Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/19/09 06:31 AM, Psycho-Medic wrote: Among the things mentioned above, the language of the bill is terrible. It's very unlikely that it will come anywhere near to passing. It's pretty much a huge joke.

I really think gun control is dead until after the mid-term election of a second Obama administration. I've read where Harry Reid is against reinstating the Assault Weapon Ban (he voted against the 1994 AWB). Also many of the Dems who made it in to give the party its strong majority are from NRA friendly districts.

And this is one of the lessons of their 1994 defeat, the AWB played an important part in Democratic legislators looking for other work.

So Obama wants to get re-elected, and they want to hold-on to their seats. So they are not going to do anything stupid like Blair Holt until their pres is unelectable (term limits) and their legislators are deeply entrenched and bringing home the pork!

At 6/19/09 02:54 AM, fli wrote: And so, in a circumstance where a gunowner acted irresponsible, the only difference between registration and no-registration is that the irresponsible gun owner would never get punished with neither fine nor jailtime????

Pretty much, As it stands now; alert the cops, file a report, the end. Under the new bill; alert the cops, file a report, get fined out the ass and jailed.

At 6/19/09 06:31 AM, Psycho-Medic wrote: -It is registered
-You are fingerprinted
-You supply a current Driver's License
-You supply your Social Security #

I had to do these four things when I picked up my Mossberg two months ago, as required by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. So calling for these things is a bit redundant.

-You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing

After V-Tech, a law was passed tying any court findings about mental compentence to background checks for firearms, so as to prevent someone who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent or insane from buying a gun. NOT that such a law would have kept Cho from comitting said massacre, seeing as how he was never deemed a threat by the courts.... so something like this wouldn't have stopped him anyway.

-Change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25
-Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail

That's unconstitutional, as it will mess with interstate commerce.

-Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. (Remember hunting as a kid? Not anymore)

Kind of defeats the purpose of buying a gun for home defense... what's the point of buying one if I can't get to it in a hurry should I need it?

-They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from children and is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

Violation of privacy, anyone?

It's pretty much a huge joke.

It is. It pretty much looks like they took a page out of a book on Canadian Gun Laws and are submitting it to see if they can pass it.

At 6/19/09 07:04 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 6/19/09 06:31 AM, Psycho-Medic wrote: Among the things mentioned above, the language of the bill is terrible. It's very unlikely that it will come anywhere near to passing. It's pretty much a huge joke.

I really think gun control is dead until after the mid-term election of a second Obama administration. I've read where Harry Reid is against reinstating the Assault Weapon Ban (he voted against the 1994 AWB). Also many of the Dems who made it in to give the party its strong majority are from NRA friendly districts.

Oh, I have no doubt they'll push for more gun control. I just don't think it will be through this bill. Anyone with half a brain would realize how poorly this bill is written, even if they are for gun control, and not vote for it, or at least amend the thing to something that isn't filled with loopholes and subjective statements. Although, maybe I am giving congress too much credit.

You know what? I've got an idea; instead of trying to pass gun control laws aimed at making life harder for law abiding citizens in order to curb gun crime, why not pass gun control laws aimed at making life harder for the criminals who shouldn't have the gun in the first place? Law abiding citizens aren't typically committing these crimes anyway, so why put the screws to them?

It's a novel concept, I know, but bear with me.

Here's my idea; we leave the gun laws as they stand now the way they are, and stiffen the penalties for criminals caught with illegally obtained firearms.

- 5 years in prison for each gun in their possession (10 if it's in violation of the National Firearms Act)
- 2 years for each round in their position
- Sentence multiplying system (multiply whole sentence by number of clips you have on you, or how many cohorts you have with you when your caught who also shouldn't have had access to firearms either).

All you will need is a few stories on the news about gang-bangers going down for life because of the weapons found with them IN ADDITION to the penalty for whatever crime they committed, and you'll start to see the crime rate drop drastically.

Or you'll see the crime rate simply switch to non-firearm based crime, as is the case in England.

But then again, I wouldn't exactly see that happening if the law abiding populace is still allowed to own guns. I don't see somebody walking into a gas station to hold up the place with a knife or 2x4 if the guy behind the counter is packing.

I would like to point out that in a recent article I read on Jamaican gangs.
OF the guns seized from criminals there, & tracked back to where they come from over 80% were from the U.S.A.
This led me to another article on Mexican crime groups, in Mexico they are now ramping up their tracking of seized weapons ...& again they are coming out of the U.S. !
So having a system in place where guns are tracked on who buys them, will allow authorities who are tracking these guns seized from criminals, to figure out who in the U.S. is purchasing guns & sending them back to these countries where they are being brought in by criminal gangs.

