Gun Control Roll Call

[jokerman]

I oppose most fire-arms regulations and laws, essentially because of the reasons Frodo listed, that the law-abiding citizens will be punished while criminals will roam the streets with guns; terrorizing the people.  I think we should focus on enforcing the laws we already have before even thinking about new ones.

[David S]

I am strongly opposed to mandatory trigger locks, assault weapon bans, concealed carry restrictions, mandatory waiting periods, and so forth. Frivolous lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers should be prohibited.

All federal gun laws whatsoever (including federal background check requirements) should be repealed.

^^^^^^^^^

This is a pretty good summation of my views as well.

Me too!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I would support repealing the 2nd amendment so that we can institute sensible gun control law. 

I support banning all hand guns and automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and any other gun that can be easily concealed on your body, except for people specifically authorized to own them. 

I also believe all new guns of any type should be registered, with a record of a sample bullet shot from the gun.   

I do not, however, support law suits against people legally manufacturing or selling guns if the gun is not defective.

[John Dibble]

I would support repealing the 2nd amendment so that we can institute sensible gun control law. 

I support banning all hand guns and automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and any other gun that can be easily concealed on your body, except for people specifically authorized to own them.

In other words, you'd like it if only criminals would have these kinds of guns, because that's exactly what will happen.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I would support repealing the 2nd amendment so that we can institute sensible gun control law. 

I support banning all hand guns and automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and any other gun that can be easily concealed on your body, except for people specifically authorized to own them.

In other words, you'd like it if only criminals would have these kinds of guns, because that's exactly what will happen.

Well, police would have guns.  And criminals would only have access to guns for a limited time; eventually, all the guns would be lost or broken or confiscated and no new ones would be manufactured.

When Barry Goldwater was running for president in 1964, he argued against gun control by saying it would take fifty years to be effective.  Of course, if we instituted gun control in 1964, we'd now be more than 80% of the way there even if he was right.

[John Dibble]

I would support repealing the 2nd amendment so that we can institute sensible gun control law. 

I support banning all hand guns and automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and any other gun that can be easily concealed on your body, except for people specifically authorized to own them.

In other words, you'd like it if only criminals would have these kinds of guns, because that's exactly what will happen.

Well, police would have guns.  And criminals would only have access to guns for a limited time; eventually, all the guns would be lost or broken or confiscated and no new ones would be manufactured.

When Barry Goldwater was running for president in 1964, he argued against gun control by saying it would take fifty years to be effective.  Of course, if we instituted gun control in 1964, we'd now be more than 80% of the way there even if he was right.

Of course, criminals would never ever find a way to manufacture cheap guns on their own or even *gasp* smuggle them into the country. Or, there's no way that corrupt cops might provide them with them, that's never happened. No, those things couldn't possibly happen.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I would support repealing the 2nd amendment so that we can institute sensible gun control law. 

I support banning all hand guns and automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and any other gun that can be easily concealed on your body, except for people specifically authorized to own them.

In other words, you'd like it if only criminals would have these kinds of guns, because that's exactly what will happen.

Well, police would have guns.  And criminals would only have access to guns for a limited time; eventually, all the guns would be lost or broken or confiscated and no new ones would be manufactured.

When Barry Goldwater was running for president in 1964, he argued against gun control by saying it would take fifty years to be effective.  Of course, if we instituted gun control in 1964, we'd now be more than 80% of the way there even if he was right.

Nick,

A few years ago a student made a slap shot shotgun in less than an hour in shop class at his high school from commonly available materials.

In Pakistan, gunsmiths make replicas of AK-47s (and other modern firearms) in small shops devoid of modern machinery.

Get real!

And just who is going to take those guns away from their owners?

While their are a small number of facists on police forces, they are a minority, and most cops will NOT follow any orders to seize privately owned firearms.

[??????????]

I would support repealing the 2nd amendment so that we can institute sensible gun control law. 

I support banning all hand guns and automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and any other gun that can be easily concealed on your body, except for people specifically authorized to own them. 

I also believe all new guns of any type should be registered, with a record of a sample bullet shot from the gun.   

