Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Sensible gun control at last.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Sensible gun control at last. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/7/2017 4:11:07 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


I personally have objections to the 11.h restrictions because it is based on restricting rights based on an accusation with the accused not even being required to be informed instead of a conviction or judgement with legal representation present.



A judge will not enter a protective order without proof of necessity, usually after the police have responded to a domestic dispute/ violence call or called to a hospital in response to a person coming in who has clearly been battered and suffered injury.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/8/2017 9:57:53 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
I would like to thank kdsub for demonstrating that the NICS must be fixed.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/8/2017 9:19:22 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

FR

I'm binge-watching Boston Legal, which has my all time favorite gun quote in one of the episodes.

"Damn liberals want to take all the guns. Nobody could shoot anybody. Then where the hell would we be?" -Denny Crane (Pro-gun and pro-shooting people attorney)





_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/8/2017 10:53:37 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Since maybe they worked up the nerve to do something let's do this, add 5
(maybe 10 yr ) to the penalty if a gun is used.


Slamming the barn door shut with greater authority after the horses are miles gone . . .

The American way.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/8/2017 11:12:01 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
Having one 9 MM and one .357 in the same house for self protection is as far as most sane Americans want to go with the 'self protection' theme.

But I still wonder why anybody with 30 rounds at the ready considers himself any less a danger than others in the same neighborhood.

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/9/2017 1:17:56 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Since maybe they worked up the nerve to do something let's do this, add 5
(maybe 10 yr ) to the penalty if a gun is used.


Slamming the barn door shut with greater authority after the horses are miles gone . . .

The American way.


Why would anyone want to wait till someone does something wrong
before they punish them. Just lock up anyone who disagrees with you.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/9/2017 1:22:19 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

Having one 9 MM and one .357 in the same house for self protection is as far as most sane Americans want to go with the 'self protection' theme.

But I still wonder why anybody with 30 rounds at the ready considers himself any less a danger than others in the same neighborhood.

1000 rounds that would only be used for legitimate purposes is no threat
A club that is to help steal is a threat.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/9/2017 1:39:17 PM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


I personally have objections to the 11.h restrictions because it is based on restricting rights based on an accusation with the accused not even being required to be informed instead of a conviction or judgement with legal representation present.



A judge will not enter a protective order without proof of necessity, usually after the police have responded to a domestic dispute/ violence call or called to a hospital in response to a person coming in who has clearly been battered and suffered injury.


Totally jurisdictional dependent. The low end is having one other person willing to day "Uhhuh, he sure did threaten 'em" and you have a court order.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/9/2017 2:15:10 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


I personally have objections to the 11.h restrictions because it is based on restricting rights based on an accusation with the accused not even being required to be informed instead of a conviction or judgement with legal representation present.



A judge will not enter a protective order without proof of necessity, usually after the police have responded to a domestic dispute/ violence call or called to a hospital in response to a person coming in who has clearly been battered and suffered injury.


Totally jurisdictional dependent. The low end is having one other person willing to day "Uhhuh, he sure did threaten 'em" and you have a court order.


In this case, I would rather err on the side of caution, considering the number of times as a cop I got called on domestic violence calls.

But it still requires a police or hospital report for the judge to sign the damn order.


_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/9/2017 7:38:27 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
I find it amusing and sad that the most people of the people who oppose
reciprocal ccw permits some how believe that a person who has passed the
background checks and has never committed anything worse that a traffic
offense will suddenly become a mass murderer when the cross state lines.
It isn't like you can't get a permit in your home state but this will automatically
let you carry in the rest of the country regardless of your history.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/10/2017 8:02:33 AM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
In reading, there are those who talk about felons getting guns but there is no talk about what that felony might be. If it was a violent felony, then I'd be okay if they never even got a chance to look at gun, let alone own one but if it is a nonviolent felony I don't see the problem of gun possession, especially after a 10 year waiting period.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/10/2017 8:17:53 AM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I find it amusing and sad that the most people of the people who oppose
reciprocal ccw permits some how believe that a person who has passed the
background checks and has never committed anything worse that a traffic
offense will suddenly become a mass murderer when the cross state lines.
It isn't like you can't get a permit in your home state but this will automatically
let you carry in the rest of the country regardless of your history.

The thing that bothers me is not so much that a person will be able to conceal carry in another state but that a person, who without thinking about it, crosses state lines and suddenly is facing three or more years in jail just for crossing that state line. So maybe not so much a reciprocal ccw law but at least a law that allows for better understanding of accidental ccw, perhaps a confiscation with no arrest law, a penalty without permanent life changing results.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/10/2017 8:40:04 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

In reading, there are those who talk about felons getting guns but there is no talk about what that felony might be. If it was a violent felony, then I'd be okay if they never even got a chance to look at gun, let alone own one but if it is a nonviolent felony I don't see the problem of gun possession, especially after a 10 year waiting period.

It seems that you are talking about Alaska, The 10 year rule only applies to
non-violent crimes. It was written in compliance with Federal law.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/10/2017 8:41:37 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I find it amusing and sad that the most people of the people who oppose
reciprocal ccw permits some how believe that a person who has passed the
background checks and has never committed anything worse that a traffic
offense will suddenly become a mass murderer when the cross state lines.
It isn't like you can't get a permit in your home state but this will automatically
let you carry in the rest of the country regardless of your history.

