Official Gun Control Debate Thread

The problem with the gun control debate in this country is that too many Americans mistook Taxi Driver for a romantic comedy. Hunters, sport shooters, farmers, and the rest of the people out there with sense need to reclaim what it means to be a gun owner from the people with vigilante delusions. Gun safety measures aren't going to leave your family dead and let the Nazis take over.
 
Last edited:
Re: Because Chicago is the safest city in the US thanks to the same laws

Your crazy side is showing.

Really? Compare and contrast the treatment of David Gregory with Aaron Swartz. One blatant violation of DC gun laws on national television results in softball interview with the gun control pushing president a week later and no charges filed. One dubious violation of copyright law, which the affected parties decline to press charges, and the defendant is driven to suicide by an overzealous prosecutor.

This is without even bringing up Eric Holder's operational foul up in Mexico.

Laws are for the little people and this administration is making that quite clear.
 
Our soceity better start to wake up

Thomas Jefferson
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery"

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not"

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies"

Benjamin Franklin
""When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."


The writing is on the wall. I would say Kentxie never learned about these guys in American history.
 
Won't someone lock up that blatant criminal, David Gregory, so that the citizens of this country can feel safe again?!
 
Our soceity better start to wake up

Thomas Jefferson
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery"

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not"

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies"

Benjamin Franklin
""When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."


The writing is on the wall. I would say Kentxie never learned about these guys in American history.

These don't seem relevant to a gun control argument. This has nothing to do with unions or government waste. It has to do with laws regarding who is allowed to have what type of deadly firearms that may have consequences far beyond their intended use by the purchaser.

Also, I'll let the irony of a quote from Thomas Jefferson speaking out against being a slave stand on its own.
 
A WSJ Editorial Today praises Colorado's new gun control plan, which happens to be a lot like my own ;-)

In his State of the State address last week, the Democrat [Governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper] said that "our democracy demands" a debate over guns, violence and mental illness—not least in the aftermath of James Holmes's attack on an Aurora movie theater that killed 12 and wounded 58 in July. "Let me prime the pump," Mr. Hickenlooper said. "Why not have universal background checks for all gun sales?"

There was a lot of media attention for that line, but much less for what followed. As Mr. Hickenlooper continued, "It's not enough to prevent dangerous people from getting weapons. We have to do a better job identifying and helping people who are a threat to themselves and others." His office spent the last five months developing a detailed $18.5 million plan to modernize civil commitment laws while expanding community-based mental health treatment.

The first leg would combine Colorado's three involuntary treatment laws into one streamlined, clarified process and lower the legal threshold to "substantial probability" from "imminent danger." This new burden of proof would protect civil liberties but also make it easier for health-care providers, law enforcement and the courts to ensure that the seriously disturbed get the help they need.

A month prior to Holmes's rampage his University of Colorado psychiatrist broke doctor-patient confidentiality to tell campus police about his fantasies about killing "a lot of people," as Denver's 7News and the Denver Post reported in December. But the doctor rejected an offer to place him on a 72-hour psychiatric hold, for reasons that are unclear.

Mr. Hickenlooper also said that mental health commitment records would be cross-checked in real time with background checks for gun purchases. And all this would be coupled with better treatment options, including more public hospital beds, more specialists in the state's mental health institutions, and five 24-hour psychiatric crisis centers. The Hickenlooper plan would create a better off-ramp for people emerging from care such as more case management, counselling and behavioral rehabilitation.

Good luck finding any mention of any of this from the national press corps. On Monday one newspaper ran a lengthy dispatch on Colorado as "a reluctant crucible for the battle over guns" but didn't find it fit to print a single word about Mr. Hickenlooper's mental health ideas. They received the gloss of a single paragraph in another Colorado gun-control story last week.

Mr. Obama unveils his new gun-control measures as early as Wednesday. But Mr. Hickenlooper's reform effort is likely to make far more progress reducing gun violence and caring for civil society than another reactionary, unthinking guns-only debate.
 
Last edited:
Sounds interesting. My guess is it won't work because any successful effort to address mental health means spending money, for example, institutionalizing persons who are by any definition insane. Here is an interesting article on the effects of deinstitutionalization, an effort that locally was championed by the first Dukakis administration: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/madness-deinstitutionalization-murder.

It is more convenient (i.e. cheaper) for politicians to deal with the manifestations of the problem than to attack the root.
 
I guess equal protection under law is more equal for some than others and you seem perfectly complacent becoming chattel under a new class of untouchable gentry as long as it occurs by the political party of your choice.

Yes, because that's clearly what's happening. When can we expect to find our necks under the jackboot of our new oppressor, David Gregory? I'm busy this week, but could find some time early next.
 
If David Gregory were a black teenager he'd be in prison right now with the rest of his life potentially ruined thanks to a stupid law. The fact you see no problem one class of people being permitted to flaunt the law with no consequences while others face dire live changing consequences only illustrates why I do not advocate for expanding existing laws.
 
Our prisons are literally overflowing with black teens locked up for using a high capacity cartridge as a prop while they argued gun control with the head of the NRA on national TV. Gregory only walks free because he's connected.
 
Doesn't matter in the eyes of the law in DC if something is a "prop" (props themselves require special licenses), private citizens aren't allowed to posses the magazines in the District period. Gregory was advised of this and broke the law anyway because he's a special little lapdog and knows it.
 
