RE: Calls for Anti-II Amendment Legislation, Guns & Ammo, and Internet Bans

[Pericles]

Well not really, that is taking this thread far out of its intended context. For example:

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams (Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, pg. 86-87)

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry (Elliot's Debates, Vol.3, pg. 386)

If a law against murder or assault fails to prevent those crimes, why do you suppose that some law restricting firearm purchase or ownership will prevent those crimes?

The idea of compromise means that I get something in exchange for giving up something. What are you willing to trade in exchange for further restriction on purchase or possession - say repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934? That would be a compromise.

When a criminal invades your home and tells you that he is going to kill you, rape you wife, and kill her - do you say, "Wait! let's compromise!" So the criminal, says, "OK I won't rape your wife, I'll just kill you both. See, I'm reasonable."

 

[WesSeid]

2. Most other states (e.g., Vermont has a population that consists of 95.5% white people and a 90.6% high school graduation, with 33.3% of the population possessing at least a bachelors degree) do not have to deal with the social issues that are prevalent within California and even more on such a massive scale, such as: ramped illegal immigration, drug trade, prostitution, gang occupation, homelessness and poverty, etc. And do you actually think that illegal aliens really give a care about California laws let alone about federal laws? My guess would be, probably not so much.
3. Presently, Californian gun laws do not adequately address matters pertaining to organized gang associations, drug activities, mental issues, etc. Its gun laws are wholly focused around domestic violence issues, citizenship status, and expatriation.

It sounds like you're saying California's gun laws don't work. Now, you say the reason they may not work is because "Vermont has 95.5% white people and 90.6% high school graduation," and because California's gun laws don't deal with California social issues and illegal aliens. Yet you think more gun laws will somehow fix gun problems caused by those problems. You're trying to put a band-aid on a bullet wound. I have a better idea: forget the gun laws and push to fix those other problems.

...wait, you say illegal aliens don't care about federal laws much less California laws, but then you say current Cali gun laws don't work because current gun laws are wholly focused around things including citizenship status. ?

And just look toward our neighbors in Mexico (with an estimated population of 113-million), where it is entirely unlawful to own any guns at all, and yet they have had an outrageous 50,000 violent homicides since 2006 alone! Oh but I know, that is all due to covert ATF/CIA/DOJ/NSA operations.

It's not unlawful to own any guns at all in Mexico. You just can't have very good ones, and they make it hard for law-abiding citizens to get them. Kind of like how a lot of people want to make it in the U.S. ...Strict gun laws in Mexico, and the people with the most and best guns are criminals. Funny how that works.

 

[Weston White]

If a law against murder or assault fails to prevent those crimes, why do you suppose that some law restricting firearm purchase or ownership will prevent those crimes?

I don’t really, but I do expect the law to justly punish them for having violated the law. However, that is not what this thread is concerned with. It is intended to pave the way for setting national standards on conceal and open carrying as well as a few other related gun issues.

The idea of compromise means that I get something in exchange for giving up something. What are you willing to trade in exchange for further restriction on purchase or possession - say repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934? That would be a compromise.

This thread actually has nothing to do with preventing supporting gun purchases or possession.

 

[pcosmar]

I don’t really, but I do expect the law to justly punish them for having violated the law. However, that is not what this thread is concerned with. It is intended to pave the way for setting national standards on conceal and open carrying as well as a few other related gun issues.

So you want to violate the 10th amendment as well as the second..

There is already a standard in the Constitution. Shall not be infringed.

Morbid curiosity has me wondering what your recommendations for Internet Control are.

 

[Weston White]

It sounds like you're saying California's gun laws don't work. Now, you say the reason they may not work is because "Vermont has 95.5% white people and 90.6% high school graduation," and because California's gun laws don't deal with California social issues and illegal aliens. Yet you think more gun laws will somehow fix gun problems caused by those problems. You're trying to put a band-aid on a bullet wound. I have a better idea: forget the gun laws and push to fix those other problems.

