SultanOfBrunei wrote:
You are all wrong. Laws don't prevent crime, create punishment, nor do they define the social mores of a country.
Laws CREATE crime.
Laws CREATE crime.
So you don't believe crime exists without laws?
| Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/ |
|
| Gunshow "Loophole" http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=12501 |
Page 4 of 4 |
| Author: | gyrfalcon [ Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
SultanOfBrunei wrote: You are all wrong. Laws don't prevent crime, create punishment, nor do they define the social mores of a country. Laws CREATE crime. So you don't believe crime exists without laws?
|
|
| Author: | SultanOfBrunei [ Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
gyrfalcon wrote: So you don't believe crime exists without laws? Nope. It is unpossible. Crime is: Quote: An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction. |
|
| Author: | gyrfalcon [ Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
SultanOfBrunei wrote: gyrfalcon wrote: So you don't believe crime exists without laws? Nope. It is unpossible. Crime is: Quote: An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction. Crime has more than a legal definition. Like... a serious offense, especially one in violation of morality. ... an unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition. I like this quote: “Morality” is an unusual word. It is not used very much, at least not without some qualification. People do sometimes talk about Christian morality, Nazi morality, or about the morality of the Greeks, but they seldom talk simply about morality all by itself. Consistent with this way of talking, many anthropologists used to claim that morality, like law, applies only within a society. They claimed that “morality” refers to that code of conduct that is put forward by a society. However, even in small homogeneous societies that have no written language, distinctions are made among morality, etiquette, law, and religion. So, even for these anthropologists “morality” does not often refer to every code of conduct put forward by a society. Morality is often distinguished from etiquette, law, and religion, all of which are, or involve, codes of conduct put forward by a society. Etiquette is sometimes included as a part of morality, but it applies to norms that are considered less serious than the kinds of norms for behavior that are part of morality. Hobbes expresses the standard view when he discusses manners. “By manners I mean not here decency of behavior, as how one man should salute another, or how a man should wash his mouth or pick his teeth before company, and such other points of small morals, but those qualities of mankind that concern their living together in peace and unity.” (Leviathan, Chapter XI, paragraph 1) |
|
| Author: | parap1445 [ Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
gyrfalcon wrote: Quote: Is anyone in this forum going to disagree that the laws in place regarding explosives has not prevented their use in criminal endeavors in society? 60 years ago it was commonplace in this country for farmers to have dynamite in a box in the shed. They sold it at the hardware store with no restriction other that you had to be an adult. They used in to blow out stumps and blow up large rocks in fields. The kids on the farm knew it was there. Explosives were readily available yet there was not a problem with people blowing things up in a criminal way. The same is true with firearms. When I was a youngster you could still buy guns through mail order ads in every gun and hunting magazine. There were no bans on particular types of weapons (other that NFA weapons) everyone kept their guns in the hall closet not gun safes. And while I'm not saying that it was some perfect world with no murder, there were no nightly gang shootings and the last drive by that anyone could remember was some of the Capone gang in the 20's. As we have added thousands of federal,state and local gun laws to the books the crime increased. The old NRA slogan "if guns are outlawed-only outlaws will have guns" has allot of truth to it. This thread started with the line "Recently the media has been targeting the "gunshow loophole" or private sales of firearms quite insistantly." I just don't feel that because the [anti gun liberal] media that has been targeting the private sales of firearms is a reason for gun owners to accept more restrictive gun laws. Especially in light of overwhelming evidence that it will do nothing to reduce crime. gyrfalcon wrote: Quote: It would be nice if we could avoid laws that infringe on liberty and freedom, but prevent ignorant/irresponsible folks from doing bad things. While I agree with the sentiment. Experience shows that when it comes to laws pertaining to the sales of firearms it is a "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" proposition. And I don't believe you can author a law to prevent ignorant/irresponsible behavior |
|
| Author: | QuiChenKane [ Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Couldnt have said it better myself. I, personally, have drawn a line in the sand. I speak for no one but myself. Some will agree, some will not, but that is their choice, I wont try to make it for them. No more compromises, no more concessions, I will not give any more ground. I am not going to hold the hands of the ignorant, lazy, fearful, anesthatized Americans and give up my freedoms to make them feel safer, not going to help them maintain the illusion that if they just duct tape enough padding on the worlds sharp edges they will be able to create a utopian society, and I sure as hell am not going retreat into the wilderness, hide in a hole, and hope that someone else will fix it for me. But thats me. You do what you feel is right. |
|
| Author: | Dick Unger [ Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The antis do the best job of soundbites. The "loophole", the general statement by Obama "I won't take your guns away", ("but you don't need an AK"), gets all the media attention. Firearms laws have been a part of the culture for so long that it is impossible to imagine a world without the laws. The "background checks" laws have become an industry. It doesn't work, but instead of eliminating it and trying something else, we try to fix it. Even the NRA supports adding mental health checks to NICS. If we eliminated NICS, the gunshops would complain because they would lose the monopoly. The NRA would lose face. Our forum would not exist if there were not laws requiring carry permits, which closely regulate those of us which do not break the laws. The others can't have guns legally, so no resorces are expended teaching and regulating any licensing these folks use of firearms. Without gun control we'd have nothing to talk about. 