I do not, however, support law suits against people legally manufacturing or selling guns if the gun is not defective.

You would have done well in 1940s Germany.

[opebo]

I would support repealing the 2nd amendment so that we can institute sensible gun control law. 

I support banning all hand guns and automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and any other gun that can be easily concealed on your body, except for people specifically authorized to own them. 

I also believe all new guns of any type should be registered, with a record of a sample bullet shot from the gun.   

I do not, however, support law suits against people legally manufacturing or selling guns if the gun is not defective.

You would have done well in 1940s Germany.

Why should you be able to buy your murder weapons when I can't legally purchase a harmless BJ?

[??????????]

I would support repealing the 2nd amendment so that we can institute sensible gun control law. 

I support banning all hand guns and automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and any other gun that can be easily concealed on your body, except for people specifically authorized to own them. 

I also believe all new guns of any type should be registered, with a record of a sample bullet shot from the gun.   

I do not, however, support law suits against people legally manufacturing or selling guns if the gun is not defective.

You would have done well in 1940s Germany.

Why should you be able to buy your murder weapons when I can't legally purchase a harmless BJ?

I don't use my weapons to murder anyone.

[minionofmidas]

Not yet.

[opebo]

I would support repealing the 2nd amendment so that we can institute sensible gun control law. 

I support banning all hand guns and automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and any other gun that can be easily concealed on your body, except for people specifically authorized to own them. 

I also believe all new guns of any type should be registered, with a record of a sample bullet shot from the gun.   

I do not, however, support law suits against people legally manufacturing or selling guns if the gun is not defective.

You would have done well in 1940s Germany.

Why should you be able to buy your murder weapons when I can't legally purchase a harmless BJ?

I don't use my weapons to murder anyone.

That is really beside the point.  The most you can say is you haven't yet, and certainly someone else could. 

The point is they have that use - in fact it is their primary one - while the above mentioned BJ has no such dangerous potential.

[minionofmidas]

Are you sure the primary use of guns is not to shoot yourself in the foot?

[Ebowed]

The point is they have that use - in fact it is their primary one - while the above mentioned BJ has no such dangerous potential.

Your fifteen-dollar blow job contributes to a decline in standards and society.

[??????????]

Not yet.

If someone were to invade my house or property with the intention of harming me or my family and I shot them that wouldn't be considered murder by any civilized society.

[minionofmidas]

Not yet.

If someone were to invade my house or property with the intention of harming me or my family and I shot them that wouldn't be considered murder by any civilized society.

Define "harming".
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of fiscally harming you or your family by stealing food from your fridge, and you shot them, that would be considered murder by any civilized society, and most uncivilized ones too.
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of raping you, and you shot them, that would be considered excessive use of force in self-defense by most civilised societies. Not murder, but still a felony. However, views will differ from country to country.

[opebo]

The point is they have that use - in fact it is their primary one - while the above mentioned BJ has no such dangerous potential.

Your fifteen-dollar blow job contributes to a decline in standards and society.

'Decline in standards and society'?  What the hell does that mean?  You are being very vague - I could say the same about the Babtist Church.

And certainly there are few 'declines in standards and society' more annoying than getting shot in the crossfire of a foolishly gun-approving society.

[Ebowed]

You used to be pro-gun even after your switch to Democrat.  What happened there?

I agree that the Baptist Church contributes to a decline in standards and society-- mainly the Southern sect.  Their opinions on war and capital punishment are certainly barbaric.

Anyway, the idea that you can go around exploit people and sell your dignity for cheap thrills without any emotional aspect whatsoever contributes to a decline for society.

(I was raised a Baptist, BTW.)

[??????????]

Not yet.

If someone were to invade my house or property with the intention of harming me or my family and I shot them that wouldn't be considered murder by any civilized society.

Define "harming".
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of fiscally harming you or your family by stealing food from your fridge, and you shot them, that would be considered murder by any civilized society, and most uncivilized ones too.
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of raping you, and you shot them, that would be considered excessive use of force in self-defense by most civilised societies. Not murder, but still a felony. However, views will differ from country to country.

