DIYbanter - View Single Post

Jim Yanik

(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:

In article , DGDevin
wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.44...

And no pro-gun person has ever claimed such a thing.

Oh, really? Yet some folks here will chant "shall not be infringed"
like it's the ultimate response to any law relating to firearms.

it's written right into the Second Amendment.
If you don't like that,get an amendment passed.
don't try the dishonest way of enacting unconstitutional laws and relying
on shoddy court practices to "uphold" them.

No "prior restraint" laws,either.

those types of laws are to provide punishment for when a person
commits an actual crime.

A felon buying a gun is committing an actual crime, so how do we
prevent them doing that without background checks? Are you seriously
suggesting there should be no barriers to convicted criminals from
buying guns, we should only hope that the cops catch them after
they've used a gun they aren't supposed to have to commit another
crime?

Right now,we do background checks,and those few actual felons who try that
route,even fewer are arrested or punished. The only people it actually
affects are the LAW ABIDING citizens. Most felons get their guns from non-
legal sources,like stolen guns,or straw purchasers.
(Like ATF's Project Gunrunner...)

I suppose DG supports the "No-Fly" list that the gov't has,despite there
being a lot of errors in it,a lot of people get hassled or turned away
every time they fly somewhere,and hardly anyone really bad gets jailed.
Something similar happens with the background checks,a name is the same as
or similar to a prohibited person's name,and the ODC is blocked from
purchase,their civil right denied.
(yes,gun ownership IS a "civil right".)

BTW,I'm not against background checks like the NICS check that is "shall-
issue" and has a reasonable 3 day time limit for completion,with no records
retention.

I agree with preventing gun sales to folks with bad track records
that
sustained their badness into recent past years or show lack of
turnaround from a bad track history.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't except felons, or the mentally ill, so who
gets to decide that laws preventing such persons from possessing
firearms are okay?

SHEESH,is DG mentally retarded?
Felons are convicted in a COURT OF LAW,and have their rights restricted by
DUE PROCESS.How many times does this have to be repeated for it to sink in?
That's WAY different than enacting some arbitrary law and have it
administered arbitrarily by some anti-gun official. It's REASONABLE,and
RATIONAL.

What's the process to accept such laws as
constitutional while rejecting others such as DC's handgun ban?

DC's handgun ban applies to all of its law-abiding residents, not
only
those who have shown criminal irresponsibility in posession or usage
of handguns.

Limiting storage of hazardous substances in residential areas
is "common-sense" law,and based on solid facts.

So you'd support a law restricting possession of ammunition on the
grounds of fire prevention? The gun grabbers would love to pass such
a law because they'd make the number smaller every chance they got.

I'd support ammunition storage regulations that are supported by
Switzerland, or like ones used in USA armed forces. Ammunition
storage regulations imposed by and upon major players with right and
responsibility to keep and bear arms appear reasonable to me.

ammunition stored at home is not much of a danger to anyone.
Tests have shown that in a fire,the cartridges split open and the expelled
bullet doesn't have much force,not enough to penetrate the average
firefighters coat,nor drywall,and only travel a short distance,inches or
feet.
It also depends on HOW MUCH ammo (or propellant)you're storing. a LOT of
ammo/powder requires special storage.

I wonder if DG is aware that ROCKET MOTORS can be legally stored at home?
they are much more dangerous. Gasoline is far more dangerous than ammo,same
for some other common substances.

Unnecessary Discharge of a firearm endangers others. But mere
possession or carriage of a firearm does not.

I agree.

Much of the "gun control" laws are NOT based on actual fact or
reason.

I agree, but unfortunately if one takes the position that "shall not
be infringed" means there are no valid laws restricting or regulating
firearms

the dispute here is over regulation of LAWFUL POSSESSION and carriage of
firearms,not their use/misuse.
DG advocates prior restraint. that IS an infringement.

Laws concerning *use/misuse* of firearms are proper and legal,and the
Second's prohibition against infringement does not affect those in any way.

Lawful citizens carrying guns are no threat or danger to other lawful
citizens. that's been demonstrated in every US state with their concealed
carry permits. They are NOT any problem. the data proves that.

then they've gone to the other end of the looney scale.
There's a guy here who figures preventing the mentally ill from
possessing firearms violates their rights, that even crazy people have
a right to own a gun. So who gets to draw the line?

How do you determine who's mentally ill? you want to invade people's
medical history? there are laws against that.
Leave it up to some uncaring government official? NO WAY.Too much
opportunity for abuse.
Require some TEST to exercise a Constitutional RIGHT? NO. Same abuse
problem.

There is the matter of "free speech" not including shouting "fire"
in
a crowded theater.

SNIP after this what I largely agree with

actually,there's no law against shouting fire in a crowded theater,but
there ARE laws concerning liability for such actions should they be proven
to have caused wrongful injury or death.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com