Sunday, Dec. 11, 2016    Login | Register        

Who will abide by any new gun laws?

The discussion of the issue of gun control. One side yells, “Protect the Second Amendment and we need to enforce the laws we already have on the books!” The other side screams, “Maximum 10-round magazines or possibly seven rounds, universal background checks and removal of all the hideous assault rifles from the shelves!”

The tirade on gun control goes on and on. Maybe by stepping back and analyzing the situation, we may find an answer or partial answer to the problem.

First of all, who are those that ignore and violate federal and state weapon laws with impunity? It is not the law-abiding citizen who, as much as it may inconvenience him or her, still abide by federal and state weapons laws.

Who’s left? The gang banger, the perpetual felon and thugs who do not pay much attention to any law as they go about their daily business of robbery, home invasion, car jackings, murder, rape and other violations of the federal and state judicial code.

Maybe these people should be given a background check that every other law-abiding citizen goes through to purchase and own a firearm. The problem with this is that 99.9 percent of these people would be denied a weapon and subject to prosecution and jail time.

Sadly though, under the present federal administration, it fails to use the full extent of background checks. Out of 76,000 firearm purchases denied by the present background check, only approximately 44 [cases] were prosecuted.

This shows that the judicial system is failing to use these laws to their full extent to prosecute those who violate our criminal laws. There are other laws that can be used that are too numerous to mention. Most of these laws carry a mandatory sentences that can be added to criminal charges.

Shouldn’t the law-abiding citizen be asking our government judicial system to use the full extent of these laws against criminals? Instead, the government pursues new laws that only affect the average citizen and does not protect them in their homes, their families, their car and their workplace.

John H. Sharpe

Fayetteville, Ga.



albion's picture

We should consider revising laws and regulations in response to changing conditions. The framers did not contemplate the kind of weapons being used today. Sensible improvements are in order. Criminals not obeying laws is NOT a good reason to avoid new legislation.

Enforcing laws and regs requires law enforcement and regulators. Shrinking government and cutting funding for law enforcement challenges our ability to provide enforcement. If you're going to ask for enforcement you're going to have to pay the bill.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

S. Lindsey's picture

...the Constitution provides for a process to do just that.

But then again the "framers" could not envision the Internet either so that sort of negates your argument don't you think?

btw-why add a law when there are already similar laws already on the books most not enforced? Why do you Big Government types always think the answer is another law or regulation?

Did the "94" gun and mag ban stop Columbine in "96" NO? Why not? Didn't passing a NEW law work? If not then why do you think doing it again will work now..?

What was that definition of insanity? Oh yeah doing something over and over and expecting different results.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

albion's picture

That's why I'm advocating for sensible regs in accordance with the Constitution.

No I don't think the internet negates anything with regard to my opinions about this.

Thanks for the label. I hope that makes you feel better about yourself!

Tragic things happen. When they do, we should assess why. The results of that investigation should guide us to address failures and weak points. Not doing so would be insane.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

S. Lindsey's picture

...many think they know what the Constitution is and says most have never read it..

I mean some prominent "bloggers" on here actually believed it guaranteed the "Right" to vote...

Most don't know what the Bill of Rights is. Like President Obama said: "<cite>the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you</cite>".

<strong>You know what he was RIGHT.</strong>

The Founding Fathers built it that way on purpose. You see albion the argument is not with the Federal it is with the States, the Federal has no authority here. The 10th is clear, all powers not specified and delegated to the Federal in the Constitution belongs in the States.

If you can show me where in the Constitution I can find the power of the Federal to restrict and regulate Firearms I would appreciate it.. I can show you where in the Constitution where you can find that the Federal does not have that authority. Just read all of the 2nd.

Now if your argument was for the States should create new Laws and Regulations... I would disagree with you BUT you would be correct in your argument to wit this is where the power lies.

Now if I offended you by calling you a Big Government type well, that's like calling you an anonymous blogger with a fish avatar...Not an insult, just a description that fits.

We do not need MORE laws and regulations.. Not a single one of the Bills proposed would have stopped any of the mass killings...Not one.

So if they would have done NOTHING they why pass more restrictive laws?

The answer is only a FEEL good move...

If you look at the actual DOJ/FBI numbers you would find that less then 1% of all gun deaths are committed with "Assault Styled" weapons and most of those had the standard 10 round mag that came with what would those sensible laws and regulations do to correct this. The answer again is nothing.

So instead of infringing on the Rights of Law-Abiding Citizens why don't we focus on the Criminals. Actually enforce laws already on the books and strengthen and increase the penalties for using firearms illegally.

Now that's some REAL common sense solutions for you...

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

albion's picture

in the 2nd Amendment that the right to bear arms is in the context of being well regulated.

You didn't offend, but you'd be better served to weigh discussion points on their merits and not introduce ad hominem static.

Background checks, once supported by the NRA and the GOP, are now opposed for no legitimate reason. Pure partisan obstructionism with no constitutional issues and no abridgement of rights.

Maybe you don't feel the need for restrictions, but I don't want my neighbor owning an RPG or a 50mm machine gun. There should be sensible limits on what guns and ammo can be owned. The 2nd certainly doesn't address it one way or another. It doesn't say any and all arms, it just say arms. So no explicit permission and no explicit restrictions either. We elect lawmakers, not just to sit there and passively read The Constitution, but to serve us by legislating in ways that address the current social, cultural, legal and economic conditions.

Nowhere is it written that we have the right to own assult weapons.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

and we don't trust the current administration because they lie to the American people almost as often as they breathe.

