A common sense approach to gun control

All great comments. What also bothers me is that by giving people like this an INCH they take a MILE. And i love how they hide behind stupid shit like "think of the children" and "for your safety". I should not have to compromise SHIT!!
 
Can we cool it with comments on this girl's physical appearance?

This is a public forum, and the last thing we need is for some anti to stumble across this thread and use it to discredit our side, painting us as gun-toting sexual deviants.

Also, how does calling her a whore help our cause?

If you're going to call her anything, call her a misguided, brainwashed kid.
 
such as the passage of Senator Lautenberg, Senator McCarthy and Senator Castle's recent bill
Click to expand...
She doesn't even know that McCarthy and Castle are NOT Senators but merely Representatives.

Errors throughout, but it's always fun when there is a non-gun example to demonstrate how completely clueless the author is.
 
Thanks so very much to the draft-dodging radical hippies who hid out from the draft for so long in school that they got tenure. Now the political indoctrination of our students is just a given. Spend $20,000 on tuition and when they come home for the summer you have to de-program them like they were Scientology victims.

blech.
 
It is illogical for any deal which involves only one side giving up something as "compromise".

I suspect the college programming may be a bit less in programs that actually teach the student to do something rather than just teach generic psychobabble.
 
All I have to say about this , laws / regs background checks or not all of us here know that if someone wants a firearm bad enough whether to commit a crime or not , you know they will get their hands on one one way or another. How many firearms are bought illegally a year , I would only imagine quite a few.. Maybe she should look into that ..
I mean was'nt the kid that shot the other one like 17-18 yrs old , hmmmm last time I checked in NH you have to be 21 to legally buy a handgun so 3 options , he took it from his daddies gun collection , had a friend buy it for him , or bought it himself with missing serial numbers which would be my guess..

And yup I agree she really seems mis guided in what shes rambling about , but hey it is what it is..everyone has their opinion I guess , some just should'nt voice it in a newspaper ..

but anyway , thats just my .2 cents on that subject [smile]

Later ,Rob
 
cekim said:
Nah, its unethical and illegal to use live targets [rofl2]

p.s. but seriously, I'd be happy to host an anti to the range any day... I'll give it 90% odds they change their mind in a short span of time...
Click to expand...

I never said using her...never mind. [wink]

Really though, she needs to meet us.
 
I like how the editor has sand in his mangina over the negative response to her comments.... he got very defensive.....

And she was valedictorian? At now at Stanford? She's no doubt an insufferable know it all lecturing the unwashed masses......
 
TimJ said:
I like how the editor has sand in his mangina over the negative response to her comments.... he got very defensive.....
Click to expand...

My response to Bill...

cekim said:
Bill Gilman said:
Hi. My name is Bill Gilman, editor of the Derry News. A note here to Jim -- I've read and re-read Alexandra's opinion piece no less than eight times and have yet to find anything in it that comes remotely close to qualifying as "hateful."
Click to expand...
Bill, you are correct, I believe in the 1st amendment just as strongly as I do the 2nd (and the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc..)

Unlike so many liberals and anti-gun advocates, I think they are all important and deserve equal protection from the legislature and electorate (that's why they are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, so that the minority might be protected from the whims and oppression of the majority operating under the guise of "Democracy").

She has every right to state her beliefs. I will fight for the right of even those I disagree with strongly to speak freely...

She does not, however, have a right to escape the consequences of doing so (which includes anger and insults directed her way) - particularly in that she is both insulting and threatening another group of people with her demands for gun control.

While I did not use the word "hateful" - let me explain what you missed and why it is indeed "hateful"....

She is advocating stripping me of my rights without due process of the law... She is advocating curtailing the freedom of an entire class of people... She is advocating using violent force against the citizens of this nation to deprive them of their enumerated rights.

This is every bit as "hateful" as racism in that it uses the will of the majority and force of government to strip the minority of their civil rights.

In fact, gun control in this country has a long direct linkage with racism as the first (and many) gun control laws were intended to deprive African American's ownership of firearms. Even today, the most onerous of firearms regulations can be found amongst minority and economically disadvantaged communities.

I have not in any way suggested that her rights should be curtailed by the government. Nor will I suggest or request that her rights deserve any less protection than mine.

She cannot make the same claim. her beliefs are based on fear, propaganda and incomplete knowledge of the history that has brought us to this point. In short, prejudice against those things she does not understand or agree with.

If you can't see the "hate" in that, or any any of the historical examples of gun control, you need to look harder - our freedom depends on it...
Click to expand...
 