Not under Florida law, thank god.

[minionofmidas]

I agree that the Baptist Church contributes to a decline in standards and society

It used to be a standard charge when they first appeared. Mostly because the habit of adult baptism afforded people a good looksee at women's underwear. (From a contemporary source: "The nakedness of one of the women was seen to above her knees")

[minionofmidas]

Not yet.

If someone were to invade my house or property with the intention of harming me or my family and I shot them that wouldn't be considered murder by any civilized society.

Define "harming".
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of fiscally harming you or your family by stealing food from your fridge, and you shot them, that would be considered murder by any civilized society, and most uncivilized ones too.
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of raping you, and you shot them, that would be considered excessive use of force in self-defense by most civilised societies. Not murder, but still a felony. However, views will differ from country to country.

Not under Florida law, thank god.

Second one or both?

[Ebowed]

I agree that the Baptist Church contributes to a decline in standards and society

It used to be a standard charge when they first appeared. Mostly because the habit of adult baptism afforded people a good looksee at women's underwear. (From a contemporary source: "The nakedness of one of the women was seen to above her knees")

LOL

And I was referring to the Southern sect; I've had no experience with the non-Southern sect in the U.S., but I know that the Baptist churches in other countries like New Zealand are completely different.

[opebo]

You used to be pro-gun even after your switch to Democrat.  What happened there?

Well I was never pro-gun, as the things don't interest me.  However for a time I saw guns as a social issue and applied my general preferrence for individual rights over State intervention.  However I have recently become more practical.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is no more exploitative than any other form of employment.  As for my 'dignity', what rot.  Your definition of both dignity and the value of thrills is perfectly subjective, and other's estimates of those things are none of your business.  Prude.

[??????????]

Not yet.

If someone were to invade my house or property with the intention of harming me or my family and I shot them that wouldn't be considered murder by any civilized society.

Define "harming".
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of fiscally harming you or your family by stealing food from your fridge, and you shot them, that would be considered murder by any civilized society, and most uncivilized ones too.
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of raping you, and you shot them, that would be considered excessive use of force in self-defense by most civilised societies. Not murder, but still a felony. However, views will differ from country to country.

Not under Florida law, thank god.

Second one or both?

Under new Florida law if a person is acting in a way in which you feel threatened for life or limb you have the right to defend yourself using whatever force necessary.

[??????????]

 New Deadly Force Law Takes Effect In Florida Oct. 1

A new anti-crime law that allows people to kill in self-defense without first trying to flee will take effect in Florida on Oct. 1.

The law, signed by Gov. Jeb Bush in April, reverses the longstanding law that a person acting in self-defense has a "duty to retreat" from the danger before resorting to deadly force. In signing the bill, Bush said it "defies common sense" to force people to retreat when they're in a life-threatening situation.

The new law expands the long-existing "castle doctrine", a common law principle that allows homeowners who fear for their lives to use deadly force to defend themselves from an intruder in their homes. A person is justified in using deadly force when the force is "necessary to prevent death, great harm or the commission of a forcible felony".

While the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups are in favor of the new measure called the "Stand Your Ground" bill, not everyone supports it. While critics don't oppose allowing people to protect themselves in their homes, they say that some residents may shoot first and ask questions later, creating a "Wild West" atmosphere.

The Florida courts have held that homeowners have the right to defend themselves in their homes as in many states and Florida jurists have held that employees can defend themselves in their workplace as can drivers who are attacked in their vehicles but that outside those places, potential victims had to first attempt to escape before using deadly force. That provision has now been removed under the new law if the person has a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.

Gun control advocates are planning a campaign to tell travelers to Florida about the new law. The Washington, DC-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will hand out fliers at the Miami International Airport and will use newspaper ads, billboards and the Internet to advise travelers to Florida to "not argue unnecessarily with local people". As of Wednesday, when the phrase "Florida Vacation" is typed into some search engines, a link to www.shootfirstlaw.org appears.

The bill had been unanimously passed by the Florida Senate 39-0 and by a vote of 94-20 by the House. http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html 9-28-05
 
© 2005 North Country Gazette