No, not at all, I am saying when you adjust the population from one state to the next so as to equal the population of California, that will in most all instances show the sum totals to be insignificant (that is in comparison to California) and in certain instances the hypothetical figures being projected by others states will actually be higher than California’s.

And sure it is a multidimensional issue for which is to be addressed; there are many facets needing adequate attention, otherwise no simple solution will ever bring about effective resolution.

However, lack of logical consideration in establishing prudent gun laws is also part of that overall equation.

...wait, you say illegal aliens don't care about federal laws much less California laws, but then you say current Cali gun laws don't work because current gun laws are wholly focused around things including citizenship status. ?

Yes, that I feel is one of many other reasons. There are a myriad of aspects to this one specific issue making it rather complex.

It's not unlawful to own any guns at all in Mexico. You just can't have very good ones, and they make it hard for law-abiding citizens to get them. Kind of like how a lot of people want to make it in the U.S. ...Strict gun laws in Mexico, and the people with the most and best guns are criminals. Funny how that works.

Oh, my mistake, they are only permitted to own up to a single .38 or smaller caliber handgun that is to be kept inside of their home and only to be used for self-defense purposes, and up to nine sporting rifles that are smaller than .30/7mm/7.62mm or are otherwise a 12GA. Regardless, not at all comparable to most U.S. States.

Also see: http://tijuana.usconsulate.gov/tijuana/warning.html

 

[Pericles]

I don’t really, but I do expect the law to justly punish them for having violated the law. However, that is not what this thread is concerned with. It is intended to pave the way for setting national standards on conceal and open carrying as well as a few other related gun issues.




This thread actually has nothing to do with supporting gun purchases or possession.

I'd suggest to you that one of the primary reasons the US is in its current state is the amount of legislation and regulation at the federal level. There need to be a different set of laws and rules in place at state and local levels to gather data on which public policy approaches work and which don't. Currently, the good idea fairy shows up in Washington, DC, and the entire country is subject to some law or regulation because it seems like a good idea, and why not try it as we have no evidence one way or another as whether or not it actually works.

If a state refuses to enact a law, making it a federal law in order to force the state to do it, is unlikely to expand liberty. If a state enacts a law which violated the Constitution, passing a counteracting federal law is not the right way to go about fixing the problem.

 

[Weston White]

OK, the first update of the final draft has been posted (ver. 0.8-FINAL), wherein several typos were corrected, along with a few small contextual changes, and a new paragraph was added. Also, earlier today my wife mailed off seven copies via the USPS to various offices and I will be moving on to draft a few other challenging ideas I have been meaning to tackle.

And should I receive any responses back I will post them when I get a chance to.

 

[Weston White]

I had been meaning to do a quick follow-up concerning this thread. Several months ago I received a canned response from my Congressman Nunez, wherein it really only mentioned that he is a cosponsor of H.R. 822 (National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011). I had quickly mailed him in response, to inquire on several concerns that I have about that bill. Namely, I found it interesting that it makes direct reference to interstate commerce as a key requisite to bring about any of its intended legal effect (i.e., stipulating). To date I have yet to of received any reply back from him or his office staff. Figures!

Also, I had received a letter and nice care package from Bernadine Smith of the Second Amendment Committee, wherein she advised me that she was going to forward a copy of the original version I completed to somebody involved in the lawmaking process (she did not elaborate further on who exactly that person is). I had sent her a thank you response in return.

Now, in light of everything that has been fire-storming since the original version, I have thoroughly updated my proposal, expanded upon it greatly, and really buttoned it down. Personally, I am very proud of the final version of this project. Earlier today I had Xeroxed and mailed out sixteen copies of this. This time I will keep my fingers crossed and hope for more noticeable results.

If you please, view, edit to your liking and mail off copies to your own representatives, a complete MS-Word file is available here: Finalized Version (v.12)