New Gun Laws

While I was browsing the Democratic candidates I notice that only one was for new gun laws. Everyone else wanted gun laws to stay as they are. Here is what I would propose.

1 Ban all public sale of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. These weapons are not for hunting deer

2 Ban all handguns. These weapons are not for hunting deer either

3 Tax on bullets. We tax cigarettes because they hurt people, so do bullets

4 Instead of a tax refund have a national "Turn in a gun get $300" drive

5 Insert homing devices similar to those bracelets criminals wear into all rifles. Make it a cime to tamper with such a device or to create an after market product that fools the device. Using cell phone technology the rifle records where and when each bullet was fired and sends a record of the event to the cops.

6 Mandatory fingerprinting, DNA sampling and bullet rifling samples for all gun owners

There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books as it is…and no law has never stopped a criminal from acquiring a gun... and to think they do or that new ones would, is extremely naïve… prohibitive laws only breed more criminals…

If you really want to make a difference, lobby for stricter laws against the criminals themselves… in the end, they are the ones responsible… not the guns…

__________________

I understand what you're saying sunfrog--and to some extent, I agree. There are alot of unecessary gun deaths in this country everyday. But what, let me ask you, would you propose peace officers use, or the military? Do you think these organizations should follow under the same stipulations that you have listed? Or do you think they should have their own list of restrictions by which to follow. It's my thinking that if you put restrictions on citizens, then you must put those same restrictions on the government, which wouldn't really work in this country.

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

I think Sunfrog were talking about civilians. I don't see why the restrictions have to include the government/military/police force. Do you feel you have to protect yourself from the government, R66?

Caitlyn, what is wrong with preventing crime? Why wait until someone has allready been killed? What does it matter to the victim or the victim's family if the killer gets 40 years or 50 years in prison? Or death penalty for that matter?

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Forgive my ignorance Piddy, sunfrog, but I thought that the "Right to Bear Arms" (Second Amendment, I believe), is a part of our Constitution because of the fear of government control. We have the right to protect ourselves, our property and our peace of mind--according to our forefathers. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it makes sense. Take away the citizens rights to bear arms, leaving the government to do as they wish, and we're really screwed. Of course, I am concerned about the misuse of guns, but I'm more concerned about the misuse of power. I'm also not for any sort of militia, or "Soldier of Fortune" type philosophy, but I believe a weapon can be used properly.

I'd hope so. He's right. Frankly, I don't know how you can decry the Patriot Act while simultaneously taking a flippant attitude towards the idea of an oppressive government in a gunless society.


You're only talking about the seen. The unseen is the murder which is not committed because the society in question is harsh on offenders.

"The act of policing is, in order to punish less often, to punish more severely."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

It's from 1791. I just wonder for how long amendments written in the 1700's taking 1700's conditions in consideration will remain a holy cow.

As long as they still make sense.

I agree with Pidzilla on everything he/she said.
To R66, the things I suggested above don't take away your right to bear arms anymore than no prayer in school takes away your right to worship as you please. You can still own rifles. I'd like to point out that the Brits have a ban on guns and their govenment doesn't attack them. I doubt our government would attack us.

To Yoda, I'm always flippant! I'm not talking about the Patriot Act, I just watched Bowling for Columbine. The Patriot Act and the suggestions I made above should not co-exist because the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and should not exist in the first place.

To Caitlyn, tougher sentencing does not prevent crime, even the death penalty does not deter crime. This is because no one knows what the penalties are. For instance, assault is 3 to 5, I think, murder 20 to life. What is rape, robbery, fraud, smuggling illegals, child molesting? Another reason tough sentencing does not lessen crime is because when people are committing a crime they think they'll get away with it. The way to stop crime is to get rid of the causes of crime. It's the old give a man a fish/teach a man to fish thing.

I'd like to point out that my stepfather has a gun and he's never shot anyone by accident. I doubt any other gun owner would.


I was talking to Pidzilla, actually. The point is that many people are worried about the power our government has, yet simultaneously scoff at the idea that it could become violently oppressive. The two are kin, people.


Get rid of what causes crime? Let's see...money, property, sex, love, and the potential for people to fail at anything they do. Yeah, that'll be a breeze.

Rewrite it then.

Why? It still makes sense. Human nature hasn't changed.

I won't touch that one.


Caitlyn's post was right, as usual.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

Oh, the Patriot Act... If I have understood sfuff correctly the Patriot Act II gives the government the right to search someone's home without a warrant.

Is the Patriot Act II the result of the fourth amendment not making sense? [edit]Honestly... I don't get that one at all. Are warrants a good thing or not??

What's the situation today with those Patriot Acts, guys? Someone told me they weren't so hip anymore. Great news, if it's true.

No but culture has.