This type of tracking will make it harder for the persons who very possibly are legally purchasing guns in America...from illegally sending (smuggling them actually) into these other countries.

For the record in Canada most of our handguns (not all) used by criminals have come from the U.S.A. as well, criminals will not obey the law...thats part of the reason why they are called 'criminals' , but if you are the registered owner of a handgun in the US & it shows up in Toronto in the hands of a gangbanger, tracking it back can shut down the person who's trafficing in crossborder weapons.

Sorry Proteas, I don't see this registration as being all bad. I live in a Country with restrictive gun laws, with permits required & licensing to keep track of guns...it is a pain in the ass, but I legally bought & own ,& use my guns under this system.
So yes its harder to acquire, but it also stops us from buying lots of guns & sending them elsewhere.
Gun registration laws will in time make it difficult to acquire guns in large quantities in any one persons name. If any guns registered to such an owner , that is seized & tracked back from a crime elsewhere will give the police the ability to arrest this supplier !

At 6/22/09 09:52 AM, morefngdbs wrote: So having a system in place where guns are tracked on who buys them, will allow authorities who are tracking these guns seized from criminals, to figure out who in the U.S. is purchasing guns & sending them back to these countries where they are being brought in by criminal gangs.

The problem isn't who's buying them, the problem is who's selling them; namely, crooked gun store owners. The U.S. Justice Department's own study of the issue during the Clinton years showed that 1.2% of gun store owners sell 57% of the weapons used in gun crime here in the states,(clicky), I wonder how many of those same gun stores sell across the border?

And you know what's more common these days that wasn't 9 years ago? Identity theft. If you're going to illegally buy a weapon for somebody else, what's stopping you from putting somebody elses info on the form to keep the cops from knocking on YOUR door?

So I say if you want to stop the flow of illegal guns going outside this country, go after the gun stores selling them instead of taking a piss on gun owners who haven't done anything wrong to begin with.

but I legally bought & own ,& use my guns under this system.

And I've also heard you complain about how ridiculously restrictive your country's system is, to the point that you can't even go hunting without notifying the local authorities for permission to load the gun into your vehicle. There's already a system in place to track gun sales, the only thing this bill does is up the penalties for legal gun owners failing to fill out proper paperwork. It's bullshit, it's approaching the issue in the wrong way.

I know I've got a weird sense of humor. I know I've got some odd hobbies. And I know that my thinking tends to a bit irrational or "out there" at times, but I have no criminal record, I don't even have a parking ticket to my name. I've never had mental issues so bad as to require professional therapy, and no psychologist has ever run to the courts to have me adjudicated mentally incompetent or criminally insane. The background check for my shotgun purchase came back clean in 2 seconds.

So I'm going to ask everyone reading this topic again; why must I be treated like a criminal under the law for wanting to own a gun? Why must ANY law abiding citizen be treated like a criminal in the name of curbing gun crime, when common sense would dictate that we aren't the ones likely to commit crimes to begin with?

At 6/22/09 11:55 AM, Proteas wrote: And you know what's more common these days that wasn't 9 years ago? Identity theft. If you're going to illegally buy a weapon for somebody else, what's stopping you from putting somebody elses info on the form to keep the cops from knocking on YOUR door?

;;;A valid photo ID for GUN PURCHASE ONLY.
You still have to provide your drivers license & this ID. It makes it much more difficult to fake who you are when they need valid ID & where you live & they verify's your address !

So I say if you want to stop the flow of illegal guns going outside this country, go after the gun stores selling them instead of taking a piss on gun owners who haven't done anything wrong to begin with.

In the article on "Jamaican Gangs guns from US" -this is what I googled & this link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg i?f=/n/a/2009/06/21international/i073656 D03.DTL is one of those where people are buying guns & shipping them(smuggling them actually) out of the US. So here are USA legitimate gun owners smuggling guns. Making it easier to identify guns seized anywhere will IMO help stop this practice if you know a gun you purchase ever is used in a crime & you can be held responsible...would you smuggle it out of the country ?

And I've also heard you complain about how ridiculously restrictive your country's system is, to the point that you can't even go hunting without notifying the local authorities for permission to load the gun into your vehicle.

