They advocated the arming of teachers and other responsible authority figures, not students. I don't see what possible objections anyone could raise to this, especially seeing as how in most American states adults can legally carry guns anywhere else they go.WoodPeckr said:As far as elevating the NRA in stature here I don't think that is such a good idea .... afterall weren't they the ones who proposed putting more guns in all schools lockers across the USA as a way to remedy our plethora of 'Columbine style' school shootings????
Gun control vs. criminal control
- Thread starter Truncador
- Start date
oldjones said:
Here in NYS one suspicion of being an unfit owner gets all you guns surrendered pending a full hearing. A smart owner will move the weapons from their home and license to the home and license of another person they can trust to return or sell them with proceeds benifing the original owner; depending on the results of the hearing. I personaly support better education when it comes to guns. Including but not limited to proving yourself prfeicient in the weapon of choice. Although this poses the question of who is fit to certify. You will find most police departments have experts on staff and could be utilized. Also I would not be adverse to doccumentation if the weapons signature. Keeping a federal record of barrel signatures would simplify many investigations.
However as I stated as an unfit owner he should never own one. I beleve he said he did not own one now. This in and of itself is good.
batista7777 said:
I am not a big supporter of fully aoutomatic weapons. They are not easily shot in a controled bust and tend to cause colateral damage. I would be supportive of making deportation the result of the first conviction with one. Forget prision, forget education. Deport the offenders.
Good lord. I suppose you do read what you write before hitting submit reply. The NRA is a political organization with a hardline agenda as regards gun ownership. You would expect them to regulate the gun industry and register owners? Where do you come up with this? At the core of their beliefs is rejection of registration and what they see as government intrusion, yet you imagine them as a wing of the police, and a "well-regulated militia", by definition subject to the regulation of the government. Might want to check with them first, I don't think they'd be interested. Worse perhaps is the suggestion that any political group, especially one so narrowly defined, should be in an official police role in the first place. The integity of any police force can only be maintained if it remains outside of partisan politics. I didn't think it possible for anything to top your proposal for the minutemen, but you've managed to do it.Truncador said:
The National Firearms Association here in Canada has been advocating a similar scheme for years (namely for the licensing and regulatory aspect, not the militia aspect). Parts of their scheme had, in fact, been weakly implemented before the gun laws here were overhauled completely in the late 90s; for example, in Quebec the Federation de Tir du Quebec used to be completely in charge of devising and administering various mandatory firearms safety courses. I for one fail to see how it's any different from any number of industry self-regulation and voluntary standards associations that governments make use of on a routine basis in order to maximize freedom and reduce bureaucratic blubber.Asterix said:
Life is always full of surprises, but I find it hard to imagine an advocacy group that wouldn't jump at the prospect of becoming a quasi-governmental organization with a legal mandate and privileges. It would be like Greenpeace turning down a chance to replace the EPA. Also, the present hardline stance of the NRA and other related civil-liberties groups has followed as a direct consequence of the failure of courts and the State in general to recognize gun rights and treat the 2nd Amendment as normal constitutional law; I think they would be much more favourable to regulation if there was some legal guarantee that regulation wouldn't lead to prohibition.
If that's true, we're already in serious trouble and have been for a long time. Both police chiefs and rank-and-file officers maintain advocacy groups that lobby loud, hard, and in public for policies they favour and/or have a vested interest in. In both the USA and Canada, police chief's associations have vehemently supported strict gun control, opposed the liberalization of drug and morality laws, etc. The NRA, like these groups, is not partisan as such, but lobbies on behalf of specific issues and supports candidates who support their goals, regardless of party affiliation.
As always undesirables can be deported.someone said:
The loss of citizenship might be the answer to some serious issues.
Well thank goodness the liberals here know better how to interpet the second amendment than 200 years of case law. Your next challenge is to find the word abortion in the constitution since you're all such strict constructionalists.
The National Firearms Association, to whose affiliates I proudly belong, supports the licencing to own and acquire firearms. It also supports the training of licensees and the introduction of young people into the shooting sports and hunting community.
It does not support the government's oppressive regulatory bureaucracy and vehemently abhors the registration of long guns, namely rifles and shotguns. The NFA has opposed both the Conservatives' (1991) and Liberals'(1978 and 1995) gun control programmes.
To many lay non-firearms owners, this difference may be subtle, to to us, it means a great deal.
It does not support the government's oppressive regulatory bureaucracy and vehemently abhors the registration of long guns, namely rifles and shotguns. The NFA has opposed both the Conservatives' (1991) and Liberals'(1978 and 1995) gun control programmes.
To many lay non-firearms owners, this difference may be subtle, to to us, it means a great deal.
A naturalized citizen may, under some circumstances, be stripped of her acquired US citizenship and returned to her country of origin, or sent to any country that will admit her.papasmerf said:
But please quote chapter and verse if you're asserting a citizen can be stripped of the US citizenship they acquired at birth.
Obviously this 'subtle' difference also means a great deal to both the LIberals and Conservatives (as well as to folks like me who are neither) If it truly is just a subtle difference, you folks can surely do a better job of persuading your opponents than you have been doing.The Brus said:
But I'd hafta warn you, to many of us there is absolutely nothing subtle about machinery designed and built to kill.
To both the Liberal and Conservative parties, strict gun control amounted to pure opportunism, an attempt to exploit the mass panics about violent crime which infected North America back then. The subtle difference was that, for the Conservatives, it was mere electoral pandering, specifically to feminist sentiment (a strategy that didn't ultimately work all out all that well for them ). For the Liberals, it was both a way to channel public demands to "get tough on crime" in a politically correct direction and- as everybody now knows- to create one of the biggest corruption sinkholes in the history of Canada, if not the whole Western world.
). For the Liberals, it was both a way to channel public demands to "get tough on crime" in a politically correct direction and- as everybody now knows- to create one of the biggest corruption sinkholes in the history of Canada, if not the whole Western world.LOLoldjones said:
handfull of drunk Irish from Buffalo captured Fort Erie. Well it did touch off the War of 1812. (So damn proud of being Irish)