Looks like prosecutorial over reach. In state courts it is very bad, because many of the prosecutors are children. I recently handled a criminal case where my client was charged with a felony that would have meant many many years enjoying the hospitality of the Commonwealth. He was innocent, had alibis and alibi witnesses galore, all of which were disclosed to the "one year out of law school" prosecutor months in advance of trial.

Any reasonable lawyer in the young lady's position would have said "as an officer of the Court I am not going forward with this". And in the end, that is what she did, on the day of trial. Which meant that my client had to suffer for months, all of the witnesses had to be subpoenaed and had to appear, and I had to spend a lot of time at my client's expense preparing for a trial that could have had a life altering outcome for the client.

Her attitude was "oh well". Thus spake the Commonwealth.
 
Gregory was advised of this and broke the law anyway because he's a special little lapdog and knows it.

Or maybe he did it because only unhinged people care about this non-issue and he knows it? Occam's Razor after all. Seriously, like Obama can't propose gun legislation because one guy once had an illegal clip on TV and wasn't arrested? This is an actual argument that someone not only could make, but also take seriously?
 
"Or maybe he did it because only unhinged people care about this non-issue and he knows it?"

No he did it because he's one of the all too common hatchet-man masquerading as a journalist, had his marching orders, and knew favors would be done to get him out of any trouble. The whole usurpation of the 2nd Amendment, a critical part of the restrictions of the power of government, isn't a 'non-issue' (unless following the standard that hundreds of Mexicans murdered with guns provided by a botched AG operation or the overrunning of an embassy and the the murder of an ambassador are 'non-issues') as the sudden tsunami of arms and ammunition sales across the country can attest to.

"Occam's Razor after all. Seriously, like Obama can't propose gun legislation because one guy once had an illegal clip on TV and wasn't arrested? This is an actual argument that someone not only could make, but also take seriously?"

No Obama can propose whatever he wants within the limits of his constitutional authority which does not infringe upon the constitutional rights of the citizenry. I would however question his sincerity as the executive official in charge of carrying out the very type of laws he is proposing be sitting down with a guy which just blatantly broke one of them with no consequences.

This isn't about safety, it's about power. But you are more concerned about being a political fan boy to care about the gravity of the situation.
 
^no offense, you only come off as having no strong valid arguments when you harp on a TV journalists non-prosecution for showing a ammo clip on TV. I am also inclined to think that if they did prosecute him, you would say it is a waste of government resources to go after a citizen that is holding something that you think is protected by the constitution and easily purchased at a walmart in in Virginia.

If you really are that concerned about David Gregory and the crime he committed, you should be worried about the fact that one can so easily gain access to things like this and bring them into other jurisdictions where they are illegal.
 
No he did it because he's one of the all too common hatchet-man masquerading as a journalist, had his marching orders, and knew favors would be done to get him out of any trouble.

But who gave him those orders? The Illuminati, the Lizard People, or Queen Elizabeth? It must have been someone pretty powerful in order to get this whole thing to go down on a show hardly anyone watches anymore.
 
Last edited:
Looks like prosecutorial over reach. In state courts it is very bad, because many of the prosecutors are children. I recently handled a criminal case where my client was charged with a felony that would have meant many many years enjoying the hospitality of the Commonwealth. He was innocent, had alibis and alibi witnesses galore, all of which were disclosed to the "one year out of law school" prosecutor months in advance of trial.

Any reasonable lawyer in the young lady's position would have said "as an officer of the Court I am not going forward with this". And in the end, that is what she did, on the day of trial. Which meant that my client had to suffer for months, all of the witnesses had to be subpoenaed and had to appear, and I had to spend a lot of time at my client's expense preparing for a trial that could have had a life altering outcome for the client.

Her attitude was "oh well". Thus spake the Commonwealth.

I'm not sure what type of law you practice but this is commonplace in District Court. The idea is to put enough pressure on the defendant to plea out regardless of what actually took place. This happens in Court Rooms across the state every day in thousands of situations where the Defendants are represented by CPCS or Bar Advocate attorneys that are too busy to breathe, let alone prepare for a trial.
 
Can we limit the number of social and institutional problems we're trying to solve? I propose:
"Homicidal people with powerful weapons" as the general problem and
"crazy people with guns" as the addressable subset

In this, Colorado's plan (above) of universal background checks and a streamlined mental health and civil commitment program is looking pretty elegant, without crossing the line to give The State too much power or The People too few tools to defend their freedom.
 
I'm not sure what type of law you practice but this is commonplace in District Court. The idea is to put enough pressure on the defendant to plea out regardless of what actually took place. This happens in Court Rooms across the state every day in thousands of situations where the Defendants are represented by CPCS or Bar Advocate attorneys that are too busy to breathe, let alone prepare for a trial.

I'm a trial lawyer and do both civil and criminal law. I pick my criminal cases carefully with the idea that I am going to beat up the kid D.A. with superior experience, preparation and resources.

None of what I wrote is a surprise to you or me, but it may be a surprise to those unaccustomed to dealing with the power of government. For those on this board who will need professional licenses issued by the state, heaven help you innocently run afoul of the pertinent licensing agency. You will suffer!
 

Back
Top