Gun Controll question.

[Sherry Hawk]

Permission to look up your conversation, ma'am?

Of course.

 

[FatDino]

Of course.

Thank you, ma'am.

*scrolling and scrolling*

 

[yevkassem72]

It seems to me, from the other side of the pond, that Americans have the right to be shot.

I suspect that hardly anyone over here can understand the depth of emotion concerning owning a gun or the right to own one.

It never crosses our minds. We have no need, no desire.

What is all this nonsense about having a gun to protect yourself from government? Get a life, go and vote like we do.

The trouble is the tendency of elected governments to become tyrants as well as unelected ones. If you doubt that, just consider how many thugs have come to power in nations by the ballot and stayed in by the bullet. Not to mention if you live in a country that descends into civil war and democracy goes out the window. Gun control can't protect you against army mutineers who seek to seize power. Lebanon was once a liberal, Western-style democracy. Look at it today.

 

[kendo1]

Permission to look up your conversation, ma'am?

Please do, she's lost me.
Gotta go.
Too tired to look it up.

I'll review it tomorrow.


Night.

 

[FatDino]

Please do, she's lost me.
Gotta go.
Too tired to look it up.

I'll review it tomorrow.


Night.

She asked if you spoke Ojibway.

Did I translate it right? Or did I just make a huge fool of myself?

Oh, night to you too.

 

[Sherry Hawk]

She asked if you spoke Ojibway.

Did I translate it right? Or did I just make a huge fool of myself?

Oh, night to you too.

close enough (there go those damn subtleties again - the ones that make it so damn hard compared to english)

 

[FatDino]

close enough (there go those damn subtleties again - the ones that make it so damn hard compared to english)

It's a good thing I bookmarked that Ojibway-English dictionary page.

 

[kendo1]

The trouble is the tendency of elected governments to become tyrants as well as unelected ones. If you doubt that, just consider how many thugs have come to power in nations by the ballot and stayed in by the bullet. Not to mention if you live in a country that descends into civil war and democracy goes out the window. Gun control can't protect you against army mutineers who seek to seize power. Lebanon was once a liberal, Western-style democracy. Look at it today.

And this is likely in the US?

Remind me never to go there again.

 

[yevkassem72]

Shrugs. I'm not especially afraid of my government or of criminals. Don't see any reason why I should be.

In fact the terror and loathing many Americans hold their government in is one of the things I find hardest to understand.

And one of the reasons, I believe, it's in so much trouble. How can a society work when the citizens and the people they appoint to positions of responsibility work when both groups hold one another in such complete contempt?

I have no more to say in this thread. I'm neither anti nor pro gun. I'm neither anti nor pro government. Both are tools that work only as well as their user's abilities and wisdom.

To be fair, I have an inherent, learned mistrust of politicians and government.

I like your candor and open mind, Rob. You clearly want to trust your government, and by and large, yours (for all of its flaws and Quebecois separatist complaints to the contrary) is one of the better forms and governments out there. Civilized. So you have reason to trust the federal and provincial governments. I don't recall Canada even having a Watergate scandal. The closest that I have read from your country's history is the whole mess with Diefenbaker, Sevigny, and Munsinger. The spy deal.

Look at the American experience. The initial formation of their country was based on strong differences and mistrust of some of the worst statesmen in the history of parliamentary democracy. Grenville, Townsend, North...all seemed to go out of their way to fail to live up to Pitt's legacy and to antagonize the colonists.

Add to this then the North/South sectional split, the Civil War, Presidents like Harding and Nixon, the Vietnam War, etc. and the cynicism of Americans toward their leaders must seem to them by now to be a healthy skepticism. Experience dictates a national character to a large extent, and the American experience has been one of necessary revolution, violent and otherwise. No peaceful transition to dominion status or anything of the like. Compared to Canada's relatively seamless transformation into a confederation, America's has been earlier and deprived of the wise British outlook accumulated by the time Canada appeared as a factor.

Even early in the history of the nation, there was the Whisky Rebellion. Clearly, the country took a while to learn to trust any leaders, and then mainly the Framers. Nearly all since then have had to earn their credentials and respect all over again.

Your good faith in government exists for a good reason: it has not been seriously betrayed. That of the Americans has. Look at Bush, for example. Or Clinton.

