Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Guns- Starting small in one state.
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Guns- Starting small in one state. (Read 332 times)
Don_G
Ex Member


Re: Guns- Starting small in one state.
Reply #10 - May 7th, 2018 at 12:00am
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on May 6th, 2018 at 8:07pm:
I'm happy that Massachusetts has passed stricter gun control on it's citizens.

My only fear is that the criminals who want to harm people (with guns) might not abide by these measures.

In fact, I'm sure they wont.  Which makes them kinda pointless, imo.


Criminals aren't crazy people, they're just American NRA members with guns who go out on killing sprees. Mass. won't be so worried about that happening anymore.

Why is it that you are opposed to curtailing the gun rights of crazy people. Do you find that much delight in hearing about school children being slaughtered by crazy people with guns?

Would their law effect you?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8105
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Guns- Starting small in one state.
Reply #11 - May 7th, 2018 at 3:30am
Print Post  
Quote:
Why is it that you are opposed to curtailing the gun rights of crazy people.

I'm not.  Requiring a gun permit does absolutely nothing to curtail the gun rights of crazy people.

A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.

His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.

But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first.
Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer.




Requiring fingerprinting and Character references for gun ownership couldn't possibly be more unconstitutional.   I can't think of a more blatant infringement on gun rights (Except maybe an all-out ban/confiscation on all firearms).

Quote:
Would their law effect you?

If I lived in Massachusetts, it would.  It infringes on the rights of all (would-be) gun owners in Massachusetts.
« Last Edit: May 7th, 2018 at 12:21pm by SkyChief »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Guns- Starting small in one state.
Reply #12 - May 7th, 2018 at 9:05am
Print Post  
Quote:
Criminals aren't crazy people, they're just American NRA members with guns who go out on killing sprees.
That's a lie Donat. Two lies in one actually.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Guns- Starting small in one state.
Reply #13 - May 7th, 2018 at 9:11am
Print Post  
Quote:
Why is it that you are opposed to curtailing the gun rights of crazy people.
As has been said, due process is required in the U.S. before anyone's rights can be legitimately "curtailed".

There are laws in place throughout the U.S. which prohibit people convicted of "insane" crimes from owning guns. They don't work any better than London's ban on knives.

Did you see this?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/boys-aged-12-15-shot-suburb-amid-london-193432141.htm...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Ex Member


Re: Guns- Starting small in one state.
Reply #14 - May 7th, 2018 at 1:35pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on May 7th, 2018 at 3:30am:
I'm not.  Requiring a gun permit does absolutely nothing to curtail the gun rights of crazy people.

A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.

His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.

But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first.
Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer.




Requiring fingerprinting and Character references for gun ownership couldn't possibly be more unconstitutional.   I can't think of a more blatant infringement on gun rights (Except maybe an all-out ban/confiscation on all firearms).

If I lived in Massachusetts, it would.  It infringes on the rights of all (would-be) gun owners in Massachusetts.


The Mass. law is very similar to Canadian law only we go a step further and pretty well outlaw handguns on the streets. We restrict them to use on a shooting range, and a few other isolated exceptions such as trappers, etc. in wilderness areas.

So I know that none of you agree with that sort of gun control and that's just fine with me.

But I think it's an ominous sign of the future reality of gun laws and gun use. The situation is becoming intolerable without that sort of law.

And fwiw, It works in Canada and all other modern first world countries that Americans 'should' be using as comparisons.

If you want to compare your country to Haiti then that suits me too.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8105
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Guns- Starting small in one state.
Reply #15 - May 7th, 2018 at 2:33pm
Print Post  
Quote:
So I know that none of you agree with that sort of gun control and that's just fine with me.

I don't object any gun-control measures in Canada (or Australia, UK, Germany, etc) because constitutional gun rights are not recognized there.

In the US, the right to keep and bear arms is clearly acknowledged in the Bill Of Rights.  Any gun-control measures are infringements on our right to keep and bear arms, so this is why I adamantly oppose [most] gun-control measures here in the US. 

