Gun Control

[tuna]

Uhm NO

Th world in which our Founders wrote the 2A had multiple reasons to own a gun. Indians, foreign troops, pirates, brigands and outlaws were all very real threats out side of the East Coast cities. The militia was a local organisation first and a state asset second. Most men in rural communities belonged to a militia. You defended your own farm or ran to your neighbors aid if he was attacked, if the threat was too big the call would go out locally then regionally all the way up the chain. Under the militia clause of the US Constitution the best definition of well regulated is that a militia have officers chosen from among its members by its members operating along lines defined by congress. Congress however has no authority to raise militias or arm them except when they are mustered into federal service. US Constitution Article 1 section 8 clauses 15 and 16.

We actually have two militias - one being the National Guard (determined to be a militia in the early 1900s) the other being every able bodied male between 18 and 60, which was the original definition - though I'm sure that age waivers on both sides were easily available.
Saying you're a militia and wearing OCPs while trotting around with your M-forgery just makes you look idiotic. You're already in the militia.

The biggest problem at "gun control" laws is that they're aimed at those following the laws to prevent criminal acts. If I don't give a flying frig at a rolling donut about committing armed robbery or murder - why should I care about magazine capacity, or in my state, whether my AR15 has a bayonet lug?
It is too simplistic to say, "look at Vermont" where pretty much the only gun law is (paraphrased) "it is illegal to use a gun to commit a crime". The onus is on the action, not the device. With this lax attitude, Vermont has very little gun related crime. Of course, it also has very few urban areas with the associated problems of drugs, gangs and broken families - but that is too difficult to deal with - so lets ban guns. Just like when the 20's era gangsters were ripping up the Midwest with Tommy guns that could be bought in hardware stores - the NFA was passed to "keep deadly machine guns out of their hands". Nice idea, but too bad the Dillingers didn't buy their guns - they stole them; from the POLICE and ARMY. How does a law stop that?

[gunnut]

We actually have two militias - one being the National Guard (determined to be a militia in the early 1900s) the other being every able bodied male between 18 and 60, which was the original definition - though I'm sure that age waivers on both sides were easily available.
Saying you're a militia and wearing OCPs while trotting around with your M-forgery just makes you look idiotic. You're already in the militia.

The biggest problem at "gun control" laws is that they're aimed at those following the laws to prevent criminal acts. If I don't give a flying frig at a rolling donut about committing armed robbery or murder - why should I care about magazine capacity, or in my state, whether my AR15 has a bayonet lug?
It is too simplistic to say, "look at Vermont" where pretty much the only gun law is (paraphrased) "it is illegal to use a gun to commit a crime". The onus is on the action, not the device. With this lax attitude, Vermont has very little gun related crime. Of course, it also has very few urban areas with the associated problems of drugs, gangs and broken families - but that is too difficult to deal with - so lets ban guns. Just like when the 20's era gangsters were ripping up the Midwest with Tommy guns that could be bought in hardware stores - the NFA was passed to "keep deadly machine guns out of their hands". Nice idea, but too bad the Dillingers didn't buy their guns - they stole them; from the POLICE and ARMY. How does a law stop that?

What we really need is to educate criminals to obey gun laws. It's the LAW. It's ILLEGAL to not follow the LAW. Don't they understand? Look at all those other industrialized nations. They have strict gun laws and their criminals obey them. They never have gun crimes.

[troung]

Virginia Politics
Va. Senate panel scraps gun-control bills, advances gun-rights measures
Resize Text Print Article Comments 243

Lori Haas, of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and whose daughter was shot and injured during the Virginia Tech shooting, speaks at a demonstration in Washington. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
By Laura Vozzella January 20 at 10:07 PM
RICHMOND — A Virginia Senate panel on Wednesday scrapped a raft of gun-control bills while advancing measures intended to expand gun rights.

Among the legislation was one, proposed by Sen. George L. Barker (D-Fairfax), that would have created a way for authorities to remove firearms from people deemed by a Circuit Court judge to be at “substantial risk” of injury to themselves or others.

“There are people slipping through the cracks who are a danger,” said Lori Haas, a gun-safety activist whose daughter was injured in the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. “It is not meant to send somebody into your home unnecessarily.”

The Republican-led Senate Courts of Justice Committee easily defeated that bill and others aiming to tighten gun restrictions, sometimes on party-line votes, sometimes with support from a gun-rights Democrat, Sen. R. Creigh Deeds of rural Bath County. In so doing, members often voiced concerns about the constitutionality of the measures.

“Doesn’t it bother you that a person’s residence could be searched?” Sen. Richard H. Stuart (R-Stafford) said in relation to Barker’s bill. Stuart said he would prefer that people suffering *mental-health crises be removed from their guns via a commitment process rather than having their guns removed from them.