 

[yevkassem72]

And this is likely in the US?

Remind me never to go there again.

Likely? I doubt it. I still sleep with one eye open at times, however. It's a Lebanese thing.

 

[R. Richard]

You want gun control? OK, you got 'gun control,' now what? Comment?

Rules should have barred weapon purchase

McLEAN, Va. - A judge's ruling on Cho Seung-Hui's mental health should have barred him from purchasing the handguns he used in the Virginia Tech massacre, according to federal regulations. But it was unclear Thursday whether anybody had an obligation to inform federal authorities about Cho's mental status because of loopholes in the law that governs background checks.

Cho purchased two handguns in February and March, and was subject to federal and state background checks both times. The checks turned up no problems, despite a judge's ruling in December 2005 that Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."

"On the face of it, he should have been blocked under federal law," said Denis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The 23-year-old South Korean immigrant was evaluated by a psychiatric hospital after he was accused of stalking two women and photographing female students in class with his cell phone. His violence-filled writings were so disturbing that professors begged him to get counseling.

The language of the ruling by Special Justice Paul M. Barnett almost identically tracks federal regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Those rules bar the sale of guns to individuals who have been "adjudicated mentally defective."

The definition outlined in the regulations is "a determination by a court ... or other lawful authority that a person as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness ... is a danger to himself or to others."

Virginia State Police send information on prohibited buyers to the federal government. They maintain that the sale was legal under state law and would have been barred only if the justice had committed Cho to a psychiatric hospital. Barnett ordered outpatient treatment instead.

The Virginia attorney general's office declined to discuss the application of gun laws to Cho's case. Barnett also declined to comment.

The state uses a slightly different standard than the federal government, barring sales to individuals who have been judged "mentally incapacitated."

George Burke, a spokesman for Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York, said millions of criminal and mental-health records are not accessible to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, mostly because state and local governments lack the money to submit the records.

McCarthy has sponsored legislation since 2002 that would close loopholes in the national background check system for gun purchases.

Initially states were required to provide all relevant information to federal authorities when the instant background checks were enacted, but a U.S. Supreme Court ruling relieved them of that obligation.

"The law is very confused about this," said Richard Bonnie, a professor of law and psychiatry at the University of Virginia who heads a state commission on mental-health reform. "The source of the confusion is the relation between federal and state law."

Also Thursday, the owner of an Internet gun store based in Green Bay, Wis., told The Associated Press that Cho used his Web site to purchase one of the weapons used in the shootings. Cho paid $268 for the gun.

Eric Thompson, who runs http://www.thegunsource.com, said the Walther .22-caliber handgun was then shipped to a Virginia pawnbroker so Cho could pick it up.

Thompson said he had no idea his business was involved until he was contacted Tuesday by ATF agents.

"I just feel absolutely terrible that this tragedy even happened in the first place," he said.

 

[SeaCat]

You want gun control? OK, you got 'gun control,' now what? Comment?

Rules should have barred weapon purchase

McLEAN, Va. - A judge's ruling on Cho Seung-Hui's mental health should have barred him from purchasing the handguns he used in the Virginia Tech massacre, according to federal regulations. But it was unclear Thursday whether anybody had an obligation to inform federal authorities about Cho's mental status because of loopholes in the law that governs background checks.

Cho purchased two handguns in February and March, and was subject to federal and state background checks both times. The checks turned up no problems, despite a judge's ruling in December 2005 that Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."

"On the face of it, he should have been blocked under federal law," said Denis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The 23-year-old South Korean immigrant was evaluated by a psychiatric hospital after he was accused of stalking two women and photographing female students in class with his cell phone. His violence-filled writings were so disturbing that professors begged him to get counseling.

The language of the ruling by Special Justice Paul M. Barnett almost identically tracks federal regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Those rules bar the sale of guns to individuals who have been "adjudicated mentally defective."

The definition outlined in the regulations is "a determination by a court ... or other lawful authority that a person as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness ... is a danger to himself or to others."

Virginia State Police send information on prohibited buyers to the federal government. They maintain that the sale was legal under state law and would have been barred only if the justice had committed Cho to a psychiatric hospital. Barnett ordered outpatient treatment instead.

