if there aren't too many guns lying round in the first place, accidents etc., are less likely to happen, people are less likely to turn to guns to settle a dispute etc.,

Micheal Moore adressed this question in 'Bowling for Columbine' and I'd have to remember the Canadian taxi driver's comment "if more guns made people safer, America (the USA) would be one of the safest countries in the world - but it isn't". My friends in Arizona decided against keeping a gun in the house as they have a 10-year old kid, and he might get hold of it one day and bring it out to show off to friends etc.,

I doubt guns make for a much safer society - if homeowners have them to feel secure, the bad guy is likely to have them too, only s/he is likely to have far less scruples about using them. I reckon you'd have to start with inculcating a respect for human life across the board to tackle this issue. I wouldn't like too many guns floating round, as people might turn to them when they lost their temper (eg. going postal!) I'd prefer they broke my windows or whatever... Plus I'd hate to be put in the position of having to shoot someone myself, I really wouldn't want that on my conscience / soul.

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 03:12 PM

Ah, Nick! Remember the "Raids for Arms?" Roger Casement? Wolfe Tone?

Anyone who wants to take the trouble can obtain arms. Illegally, of course, but quite possible. You can even make your own if you want to.

        

That night your great guns, unawares,
Shook all our coffins as we lay,
And broke the chancel window-squares,
We thought it was the Judgement-day

And sat upright. While drearisome
Arose the howl of wakened hounds:
The mouse let fall the altar-crumb,
The worm drew back into the mounds,

The glebe cow drooled. Till God cried, "No;
It's gunnery practice out at sea
Just as before you went below;
The world is as it used to be:

"All nations striving strong to make
Red war yet redder. Mad as hatters
They do no more for Christés sake
Than you who are helpless in such matters.

"That this is not the judgment-hour
For some of them's a blessed thing,
For if it were they'd have to scour
Hell's floor for so much threatening. . . .

"Ha, ha. It will be warmer when
I blow the trumpet (if indeed
I ever do; for you are men,
And rest eternal sorely need)."

So down we lay again. "I wonder,
Will the world ever saner be,"
Said one, "than when He sent us under
In our indifferent century!"

And many a skeleton shook his head.
"Instead of preaching forty year,"
My neighbour Parson Thirdly said,
"I wish I had stuck to pipes and beer."

Again the guns disturbed the hour,
Roaring their readiness to avenge,
As far inland as Stourton Tower,
And Camelot, and starlit Stonehenge.

             -- Channel Firing,Thomas Hardy

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 10:16 PM

"If you're gonna shoot, shoot! Don't talk."

Eli Wallach in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly."

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Nickhere
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 12:10 PM

Rapaire - indeed! I think it is one reason why the police are not armed in Ireland (Ok, they have batons, and I suppose that's an arm, at least I'd be arrested if I wandered round with one - I mean guns, of course). The police were ser up in the arly 1920s, and when it came to arming them, it was probably remembered that just a few years earlier the IRA (from whom some of the police came) had armed themselves by grabbing guns from the hands and barracks of RIC stations up and down the country. So I suppose it made sense, just after a civil war, not to tempt them again....
It's proved a happy experiment at any rate, and I believe that having an unarmed police force has kept at least a few people alive that otherwise might not have been, and sharpened the diplomacy skills of the police.

Subject: RE: BS: Court & NRA to DC- Guns Rule...
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 02:13 PM

I was under the impression, Nick, from a Cork detective that the gardai not only had access to firearms in their cars, but were all required to qualify annually with rifle, pistol, shotgun and submachine gun. Not that they carried them, mind you! But perhaps that has changed....