The thing that bothers me is not so much that a person will be able to conceal carry in another state but that a person, who without thinking about it, crosses state lines and suddenly is facing three or more years in jail just for crossing that state line. So maybe not so much a reciprocal ccw law but at least a law that allows for better understanding of accidental ccw, perhaps a confiscation with no arrest law, a penalty without permanent life changing results.

That is one of the major reasons for this law.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/10/2017 9:05:05 AM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I find it amusing and sad that the most people of the people who oppose
reciprocal ccw permits some how believe that a person who has passed the
background checks and has never committed anything worse that a traffic
offense will suddenly become a mass murderer when the cross state lines.
It isn't like you can't get a permit in your home state but this will automatically
let you carry in the rest of the country regardless of your history.

The thing that bothers me is not so much that a person will be able to conceal carry in another state but that a person, who without thinking about it, crosses state lines and suddenly is facing three or more years in jail just for crossing that state line. So maybe not so much a reciprocal ccw law but at least a law that allows for better understanding of accidental ccw, perhaps a confiscation with no arrest law, a penalty without permanent life changing results.

That is one of the major reasons for this law.

I understand but I can also see the concerns of those who are against it and that is why I was wondering if maybe a confiscation with no arrest law might be a better solution all around, seeing as they did enter the state illegally and would cover all the inequalities of state to state requirements.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/10/2017 9:55:42 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I find it amusing and sad that the most people of the people who oppose
reciprocal ccw permits some how believe that a person who has passed the
background checks and has never committed anything worse that a traffic
offense will suddenly become a mass murderer when the cross state lines.
It isn't like you can't get a permit in your home state but this will automatically
let you carry in the rest of the country regardless of your history.

The thing that bothers me is not so much that a person will be able to conceal carry in another state but that a person, who without thinking about it, crosses state lines and suddenly is facing three or more years in jail just for crossing that state line. So maybe not so much a reciprocal ccw law but at least a law that allows for better understanding of accidental ccw, perhaps a confiscation with no arrest law, a penalty without permanent life changing results.

That is one of the major reasons for this law.

I understand but I can also see the concerns of those who are against it and that is why I was wondering if maybe a confiscation with no arrest law might be a better solution all around, seeing as they did enter the state illegally and would cover all the inequalities of state to state requirements.

It would seem that recognizing all ccws would be simpler.
Your solution is still penalizing people for being from out of state.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/10/2017 2:58:35 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
It would seem that recognizing all ccws would be simpler.
Your solution is still penalizing people for being from out of state.

As one person pointed out the cc requirements are different from state to state so how is that to be fixed? And my solution is penaizing people for being stupid but without ruining their lives forever and not for just being out of state.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/10/2017 3:44:31 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
It would seem that recognizing all ccws would be simpler.
Your solution is still penalizing people for being from out of state.

As one person pointed out the cc requirements are different from state to state so how is that to be fixed? And my solution is penaizing people for being stupid but without ruining their lives forever and not for just being out of state.

As pointed out repeatedly requirements for a dl vary from state to state.
Should the state steal your car because of this, of course not.
You don't seem to understand that the reason those states don't
tighten up the requirements is that people with ccws don't suddenly start
committing crimes, in fact it is safer to allow them to have firearms than to allow cops to have them.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/10/2017 3:53:03 PM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


I personally have objections to the 11.h restrictions because it is based on restricting rights based on an accusation with the accused not even being required to be informed instead of a conviction or judgement with legal representation present.



A judge will not enter a protective order without proof of necessity, usually after the police have responded to a domestic dispute/ violence call or called to a hospital in response to a person coming in who has clearly been battered and suffered injury.


Totally jurisdictional dependent. The low end is having one other person willing to day "Uhhuh, he sure did threaten 'em" and you have a court order.


In this case, I would rather err on the side of caution, considering the number of times as a cop I got called on domestic violence calls.

But it still requires a police or hospital report for the judge to sign the damn order.



It depends on where.
Abrogating civil rights just on an accusation with no allowed defense is something I still maintain as heinous and reprehensible.

Yes, a judge should be requiring some sort of proof that the accusation is supported by a preponderance of evidence. But, in actuality you can get a court order on domestic issues based on accusation and heresay alone.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 12/10/2017 4:01:32 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


I personally have objections to the 11.h restrictions because it is based on restricting rights based on an accusation with the accused not even being required to be informed instead of a conviction or judgement with legal representation present.



A judge will not enter a protective order without proof of necessity, usually after the police have responded to a domestic dispute/ violence call or called to a hospital in response to a person coming in who has clearly been battered and suffered injury.


Totally jurisdictional dependent. The low end is having one other person willing to day "Uhhuh, he sure did threaten 'em" and you have a court order.


In this case, I would rather err on the side of caution, considering the number of times as a cop I got called on domestic violence calls.

But it still requires a police or hospital report for the judge to sign the damn order.



It depends on where.
Abrogating civil rights just on an accusation with no allowed defense is something I still maintain as heinous and reprehensible.

Yes, a judge should be requiring some sort of proof that the accusation is supported by a preponderance of evidence. But, in actuality you can get a court order on domestic issues based on accusation and heresay alone.

if the accusation is enough that is wrong.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Sensible gun control at last. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.199