The Virginia attorney general's office declined to discuss the application of gun laws to Cho's case. Barnett also declined to comment.

The state uses a slightly different standard than the federal government, barring sales to individuals who have been judged "mentally incapacitated."

George Burke, a spokesman for Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York, said millions of criminal and mental-health records are not accessible to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, mostly because state and local governments lack the money to submit the records.

McCarthy has sponsored legislation since 2002 that would close loopholes in the national background check system for gun purchases.

Initially states were required to provide all relevant information to federal authorities when the instant background checks were enacted, but a U.S. Supreme Court ruling relieved them of that obligation.

"The law is very confused about this," said Richard Bonnie, a professor of law and psychiatry at the University of Virginia who heads a state commission on mental-health reform. "The source of the confusion is the relation between federal and state law."

Also Thursday, the owner of an Internet gun store based in Green Bay, Wis., told The Associated Press that Cho used his Web site to purchase one of the weapons used in the shootings. Cho paid $268 for the gun.

Eric Thompson, who runs http://www.thegunsource.com, said the Walther .22-caliber handgun was then shipped to a Virginia pawnbroker so Cho could pick it up.

Thompson said he had no idea his business was involved until he was contacted Tuesday by ATF agents.

"I just feel absolutely terrible that this tragedy even happened in the first place," he said.

Okay and youre point is? The fact that applicabl laws were no followed or that the lws were changed? We all know this happens., hell we even know why it happens. (No it is not the N.R.A's fault although many would have you believe this.)

Cat

 

[yevkassem72]

This NRA tends to be a lot of people's favorite target. I do not see why. They are principled men and women who strongly believe in the Second Amendment. How does this make them bad, as opposed to, say, the ACLU? Personally, I applaud both organizations for standing up for civil liberties against the siren song of expediency and draconian, police state measures.

 

[SeaCat]

This NRA tends to be a lot of people's favorite target. I do not see why. They are principled men and women who strongly believe in the Second Amendment. How does this make them bad, as opposed to, say, the ACLU? Personally, I applaud both organizations for standing up for civil liberties against the siren song of expediency and draconian, police state measures.

The N.R.A., of which I am a member in longstanding, started out as an orginization to rpomote gun safety and awareness. It slowly evolved into what it is today, which is a political animal with it's own agenda that does not neccasarily mirror that of the majority of it's members. It's main claim t fame lately ahs been it's fighting against laws banning ownership of classes of weapons.

Okay I can understand the wishing to own a Barrett Sniper Rifle. But for what purpose? The last reason heard was hunting. (Snort, yep we's is going to go hunting Deer with this here new rifle of mine. One shot should vaporize half of the der making the rest of it easier to find.) Hell yeah I can see reasons to own something like a Striker or StreetSweper or similar class of shotguns. It makes it easier to hit them when you can fire of ten to twenty rounds of Twelce Gauge as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Prove to me you have a valid use for these types of firearms and I'll say okay.

As I said before I am not so much for Gun Controll, although I am for Gun Education. What I am for is the enforcement of the laws on the books. (Oops did I say that? Why that would mean making the Judges and the Politicians toe the line. How absurd.) As I also mentioned above we have here in Florida a law called 10-20-Life. I have yet in my six years here seen it enforced. In Massachussetts they have a mandatory one year jail sentance for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm. In over 23 years there I never once saw it enforced.

As for the education and training part. If roughly ninetly percent of the eople I see at the local ranges were to break into my home and start shooting at me my greatest risk would be from being out of their line of fire. Their idea of gun control is how many rounds they can blast down range without regard to acuracy. I have literaly seen many of then blast two or more magazine down range without hitting the target. (We call this Spray and Pray. Spray as many rounds down range and pray you hit something.)

As an aside when I show up at either of the five ranges I use I am often confonted by one or more of these idiots. They stand around profiling with their Glocks and snicker when they see the firearms my wife and I have. (I have a Barratta 92fs as well as a Ruger Blackhawk. My wife has a Ruger MkII as well as a Walther PPKS.) I have gotten to the point where I ignore them, only talking with a few friends at these ranges.)

Cat

 

[Weird Harold]

Okay I can understand the wishing to own a Barrett Sniper Rifle. But for what purpose? The last reason heard was hunting. (Snort, yep we's is going to go hunting Deer with this here new rifle of mine. One shot should vaporize half of the der making the rest of it easier to find.)