Actually I have never said that. You only need to inform them if your moving a restricted weapon (hand gun for example)But to go hunting ,you only need to have your permits on your person & you can load your car, go out in to the woods , then go hunting. You don't have to inform them, they're out there patroling & if you come upon one of them they usually ask to see your gun registration & your hunting license(s). THere is a lot of woods here in Canada, lots of places where you never see anyone, cop or game warden.
But I have complained about how difficult this system is & how much of it has become a money grab. The 'idea' of registration & restriction is sound IMO.
The ability of a Government agency to implement said 'idea' is where all the problems arise it seems that way here anyhow.

At 6/23/09 08:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote: You still have to provide your drivers license & this ID. It makes it much more difficult to fake who you are when they need valid ID & where you live & they verify's your address !

Or, all you need is one crooked desk clerk in need of cash.

So here are USA legitimate gun owners smuggling guns.

And how many have the fake documents to do it with?

The gun store owner is breaking the law by selling the stuff, so why do you think the guy buying it wouldn't be smart enough to cover his tracks as well? This is being done in the name of organized crime, after all.

would you smuggle it out of the country ?

Not if I had to put my real name on the forms, hell no.

But I have complained about how difficult this system is & how much of it has become a money grab. The 'idea' of registration & restriction is sound IMO.

All ideas look good on paper, but fail to meet or exceed expectations in real life. If Canada can't pull this system off without it turning into a ridiculously restrictive system hell bent on getting money from people, how much more do you expect such a thing to work in the U.S.?

And a mea culpa to misquoting you on your gun law complaints.

At 6/23/09 10:39 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/23/09 08:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote: You still have to provide your drivers license & this ID.

Or, all you need is one crooked desk clerk in need of cash.

;;;
you are correct if you can get someone on the inside to help.
In Canada (or more corretly Nova Scotia) you have to get a beginers license, before you can get a real license.
You have to go through the system, & you pass through at least 4 different persons hands. You cannot get a license without a driving exam. You cannot upgrade to a higher license withyout another exam & drivers test (I know this because i am presently going for a class 3 with air brakes indorcement (2 exams & a drivers test) I have had a class 5a for more than 10 years . (the (a) is for motorcycles )

And how many have the fake documents to do it with?

You put people in prison for a pot plant & all you do is fire someone for a massive fraud like this one in your link ...no wonder your country is going into the toilet man !

The gun store owner is breaking the law by selling the stuff, so why do you think the guy buying it wouldn't be smart enough to cover his tracks as well? This is being done in the name of organized crime, after all.

I am going to be purchasing a crossbow by summers end. (unless finances tighten up) A good friend of mine purchased a 9mm handgun a couple of weeks ago. Same dealer as last time & he still had to go through all the security checks, police check etc. even though he already owns several restricted weapons.

All ideas look good on paper, but fail to meet or exceed expectations in real life. If Canada can't pull this system off without it turning into a ridiculously restrictive system hell bent on getting money from people, how much more do you expect such a thing to work in the U.S.?

;;;
It can be made to work Proteas, its just going to be a huge job & needs a registry , police presence & as here in Canada Lands & Forest Personel. It makes the whole process more difficult to get around by the criminals who can easily do it now.
This of course will not stop those who are willing to steal guns. but for the people who can easily beat the present system, it will become much harder.

And a mea culpa to misquoting you on your gun law complaints.

no problem, One of the 'good things' about our system is you have to go & see either your city police face to face to get your gun or you have to meet (like I did) a Mountie and they will issue you your permit. (and yes finger prints & criminal records are closely checked !
As you pointed out no system is perfect, but just allowing people free access is just making it easy & it don't have to be easy...although if you look at say Toronto or Vancouver, the gun crime rates are climbing (and most seized guns are...stolen or from the states ! )
So theft still remains , but maybe making it tougher in the U.S. will cut out some of those guns on our streets.
Reguardless I don't believe banning guns all together will work either, unless we ban knives, bats, rocks, sticks, bottles etc. You can't do that & make it work.

At 6/24/09 01:23 PM, morefngdbs wrote: You put people in prison for a pot plant & all you do is fire someone for a massive fraud like this one in your link ...no wonder your country is going into the toilet man !

The article is less than two weeks old, and I have as yet to find anything about WHAT these particular DMV employees are going to be charged with or how they will be sentenced.

It took me a while to find it, but when Operation: Crooked Highway went down in Tennessee, the people involved got two years a piece in the federal penitentiary for their parts in it... but I'm thinking that what happened in Tennessee was on a MUCH smaller scale than what happened in Flordia, so who knows.

It can be made to work Proteas, its just going to be a huge job & needs a registry , police presence & as here in Canada Lands & Forest Personel. It makes the whole process more difficult to get around by the criminals who can easily do it now.

And where is the money for that going to come from?