Zappa said:
Hey clueless, get your facts straight.
The Columbine killers didn't buy their guns at a gun show.
Some were stolen, and the others were obtained by a "Straw Purchaser".
From what I understand about the existing laws on-the-books prior to the Columbine massacre, both stealing guns and "straw purchasing" were already illegal activities. How would more laws have made any difference. People bent on committing these types of crimes aren't disuaded by laws.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to correct this because we lose credibility when things like this are spread by our members. The comumbine shooters DID get 3 of the 4 guns used from gun shows. The thing is, they had a female co-conspiritor, Robyn Anderson, buy the guns for them. She had no criminal record and was of age to purchase the weapons. After the incident, she had admitted to police she knew what they had been planning to do and knew her part in it was wrong. She went on to become the poster girl for the "gun show loophole" for a while then dropped off the radar without spending even one day in jail.
 
jds1971 said:
what is new hampshire's crime rate? isn't it one of the lowest in the country?
Click to expand...

Right. Exactly. Make NH just like MA or better yet DC, England and Australia. Because we all know how well strict gun control has worked in these areas. It just amazes me how little thought the so-called eduated in this country put into their ideas.
 
“Common sense” = “I can’t argue my point based on facts so I’m going to try to make you feel foolish for not seeing my point of view by insinuating that you don’t have the intelligence to see it”.
 
Beware this post is stupid amounts of long.


Here is my original response:
I would like to point out a few things about your proposal. It has been proven that licensing does not reduce crime. Just look at our neighbor to the south. Massachusetts has one of the most difficult to obtain firearms licensing procedures in the country, has many models of firearm that are prohibited in the state, and has registration for transfers of firearms between individuals. Yet in 2008 New Hamsphire was ranked the #1 safest state whle Massachusetts was 22nd. http://www.cqpress.com/product/Crime-State-Rank... As licensing does is disarm those who cannot afford to go through the licensing process. Criminals will never submit a license application and will still commit crimes with guns. Another state withs strict licensing procedures is California(they are the only state with a grade above a D from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence), and their violent crime rate is 12% above the national average according to FBI 2008 statistics.
But the most basic issue here is that it is already illegal for a felon to possess a firearm in New Hampshire, and it's already illegal for anyone to commit a crime with a firearm in New Hampshire. It is impossible to outlaw that which is already illegal. If you would like to continue to discuss this issue or go over the basics of gun safety I would be glad to respond to an email.
Click to expand...

His first post:
Hi. My name is Bill Gilman, editor of the Derry News. A note here to Jim -- I've read and re-read Alexandra's opinion piece no less than eight times and have yet to find anything in it that comes remotely close to qualifying as "hateful." In contrast, a few of the comments posted here have been downright nasty. Apparently, some of the folks who value so highly the Second Amendment value the First Amendment much less. I should have mentioned in the tagline at the bottom of her article that she was also the valedictorian of the Londonderry High Class of 2008.
The issue of gun control is not going away anytime soon. The Derry News will continue to facilitate a free exchange of ideas because THAT is the principle America was founded on.
Click to expand...

His response to Cekim
Cekim,
I will have to respectfully disagree with you here and would recommend that you brush up on your Constitutional law. This country was founded with many "freedoms" and "rights" that were later curtailed because either they were abused or it was determined by the "majority" that they were wrong.
These wrongs were righted by further amendments to the Constitution. Women's suffrage for starters, the abolition of slavery and later equal protection for all races. The Constitution remains a living, breathing and evolving document. Personally, I don't believe the Second amendment should be abolished. However, it would be great to see gun owners step up and hold each other accountable for not storing them properly (as in the case of the Londonderry Middle-schooler who brought a gun and ammunition to school earlier this year) or who act irresponsibly with a firearm, as in certain domestic violence situations. Most gun owners are exceptionally responsible. Those are the people who should push for tougher penalties for those irresponsible people who use legal guns in the wrong way. That is common ground and common sense.
Click to expand...

Cekim's Response
My constitutional law study is just fine thanks... ;-)

The 2nd Amendment (like the first) did not "grant"a freedom, but rather curtailed government from infringing upon a "natural right". If you read the Constitution, you will see phrases like "Congress shall make no law", "shall not be infringed" which constrain government rather than "granting rights"...

Clearly the founders understood it to be a "living breathing" document, but they also understood the electorate to be a fickle lot of swayed in the popular breeze from time to time and they like Congress needed to be limited in their power to protect individual freedom from the tyranny of the majority.

That is why we are (were?) a Republic and not a pure Democracy.

As they say - Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner...

The founders understood this clearly (taking examples of the failings of Democracy in Greece and Rome) and discussed it in their shaping of our nation. We have since been dismantling the protections they put in place to prevent the concentration of power and abuses of the balance of power.

The Constitution with its high hurdle for change (amendment/convention) allows for change when its clear (to not just a majority, but a supermajority) that a problem exists (as you mention Suffrage, Slavery, etc...).