“If we have the ability to get someone help that needs help,” Stuart said, “why do we need to search their home?”

The General Assembly is considering dozens of gun-related bills over the 60-day session that began last week. While guns have always been a hot-button issue in Virginia, this year’s battle mirrors the one raging at the national level, with despair over several high-profile shooting deaths mixing with fears of unchecked executive power. Last month, Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) announced that the commonwealth will no longer recognize many out-of-state concealed handgun permits, a move that coincides with a national push to circumvent legislatures opposed to tightening gun laws, enraging gun-rights enthusiasts.

CONTENT FROM AMAZON WEB SERVICES
Cloud brings peace of mind to the public sector
Agencies increasingly turn to cloud services to strengthen their security measures.
Indeed, the Senate committee Wednesday also passed several bills aimed at expanding gun rights. The most sweeping, proposed by Sen. Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun), would do away with the need to obtain a government permit to carry a concealed weapon.

[Gun activists press an old cause with new fervor in Richmond]

The committee scrapped legislation that would have required applicants to demonstrate competence with a handgun before receiving a concealed handgun permit. It rejected a measure to outlaw the open carry of loaded firearms in public places with some exceptions.

Two bills meant to prohibit children as young as 4 from using a firearm or pneumatic gun drew impassioned testimony after it became clear that the measures would apply to BB guns. Bill Heipp of Midlothian stepped up to tell the committee that he taught his sons how to shoot at a young age.

“None of my kids are afraid of guns,” he said. “A lot of that is because they were introduced in a safe environment, at an early age, and given good coaching by a concerned parent. This bill would stuff all that.”

Sen. David W. Marsden *(D-Fairfax), whose bill would have applied to children as old as 7, said he would be willing to amend it so it would not apply to BB guns. But the committee showed no appetite for that, either.

Democrats who sponsored the gun-control bills were hardly surprised.

“It’s not like I didn’t see that one coming,” Sen. L. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth) told the committee after it rejected one of her bills, which would have required all buyers at gun shows to undergo background checks before purchasing firearms. Current law requires gun dealers to make those checks, but not private sellers.

Marsden expressed frustration after the meeting.

“Guns are not our problem; obsession with guns is our problem,” he said. “It is the primary voter in Republican districts, several thousand people, who are . . . making it impossible for our legislators to do anything regardless of how benign it may be because it’s the camel’s nose under the tent.”


But gun-rights supporters said the measures would have infringed upon the rights of responsible, law-abiding people.

The committee approved several gun-rights bills, including one that would allow the state’s judges to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Another would allow retired law-
enforcement officers who annually meet the training and qualifications of active officers to carry concealed handguns in airports and schools.

The most far-reaching of the approved bills was Black’s, which would lift the permitting requirement for carrying a concealed weapon. The measure, which he referred to as “constitutional carry,” now goes to the full Senate for its consideration.

“It’s based on the idea that the Second Amendment is a constitutional right and that citizens have a right to carry firearms without permission of the government,” Black said. “It’s analogous to the First Amendment, where you don’t need a government permit to tell you what you can say and what you can’t.”

Under the bill, the state would continue to issue concealed handgun permits for people who want them, as might be the case for those who travel with their guns out of state, Black said. People who are not entitled to carry concealed weapons under current law, such as fe

[citanon]

You know, i just figured out a CA compliant bullet button alternative that would be much easier to use. I wonder what the size of the market would be for such a thing....

[bonehead]

"Among the legislation was one, proposed by Sen. George L. Barker (D-Fairfax), that would have created a way for authorities to remove firearms from people deemed by a Circuit Court judge to be at “substantial risk” of injury to themselves or others."


Here is my beef. If the person is deemed to be a substantial risk of injury to themselves or others, why in the hell is this person not placed in a mental institution until it is deemed safe for this person to be out in the public?

[Gun Grape]

"Among the legislation was one, proposed by Sen. George L. Barker (D-Fairfax), that would have created a way for authorities to remove firearms from people deemed by a Circuit Court judge to be at “substantial risk” of injury to themselves or others."


Here is my beef. If the person is deemed to be a substantial risk of injury to themselves or others, why in the hell is this person not placed in a mental institution until it is deemed safe for this person to be out in the public?

Because, to save money, the States closed mental hospitals. Now there are a very limited number of beds avaliable. We cannot lock someone up in jail for what they might do. So the alternative is 'Go home till space becomes available to treat you.

[bonehead]

Because, to save money, the States closed mental hospitals. Now there are a very limited number of beds avaliable. We cannot lock someone up in jail for what they might do. So the alternative is 'Go home till space becomes available to treat you.

