The U.S. Government Is Trying To Take Away Your Pocket Knives!

Page 5 of 8  
HeyBub wrote:

at my post I over heard a young white punk talking to one of his buddies. The white guy commented that when he got out of prison he was going to quit taking a gun on his burglaries. The last one cost him additional time when he was caught.
Dave N
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"David G. Nagel" wrote:

And if caught at night with a gun in a domicile, it represents some really serious time.
The weapon is a real kicker.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David G. Nagel wrote:

FWIW, under George the First there was a program where any criminal in possession of a firearm was referred to the Federal government _after_ he was convicted on state charges, with his state term starting after his Federal term was over. Clinton for whatever reason, and, I understand, over Janet Reno's protests (I'd like to get enough liquor down that woman to get her to tell me what she _really_ thinks about Clinton) , discontinued this program.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stuart wrote:

Yes, I've read news articles from the UK about efforts to treat knives the same as firearms. If memory serves they've already gone that route in Australia, get caught with a tiny keychain knife there and you have a problem. I suppose it's only a matter of time until steel-toed work boots require a permit.

With what, a cricket bat? A National Rail sandwich lashed to the end of a stick might make an effective club....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Railway food still that bad, eh? They still do fried eggs floating on grease at the cafe on Paddington Platform 1?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True enough, but firearm related homicides were at the same low level in Great Britain even _before_ their strict gun control laws were enacted; by some measures, they have gone up since then.
--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry W wrote:

As have home invasions, stabbings, assaults with or without deadly weapon (because those defending themselves are the ones who are prosecuted), robberies, etc.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Prosecution of those protecting themselves is relatively small and you know it. It only sounds bigger because everybody hears about it almost instantly.
Anyway, there's a lot more to consider when talking about such increases. Population density has increased greatly, the lower income segment of the population has increased as have many other things in this day and age. There's never been a bigger divide between the rich and the poor and it's increasing. You can't really compare statistics tit for tat with what was going on forty years ago. It's a different time, a different age and much of it is a different mindset. We hear about all sorts of things these days that we'd never have heard thirty years ago.
As an example, look at what's coming out of Iran. Do you think we'd have heard any of it if global communications were not as widespread as they are today? Without the world watching, I'd wager that Iran's government would have killed quite a few more protestors than it already has. It *is* a different time and things change because of it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Video: Obama supports D.C. handgun ban
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE

"Do you support state legislation to: a) Ban manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns? 'Yes' " http://www.politico.com/static/PPM43_080328_obama_iviquestionaire_091096.html
The president may have changed his mind or now realizes his goals are unobtainable and will not press for their implementation.
But, to answer your question, that's where the concern is coming from.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

It took a ruling from the Supreme Court to finally stop Washington DC from banning the ownership of handguns by law-abiding citizens, and apparently DC is interested in ways to get around that ruling if they can. So far as I've heard Chicago hasn't done away with their equally ineffective handgun ban either, ineffective in the sense that criminals happily ignore it. If you can point out how fear of handgun bans amounts to "NRA propaganda" despite laws such as these existing for decades, that might be interesting.

What will registration accomplish? Do you think any criminal will choose to register a firearm? Felons aren't supposed to possess guns in the first place, that's why they don't stand in line at a gun shop and undergo a background check.

Really, is that how it worked in Britain, Australia and Canada, registration didn't precede bans and confiscations?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"DGDevin" wrote:

That's only temporary.

Interesting observation, just as Chicago is an interesting place.

Huh!
Not hardly; however, when the registered firearm is found in the hands of a felon, the possibility of legal recourse exists.

Personally could care less, I don't live in those places.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Right.
"The gun is registered to you, it was used in a crime, you have not reported it stolen. Now come along with us to the station house. There are some questions we'd like to ask you. Dress warmly, we'll be in the basement."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

What, the Supreme Court ruling? You really think that you're going to get the Second Amendment repealed?

Chicago and other localities are asserting that the Supreme Court ruling only restricts the Federal government, since it applied to DC, which was a Federal preserve. There is another case in progress now that will, if the Supreme Court decides to hear it, settle that matter.

And when a nonregistered firearm is found in the hands of a felon then legal recourse exists too. If you have a point to make you have obfuscated it well.

Perhaps if you think that gun bans are a good idea, you should.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

I think he means the roadblocks, circumventions, and delaying tactics thrown up by the D.C. betters are only temporary - not the 2nd Amendment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

How so? Most of the rulings that have come down since the recent landmark 2nd Amendment case have upheld existing laws. What's to stop DC from putting in regulations so onerous that they amount to a ban (which is what they've already discussed doing)?

If criminals being armed while law-abiding citizens are disarmed is "interesting," I guess so.

Ummm, what?

You don't need registration to accomplish that. A law requiring firearms transfers to be done through dealers does the same thing. The last owner of record has to explain why his gun was found at a crime scene, if it turns out he sold it without going through a dealer then he can be prosecuted for that.

Hmmm, interesting that some folks would like to see U.S. law become more like the law in those places however. Naw, no way it could happen here....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you should. this old saying comes to mind:
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up." Pastor Martin Niemller (1892-1984)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"DGDevin" wrote:

Times change, people change.
It's simply back to the rewrite desk until they get what's needed to withstand all legal challenges.

Who knows, maybe that's what will happen.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

And it will be back in the Supreme Court and this time the Justices will be _pissed_, possibly enough so to pull the plug on _all_ firearms regulation. The ruling specifically stated that regulations constituting a defacto ban were not acceptable. The Supremes generally don't like it much when having made such a statement the legislators try it anyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Times change, people change.
If in fact it goes back, it will be a different court.
BTW, if you want to change something, you don't directly attack something, you encapsulate it.
I'm certain you don't need an explanation.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.