However, until it is changed, it stands absolute to prevent popular whims from being used against the minority. Subject to the courts imperfect record on enforcing it...

There is no license required to speak freely, though speech and ideas have been behind the murder of millions (Germany, Africa, Russia, China, Cambodia, etc...)

You don't have to apply and be approved to invoke your 5th amendment right (despite criminal acts that could not be prosecuted because of it).

Due process of the law is in place to put a hurdle in front of government so that its power is constrained and when an individuals rights are to be curtailed a high threshold must be met to do so otherwise they are "presumed" innocent...

As for "stepping up", its not just gun owners, everyone should be interested in firearm safety. We should teach it in school. We should familiarize our children with firearms so that they grow up knowing how to handle them.

I think many of the careless accidents we see and sensationalize are as a result of adults who grew up without guns and the discipline that used to come with them, rather than households who have had them around for generations.

Regardless, these accidents, while tragic, pale in comparison to other safety issues children face and as such, while they are deserving of our educating ourselves and community, they certainly do not justify curtailing our rights in response...

Government is not the only way (nor is it usually the best way) to solve problems. Rather than demanding more laws, how about educating your neighbors? How about approaching your school system to inject firearm safety courses (beyond, "run and tell an adult")...
Click to expand...

Me again
I think what Cekim is trying to state is that in NH gun owners are already held liable for commiting a crime with a gun, and for the crimes a juvenile commits with a gun that was stored irresponsibly by a legal gun owner. The mistake here is thinking that adding another law ( licensing ) to the process for a legal gun owner, will prohibit a criminal from using a gun for illegal purposes. The target here should be the violent criminal and keeping them in prison for their entire sentence rather than restricting the right of the law abiding citizen. A gun will not turn a law abiding citizen into a criminal much in the same way that another law will not turn a criminal into a law abiding citizen. People are what they are and objects and laws will never change that. Years of education might, but never objects and laws. I suggest you take a deeper look into the gun owning community of NH and New England and realize that many parts of NH and New England rely on firearms not only for sport and protection but also for jobs. Many of the largest gunmakers in the US are right here in NH (Sigarms in Exeter, Ruger in Newmarket) or the surrounding states (Smith and Wesson, and Kahr Arms in MA, Colt and Ruger in CT, and Bushmaster in ME) supplying many people with jobs in a tough economic time. Surely further restrictions on legal gun owners who hurt those who legally supply them with their firearms and possibly hurt our local economy.
I would never argue against Miss Mckinney's right to express her ideas in the forum your paper provides, but she and you need to understand that there will be an exchange of ideas when someone writes about changing the way another exercises their rights. Common sense to me is to that law abiding gun owners be left alone by their government and that we hold criminals responsible for what they have done regardless if they used a gun or a kitchen knife. A compromise does not exist when only one side sacrifices.
Click to expand...

The Editor's response
Beansie,
An exchange of ideas is terrific. Critique is terrific.
However, our society has degenerated to the point where "politics" and "debate" are nothing more than name calling and mudslinging.
The same forefathers that crafted the Constitution debated with decorum and dignity and respect.
Educated men and women can debate passionately without insulting one another.
Americans should set a tone with civilized discourse.
As to a couple of points you made .... Sometimes the laws are not enforced. The Londonderry PD allowed a gun-toting junior high student to walk away with no legal punishment after bringing a gun and ammunition to school. Neither were charges filed against the parents. This was wrong and I would hope responsible gun owners would be outraged. It sends the wrong message.
And second, there ARE times when an available, legal gun can turn a law-abiding citizen into a criminal. Such as in the case of a domestic dispute that gets totally out of hand or involves booze. Another example is that of a Londonderry firefighter who killed his wife in a driveway shootout. Both had legal guns.
I'm open to suggestions on how we reduce these incidents. You are right, criminals are going to get guns one way or another. I'm more worried about the tragedies involving average, law-abiding citizens. Again, the floor is open to reasonable suggestions.
Click to expand...

Me again
Mr. Editor,
I have neither slung mud nor called names, and I will not do either.
In the situation of domestic violence if a gun was not at hand the husband would have used a knife, a bat, a car, or any of a thousand other means by which an abusive man has killed his wife or girlfriend in the past. This person has sunk to the level of commiting physical harm against a woman he is supposed to love, he will commit such harms by whatever means are available to him. Would his crime be any more tolerable if it were committed with a wrench instead of a gun? No. It is still murder regardless of the means. The gun did not turn him into a criminal any more than a car turns a drunk driver into a criminal.
As far as the Londonderry firefighter's story goes I am unfamiliar with the details but I would tend to believe that people are careless enough to put their neighbors and others in danger by having a "driveway shootout" are not the kind of people who would be too concerned about following the law.
I also tend to think that a Firefighter who works 500 feet from the Police station, and 500 feet from the chief of police who would be charged with issuing permits, would be the kind of person who is denied a license to own a firearm. Therefore this law, or magazine capacity laws, would not have helped in keeping him from killing his wife.
Click to expand...

His response
Beansie,
The concern over insults was in regard to previous comments, not yours.
And again, I'm not offering support for any proposed new rules .... I'm asking gun owners to present solutions to the number of gun related deaths caused by "non-criminals", that is, people without previous records, who are using legal guns. Or is the argument that a handful of deaths is a small price to pay for freedom?
Click to expand...

My responses.
My argument is not that the deaths are the price of freedom. A single death is an unnacceptable price to pay for nearly anything.
I'm arguing that the deaths cited here would have occurred independently of the presence of firearm. These people intended to kill another person. Murder would have occurred in these situations even if guns had never been invented. Blaming the gun does nothing to address the fact that the Londonderry firefighter willfully committed multiple felonies.

The solution I propose is personal responsibility. Where did the student who brought the gun to school in Londonderry get the gun? Whoever gave it to him committed a crime by giving an unsupervised minor a handgun. Did he steal it? If so he committed felony. Is the Londonderry Firefighter being charged with felony murder? Will he actually serve the rest of his life in prison or be paroled early? Did he have a history of violence with his wife or past girlfriends? If so why wasn't he held responsible for his actions then? In any situation the person who committed the crime should be held responsible. Otherwise we are encouraging bad behavior and reinforcing the fact that people who commit these crimes will get off with a slap on the wrist. If people were actually held responsible for their actions with guns then no regulation beyond what is already in place is necessary. I know this solution is largely simple but in my mind it is the only one that has a chance of actually working.
Thank you Miss Mckinney and Mr. Editor for giving me the opportunity to post my thoughts.
Click to expand...
 
Beansie_Time said:
Beware this post is stupid amounts of long.


Here is my original response:
Click to expand...

+3. I'm impressed with the effort. I couldn't do it. I can't stand it. I can't stand arguing about the 2A with antis. It's just so blindingly obvious to me that it makes me too angry too fast.

When someone talks about trying to deprive me of my right to stop someone from killing me, my wife and my children- I have nothing much to say to them except "Go Eff yourself you stupid, pathetic assclown"
 
JohnM said:
+3. I'm impressed with the effort. I couldn't do it. I can't stand it. I can't stand arguing about the 2A with antis. It's just so blindingly obvious to me that it makes me too angry too fast.

When someone talks about trying to deprive me of my right to stop someone from killing me, my wife and my children- I have nothing much to say to them except "Go Eff yourself you stupid, pathetic assclown"
Click to expand...

At times I feel the same way but usually I get nowhere when I go the "assclown" route. I've actually converted a few anti's with my way of thinking and I'm hoping to try again with this guy and gal.
 
Beansie_Time said:
At times I feel the same way but usually I get nowhere when I go the "assclown" route. I've actually converted a few anti's with my way of thinking and I'm hoping to try again with this guy and gal.
Click to expand...
Death by a thousand small caliber gun shots[laugh]

We all want to disengage and let the loonies be loonies, but we've been doing that for 60 years and now the loonies out number us...
 
I've invited them to continue the discussion with me at my club and to try some shooting. We'll see how they respond.
 
Beansie_Time said:
I've invited them to continue the discussion with me at my club and to try some shooting. We'll see how they respond.
Click to expand...
Good for you...

Let me know if you convince them... I'm former (and possibly future) NH resident. I like to keep the place clean for my return.[laugh]

I'd love to join you if I can make it...
 
So I have communicated through email with the editor of the Derry News and he is going to publish an op ed piece from me in their next edition in response to this story.
I want to focus on the downfalls of licensing and how it doesn't work to prevent crime.
Does anyone have any good citable statistics or stories of how licensing affects crime rates? Or especially a citable story of someone being attacked by a violent criminal while waiting for a license?
I'll be doing some research on Goal's website and I already have a few sets of FBI crime statistics to cite but I thought I'd check here to see if anyone has any other sources.
Thanks in advance.
 

Similar threads

Paul Craig: Gun control debate a fractured discourse
Replies
2
Views
141
jkelly1229
J
Gun Control Debate Live Stream
Replies
18
Views
632
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
Biden Vows 2nd Term Gun Control, Criticizes Jefferson’s ‘Tree of Liberty’ as ‘A Bunch of Crap’
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
45Badger
45Badger
NEW- Gun Grab Bill Six-member conference committee to decide Legislature's gun control proposal
Replies
24
Views
1K
StevieP
StevieP
Trying to sell my Anderson lower to a friend
Replies
27
Views
596
Asaltweapon
Asaltweapon
Back
Top Bottom