Because the only way I see it right now, you're only answer to this question is going to be a wide-spread government restructuring the likes of which will never happen in this country.

As you pointed out no system is perfect, but just allowing people free access is just making it easy & it don't have to be easy

Who said we had free access to guns in this country?

Seriously, I want to know. I see the argument presented time and time again by folks on here that people shouldn't have access to this, or shouldn't have access to that, that our laws here are to lax, but time and time again there's no mention of what's wrong with what laws, or even a basic knowledge of what the laws are to begin with. Usually the minute somebody like me or Mason starts posting the reality of the situation, topics like this stop dead.

I told everyone here earlier what was required of me when I went to get my gun, and I've not heard a PEEP out of anyone either pro-gun control or against it as to what they thought of it. The government knows who I am and what I've got, I met their approval for buying one (much to everybody's shock on here), and in the event I am arrested for the commission of a felony, my gun's gone regardless of whether or not I used it in the commission of said crime. Now you want me to bend over backwards and jump through a flaming hoop if I want to buy another gun, all to keep somebody who SHOULDN'T BE IN THIS COUNTRY from buying a gun with a fake license, just so my money grubbing government can get paid that much more? And most of you don't even know what the law is to begin with?!

That's a fucking load of grade-a bull-shit, and you all know it.

So theft still remains , but maybe making it tougher in the U.S. will cut out some of those guns on our streets.

Then why not make the penalties for theft more stiff if that's the largest part of the problem?

It's a simple fact that appeals to base instinct; people are going to avoid the consequences of their actions at all costs, especially if those consequences are unpleasant. If the risks don't outweigh the benefits, then there isn't going to be any incentive to not commit a criminal act. Making it harder for a law-abiding citizen to acquire a gun doesn't stop people from just up and stealing one, and you won't address that issue or how to rectify it. No one will. Nobody's even bothered responding to my post about upping the penalties for being caught with a weapon they should not have by law.

Is the idea that a person should be held responsible for their own actions just THAT revolutionary these days?

At 6/24/09 05:21 PM, Proteas wrote: Is the idea that a person should be held responsible for their own actions just THAT revolutionary these days?

;;;;
Yeah, it isn't anyones fault Proteas...I seen it in another thread here today...It's all gods fault.
He never should have given us free will ;)

At 6/21/09 11:31 PM, Proteas wrote: Here's my idea; we leave the gun laws as they stand now the way they are, and stiffen the penalties for criminals caught with illegally obtained firearms.

- 5 years in prison for each gun in their possession (10 if it's in violation of the National Firearms Act)
- 2 years for each round in their position
- Sentence multiplying system (multiply whole sentence by number of clips you have on you, or

Overkill much? They get two additional years added onto their sentence for EVERY SINGLE ROUND? Aside from the fact that rounds are not illegal by any stretch of the imagination provided that you can legally obtain them (most can be purchased at local gun stores) a single magazine for many guns can be between 15 and 30 rounds on average and many shooters buy their ammunition in bulk quantities (500+ round cases.) Is it necessary to sentence someone to over 1000 years? Even if they like the 100 round boxes, a single box would earn them 200 years on it's own. Then you want to multiply the sentence in relation to the number of magazines they have? Jesus... You may as well just give everyone with a single illegal gun either a life sentence or death.

FINALLY! Somebody challenges my initial idea.

At 6/26/09 03:14 PM, Yorik wrote: Overkill much? They get two additional years added onto their sentence for EVERY SINGLE ROUND? Aside from the fact that rounds are not illegal by any stretch of the imagination

And what, pray tell, would someone who has no business owning a gun (which is what my post was aimed at) have with buying ammunition?

provided that you can legally obtain them (most can be purchased at local gun stores)

All you need here in the states is a photo I.D. certifying you're over 21, and you can buy Ammunition at any Wal-Mart. No background check on ammo needed.

Is it necessary to sentence someone to over 1000 years?

Is it necessary to write laws that levy punitive action against law abiding citizens?

Then you want to multiply the sentence in relation to the number of magazines they have? Jesus... You may as well just give everyone with a single illegal gun either a life sentence or death.

That's my entire point. All the gun control arguments presented in this thread so far are justified by how it will stem the flow of the illegal gun trade, but the law as it is presented only seeks to interfere with legal gun trade of all kinds. So instead of making every gun owner feel like a criminal for having a gun, why not *gasp* make every illegal gun owner feel like a criminal for having a gun?

Hell, I was just pulling random numbers out of my ass when I posted that. Even if you were to reduce the sentences by half, all it would take is one high profile case of some gang banger or gun smuggler getting caught and getting multiple life sentences under this law to send the message to it's intended audience.