Prove to me you have a valid use for these types of firearms and I'll say okay.

FWIW, the Barret .50 sniper rifle makes a slightly smaller hole in deer than a .57 Caliber black powder rifle -- It just does it from a lot farther away.

Why should I have to prove that I have a "valid" use for anything I wish to own, weapon or not?

Unless there is some probable cause to believe I personally am a danger to public health and safety, or there is something inherently dangerous to public health and safety about what I wish to own, the government has no valid reason to abridge my right to own or use anything whatsoever.

 

[SeaCat]

FWIW, the Barret .50 sniper rifle makes a slightly smaller hole in deer than a .57 Caliber black powder rifle -- It just does it from a lot farther away.

Why should I have to prove that I have a "valid" use for anything I wish to own, weapon or not?

Unless there is some probable cause to believe I personally am a danger to public health and safety, or there is something inherently dangerous to public health and safety about what I wish to own, the government has no valid reason to abridge my right to own or use anything whatsoever.

There are some items that have no valid reason for being other than destruction. I could reasonably argue that I need or wish Plastique for the removal of stumps in my lawn. (High explosives would make the removal of said stumps much easier as well as entertaining.)

Hey I too would love to own an AK-47. (Not to mention several other weapons.) However what use would I have for them? They are designed for one thing and one thing only. They are not that great for hunting as their accuracy is questionable. I would love to get my hands on some of the auto loading Shotguns, but why in the world would I need 20 rounds? A Tech Nine might be fun to fire, although expensive, but what use would I have for it? Hell a LAW could be fun to have, but for what reason?

Just to put your mind at ease, I do happen to have a B.A.T.F. Class 3.

Cat

 

[Pure]

just out of curiousity...

are there other western or industrialized countries where a persons "right to a gun" is recognized?

how about other countries with 'frontiers', such as Australia?

it is one of the 'inalienable rights' of which the Dec of Independence speaks?

assuming the 2nd amendment says this (which might be questioned), i wonder how this alleged right cropped up and has become enshrined in the american psyche?

 

[Liar]

Why should I have to prove that I have a "valid" use for anything I wish to own, weapon or not?

Why is much medicine on prescription? Who the hell are those darn doctors to tell me what pills I can and can't get? And why aren't eight-year-olds allowed to buy alcoholic beverages? Damn 1984 controller society.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Why is much medicine on prescription? Who the hell are those darn doctors to tell me what pills I can and can't get? And why aren't eight-year-olds allowed to buy alcoholic beverages? Damn 1984 controller society.

You can have my anti-depressants when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

Seriously, there is no reasoning with true believers in guns.

And arguing with someone with a gun - sooner or later, you're going to lose.

 

[pcremington]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the police are there to punish and arrest criminals, not to prevent crimes.

In practice you are correct, however prevention is always preferable and the deterrent of being present is effective.

911 is a government sponsored dial-a-prayer

 

[Zeb_Carter]

FWIW, the Barret .50 sniper rifle makes a slightly smaller hole in deer than a .57 Caliber black powder rifle -- It just does it from a lot farther away.

Why should I have to prove that I have a "valid" use for anything I wish to own, weapon or not?

Unless there is some probable cause to believe I personally am a danger to public health and safety, or there is something inherently dangerous to public health and safety about what I wish to own, the government has no valid reason to abridge my right to own or use anything whatsoever.

Unless your using armor piercing or anti-personnel rounds.

 

[oggbashan]

are there other western or industrialized countries where a persons "right to a gun" is recognized?

how about other countries with 'frontiers', such as Australia?

it is one of the 'inalienable rights' of which the Dec of Independence speaks?

assuming the 2nd amendment says this (which might be questioned), i wonder how this alleged right cropped up and has become enshrined in the american psyche?

As far as I know Switzerland is the only country that has a right. It is not so much a right as a duty for able-bodied males to keep and maintain a semi-automatic rifle. Other countries distinguish between shotguns and rifles/handguns. In France shotguns are numerous in rural areas, much more so than in the UK. In Malta, the shotgun owners blast so many migrating birds out of the sky that they are affecting populations of several species that use Malta as a resting place on their way to and from Europe.