|
|
| Author: | plblark [ Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'd sure miss you guys but Freedom has a price. |
|
| Author: | jdege [ Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
gyrfalcon wrote: My point is that for a background check to work people who are able to own firearms, from those who can't need to be identified. This needs to happen both for private sales and dealer sales. Ah, but a background check isn't go to work, no matter what you do. Criminals aren't getting their guns from private sellers at gun shows. gyrfalcon wrote: If the "pro-gun" community doesn't get a system in place that does this I'm sure the anti-gun community will. The anti-gun community has a lot easier time when we have purported members of the pro-gun community dong their work for them. gyrfalcon wrote: Can you agree that it's better to police your own industry, than to have others do it for you? You're trying to be reasonable. Our opponents aren't reasonable. They'll take every inch of compromise you offer and then push for more. Their goal is a world without gunowners. gyrfalcon wrote: Why shouldn't the NRA or other pro gun group put forth legislation that allows proper background checks, and prevents registration and other privacy infringements we're all concerned about? The NRA wrote the bill for the system we have now. We got into our current mess by compromising with ourselves. We're done with one-sided compromises. What do we get, in exchange for a more restrictive background check regimen? A promise that there will be no future infringements that we know to be a lie? Sorry, that's not good enough. Now, if you put forward a bill that traded a requirement for background checks on all private sales for nationwide carry permit reciprocity, you'd have something to offer. But as it is, you're offering nothing. |
|
| Author: | gyrfalcon [ Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
jdege wrote: Now, if you put forward a bill that traded a requirement for background checks on all private sales for nationwide carry permit reciprocity, you'd have something to offer. But as it is, you're offering nothing. That's what I was trying to suggest... I doubt we could get nationwide reciprocity, but maybe we could universal background checks that don't include serial numbers and reduce the hassle of filling out forms. Dick Unger wrote: The antis do the best job of soundbites. The "loophole", the general statement by Obama "I won't take your guns away", ("but you don't need an AK"), gets all the media attention. Firearms laws have been a part of the culture for so long that it is impossible to imagine a world without the laws. The "background checks" laws have become an industry. It doesn't work, but instead of eliminating it and trying something else, we try to fix it. Even the NRA supports adding mental health checks to NICS. If we eliminated NICS, the gunshops would complain because they would lose the monopoly. The NRA would lose face... I completely agree on the industry mentality, it's like taxes and CPA's... Interesting enough, major gunlaws were past during the last depression, and the years prior to that: 1934: The National Firearms Act passes in response to gangster culture during Prohibition. The law implements a tax on the making and transfer of automatic-fire guns, shotguns and rifles. 1939: Supreme Court upholds a federal ban on sawed-off shotguns, implying that the Founding Fathers adopted the amendment to ensure the then-new federal government could not disarm state militias. 1968: Congress passes the Gun Control Act. The law calls for better control of interstate traffic of firearms. Lee Harvey Oswald used a mail-order gun to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. The United States of America is probably the only country that still allows common citizens to own the variety of firearms that they do. The anti-gun groups play off of fear uncertainty and doubt. They'll continue to do so until they're able to pass the legislation they want. That's why I suggested passing our own laws that mitigate those fears and doubts, yet don't accomplish the draconian goals of the anti-gun movement. |
|
| Author: | parap1445 [ Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
While I still agree that your idea is noble I still don't think it is possible to have the outcome you want. The anti gun groups and legislators "fear uncertainty and doubt" works because there are too many people with little or know knowledge of firearms and they have the mainstream meadia on there side so it is dificult for us to counter their fallacious claims because the media refuses to air or print our side of the debate I fear that attempts to pass laws by pro-gun groups and legislators will too often end up like our own current HF1238 where good intentioned, pro gun legislators introduce a bill for the good of gun owners and hunters which then gets hijacked by the anti gun forces to pass something we have fought against for decades. |
|
| Author: | gbono23 [ Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The first gun I evered owned, was a Mossberg single shot .22 rifle. I still have it and it is a great gun to shoot. I got the gun as a prize for selling 18 boxes of Christmas Cards. I don't remember having to get any signatures on the form for them to ship it to me, of course it was 1966 or 1967 at the time. I wish we could return to those days. |
|
| Author: | QuiChenKane [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
gbono23 wrote: I wish we could return to those days. We can, if we get rid of this defeatist mindset. |
|
| Page 4 of 4 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|