Deepen Gun Ownership

[AwPhuch]

afmo...what part of "Shall NOT be infringed" don't you understand?


The problem with our judicial system is they are getting more and more loose on what "felony" means...slapping felony on this..felony on that.

You loose all rights to guns FOREVER even if the felony is non aggravated (such as someone with less than an ounce of coke or something (a user..not a seller) and even though he may clean his life..he is forever forbidden to own a firearm...or even have one within reach or he gets to go back to prison. Yes someone who does an aggrivated felony deserves it...not some poor schmuck who got hooked on drugs.

I truly believe (as long as your offense wasn't aggravated..aka used a weapon towards a person) then once your time is served..your record is expunged and you are in the clear (ok..maybe a 10 year period to think about your mistake)...too many good people screwed up...made some REALLY bad decisions, but have served their time...but have a cloud forever over them..some cant even find honest work because it follows them forever.

I truly believe our judicial system should be on a multiple offense multiplier basis...(instead of these stupid set in stone 3 strikes you are out deals)...let me explain...If you do a crime..the 1st offense is a 1x multiplier..meaning you get the full effect of the law at only 1x the punishment, if you do the same crime again within that same 10 year hold the offense now gets a 10x multiplier...so if you get 300 fine for say speeding or something..2nd offense is now $3000, that will get your attention REAL quick, 3rd offense is now 100x multiplier...I am mixed emotions if it should be for aggravated stuff only or for everything in general..someone with 2x strikes for speeding is NOT gonna speed again, someone who is nailed 3x for robbing someone at knifepoint/gunpoint gets 100x the punishment...this allows people who screw up once a way to learn their mistakes, if they continue to repeat the same bad behavior the punishment gets so severe in a rapid hurry they learn fast or suffer for their repeat offenses, if they screw up one way...then screw up another they are not immediately sent to strike 2, then one simple mistake they go to the pen forever on the 3rd strike even if its unrelated (I hope you understood my rambling)

Laws are chains, with big locks on them...they are designed to restrict and control (which is what they are intended to do...thats what law is, and that ok)...the honest gun owner is now weighted down with HUNDREDS of individual chains that its almost impossible to bear the burden, the gun grabbers know this..so each tiny little "oh thats not so bad law" adds more to the burden, just one more chain the honest gun owner must wear...the criminal who doesn't give a rats butt about the laws don't care, no chains for them...in fact it makes their hunt easier...it restricts and binds their prey so much that they know most people aren't armed, most people are easy targets, its only when laws allowing the honest citizen easier access to defense do the criminals start thinking twice about attacking.

[LUVMYSIGP225]

I am all for keeping them out of the hands of criminals. It is only in my best interest to want that. However, I know that any step towards gun control is the beginning of the erosion of our rights. Where will it end?

There is still a problem with being able to meet a guy in a parking lot, that you met on the internet, and handing him a gun as a long as he has the cash. Or the little side deals in the parking lot at the gun show. You know that shady $hit goes down there.

[afmo]

afmo...what part of "Shall NOT be infringed" don't you understand?

well, i've managed to be on the proper side of the law for 23 years...if i can do it, so can everyone else if they want to maintain their gun rights.

As it stands, i don't think felons should own guns and i don't think background checks are tantamount to gun control.

however you won't see me arguing for "true" gun control laws...outside of keeping criminals from owning them.....

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by afmo

well, i've managed to be on the proper side of the law for 23 years...if i can do it, so can everyone else if they want to maintain their gun rights.

As it stands, i don't think felons should own guns and i don't think background checks are tantamount to gun control.

however you won't see me arguing for "true" gun control laws...outside of keeping criminals from owning them.....

Sorry, I still disagree with you, and I think you know why.

[afmo]

Originally Posted by AZXD

Sorry, I still disagree with you, and I think you know why.

and thats fine

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by afmo

and thats fine

Then PLEASE re-read the comments of others and think hard about what you are advocating.

[AwPhuch]

afmo..when you give a gun grabber and inch..they immediately turn it into a mile

All it is, is one more hammer blow on the wedge used to separate the people from their firearms

[afmo]

Originally Posted by AZXD

Then PLEASE re-read the comments of others and think hard about what you are advocating.

i have...

and i honestly don't think that a background check is an unreasonable request before buying a firearm.

I've already stated that it should be free and available to everyone....

i realize what it is i'm saying....i don't say things just to cause issues like some of our more notorious posters here.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by afmo

ANY gun law is automatically met with accusations of "gun grabber" and whatever other insults you want to fling.

I'm by NO means a gun grabber. You're lobbing attacks at people on the same team as you.

.

You noticed that? Look at AZXD's signature. And the funny thing is chances are that I have more guns and I KNOW I've been a gun owner for far longer than the guy calling me a "gun grabber".

Originally Posted by AZXD

Sory about that, but until you figure out that the majority of criminals do not legally purchase firearms ... You're gonna be wrong.


Criminals don't walk into gun stores, can you agree with this ??