No other country seems to have the almost fetishistic need to carry guns of significant power, particularly guns that are designed to kill people and have little other purpose.

Australia now has strict gun control laws, nearly as severe as those in the UK, introduced after a massacre in Tasmania.

Australia used to have a relaxed attitude to guns up to about 1960/61 when a normal police check on a National Rifle Champion's armoury revealed that he had illegal fully automatic guns as well as his legal target rifles. (It didn't help that the man was an asshole who had annoyed his neighbours by practising in the early hours of the morning when he knew they would be asleep). They had reported a "fusillade" of firing that couldn't have been made by one person with legal firearms. After his conviction for illegal weaponry the Australian police announced a nationwide arms amnesty for one month. The amnesty started slowly until some of the stories hit the media. A one-man police station in a rural area had a box of primed hand grenades left on the doorstep in the night. A farmer drove up to another police station with a heavy howitzer and shells. Heavy machine guns were commonplace. How one Australian soldier had "souvenired" a German 88mm anti-aircraft gun was not explained, nor the half dozen tanks fully equipped with armour piercing and shrapnel shells...

Now Australia is very uptight about guns.

Og

 

[yevkassem72]

are there other western or industrialized countries where a persons "right to a gun" is recognized?

how about other countries with 'frontiers', such as Australia?

it is one of the 'inalienable rights' of which the Dec of Independence speaks?

assuming the 2nd amendment says this (which might be questioned), i wonder how this alleged right cropped up and has become enshrined in the american psyche?

I believe that it says, "The Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms." To me, that means the people, as in private citizens. But what do I know. I just don't trust the emerging police state. Any hedge against it seems wise. A sensible precaution. Not irrational paranoia at all.

As for the Declaration of Independence, it could go under "liberty" or "the pursuit of happiness".

Believe me there have been times in my life when I wasn't armed and wished that I was. Especially when the other guy was armed to the teeth and as nutty as the proverbial fruitcake.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

As far as I know Switzerland is the only country that has a right. It is not so much a right as a duty for able-bodied males to keep and maintain a semi-automatic rifle. Other countries distinguish between shotguns and rifles/handguns. In France shotguns are numerous in rural areas, much more so than in the UK. In Malta, the shotgun owners blast so many migrating birds out of the sky that they are affecting populations of several species that use Malta as a resting place on their way to and from Europe.

No other country seems to have the almost fetishistic need to carry guns of significant power, particularly guns that are designed to kill people and have little other purpose.

Australia now has strict gun control laws, nearly as severe as those in the UK, introduced after a massacre in Tasmania.

Australia used to have a relaxed attitude to guns up to about 1960/61 when a normal police check on a National Rifle Champion's armoury revealed that he had illegal fully automatic guns as well as his legal target rifles. (It didn't help that the man was an asshole who had annoyed his neighbours by practising in the early hours of the morning when he knew they would be asleep). They had reported a "fusillade" of firing that couldn't have been made by one person with legal firearms. After his conviction for illegal weaponry the Australian police announced a nationwide arms amnesty for one month. The amnesty started slowly until some of the stories hit the media. A one-man police station in a rural area had a box of primed hand grenades left on the doorstep in the night. A farmer drove up to another police station with a heavy howitzer and shells. Heavy machine guns were commonplace. How one Australian soldier had "souvenired" a German 88mm anti-aircraft gun was not explained, nor the half dozen tanks fully equipped with armour piercing and shrapnel shells...

Now Australia is very uptight about guns.

Og

Gee and none of those weapons were used to commit a crime, amazing!

 

[Pure]

thanks, Ogg,

it's too bad the US founders couldn't have been a little bit clearer, and said, in the Second Amendment, for instance. "The states have a right to establish militias, and pursuant to that right, citizens who are members of those militias have the derivative right to possess "arms," such "arms" as may be reasonably required by the militia in exercize of its duties, and a derivative right to use of such "arms" in the course of militia training and exercize of the militia's legal functions."

i think this is the correct rendition of what the Second Amendment was trying to say; and as you point out, it may exist in Switzerland.

it is quite remarkable that guns may be acquired and used in the US without any training; a comparably deadly instrument, the automobile, requires testing and licensing.