Thinking Americans don't trust obama because they know what his real intentions are, and that is to take all guns away from law abiding citizens.
His harmless sounding background checks would actually be a government registry so that the government would know the name and address of every gun owner in the country.

Not one portion of the bill, not one clause, not one section, would have prevented the shootings in Newtown or any other recent mass shooting in the U.S. But the question isn't really whether or not gun control measures would work, is it? The point is that obama wants to take an incremental step toward his ultimate goal. Remember, barrack hussein obama told a fellow professor (John Lott) from law school that he didn’t believe that people should be allowed to own guns. obama called the opponents of his gun control measures “liars.” Lies? What lies? You mean like that lie he's been telling for years about the “gun show loophole?” There really isn't any such loophole, is there? The same laws applied to selling a gun at a gun show that applied anywhere else. People soon figured that out, knew that he had been lying to them, and the distrust grew.

obama failed. he waited, he planned, he obfuscated, he lied, he schemed, and he pounced when he thought the time was right. He used the grief of the people of Newtown to advance his agenda. He exploited the memory of those children who died at the hands of a lunatic in a pathetic attempt to advance his big government dreams. Too many lies, too much ham-fisted government, and too many bizarre and irresponsible rules and regulations.

Thinking people are beginning to see through his charade and are waking up to the reality that he cannot be trusted.

It's as simple as that.

albion's picture

... of Americans disagree with your fact-free paranoid dillusions Joe.

This administration has not taken a single step toward taking anyone's guns. You can only go by actual words and actual actions, none of which support your assertions of knowing Obama's intentions. Total echo chamber nonsense.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

MajorMike's picture

What world are you living in? You lend new meaning to the term "libitard". Try getting your news from places other than MSNBC.

albion's picture

You offer nothing. Try and keep up rather than hurling insults.

Your dismissive attitude is indicative of a larger problem. People who don't wish to have their minds confused with facts. It's easier to let Sean and Laura and Mark spoon feed you their twisted word view.

Honestly is there a right-leaning voice on this board that can stay engaged in a civil discussion?

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

MajorMike's picture

Try reading the post before you reply with your cookie cutter reasoning. Again, for the mentally challenged; try getting your news from a source other than MSNBC.

It is hard for anyone, right leaning or social moderate, to offer you anything but insult. You refuse to acknowledge facts and repeatedly post fantasies in lieu of facts.

The only fact you offered in up either post was that I insulted you. Actually, you begged for it.

albion's picture

You jumped in here with nothing relevant to the conversation. You spent two posts going after me. Now you're making my point regarding fthe need for acts. Bring some. What have you got to offer on the topic?

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

MajorMike's picture

As I said, try getting your news somewhere besides MSNBC.

BTW: name one fact that you have presented. Now go peddle your scam somewhere else.

Interesting that the good major chides the fellow poster for myopia because he seeks information from a single source, and then the major bolsters his argument with three links from a SINGLE SOURCE.

Truth is stranger than fiction, but at least it is entertaining!

MajorMike's picture

Try BBC or half a dozen others if you like. Simply search on "Obama gun control" and see what you get. It's always going to be more than enough to prove my point and disprove Albion's childish assertions.

BTW Fox is consistently ranked the most watched news source in the nation. It really depends on whether or not you're interested in truth or spin.

[quote]BTW Fox is consistently ranked the most watched news source in the nation. It really depends on whether or not you're interested in truth or spin. [/quote]

McDonald's is the most frequented restaurant in America, but it hardly ranks as a quality dining experience. Personally, I do not watch Fox News nor CNBC because their strident ideological commitments make bias inevitable. However, if I did watch one, I would need to also watch the other for balance.

But enjoy your hamburger!

MajorMike's picture

One more time for the mentally challenged - read the post. Use BBC or who ever you like, the results are the same. Obumbles is pushing gun control.

feel the need to denigrate. No one here has all the answers, but we learn from the opinion and sharing by others. Because one doesn't agree isn't a reason to denigrate. A difficult act for me to implement. But I'll keep trying.

MajorMike's picture

It must have been exceeding difficult for you to spew that out without dragging race into the issue. Why don't you go back over your own posts and see if you don't feel more than a bit embarrassed ... oh wait ... nevermind, I forgot momentarily who I was addressing. Go back to your race pandering.

albion's picture

FOX cubed. Well I guess that settles it!

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Another point of view:
From The Nation:

[quote]To say it’s just Democrats that don’t trust Fox News would be to grossly miss the point. In fact, the PPP survey shows that there’s now a broad array of Americans that simply don’t believe Fox News can be trusted as a news organization. (Keep in mind, though, that some of the poll’s subsets have smaller sample sizes that can introduce volatility into the data.) To pour through this year’s credibility poll is to discover that one can make these two rather amazing statements:
- Majorities of Democrats, liberals, Independents, moderates, African-Americans and those between the ages of 30 and 65 do not trust Fox News.
- Pluralities of men, women, Hispanics and even whites do not trust Fox News either.
Who’s left? Well, mostly just people over 65 and conservatives—in other words, the Fox News audience.[/quote]

<cite>Attorney General Eric Holder has written to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (shown), informing him that the Obama administration considers state attempts to protect the Second Amendment “unconstitutional” and that federal agents will “continue to execute their duties,” regardless of state statutes to the contrary.</cite>

<a href=" Holder says Feds Will Ignore State Laws and Enforce Gun Grab</a>

An informative site on Gun Control facts:

Ad space area 4 internal