[edit]In all honesty. You don't think the fact that the amendment hasn't been updated since 1791 has something to do with the problems with gun deaths in USA?

Elaborate, please. What change in culture necessitates an amendment in the Amendment? How would you rewrite it?

Well, I am not a legal expert so let's leave the rewriting part to them.

But I just checked out the swedish constitution (actually there are four of them) which is from 1810. There was almost not a single paragraph or section that looked the same as they did in the original from 1810 (I didn't find a single one but I didn't look through it all of course. I suppose there must be one or two paragraphs at least). They had all been rewritten over the years, a whole lot in the 70's. I don't feel like I have lost any important rights from the 1810 constitution on the way. And we don't have your gun deaths statistics either.

What change in culture and society? Well, to start with in the 1700's there wasn't a police force like today there to protect your property and family so you had to take care of that yourself. And there were also a lot more threats, seen from a settlers viewpoint, to protect yourself from. You have to remember that the settlers were still fighting the native americans. The civil war several decades later must be some kind of proof of that the americans weren't really getting along among each other either. In short, things were pretty much the same back then as now. Only that the guns then were motivated because of obvious threats from the "wild" continent back then. Today the guns are needed to protect you from other people with guns.

I am not saying that a change in the gun laws would solve all your problems but I get so tired when I get the argument "IT'S OUR RIGHT! IT'S IN OUR CONSTITUTION!" and that should be the end of the discussion. Cultures and societies change and evolve all the time and I think it is very important that the laws evolve with them. I don't think it makes sense to me that everybody should have the right to bear arms. It is like asking for trouble. And I almost get the same impression as I get when I discuss religion with a bible fanatic. It is true and it is right, and it is right because it's in the constitution. The bible can't be rewritten in such a matter of course, but the constitution can.

I actually thought you'd written it first.

Heheheh, i loved that comedian's slant on this idea in Bowling. It's one of the few things i could happily see over-priced for normal citizens. . It seems like it wouldn't affect the benefits of guns in society (i.e. protection of property, and potential self-protecton on the street etc in emergencies. i.e. guns would ONLY be for use in emergencies) . I don't see the loss of sporting privaliges/access as a big deal.

Any imbalance between state and citizens caused by gun laws that don't inhibit the state don't necessarily lead to violent domination by the state. Not in britland anyway. (they prefer the sneaky, threatening and power-dealing techniques as per usual )

Erm, sorry r3, but i'm a bit confused about HOW guns prevent governmental oppression. How often do the cops barge into your house and do you over? [are you saying Caity pays you house calls? ] How often would a gun help you if they did?? You'd just get done for shooting a cop, if that were the scenario.

Surely the incroachments of the patriot act(s) ARE a genuine inappropriate application of power that reduces civil liberties. How does a gun protect against that??? Surely awareness, propogation of "efficient" yet humane practices that appeal even to the power-hungry,and good people getting their hands on power where possible and holding onto it to the best of their ability (and using all due processes available, and all other social structures, where attaining said power is impossible/impracticle)....surely these things are better ways to prevent power infringements?!




This last response, good to know as it is (), baffles me. Why is it relevant to Sunnys post??

British governments have never taken advantage of our lack of guns i.e. they haven't armed the police unnecessarily for example. And if anything the cops can act in a slightly calmer way knowing that they are unlikely to face a firearm (this is of course changing, but we can hope measures regularly getting put into place to address the specific causes of the rise in gun availabilty can slow the rise, and eventually rectify some core aspects of the situation)

Would someone care to point out in what way we've been governmentally oppressed specifically due to our overwhelming lack of civic arms? Or even oppressed by industries for that matter? By crims, yes, occasionally - but their ruthlessness pretty much means a standard person wouldn't fair well in a gun fight with them anyway. (as it is, armed crims spend most of their time shooting each other)

What i'm more worried about is the potential for non-lethal weapons (i.e. ones that can be used on crowds for the most part) being used to suppress freedom of expression and community-enhancing marches/protests [NB that's about all i think marching achieves - but when coinciding with other complementary actions they can increase affectiveness of the push for recognition, change and even power-shifts potentially]

Current sprays and tazers etc don't worry me too much. It's more water cannons, tear gas etc inappropriately used (and new stuff which is technologically possible - including the use of microwave technology to manipulate emotinal states!! Get your tin-foil on ). If applied in the case of mainly peaceful protests (or overwhelmingly/totally non-violent ones where possible - but if a theme is broad it can attract all sorts. A tiny minority that started chucking bricks at a peaceful/harmless sit-in in a london square [trafalgar i think (one of the bigguns )] brought the riot police in on everyone (and they might have been there to disturb/fight with the rallyers anyway)

Just out of interest - do you include crime perpetrated by those who'll do anything to succeed in those categories?

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here