Guns are forever going to remain a presence in America despite the enemies of freedom. The brady bunch, the VPC, IANSA, and the Clinton administration have failed. In 2008, the USSC ruled that the right to bare arms was an individual right. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the USSC ruled that gun bans infringed on a person's constitutional right to bare arms. The democrat party, the party of gun control is starting to do a 180 on the subject. A topic about that is already on this forum. After the 2000 presidential election, Bill Clinton stated publically that Gore lost because of gun control. The only legislation getting passed that deals with guns is legislation that loosens gun laws. In 1986, there were 8 shall issue states and 1 unrestricted carry state. Today 38 states are shall issue and 4 are unrestricted. Only 1 state is non issue and that is bound to change soon. Gun rights are going global as well. A Madras high court in India ruled that citizens could not be denied gun permits on suspect that it may interfere with law and order.
Gun rights in America has certainly been solidified with the SCOTUS rulings, however to say its a global movement is a bit of a stretch.
It's taken hold in India and I remember reading somewhere that gun culture is begining to take hold in China.
Now all we need to do is get concealed carry rights for every state. It's ridiculous that certain politicians think they have the right to tell someone how, when, and where they can defend themselves.
You had an argument to make concerning the National trend towards laxer gun laws, however you really did your argument a disservice, and ultimately put your logical objectivity into question when you slight a political party by mislabeling them as "democrat" party instead of the Democratic party. You further tainted your argument when you falsely accused President Clinton of trying to ban guns and you falsely labeled those who are for stricter gun laws as "enemies of freedom" which is inane. Demagoguery does NOT make an argument, friend.
1. So I forgot 2 letters at the end of a word that works both ways, fine; Democratic. 2. Clinton signed into law the assault weapon ban and as part of a public relations program, helped confiscate guns in the Chicago area under the guise of a buy back/compensation for turning in illegal guns. 3. People who want stricter gun laws are trying to limit the freedom of the citizenery to own guns. So, you can't say they are working towards freedom.
No it's not. Private citizens are not generally allowed to own guns of any type and even regular police are unarmed.
In China there are sporting clubs and they flaunt their military around such as in parades. I even remember reading somewhere that the kids in China salute the flag while holding mock rifles.
Complete nonsense. The only place you'll ever see a gun in China is worn by the Consular Protection Force which provides security for high-profile government buildings and consulates.
The Chinese beat the crap out of each other with sharpened bamboo kindo sticks. Their choice of common weapon. The other weapons of choice are mostly all razor sharp edge items. That can be thrown or used with the hands. Yah...They keep it none brutal.
What President Clinton signed into law with the AWB was supported by the overwhelming majority of Congress (something like only 6 members voted against the Bill), so you could hardly conclude that Clinton was/is an "enemies of freedom" or that the other many hundreds of legislators, both Democratic AND Republican were "anti freedom" either. One CANNOT be concluded from the other. As to your other assertion concerning the Chicago buy-back, you'll have to post a source for that in order to fairly judge culpability and motive. Nonsense. People "who want stricter gun laws" are trying to limit the "freedom" of criminals to own guns. How did you miss this? "All too often men are betrayed by the word freedom. And as freedom is counted among the most sublime feelings, so the corresponding disillusionment can be also sublime." - Franz Kafka "I conceive that the great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon them by false estimates they have made of the value of things." Benjamin Franklin "Elevate those guns a little lower." Andrew Jackson "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." George Washington Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about. Mark Twain "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Thomas Jefferson
I think at the minimum, that concealed carry permits from any state should be allowed in any other state per Article IV and the 14th Amendment : Article IV: Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Just like marriage licenses and driver's licenses, gun licenses should be universal.
Well , you are right about the Senate--only 4 voted against it. however, 195 in the House voted against it. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR03355:@@@L&summ2=m&
Maybe, the issue being the the variance in CCW requirements. Many states will not recognize my Colorado CCW permit due to the extraordinarily lax requirements. Live fire isn't even required, let alone an a ability of demonstrable accuracy. At my CCW class a guy essentially peppered his target at three and five yards, absolutely unacceptable accuracy, yet was issued his certificate.
No. Not originally in the House they didn't. The same Bill passed in the House by a "Voice Vote"--- no objections, which they then sent to the Senate where only (4) Senators voted against it. It was only after the NRA started twisting arms that the Conferenced Bill saw any opposition. It was THEN that 195 Reps voted against it as you said. In other words, the Bill vote became political with some legislators covering their behinds once they knew that the Bill would be passed (which is what most of them wanted anyhow).