I fully concede that guns should be kept away from mentally ill people.

Quote:
But I think it's an ominous sign of the future reality of gun laws and gun use. The situation is becoming intolerable without that sort of law.

And fwiw, It works in Canada and all other modern first world countries that Americans 'should' be using as comparisons.

The US doesn't look to Canada or other modern first world countries for ideas about gun-control (or anything else, for that matter). 

A recent Pew poll asked people to pick between “freedom to pursue life’s goals without state interference” and the “state guarantees nobody is in need.”

Americans selected freedom 58% to 35%

Not surprisingly, European responses were reversed: Germany was 36% to 62% in favor of the Nanny State.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-us-a-land-of-liberty-or-equality/...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Ex Member


Re: Guns- Starting small in one state.
Reply #16 - May 7th, 2018 at 2:56pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on May 7th, 2018 at 2:33pm:
I don't object any gun-control measures in Canada (or Australia, UK, Germany, etc) because constitutional gun rights are not recognized there.

In the US, the right to keep and bear arms is clearly acknowledged in the Bill Of Rights.  Any gun-control measures are infringements on our right to keep and bear arms, so this is why I adamantly oppose [most] gun-control measures here in the US. 


Your honesty is very telling but unfortunately you have spilled the beans. Do you understand why?

Just reread your explanation and you will realize that you're upholding principle based on your Constitution. And that is ignoring the practicality of gun law reform. That's the choice you've made Chief but it wouldn't be your choice if it was one of your own children who fell victim.

Quote:
I fully concede that guns should be kept away from mentally ill people.


I would expect nothing less of any rational and sane person.

Quote:
The US doesn't look to Canada or other modern first world countries for ideas about gun-control (or anything else, for that matter). 


I wouldn't agree with the 'anything else'. I know that a big proportion of your people are looking at universal health care as practiced in other countries. And you do too. It may not happen during your lifetime.

Quote:
A recent Pew poll asked people to pick between “freedom to pursue life’s goals without state interference” and the “state guarantees nobody is in need.”


I won't dispute that but I will suggest that the wording could have skewed the results.

Quote:
Americans selected freedom 58% to 35%


Nobody rejects freedom and therein lies my submission that the poll was fixed.

Quote:
Not surprisingly, European responses were reversed: Germany was 36% to 62% in favor of the Nanny State.


I would suggest that Europeans and Canadians understand that they can have both.

Quote:


If it reflects what you've said than I don't need to read it for proof.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8105
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Guns- Starting small in one state.
Reply #17 - May 7th, 2018 at 3:05pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Your honesty is very telling but unfortunately you have spilled the beans. Do you understand why?

Just reread your explanation and you will realize that you're upholding principle based on your Constitution.

No, I'm not.   I used the US constitution to support my claim we have the natural right to keep and bear arms.  I'm not using the 2nd amendment as a basis for it. But you couldn't possibly be able to understand that, so never mind.

Quote:
Nobody rejects freedom and therein lies my submission that the poll was fixed.

You don't like the [Pew] poll results, so you call it "fixed". 

No counter-argument... nothing to back up your claim... You simply press the "I win the debate" button.   

Wow.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Guns- Starting small in one state.
Reply #18 - May 7th, 2018 at 5:14pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on May 7th, 2018 at 2:33pm:
I don't object any gun-control measures in Canada (or Australia, UK, Germany, etc) because constitutional gun rights are not recognized there.

I feel bad for people who depend on their government to provide them certain privileges, tell them what they are allowed to do. Cry
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Guns- Starting small in one state.
Reply #19 - May 7th, 2018 at 5:16pm
Print Post  
Quote:
I would suggest that Europeans and Canadians understand that they can have both.
Individual liberty under a Nanny?

Ask any child who has a Nanny how much liberty they have.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Guns- Starting small in one state.
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy