Boston Herald, anti-gun OpEd...

LoginName

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,009
Likes
8,639
The Brady bullshit is strong with this one...



Straight shooting for better gun laws
By James Alan Fox
Monday, August 14, 2006

Whenever I breathe even a word about guns in this space or other media outlets, I can expect a rapid-fire barrage of irate e-mails from gun advocates. I’m surprised they can afford so much free time away from keeping their firearms collections well polished.
These attacks presume much about my position on gun control, typically making reference to my “ilk.” Well, I’ve decided to mark my one-year anniversary writing for the Herald by clearing the air of lingering gun smoke. A few bullet points may actually surprise those of my counter-ilk:


Guns are not the root cause of our violent society. In fact, the U.S. non-gun homicide rate (3.6 non-gun homicides per 100,000 residents) is double the overall homicide rate in virtually all our kindred nations, including Great Britain, Canada and Australia.
That said, firearms do make violent attacks far more lethal.
I have never suggested abolishing the right of gun ownership by trustworthy citizens. Moreover, the criteria for licensing owners should be standardized (at least within Massachusetts) so as not to infringe on the rights of legitimate gun owners.
I concur with the need to punish violators. But the usual complaint that we do not prosecute gun crimes is just false. Our prisons are full of offenders who committed violent crimes with firearms.
As I have noted before, the National Rifle Association has recently grown more powerful in manipulating congressional action. My complaint is not so much with the NRA (which is entitled to its position), but with members of Congress who capitulate to its pressure. Our lawmakers should adopt gun policy based on sound evidence, not based on fear that a potent lobby will hold a gun to their political heads.
The goal is not to deprive law-abiding Americans of the ability to own firearms, but to disrupt the flow of guns to impulsive, impatient and imprudent trigger-happy gang-bangers who have helped send the rate of gun violence through the roof. Some reasonable approaches include: establishing a database of ballistic fingerprints - the unique striation marks produced by gun barrel - for all new firearms; full Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms tracing of serial numbers on all guns recovered from criminal activity; and even gun registration.
# What is so wrong with ballistic fingerprinting Sure, I’ve heard the argument that gun barrels can be replaced or modified. As a parallel to actual fingerprinting, criminals sometimes wear gloves or alter their fingertips, but that doesn’t discourage us from collecting this kind of forensic evidence.

# The ATF tracing initiative has consistently shown that less than 1 percent of gun dealers are linked to a majority of firearms recovered from criminal enterprises. While most of these traces may have involved legitimate transactions, ATF investigations have uncovered thousands of federal law violations by these dealers. Unfortunately, recent congressional legislation significantly limits public and law enforcement access to gun-tracing information, thereby shielding rogue dealers.

Aside from some paranoid view of government intrusion, what really is the danger of firearms registration or of background checks on all gun sales We register automobiles, and qualify and license drivers; why not do the same with guns and their owners It makes no sense to prevent law enforcement from tracking firearms transfers that fuel the illegal market. We could even install LoJack-style, GPS devices into new guns to curtail trade in stolen firearms.

It may be naive to believe there is room for compromise in the heated gun control debate. Perhaps I should just make some room in my in-box to accommodate another onslaught of angry e-mails.


http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=152684&format=&page=1
 
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
4,743
Likes
339
Location
In the Great Smoky Mountains
Don't give him what he wants

Don't fill up his mailbox..he'll just use it as ammunition.
I think these idiots are quietly becoming fewer and fewer.
They'll never change their minds, so there is little point in arguing with them

Better things to do, like clean guns
 

dreppucci007

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
13,181
Likes
240
Location
Life Free or Die
The Brady bullshit is strong with this one...



Straight shooting for better gun laws
By James Alan Fox
Monday, August 14, 2006

Whenever I breathe even a word about guns in this space or other media outlets, I can expect a rapid-fire barrage of irate e-mails from gun advocates. I’m surprised they can afford so much free time away from keeping their firearms collections well polished.
This just pissed me off from the get-go.
 

Admin

Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
39,765
Likes
17,208
Location
Monadnock area, NH
Aside from some paranoid view of government intrusion, what really is the danger of firearms registration.
It's amazing how quickly these anti's forget about history.
 
J

JellyFish

Another gun-grabbing retard! Registration is a step toward confiscation. Anybody with an ouce of sense knows that!

Glad to see the NRA is pissing him off, makes me glad I'm a life member! God bless America, let freedom ring!!!!

[mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg]
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
72,719
Likes
37,363
Whats entertaining is that the guy was rational for about a paragraph
and then immediately drove off the road into the "brady bushes". (Aside from
the snide comments about polishing guns).

The hilarious thing about most antis is they fail miserably at trying to say
they're not attacking peoples ownership rights, but the evidence constantly
indicates otherwise.

The ballistic fingerprinting thing is even more hilarious, given that a state
like Maryland (a staunch anti gun pit like MA) has publicly denounced its
usefulness in solving crimes. So the antis go out and sound like
creationists on this issue- basically a group of people who push for an idea
that is junk science, at best. They keep blathering about it as if
they keep saying it enough times and eventually it will become true... problem
is when you have an LE org like the MD state police saying "this stuff
sucks, it doesnt help fight crime at all" it's very hard for anyone to consider
it credible technology.

The funny thing about the antis is that if they weren't so f'ing dumb, they
could have "won" a lot more right now. There is an absolutely huge
contingent of so called "middle" gun owners that could be easily manipulated
into supporting certain legislation that involved minimal compromise, But
of course, the antis always go over the top, and are ultimately the biggest
slimeballs. And being in MA we see this even more. MA actually has
a good template for what many people would consider a " reasonable "
amount of gun control, if it was implemented properly. (Not that I personally
don't see ANY gun control as reasonable, but I can acknowledge that
joe public on average is probably somewhere in the middle ). Of course the
antis have taken it and abused it. So basically they've proved that
even in the face of so called "moderation" that they would still push for
an unreasonable level of control.

There is no notional of "Strict but fair" from the camp of the
antis. It's always just another end around attack at stomping on
our rights.

Please note, that I don't support even "moderate" gun control- but my
point is that the antis are so retarded that even they don't support
it, and their actions show this. There are groups like AGS (americans for
gun safety) which pruport to be "centrist" on the issue but really
aren't.... they push "moderate" gun laws, but without the owners getting
anything back in return. So even the "moderate" voice in the issue
is next to worthless. (I don't see AGS pushing for licensing reform
while fixing other minor holes in the gun laws that most owners wouldn't
bat an eye over if they were fixed).

These people are not for compromise. I don't see the bradyites going up
to the NRA saying "Well, give us BG checks on private sales, and we'll
forget about the AWB, so lets sign a bill that guarantees that both parties
get what they want". Instead they keep pushing for more crap.


-Mike
 
Last edited:
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
727
Likes
12
Location
Attleboro, MA
We could even install LoJack-style, GPS devices into new guns to curtail trade in stolen firearms.

It may be naive to believe there is room for compromise in the heated gun control debate.

What is it with these people? They are no better than those who wan't to ban all firearms, but they think they're different becuase they still let us "own" guns?

How about everyone goes through a 3 month backround check before they can buy a car, oh, and don't forget to ban private transfers too.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.4%
61   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
52,604
Likes
10,944
Location
90% in NH
Jim Fox is or was (not sure, he may have retired) Dean of the CJ School at Northeastern University. He's been a staunch "Brady Bunch mouthpiece" for as long as I've known about him (20+ years).
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
1,035
Likes
104
Location
Hudson, NH
We could even install LoJack-style, GPS devices into new guns to curtail trade in stolen firearms.
I've never heard of this guy before, so I don't know where he stands on other issues, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that during all the hooplah over the wiretapping scandals, and intrusion of privacy, he was all sorts of outraged over those civil rights being violated.
 

hminsky

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
63   0   0
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
7,702
Likes
3,386
I thought there was just a big brouhaha (haha?) in Canada that
their long gun registration program ended costing some incredible amount over budget (like 10,000 percent) , and they could not identify a single crime that had been solved with the database they built.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
3,452
Likes
148
Location
new hampshire for now
what the hell

I began to read the beginning of this thread with the Herald article, i got
a sore neck from the U turn this guy took.

They will always be here, but hopefully in smaller number so we can
shove these stupid laws where the sun don't shine.

If i can see it from here what's there problem, or maybe they JUST NEED
SOMETHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.. a bitchin sailor is a happy sailor.

JimB
 
Rating - 100%
30   0   0
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
3,364
Likes
258
Location
Between 290, 495 & the Mass Pike
History HAS taught us the Four Stages of Gun Control:

1. Legislation
2. Registration
3. Confiscation
4. Extermination

Have none of these brilliant scribes in the media researched the fact that gun control has killed MANY MILLIONS (who were defenseless to stop goverment-sponsored genocide) in the past 100 years?

Dimwits...
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,755
Likes
559
Location
Boston
Someone with more energy and inclination than I might, though, point out to this dude that his assertion that we do punish people for misusing firearms isn't correct.

In theory, there should be automatic jail time for the unlicensed carrying of a pistol or a revolver. Since 99.99% of all defendants charged with armed robbery and other assaultive crimes involving firearms are not licensed, one might assume, as this fellow apparently has, that they pay a penalty for that aspect of their crime that specifically involved the use of the firearm. Not true.

The reasons are complex, but basically the penalty for a first or second offense of 269/10(a) (so-called Bartley-Fox) cannot be served in a prison. On the other hand, a committed sentence for armed robbery or the like will be a prison sentence. So in order to give the defendant an incremental jolt for the firearm offense, he must serve a jail (as opposed to a prison) sentence either before or after his core prison sentence. The system does not permit this. As a result, real criminals face no incremental penalty for selecting guns, as opposed to, say, baseball bats, for the ARs. The ONLY people who are affected by Bartley-Fox are those who are not charged with any other crime, and that means, for the most part, folks who are not real criminals.

Reduced to its essentials, the NRA position on penal approaches is that a sentence for a core crime be enhanced, say 50 to 100%, if a firearm was used. The feds do this; Massachusetts does not. Your Herald dude missed the point.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
72,719
Likes
37,363
Someone with more energy and inclination than I might, though, point out to this dude that his assertion that we do punish people for misusing firearms isn't correct.
Well, the state does punish people, but it would only be someone like
a person who desires to carry a gun as a boston resident who could
not obtain or ends up with a restricted permit. They'll put the screws
to someone who isn't otherwise a criminal, that they will have no
problem doing. Carry illegally in MA and youll be in deep crap, assuming
that you have a clean slate that you want to keep that way. To
criminals it doesnt really matter, because most of them are probably
disqualified out of the gate because half of them probably already have
a record.

I have to disagree on the logic though behind increasing sentencing
because of the type of weapon used. I'm not exactly sure why the
legal system has such a fetish over it... but why is using a knife to
rob a store "lesser" of a crime than a firearm? (maybe in MA it isnt this
way, but I'm just saying in general) That kind of thing
simply doesnt make any sense and sends all kinds of wrong
messages. Using a threat of force to rob someone is wrong, no matter
what the weapon. It's dumb to support the enhanced demonization of
guns in the process.

-Mike
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
72,719
Likes
37,363
Have none of these brilliant scribes in the media researched the fact that gun control has killed MANY MILLIONS (who were defenseless to stop goverment-sponsored genocide) in the past 100 years?

Dimwits...
Agreed, the problem with these libtards is they have written that off as
being "impossible", but as we know, that's a crock. Anything is possible,
even if it's remote, and even if OUR generation doesnt see it, your childrens
children might see it. A bad law now can pave the road to hell for our
civilization 50 years down the road.

The other thiing antis forget is that more or less, this country was originally
founded and liberated by a bunch of citizens running around with GUNS. They
cannot seem to stomach the fact that, yes, indeed, america was
born out of a citizen operated insurgency, and one of the things that
the founders laid down was that the people needed the capability to
do all of that over again in some time if necessary. People seem to
forget that, or write it off as some sort of an anachronism. They forget
that a bunch of people migrated here because they thought the rest of
the world sucked and they needed a new place to live, mainly for the
purpouses of individual freedom.

I think another contributing factor is that by and large a lot of people
in america are coddling up to socialist concepts. They no longer care
about being DEFIANT or independent from other global entities. There is
a whole block of a**h***s in this country who would raise their hand if
offered the chance to be absorbed into the EU. They don't care
about our independence or have any real national priide. They just want
to do everything "like europe does" so they can get free healthcare and
better handouts.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
2,145
Likes
157
Location
Brentwood, NH
Using a threat of force to rob someone is wrong, no matter
what the weapon. It's dumb to support the enhanced demonization of
guns in the process.

-Mike
True, BUT I do enjoy seeing the bedwetting left avoid the topic of increased prison sentences for gun offenders.

"We want to ban 'assault weapons'. They're just so deadly!"

"How about life in prison for using a so-called assault weapon in the commission of a crime?"

"Oh, we can't do thet. That's not nice."


Either, it's seen as not being compassionate, so they want no part of it. Or, it's "racist", and well, you know.

Morons.
 

Admin

Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
39,765
Likes
17,208
Location
Monadnock area, NH
I think another contributing factor is that by and large a lot of people
in america are coddling up to socialist concepts. They no longer care
about being DEFIANT or independent from other global entities. There is
a whole block of a**h***s in this country who would raise their hand if
offered the chance to be absorbed into the EU. They don't care
about our independence or have any real national priide. They just want
to do everything "like europe does" so they can get free healthcare and
better handouts.
That is such a true paragraph. [sad2]
 
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
7,324
Likes
559
Location
Ma.
Agreed, the problem with these libtards is they have written that off as
being "impossible", but as we know, that's a crock. Anything is possible,
even if it's remote, and even if OUR generation doesnt see it, your childrens
children might see it. A bad law now can pave the road to hell for our
civilization 50 years down the road.

The other thiing antis forget is that more or less, this country was originally
founded and liberated by a bunch of citizens running around with GUNS. They
cannot seem to stomach the fact that, yes, indeed, america was
born out of a citizen operated insurgency, and one of the things that
the founders laid down was that the people needed the capability to
do all of that over again in some time if necessary. People seem to
forget that, or write it off as some sort of an anachronism. They forget
that a bunch of people migrated here because they thought the rest of
the world sucked and they needed a new place to live, mainly for the
purpouses of individual freedom.

I think another contributing factor is that by and large a lot of people
in america are coddling up to socialist concepts. They no longer care
about being DEFIANT or independent from other global entities. There is
a whole block of a**h***s in this country who would raise their hand if
offered the chance to be absorbed into the EU. They don't care
about our independence or have any real national priide. They just want
to do everything "like europe does" so they can get free healthcare and
better handouts.

-Mike

Excellent post. I think your right on the money.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
45
Likes
1
A pretty definitive view on the 2nd Ammendment

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

This is a pretty lengthy read, but worth it if you have the time.

The text is a research paper on the history of the 2A prepared by the Senate's Subcommittee On The Constitution, prepared in 1982, and sponsored by Chairman Orrin Hatch. This was during the short window that the Republicans controlled the Senate after Regan's election.

The research paper was commissioned as part of debate over ammending the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968.

They appear to have produced an impressively well researched look at the history and roots of the Second Ammendment.

The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society. Thomas Jefferson proposed that "no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms," and Samuel Adams called for an amendment banning any law "to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for example, recognizes the "right of an individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State."
Would you believe that the above quote was provided by the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee?
 
Top Bottom