Political Crossfire Forums

[Lucky Luke]

Thrilla wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: MindlessSheep wrote: This is a question that my brother and I argue back and forth over quite a bit. He's against gun control and owns quite a few hand guns, I'm not a big fan of guns. So here is my question. Is it possible to reduce the murders committed in the US without necessarily hinder the "right to bare arms"? I don't see a way to do it, but maybe I'm not thinking outside of the box enough.

Show this to your brother and tell him to get rid of his handguns:

Quote: MEMORANDUM TO ALL UNITED STATES' ATTORNEYS

FROM:The Attorney General /s/ John Ashcroft

RE:United States v. Emerson

On October 16, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in United States v. Emerson. I am pleased that the decision upholds the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) - which prohibits violent persons who are under domestic restraining orders from possessing firearms. By taking guns out of the hands of persons whose propensity to violence is sufficient to warrant a specific restraining order, this statute helps avoid tragic episodes of domestic violence. As I have stated many times, reducing gun crime is a top priority for the Department. We will vigorously enforce and defend existing firearms laws in order to accomplish that goal.

Emerson is also noteworthy because, in upholding this statute, the Fifth Circuit undertook a scholarly and comprehensive review of the pertinent legal materials and specifically affirmed that the Second Amendment "protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms. . . ." The Court's opinion also makes the important point that the existence of this individual right does not mean that reasonable restrictions cannot be imposed to prevent unfit persons from possessing firearms or to restrict possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse. In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance it strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment.
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-8272.resp.html

:-D
:-D you wont find too many people who are to argue that guns in the hands of "unfit person" is a good thing and shouldnt be addressed..... common sense

now back to the issue about taking guns from the "fit persons"

I am not so sure there is one here just next to you, Æ!

Stricter gun control laws are not about taking away guns from "fit persons" but from "unfit persons", that we can agree on. In fact those laws are more about people with guns control laws than gun control laws.

However "fit persons" are very much concerned when the US Attorney General speaks of restricting the possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse. This is where the term gun control is the best used. There is no question of controlling "fit persons" with guns but to control the guns in question making sure that they are phased out from the community. This is where most gun lovers are rejecting gun control, when the firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse get banned.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Æ wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Æ wrote: Everyone should be armed, Lucky Luke. Yes, even you should be armed.

Everyone Æ? Murderers, criminals, terrorists, rapists, abusers, violent people, the mentally challenged, prisoners, teenagers, children, babies?
Are you sure?

:-D
:-D
I said what I meant, LL. If there are more law abiding citizens than not, such a design would likely prove very effective.

Why would you want murderers, criminals, terrorists, rapists, abusers, violent people, the mentally challenged, prisoners, teenagers, children and babies to be armed with a lethal weapon Æ? Please do tell us.

:-D
:-D