Case Study - The failure of gun control laws.

[JPR]

I have to admit, as much as the glassy eyed zombies cause mischief and general squalor and strife, I am beginning to see a logical purpose in the elimination of the illegality of drugs, at least a lot of them.

Unless I am mistaken, a rather large percentage of our jails and prisons are occupied by people who have done nothing other than violate drug laws. If nothing else (excluding children) these people engaged in a crime in which all participants were willing adult members.

I would think elimination of the black market for drugs would likely reduce street violence, based on the history of prohibition. It was not the first gun control law of the mid thirties that eliminated drive by tommy gun spraying, it was the end of prohibition, as I understand it.

Therefore, we could free up a lot of cell space for those creatures who commit crimes against people who are not willing participants to the crime (i.e. burglary victims, robbery victims, rape victims, murder victims, corrupt politicians, etc.)

I'm not totally decided on the subject, however, it would appear to me that the jury is in on the impossibility to control the trafficking of "things" in a free society. I am also confident in the overwhelming majority of citizens who exercise good judgment and would therefore not develop a drug problem.

I guess what I am trying to say is maybe we have gotten to the point where we have to practice a "Triage" approach to laws.

Let the people consume what they choose, but hold them accountable for their subsequent actions.

Again, I'm not at the point of advocating it, but I am at the point of being interested in public discussion regarding the pros and cons from various perspectives.

[grog18b]

...and the prohibition of possession of destructive devices. I think that most people would agree.

It's good you think that. I have manufactured several registered "Destructive Devices" as well as a SBR and a few other NFA items. None of them explode or contain explosives. Perhaps you should read up on exactly what a destructive device is before you spout those imaginary prohibitions you thought up, then you might (but probably won't) sound a little more educated... Just an FYI, they are not prohibited from being possessed, or manufactured, they are only taxed first.

Obviously, it is a topic you know little about. Funny how someone who knows so little about a topic such as "destructive devices" can even pretend to form such an educated opinion, and think most people would agree with that supposition.

Now, like you enjoy doing, please feel free to tell me what I am saying...

Here... I'll start it for you...

"So you must support ______(Insert stupid supposition here)________"

[DAL]

I am simply pointing out that there is a logical inconsistency between saying that, no matter how much harm may be caused by guns, they should not be regulated at all, while saying at the same time that drugs should be strictly prohibited. True, you could make a legal argument based on the Constitution, but that is different from the moral argument that freedom is paramount. Furthermore, it is well established that no right protected by the Constitution is without limits. That includes freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

[DAL]

It's good you think that. I have manufactured several registered "Destructive Devices" as well as a SBR and a few other NFA items. None of them explode or contain explosives. Perhaps you should read up on exactly what a destructive device is before you spout those imaginary prohibitions you thought up, then you might (but probably won't) sound a little more educated... Just an FYI, they are not prohibited from being possessed, or manufactured, they are only taxed first.

Obviously, it is a topic you know little about. Funny how someone who knows so little about a topic such as "destructive devices" can even pretend to form such an educated opinion, and think most people would agree with that supposition.

Now, like you enjoy doing, please feel free to tell me what I am saying...

Here... I'll start it for you...

"So you must support ______(Insert stupid supposition here)________"

Rather remarkable that you purport to know what I do and do not know. But then again, perhaps you think you are God.

I was not trying for precision, as firearms laws are far too complex and their intricacies are beside my point. I am well aware that destructive devices are taxed under the NFA, but paying a tax is not enough. You will not get authorization from the ATF without clearance from state or local law enforcement. In many states certain types of destructive devices are prohibited altogether, or their possession is strictly limited and requires a permit. If you prefer, however, substitute "strict regulation" for "prohibition" with respect to destructive devices. It would not change the import of what I said.

And, regardless of your views, mine remain unchanged. I remain convinced that the majority of the public support outlawing or strictly regulating the possession of destructive devices.

[FNA209]

It's against the law to rape someone, buy, sell or use crack and to rob banks.

People still do it.

Gun control laws are the single most absurd thing on the books today. I kinda put it up there with out outdated local ordinance that states it's illegal to service a mare on a public street.

Who does that today?! Or even back when we still rode horses?