And that's just the illegal gun trade, imagine what effect such a law would have on everyday crime; what hood or street thug would DARE show his piece in public knowing he could go down for life just for having it? What crack-head would DARE walk into a gas station to rob the place if he knew his face would be caught on security cameras holding a gun? And on top of that; imagine what kind of effect this would have on society as a whole, to know that you could safely walk out your front door knowing that the good guys have the guns, and the bad guys have... jack shit.

It's a bit idealistic and over simplified, I realize that. But hey, it's a start.

At 6/27/09 12:26 AM, Proteas wrote: And what, pray tell, would someone who has no business owning a gun (which is what my post was aimed at) have with buying ammunition?

That isn't the point. You don't register your ammunition with the government, you register your gun. What does the ammunition have to do with anything? You don't go to jail for having pipes, you go to jail for having illegal substances that you use with those pipes.

Aside from that, someone with illegal guns MAY, in fact, have a few legal guns as well. It's not a huge stretch... It's legal to buy 9mm ammunition wether it's for your semi auto pistol or your fully automatic submachine gun that you bought on the black market, or if you wanted a box of 9mm ammunition just to say you have one. The ammunition has nothing to do with that crime.

All you need here in the states is a photo I.D. certifying you're over 21, and you can buy Ammunition at any Wal-Mart. No background check on ammo needed.

I know.

Is it necessary to write laws that levy punitive action against law abiding citizens?

No. If you look at my other posts you will see I'm on the same side of this arguement as you. I just don't believe that laws like these are necessary, either. With the legislation you suggest nobody is going to get out of jail after being convicted, so why not just make it life sentence or death? You don't need multiple life sentences to die in jail.

That's my entire point. All the gun control arguments presented in this thread so far are justified by how it will stem the flow of the illegal gun trade, but the law as it is presented only seeks to interfere with legal gun trade of all kinds. So instead of making every gun owner feel like a criminal for having a gun, why not *gasp* make every illegal gun owner feel like a criminal for having a gun?

Hell, I was just pulling random numbers out of my ass when I posted that. Even if you were to reduce the sentences by half, all it would take is one high profile case of some gang banger or gun smuggler getting caught and getting multiple life sentences under this law to send the message to it's intended audience.

And that's just the illegal gun trade, imagine what effect such a law would have on everyday crime; what hood or street thug would DARE show his piece in public knowing he could go down for life just for having it? What crack-head would DARE walk into a gas station to rob the place if he knew his face would be caught on security cameras holding a gun? And on top of that; imagine what kind of effect this would have on society as a whole, to know that you could safely walk out your front door knowing that the good guys have the guns, and the bad guys have... jack shit.

It's a bit idealistic and over simplified, I realize that. But hey, it's a start.

Criminals know they are breaking the law and they know there are consequences for breaking those laws if they are caught. They break the law anyway. It's not like it's perfectly legal to hold up a liquor store at the moment, but people still do it sometimes. If you intend to ask me why, I simply don't know. Desperation, I imagine. The point is that you can't SCARE criminals out of breaking the law. The best you can hope for is to punish them appropriately. Giving them 2000 years in prison for shits and giggles isn't appropriate.

At 6/27/09 01:09 AM, Yorik wrote: You don't go to jail for having pipes, you go to jail for having illegal substances that you use with those pipes.

That be a nice argument if there weren't standing laws that have sent people to jail for having drug paraphenlia (clicky).

All I'm saying is this; if the law disallows you from legally owning a gun, you shouldn't have the ammunition either. Simple argument, simple statement.

The ammunition has nothing to do with that crime.

What's the point of having a gun if you don't have the ammunition to fire out of it?

With the legislation you suggest nobody is going to get out of jail after being convicted, so why not just make it life sentence or death? You don't need multiple life sentences to die in jail.

That's the entire point; you could get off for a charge of murder on a technicality (itself a travesty of justice), but still go down for life because you had a gun you weren't supposed to have.

The point is that you can't SCARE criminals out of breaking the law. The best you can hope for is to punish them appropriately. Giving them 2000 years in prison for shits and giggles isn't appropriate.

The purpose of the law is to make people understand the difference between acts that are beneficial or detrimental to society as a whole. If the laws we have right now do not effectively serve the purpose of giving criminals a reason to fear the consequences of their actions, then there is something wrong with the way the laws are enforced and sentences are carried out, not the laws themselves.

That being said... what's the point of authoring new laws when the ones we have on the books as it is can't be effectively forced?