Gun Control
Responses: 7
2
2
0
Maj John Bell
LTC (Join to see) - I said "IF" that was the litmus test. I don't actually think helicopter gunships or destroyers are appropriate sporting platforms. I also think there is a valid reason to put some reasonable restrictions on what weapons are available to the general public. I asked the original question because I think the use of the phrase "common sense gun laws" is too easy. I want candidates or advocates to be specific about what they propose so I can legitimately evaluate where they stand on the issue. The Chelsea Clinton clip is what prompted me to start this thread.
I believe in making the illegal use of firearm more difficult. As an example, I would voluntarily turn in a fired round annually so that my State police lab could quickly eliminate my weapon in an investigation. (I know that in some weapons the barrel can be changed). But I would not make that submission of a round compulsory, because of the 5th amendment.
I believe in making the illegal use of firearm more difficult. As an example, I would voluntarily turn in a fired round annually so that my State police lab could quickly eliminate my weapon in an investigation. (I know that in some weapons the barrel can be changed). But I would not make that submission of a round compulsory, because of the 5th amendment.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Maj John Bell - I think we pretty much agree. I don't know why you think you have to debate with me as I'm not an ultra-left liberal.
My only blatantly liberal issue is keeping all aspects of any religion out of law or government and not giving religion or the religious any special privilege. I am just as against the government trying to control what a priest or pastor does (government cannot force a religion to perform same-sex marriages or allow women as priests, for example), but government actually can, and in my opinion should vigorously prevent religion or the religious from impinging upon any individual's constitutional rights including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Pursuit of happiness means Christians, Jews, Muslims or anyone else cannot dictate where a gay person can shop unless with regards to a non-profit store that is purely part of the religious organization itself.
A private for-profit religious school could certainly choose not to accept a student and a non-profit store that is part of a religious denomination (i.e. bakesale, Catholic temple store) could restrict, but a for-profit business doing business in the public sphere cannot.
Yes, that is a pretty liberal view, but on just about everything else I fall slightly left of center moderate, and on guns, foreign policy and national defense I fall right of center.
My only blatantly liberal issue is keeping all aspects of any religion out of law or government and not giving religion or the religious any special privilege. I am just as against the government trying to control what a priest or pastor does (government cannot force a religion to perform same-sex marriages or allow women as priests, for example), but government actually can, and in my opinion should vigorously prevent religion or the religious from impinging upon any individual's constitutional rights including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Pursuit of happiness means Christians, Jews, Muslims or anyone else cannot dictate where a gay person can shop unless with regards to a non-profit store that is purely part of the religious organization itself.
A private for-profit religious school could certainly choose not to accept a student and a non-profit store that is part of a religious denomination (i.e. bakesale, Catholic temple store) could restrict, but a for-profit business doing business in the public sphere cannot.
Yes, that is a pretty liberal view, but on just about everything else I fall slightly left of center moderate, and on guns, foreign policy and national defense I fall right of center.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
LTC (Join to see) - Once again we agree. Debate might not have been the best choice of words. Too many people discuss the issues on RP in emotional terms vs. rational. I have some emotional views that will not stand up to analysis by scientific method (i.e. near complete distrust of Federal Government, belief in God, etc.) but I believe I'm reasonably good (not perfect) at recognizing it.
Quite often religion is part of a person's moral compass. It's not possible to remove all of the chicken from the chicken broth. Some political decisions are also decisions of our collective morality. So religion is going to encroach into secular issues that have some moral aspect. I also respect that sometimes the collective morality is outside my personal envelope. It is part of the social contract that I restrict my active opposition to legal means and respectfully live with outcomes with which I do not agree.
I am a "heretical" free will Christian. I have no problem with someone exercising their free will, as long as they don't interfere with someone else exercising their free will. I am not compelled to judge them, dislike them, or "convert" them to my spiritual beliefs. I don't think I or anyone else has the ability to "convert" someone else. I view treating people differently because of any of the currently hot social issues as stupid as treating them differently based on whether the prefer butter or margarine.