Rev

+1 on the laws already existing- we need to hold people accountable for breaking the laws we already have. All of the laws pertaining to the crimes people commit using guns are there. Try enforcing them.

As to the local ordinance about the mare servicing- people probably didn't intend for that to happen. But if you spend some time on around horses, you'd know some mares are basically s!*ts and some stallions will gladly help them out. It's not an easy thing to separate two 1000lb animals once they have become engaged.

As far as onwing full auto, who cares?

Missiles and other high explosives need to be restricted simply because you can't control the inevitable explosion which occurs or the various sharp, nasty bits that fly around from said blast.

So no LAW rockets, Ducth V40 mini-grenades or C4 for the general public.

Not even with a tax stamp.

But a belt fed .50 cal?

SIGN ME UP!

Rev

I want the LAWs and M203. I'd use them responsibly.

C4 might come in handy around the farm for those stumps that need to be removed. Plus it'd be a lot more fun than using a crowbar and shovel.

"FIRE IN THE HOLE!" ..... "UH-OH, STUMP INCOMING!"

[grog18b]

Rather remarkable that you purport to know what I do and do not know. But then again, perhaps you think you are God.

Wow, a lawyer that likes to tell people what they think... Doesn't sound like I'm the one with the Deity complex.

I remain convinced that the majority of the public support outlawing or strictly regulating the possession of destructive devices.

Good thing we live in a Republic, huh? Once again, I'm glad you can revel in your opinions, and proffer them as that of the majority with nothing to support your assumptions.

Here's a news flash... No one cares, and it doesn't matter. The Constitution is the standard by which laws are judged, not your, or the majority public opinion.

Thomas Jefferson said people that are willing to give up freedom for security have neither freedom or security.

[grog18b]

Fixed.

Thanks Brother.

[JPR]

.......................
And, regardless of your views, mine remain unchanged. I remain convinced that the majority of the public support outlawing or strictly regulating the possession of destructive devices.

I believe if the majority of the public realizes, as I do, that it is impossible to prevent people from having destructive devices, it is a rather futile law or set of laws that are not worth much. I'm not sure what falls under the heading, but obviously it refers to devices that destroy things.

Anyone with more than a basic chemistry education can manufacture various explosives out of commonly available materials. Fertilizer high explosive bombs are even easier to make. Then there are the crude but highly lethal pipe bombs. And let's not forget incendiary devices such as Molotov cocktails.

Ever hear the phrase "There are no such things as dangerous weapons, there are only dangerous men?" Just look at the president's friend Bill Ayers and his outlaw group "The Weathermen."

No, legislating laws against things is a losing proposition. Severe punishment for severe actions is the best course of action. In my humble opinion.

[grog18b]

Anything with a bore diameter over .50cal, excluding black powder cannon and 37mm possessed with flares, smokes, or gas. M203/M79 are Destructive Devices if equipped with a 40mm barrel. 20mm Solothern AT rifles are DD too.

The problem with our society is, there are WAY too many people that believe the only way to prevent something is to legislate it. It's the speed limit philosophy. You set a speed limit, and they believe nobody speeds. Doesn't work for that either. Criminals have to be willing to obey the law in order for it to work in that manner. That thinking does not take into account criminal proclivity and unwillingness to conform to the law.

Is the reason most people don't rape and murder due to laws against it, or because of moral beliefs of those acts being unacceptable? Does a murderer or rapist ever consider the punishment before the act?

Laws only set guidelines, and provide penalties for non-compliance. They do nothing to modify human behavior, and I for one, am tired of giving up my freedom because lawmakers believe they can fix crime problems by writing more laws. If someone wants to increase penalties for criminal acts, I'm all for it. Making more laws, or controlling arms is not the answer.

You are 100% correct JPR, the ONLY way is severe punishment for criminals. Punishment directed at the masses is wrong on many levels.

Being a lawyer DAL, I can understand your love for the law. The law however, only restricts people willing to obey it. The law also must be Constitutional, as the document was written, not to give rights, but to restrict Government. Personally, I believe every law should be tested by Constitutional standards PRIOR to its enforcement. Not after it is applied and people are arrested for violation. The word of law is not the final answer, the Constitution is. Whether you choose to believe it or not, freedom is a much better answer than over-legislation. You can't legislate human behavior, and no matter how good you write the law, criminals will break it. It's what they do.