That's an absolute that's difficult to support. On the other hand we know that since the Brady Law/ background check system (a gun control law) HAS "impeded the ability of criminals to get guns". There was 148,000 felony denials to gun purchases in 1999. If that wasn't an impediment to criminals, then I'll eat my hat. http://www.jrsa.org/events/conference/presentations-10/Ronald_Frandsen.pdf
Danct, Did those people who were rejected end up with guns anyways? It really doesn't matter - criminals by definition break laws - how is another law going to stop them from being armed? It's an illogical position and only serves to strengthen the black market. As with all prohibitionist laws - they fail, cause more harm than good, increase prices of legal guns (which is especially harmful to the poor who may no longer be able to afford to arm themselves), and empower the criminal underworld to provide the goods and services that the market justly demands! Furthermore - what bothers me the most about gun control activists - is that they want to empower a group of people that have the WORST track record of NOT killing people to have authority over who gets to be armed....THE GOVERNMENT! The US Federal Government alone is responsible for the murder of millions... As the famous saying goes "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!"....governments just do it more efficiently.
And reading that same source, the numbers of criminals trying to buy weapons has gone down significantly. Do you actually think those criminals are not just getting smarter and getting weapons from other sources. I'm ok with NICS. I don't think it's that effective, but I also don't think it's too intrusive. Anyway, do you think those 148,000 denials don't have guns now?
Are you implying that 100% of them DID? I would not agree with that if you are and thus it IS a false statement that the other member said (which I was responding to): "Gun control has NEVER impeded the ability of criminals to get guns" Your statement that I highlighted is false. We have a prohibition against murder, rape, robbery and acts of terrorism and yet these offenses still happen. One CANNOT however assume that the absence of these laws would provide us with less of these particular crimes. We also have a prohibition against the selling of stolen property, yet does this mean that an absence of this prohibition would produce fewer thefts? I think not. Your argument has no merit. This is somewhat of a cynical and borderline unpatriotic position to take. You'd first have to define this "murder" and then explain to me how our Founding Fathers erred in their setting up our representative Republic government? Because that's how it works, friend. We elect our representatives and they legislate on our behalf. It's worked pretty well SO far, no? Thus far they have only stipulated a small group of citizens who are deemed unable to own a gun. This list are made up primarily of criminals and minors. Most citizens do not disagree with this so I fail to see your argument as to this.
While we would expect criminals to wise up and not attempt to purchase guns through legal channels, the fact remains that many still do try to (and many do so successfully, by the way) purchase guns through legal dealers. The last year in that study, 2008, there were 77,000 denials because the applicant had a felony conviction. Still no insignificant number in my opinion and it shows the desire to purchase guns is not a perfect science instilled automatically upon the criminal mind. Sometimes, I think we give them more credit than they deserve. I would venture to guess with reasonable certainty that not all of those people current have guns, no.
@ Danct 1) The burden of proof is on you as the law you are for requires force of government to enforce. I think you can concede that criminals have guns and they got these guns in spite of gun control laws. I think you can also concede that gun control laws make it harder for and more time consuming for law abiding citizens to attain guns. I furthermore think you can concede that gun registries can and have been used as a venue for government to confiscate said guns. For those reasons and more - I stand by my claim that gun control laws have failed and should be repealed. 2) All prohibitionist laws have failed. Your examples only strengthen my argument. Are you making the claim that if murder was 'legal' that more people would do it? I don't think it being against the law is much of a deterrent. I think having everyone armed with a gun is the best deterrent to murder (and theft for that matter). 3) I find it disturbing that you think calling the US government out on its past atrocities is unpatriotic. I think it is you who are in the minority as most people want to know of past mistakes so as not to continue them. Even still the popularity of one's argument is irrelevant as to the merit of said argument. Here's a short list of atrocities by the US government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_committed_by_the_United_States and that doesn't cover the atrocities done to Native Americans over the years. My point was though (as to not sidetrack the thread) was that the government is the LAST organization that should have such authority as to decide who gets to have guns and who doesn't as they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and violators of people's rights and civil liberties (mainly, the right to life). Let's change the topic real quick - should criminals be able to own guns? I think they should........ Before you bite my head off hear me out. I am a believer that the punishment should end once the person has repaid their 'debt to society' for lack of a better term. I feel that if we feel they are safe enough to be on the streets, then they should have all of the rights and protections as every other citizen. If we don't think they are safe enough then they should still be in jail as they will be able to get guns if they want them bad enough.
Notice that in 2004 both parties (with the exception of a few individuals) ran away from another AWB. It never even came up for a vote, but suffered a bipartisan death.
I think that the below is sufficient to show that the pro-RKBA side is winning. How many bills have the gun-grabbers managed to get enacted at the state level. ZERO! PRO-GUN VICTORIES SO FAR IN 2011