Quite often religion is part of a person's moral compass. It's not possible to remove all of the chicken from the chicken broth. Some political decisions are also decisions of our collective morality. So religion is going to encroach into secular issues that have some moral aspect. I also respect that sometimes the collective morality is outside my personal envelope. It is part of the social contract that I restrict my active opposition to legal means and respectfully live with outcomes with which I do not agree.
I am a "heretical" free will Christian. I have no problem with someone exercising their free will, as long as they don't interfere with someone else exercising their free will. I am not compelled to judge them, dislike them, or "convert" them to my spiritual beliefs. I don't think I or anyone else has the ability to "convert" someone else. I view treating people differently because of any of the currently hot social issues as stupid as treating them differently based on whether the prefer butter or margarine.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Maj John Bell - Well sad. I will absolutely defend your right to believe as you will, up to the instant before it discriminates against the beliefs, freedoms or dignity of another.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The next time someone brings up common sense gun laws, simply ask them whether or not common sense dictates that a criminal will obey the law. That usually ends the debate.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Background checks WITHOUT LOOPHOLES and funding to law enforcement and state judicial systems to make sure conviction databases are kept up-to-date.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
I am all for state data bases. I am also for coordination between states and sharing of information. I am absolutely opposed to Federal involvement/access to the database, unless the individual has crossed the line. For me I would establish the line at a gun-related violence conviction or illegal transfer of weapons conviction. I know that is closing the barn door after the mare is gone, but I do not trust the Feds with very much power or personal information.
I additionally believe there must be some form of due process, right of appeal, and "speedy trial" equivalent in the decision to deny the exercise or the right to keep and bear arms.
I also have a problem with the fees associated with gun purchases. What other exercise of Constitutional right requires a fee/tax payable to the government or required class (private or public) to exercise?
I additionally believe there must be some form of due process, right of appeal, and "speedy trial" equivalent in the decision to deny the exercise or the right to keep and bear arms.
I also have a problem with the fees associated with gun purchases. What other exercise of Constitutional right requires a fee/tax payable to the government or required class (private or public) to exercise?
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Maj John Bell - Sorry I disagree. Commit a felony or violent misdemeanor and you're out.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Not sure we're completely disagreeing.
__The right to appeal doesn't guarantee winning the appeal.
__I'm not sure (admittedly need to think about it more) that I would deny a felony tax evader or similar type, their 2nd Amendment rights.
__I think that a violent misdemeanor might merit a judicial review after some substantial probationary period, perhaps 5-10 years.
__The right to appeal doesn't guarantee winning the appeal.
__I'm not sure (admittedly need to think about it more) that I would deny a felony tax evader or similar type, their 2nd Amendment rights.
__I think that a violent misdemeanor might merit a judicial review after some substantial probationary period, perhaps 5-10 years.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Maj John Bell - There already is judicial review in all fifty states. Its called returning to court with a petition to dismiss, expunge etc. (terminology differs). Such petitions also exist for federal crimes.
Similarly most non-violent felonies can, after completion of probation, be reduced to misdemeanors in most states if the state as an equivalent misdemeanor version of the same crime, known as a "lesser included".
So if you are convicted of felony tax evasion, drug possession, theft, etc., once probation is over you could return to court, have it reduced to a misdemeanor and so long as the misdemeanor was not violent (many violent crimes can also be reduced) then you would no longer be precluded from buying a gun UNDER CURRENT LAW.
The only federal exception is domestic violence under the Adam Walsh Act, which is a whole other matter.
Similarly most non-violent felonies can, after completion of probation, be reduced to misdemeanors in most states if the state as an equivalent misdemeanor version of the same crime, known as a "lesser included".
So if you are convicted of felony tax evasion, drug possession, theft, etc., once probation is over you could return to court, have it reduced to a misdemeanor and so long as the misdemeanor was not violent (many violent crimes can also be reduced) then you would no longer be precluded from buying a gun UNDER CURRENT LAW.
The only federal exception is domestic violence under the Adam Walsh Act, which is a whole other matter.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google