Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Sensible Gun Control

Yes sensible like they have in Shetcago!

Remsen, thank you for that post and the work you are doing.

L.W.

A lawyer using "laws" a court dreamt up or an Executive creating authoritarian fiats and having same "used against them" encourages me not one bit....but the fact 99/44/100ths of the members here are so tyrannical they don't need an armed entourage is encouragement.

The last place I'd be looking for law is around officially protected despots....

EVERYTHING that occurred in OR yesterday, the CO theater, Sandy Hook, etc. is already illegal.

No more 'control' is necessary.

I'm for sensible gun control. The history of every known civilization shows that the rights of the populace have been violated EVERY TIME by the government. I propose we make the sensible regulation that no government entity is allowed to posses any firearm in the course of official duty outside a military base.

According to CNN, "In the middle of the shooting rampage, the gunman handed his writings to a survivor to give to police according to sources. In those pages, the shooter rambled about his hatred toward black men and how he was frustrated about being a virgin unable to find a girlfriend.” (emphasis added)

Next week the progressives and Obama will propose a government funded program, perhaps in conjunction with Planned Parenthood, to insure that all citizens (edit - oops, include illegals) get laid enough to ameliorate their repressed resentments.

And there's your "gun" control. Makes about as much sense as what they're saying this week.

And, of course, none of you read what I wrote.

I believe that people get the idea for gun crimes by watching the universal use of guns in movies, TV and video games. They become attuned to the use of ever bigger and more powerful guns through their "entertainment."

I do NOT want guns taken or forbidden in any way to citizens. I want them banned from Hollywood.

If the people creating this trash scream about free speech, they should be told that id the Second Amendment means nothing then the First doesn't, either.


(Brilliant, Remsen. Well said.)

Rocky I understood and agreed with what you wrote, FWIW. Good point.

I don't believe this virgin stuff. The guy lived with his mother in a one-bedroom apartment.

I can get behind that kind of sensible gun regulation.

In light of 2A and Heller, I do not see a way short of amendment to produce defensible restriction.

GCA '68 could never stand up in light of Heller.

The problem that needs solving is how do you find and deal with mentally incompetent people. Since they are incompetent, they are also not responsible for their actions. Thus, any gun related legislation will do nothing to inhibit them.

It used to be possible to involuntarily commit them to treatment until 1980. Because that power was too often abused, and because it was expensive, we abolished it. Today, trying to reinstate that would be very nearly impossible. However, there does have to be some accountability back to the people who live and work with the people in need of treatment. We're going to have to settle for a combination of limited involuntary commitment with the increased responsibility of those professionals.

GCA 68 gifted us with taking a lot of "Saturday night specials" out of circulation over the years and the shortsightedness of not recognizing they'd be replaced by more powerful and eventually relatively cheaply produced reliable weapons. They was a lot of crap in idiot hands back then. A lot of it wasn't fit for anything BUT poorly made guns in relatively impotent calibers like 25/32 auto.
Today, 380s are much better and 9 mils do a decent job. In relative terms we now have much more effective guns at substantially lower cost readily available.

The duality of the problem and the complexity of each side of it is going to need a lot better people working on it than we have currently elected. The stated opinion in Heller that not only is self defense part of the foundation of 2A, but also "To restrain the hand of govenment" will make judicial dilution for all intents impossible.

Phrase is an oxymoron & completely contradictory.............

MM

Rocky,

We grew up with much more use of guns in TV and movies than is currant now. Every kid had a holster and cap gun from their favorite TV hero. We did have mass shootings then, but far, far fewer. Police behavior was not better then. Military misbehavior was not impossible as we learned at Kent State.

Miles, I politely disagree. There were nowhere near as many guns displayed or used on Dragnet, Gunsmoke, Roy Rogers, Lone Ranger or many other shows than now. I only have to mention shows like the thankfully long gone A-Team to make my case. That's just TV. The list of movies glorifying gun violence is too long to type out. What about all the first-person-shooter video games out there that not only train you to be a mass shooter but make it seem fun?

Rat Patrol and Combat had a lot of cool guns.

As long as this "inform upon thy neighbor" is restricted to the States, and the federal government is not a part of it, its sounds "reasonable."

I don't believe that. Quantitatively we had shoot 'em up westerns, war replays and cops & robbers as mainstays. Qualitatively it was very different though, no question in my mind about that. I believe that the quality of violence offered now is much more destructive.

I think we're likely on the same page here. The glorification of the violence, the quality of it, is the big part of the problem, and has been for quite some time.

Since were are dealing with fundamental civil liberties it is going to require federal involvement in the establishment of parameters within which those liberties may be curtailed.

The states could of course try to accomplish that, but doing so will invite and necessitate federal court involvement. Maybe not such a good thing.

Same page, same chapter, same book, Miles my friend.

Plenty of room here in Wyoming for a lawyer with your credentials and political leanings. They have U-Hauls where you live?