I agree that criminals don't walk into gun stores ANYMORE....the instant background checks are an example of what I would call a "reasonable" constraint. I myself bought guns in gun stores before there were any restrictions at all.

In Florida (like you describe Arizona), gun sales between individuals have no restrictions at all...I have also been involved in more than one of those...fairly recently I bought a "Mustang" size 1911 from a fellow XDTalk member who lives not too far. We met halfway, I gave him cash, he gave me the gun. We were both a bit apprehensive, so we got each other's names and driver's license numbers just to be on the safe side, but it wasn't legally necessary.

Don't know about AZ., but there's no gun show loophole here. Same background check - with our without a CCW. Only difference here from what you describe (which doesn't sound right....I could be wrong, but I thought it was a federal law) is that with a CCW there's no wait period. They still do the instant check both in stores and at the shows (only takes a minute to fill out the form and a minute or so to call in the check).

Gunshow loopholes (as I understand them) would enable a criminal to buy a gun? Doesn't sound like a great idea to me. But if I say that then in your mind (as you have proved), anything I think is a "reasonable" restriction makes me a "gun grabber" - and a Sarah Brady fan (whatever that even means)

Prior to the now required background checks anyone could buy a gun. The laws obviously don't stop every maniac from getting one, but it makes it harder and a lot more expensive.

As we saw at Columbine and Va. Tech. (and plenty of other less high profile examples) no system is perfect.

But while it seems that in your (very humble and open minded) opinion, nothing is "reasonable" here's a few examples of what happened just in my memory up until background checks were implemented.

Lee Harvey Oswald bought the rifle he shot JFK with by mail order with a dishonorable discharge from the Marines, and an FBI record of having defected to the USSR.

Sirhan Sirhan I believe bought his gun in a gun store. Not a citizen, he was a palestinian with a Jordanian citizenship. He shot Robert Kennedy to death.

Mark Chapman bought his gun in a store in Colorado with a record of being hospitalized for mental illness three years before, got to NYC, and couldn't buy bullets there, so he went out of state and got bullets, came back and killed John Lennon.

Jack Ruby, FBI known associate of Mafia boss Santo Trafficanti (sp?) bought his gun in a gun store. (background check might not have precluded his purchase, but who knows?). Killed Oswald.

James Earl Ray, not only a convicted fellon, but an escaped convict on the FBI wanted list was able to buy a rifle with no background check. Murdered Martin Luther King.

John Hinkley, treated for mental illness (played Russian Roulette in front of friends, among other things) had several guns confiscated from him when he tried to get them on an airplane in the late 1970s after stalking, but not shooting President Ford. So, not being subjected to a background check, he just went to a gun shop and bought a couple of more guns and shot Reagan with one of them.

Sarah Jane Moore shot at Ford with a gun purchased at a gun show. Her background is too convoluted for me to understand, but she was certainly not "normal". Fortunately, she fired and missed. Whether or not she could have passed a background check is anyone's guess. But it was a moot point because they didn't exist then.

Squaky Fromme? No idea - She could have had an arsenal hidden in the desert, but Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh legally bought guns at gun shows

So aside from Squeaky Fromme, who I'm not sure about, all these other murderers and would-be murderers bought their guns legally because at the times they did either it was prior to the fairly recent requirement of the instant background check, or due to the gun show loophole.

Maybe if what we today consider "reasonable" restrictions existed at the time, John Lennon would have lived to make more great music, and Robert Kennedy almost assuredly would have been president rather than Nixon. JFK would have served two full terms as president, Martin Luther King would have not been killed at 39, Reagan would have not been shot, Ford would not have been shot at, Oswald would have stood trial (if he managed to kill JFK with a gun obtained illegally rather than anonymously by mail order and legally), and maybe all those people including 28 children would not have died at Waco.

I read the book "Helter Skelter" in the early or mid 1970s, so I don't remember many details. It was the story of Charles Manson and his cult. (researched and written by the prosecutor in the Tate/LoBianca murders). Most of their guns were stolen, but not all. Virtually every male member and almost every female member had prior criminal records. Yet at that time they were able to walk into gun stores and buy guns. To this day no one knows how many deaths they were responsible for. IIRC, one of them was one of Manson's own defense lawyers.

Peace,
D.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by afmo

i have...

and i honestly don't think that a background check is an unreasonable request before buying a firearm.

I've already stated that it should be free and available to everyone....

i realize what it is i'm saying....i don't say things just to cause issues like some of our more notorious posters here.

Cool ... Follow me with this.

Hi I am LawBreaker .. I have never been convicted of anything that I will admit to ... Here's a few of my latest video's ... Hope you like them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=f1rr2a2FHOk

YouTube - Real Gang Videos

YouTube - Detroit Gang Shooting Caught on Tape

YouTube - Caught on Camera (Shooting)

Yo Afmo, that be enough ... What ya think ... These guys bought this stuff at the shop ... Dude you wack.

Check this.
YouTube - Why We Bang - Film about Bloods and Crips in Los Angeles


Do you really think a NCIS check will do anything but infring upon law abiding citizens ??