You could make illicit drug sales and use a felony punishable by death tomorrow, and criminals would continue to sell and use.

[ray8285]

Ergo, you must support the legalization of marijuana and more serious drugs. After all, prohibiting their use is "freedom stripping." It matters not how terrible the effects might be on the individual or the rest of society.

Not really, there is no mention in the constitution of Marijuana or any other drug.....

[plinker]

I have to admit, as much as the glassy eyed zombies cause mischief and general squalor and strife, I am beginning to see a logical purpose in the elimination of the illegality of drugs, at least a lot of them.

Unless I am mistaken, a rather large percentage of our jails and prisons are occupied by people who have done nothing other than violate drug laws. If nothing else (excluding children) these people engaged in a crime in which all participants were willing adult members.

I would think elimination of the black market for drugs would likely reduce street violence, based on the history of prohibition. It was not the first gun control law of the mid thirties that eliminated drive by tommy gun spraying, it was the end of prohibition, as I understand it.

Therefore, we could free up a lot of cell space for those creatures who commit crimes against people who are not willing participants to the crime (i.e. burglary victims, robbery victims, rape victims, murder victims, corrupt politicians, etc.)

I'm not totally decided on the subject, however, it would appear to me that the jury is in on the impossibility to control the trafficking of "things" in a free society. I am also confident in the overwhelming majority of citizens who exercise good judgment and would therefore not develop a drug problem.

I guess what I am trying to say is maybe we have gotten to the point where we have to practice a "Triage" approach to laws.

Let the people consume what they choose, but hold them accountable for their subsequent actions.

Again, I'm not at the point of advocating it, but I am at the point of being interested in public discussion regarding the pros and cons from various perspectives.

Side thought for me anyway....
I believe "most" of these folks in jail are not in for only drug use/possesion. I'm sure quite a few LEO's use drug enforcment as an effective means to get some of these morons off the street? ( notice question mark.)

Lock em up for drugs, but get a violent offender of the streets...I'm all for it.

[Cold Rodear]

The Founding Fathers didn't ban pot or alcohol so I fail to see why we tried to do so in the 20th century. This is one issue where the Conservatives show a double standard and therefore a weakness to be exploited by our Progressive enemies. It is a "chink in the armor" which we must address.
I.E. "Moderation in Principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine

[Cold Rodear]

Here is an interesting exchange between a judge and a juror and the Constitution and "possession".
http://www.lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem28.html

[DAL]

I believe if the majority of the public realizes, as I do, that it is impossible to prevent people from having destructive devices, it is a rather futile law or set of laws that are not worth much. I'm not sure what falls under the heading, but obviously it refers to devices that destroy things.

Anyone with more than a basic chemistry education can manufacture various explosives out of commonly available materials. Fertilizer high explosive bombs are even easier to make. Then there are the crude but highly lethal pipe bombs. And let's not forget incendiary devices such as Molotov cocktails.

Ever hear the phrase "There are no such things as dangerous weapons, there are only dangerous men?" Just look at the president's friend Bill Ayers and his outlaw group "The Weathermen."

No, legislating laws against things is a losing proposition. Severe punishment for severe actions is the best course of action. In my humble opinion.

To the contrary, having laws against possessing bombs and bomb-making materials facilitates the arrest and prosecution of terrorists, because making possession criminal eliminates the need to prove intent to use them in an unlawful attack. It also makes it easier to catch these people sooner.

"Destructive device" is defined as follows:

(f) Destructive device
The term “destructive device” means

(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas

(A) bomb,
(B) grenade,
(C) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(E) mine, or
(F) similar device;

(2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and
(3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.

I have not heard any clamoring for the general public to be able to own missiles, grenades, RPGs, howitzers or the like.

Should we generalize your argument to "Nuclear weapons really aren't dangerous until they are misused"? In consequence, we would allow private manufacture and possession of nuclear weapons, as well as the items you propose to legalize, such as artillery pieces, artillery shells, anti-aircraft guns (which aren't dangerous until you shoot down a plane), grenades and bombs.

I doubt that the views of people on this forum are at all representative of those of the general public.

[Citizen85]

However, this kind of anecdotal reasoning is wholly specious.

Love that word