That is not saving money. That is kicking the can down the road.
In Oregon we have a parallel problem with special needs kids. Once they get into the system and have foster car parents, the state pays 2-7K per kid to the foster parents. Then the state is in the hook for the doctors, therapists and psychologist and the thousands of dollars per month for pills. When they go to school many need a "one on one" from the time they get on the bus until the time they get back home. Some kids are bussed far from home at a great expense to the school district. Finally the state pays for all the case workers and overhead and whatnot for each kid. There is no way this is cheaper than institutionalizing those that don't have the mental capacity to ever be on their own. Oh and I almost left out the added cost for law enforcement and courts when these kids do something illegal or victimize others in the community.

"You cant put someone in jail for what they might do"….but you can take away their Constitutional rights? I know you can see the hypocrisy in that but many gun control people ignore it.

[Gun Grape]

"You cant put someone in jail for what they might do"….but you can take away their Constitutional rights? I know you can see the hypocrisy in that but many gun control people ignore it.

Well in 44 States crazy people can have their voting rights taken away. In some States you can have your gun rights taken for being crazy.

To me, that's just common sense. Although I wasn't there, I'm betting that back in the 17-1800's, we, as a community, didn't let the village idiot have a gun.

[bonehead]

Well in 44 States crazy people can have their voting rights taken away. In some States you can have your gun rights taken for being crazy.

To me, that's just common sense. Although I wasn't there, I'm betting that back in the 17-1800's, we, as a community, didn't let the village idiot have a gun.

For the most part, way back then, they didn't let the village idiot leave the house. Today we have way too many such people walking free even though they have a documented history of violence. How is letting such people walking free "common sense"? No one wants such people to have a gun, or a knife or any other weapon. The Only way to ensure they don't get a weapon is to lock these people up. Look at drunk drivers. You take their license away and they still drink and drive. You take their car away and they buy, borrow or steal another, go to the bar then drive home drunk. That only stops when their ass is locked up.

[Sanjac]

It all seems quite clear to me:

1. In any interaction between human beings, the government is that body which has a monopoly on violence.
   
   
2. The intent of gun control is to assure that the state, not the people, has the monopoly on violence.
   
   
3. This is in direct conflict with, and violation of, the constitution of the United States, which seeks to secure a free state by assuring that the people, not the state, had the monopoly on violence. Emphasis on free: "... being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people..."

[zraver]

Because, to save money, the States closed mental hospitals. Now there are a very limited number of beds avaliable. We cannot lock someone up in jail for what they might do. So the alternative is 'Go home till space becomes available to treat you.

We lock people up for what they might do all the time via commitment and mental health holds. The problem is keeping them there (jail or a hospital) given beds are so limited.

[troung]

Because, to save money, the States closed mental hospitals. Now there are a very limited number of beds avaliable. We cannot lock someone up in jail for what they might do. So the alternative is 'Go home till space becomes available to treat you.

While I think the FFX county guy might be going a bit far - I have no problem with a blanket order taking guns from anyone collecting a disability cheque for anything mental health related - be it anxiety, PTSD, depression.

[Gun Grape]

While I think the FFX county guy might be going a bit far - I have no problem with a blanket order taking guns from anyone collecting a disability cheque for anything mental health related - be it anxiety, PTSD, depression.

Agree. Need that like button back.

It boggle my mind that anyone would object to that.

But then again it boggles my mind that people would object to having someone receive training before buying a gun or show competency with a weapon before you issue them a concealed carry permit. We make people go through a hunter safety course before giving them a hunting license. We make them take a test before issuing a drivers license. But a certain group starts yelling about "Infringing on their Constitutional Rights".

One of the first things I learned growing up was that With rights come responsibility. The old example about free speech, You enjoy the right of free speech but you have the responsibility of not yelling fire in a crowded theater. I believe that you have the right to own and carry guns, but you also have the responsibility to be well trained in their use, storage, ect.

[bonehead]

Agree. Need that like button back.

It boggle my mind that anyone would object to that.

But then again it boggles my mind that people would object to having someone receive training before buying a gun or show competency with a weapon before you issue them a concealed carry permit. We make people go through a hunter safety course before giving them a hunting license. We make them take a test before issuing a drivers license. But a certain group starts yelling about "Infringing on their Constitutional Rights".

One of the first things I learned growing up was that With rights come responsibility. The old example about free speech, You enjoy the right of free speech but you have the responsibility of not yelling fire in a crowded theater. I believe that you have the right to own and carry guns, but you also have the responsibility to be well trained in their use, storage, ect.

How exactly are gun owners not held to their responsibility and who gets to define those responsibilities?

[gunnut]

I'm all for a mandatory training course for gun owners. Just like I'm for a competency test for all voters. Stupid and uninformed people should not be allowed to vote, or own a gun.