Team SASS: How do new laws or bans take gun away from criminals?

[Marshal Dan Troop 70448]

For the past several weeks, reading and listening to the local news, on TV, radio, and reading the local paper, I'm seeing every shooting and killings written and hearing as being "Drug Related", "Drug Buy Gone Wrong", Drug etc. So why isn't the war on drug more intense? Sometimes innocent people are hurt. I also see were "Marijuana", a drug, and jail sentence for many decades is made legal in some states. How soon before other drugs are made legal? These Drug dealers carry guns, as do those that distribute and sell. Since many more murders are committed by criminals, how does putting bans and laws that effect law-abiding citizens, get the bans, and laws to apply to criminals? And passing of these bans will only turn a law-abiding citizen into criminals by possession of prized, and highly costly firearms and accessories.

If it comes to registration, I bet the law-abiding person will have his home searched, and firearms taken. As to the criminal, I'm sure they won't registrate theirs, and won't worry about theirs being taken. MT

[Quick Draw Granpaw #48525]

You make a great point and it's vary logical!

That might be the problem!

Will we ever learn from our past mistakes?

QDG :FlagAm:/>

[Tom Payne 13115]

They don't!!

[Guest jeweler jim]

Please remember that the asylum is being run by the inmates.

[Buck Bisley]

Brings us back the the classic saying:

"If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns"

[Doc Shapiro]

There is only one necessary and logical conclusion that can be come to regarding this. It's that they don't want an armed citizenry.

 

And why not? Well, David Mamet said recently something to the effect of... There are only 2 ways to get someone to do what you want. Either by convincing them (reason or emotional appeal) or by force. I think I got the gist of that right. Keeping that in mind, by disarming the populace they essentially render us slaves. They can now use force to do whatever they want with no fear of repercussion.

 

Think that through.

[Madd Mike #8595]

The supporters of our second amendment rights fully understand what is really in the works. Anything that gets passed in any form, in any geological region is a nail in the coffin. It is a foot in the door to making legal gun owners criminals in one form or the other. Even if they don’t make us felons, they are working a flanking maneuver of self doubt, and or embarrassment for some that there is even guns allowed in ones abode.

 

We need to work with the NRA, GOA and the COL / SASS, to do our part to fight the fight. That would include letters, phone calls and emails, and simple copy and paste of links like the ruger one, copy and paste the link to friends, and associates so they can stand up and be counted, and share with their friends and associates as well.

 

At least I am reading less on the wire about “that will never pass”. Some things will pass, making the battle drag out even longer in many cases.

 

Lets fight the fight, as we certainly understand that this garbage has nothing to do with making kids in schools safer, or moms and kids at home safer, or travel in your auto’s safer etc.

 

It is the left of center folks wanting to limit our freedoms given to us in our founding documents. “ CONTROL “ the peoples!

 

Please use and share this link with folks

 

http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/

[Justin O Lawman,SASS#7672]

The NY Gun Law has nothing to do with gun safety and it does nothing to effect a criminal.

 

It's just the first step in taking guns away from the honest citizen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Is there any state that would be willing to take New York City away from the rest of NY

 

It's time to make NY City the 51st State.

[Dang It Dan 13202]

If you want to stump an "anit-gunner" all you have to do is ask, "what law can be passed that will keep the criminal or the mentally unstable person from stealing a gun and using it?". Silence.

 

The fact remains that laws will not change the way a person acts if they are intent on the act without regard for the consequences. Laws will only effect the law-abiding - period.

 

It's all for the children, so it must be ok, right?

[Utah Bob #35998]

The supporters of our second amendment rights fully understand what is really in the works. Anything that gets passed in any form, in any geological region is a nail in the coffin. It is a foot in the door to making legal gun owners criminals in one form or the other. Even if they don’t make us felons, they are working a flanking maneuver of self doubt, and or embarrassment for some that there is even guns allowed in ones abode.

 

We need to work with the NRA, GOA and the COL / SASS, to do our part to fight the fight. That would include letters, phone calls and emails, and simple copy and paste of links like the ruger one, copy and paste the link to friends, and associates so they can stand up and be counted, and share with their friends and associates as well.

 

At least I am reading less on the wire about “that will never pass”. Some things will pass, making the battle drag out even longer in many cases.

 

Lets fight the fight, as we certainly understand that this garbage has nothing to do with making kids in schools safer, or moms and kids at home safer, or travel in your auto’s safer etc.

 

It is the left of center folks wanting to limit our freedoms given to us in our founding documents. “ CONTROL “ the peoples!

 

Please use and share this link with folks

 

http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/

I get this message:

We were unable to find officials matching this address for the targets of this engagement. Please verify your address is correct if you believe this to be in error.

Apparently I don't have any representation in congress. This explains everything.

[Three Foot Johnson]

It's easy - all the new laws make crime illegal.

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

The NY Gun Law has nothing to do with gun safety and it does nothing to effect a criminal.

 

It's just the first step in taking guns away from the honest citizen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Nope, its the NEXT step in taking guns away from the population. The first step occurred many years ago. It's a long march. Never rapid enough disarmament to force any but a few to object against that one step. Each one is argued to be reasonable. Never argued to be constitutional.

[Utah Bob #35998]

The mental case ex-cop on the rampage will bring even more legislative bills.

If a cop can't be trusted with guns, how can Joe sixpack be?

Inching closer toward a total firearms ban every day.

Stay strong and keep in contact with your reps.

[slate mike sass#29204]

Justin is right. Make NYC the 51st state. And Chicago the 52nd. Then we can send CA off to be its own little country.

[Shaky Molasses, SASS 20549]

<If you want to stump an "anit-gunner" all you have to do is ask, "what law can be passed that will keep the criminal or the mentally unstable person from stealing a gun and using it?". Silence.>

 

Hogwash.

 

Q: How do you keep the criminals and mentally unstable from stealing a gun and using it?

 

A: By banning all guns.

 

First step, universal background checks.

Second step, use all the backgroud check paperwork to compile the national gun registry.

Third step, confiscation of all guns. Careful checks of what gets turned in against the inventory created by the ATF from all of the 4473s that they have acquired, photocopied, etc.

Fourth step, police/ATF/military raids against all people who the feds suspect of having retained unregistered guns.

 

Once they have confiscated all firearms, the criminals won't be able to get any firearms by stealing them.

[Shaky Molasses, SASS 20549]

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

 

Dr. Ferris to Henry Reardon, Atlas Shrugged.

[B. T. Blade, SASS #35685Life]

They don't!! :angry:/>

 

A very simple.......and 100% correct answer.

 

The solution is Crime Control - NOT - Gun Control!

[Marauder SASS #13056]

. . .

 

Once they have confiscated all firearms, the criminals won't be able to get any firearms by stealing them.

 

I'm afraid you have provided hogwash.

 

How well has you suggested invasion of rights helped in Mexico?

- Have you been informed of the mass murder going on there?

 

How well has is helped keep people safe in England? Where you are over 4 times likely to be a victim of violent crime.

 

Where does Mexico get over 75% of their guns - from police and military.

 

By banning guns, you merely raise their value to criminals. Plus criminals go to alternate weapons such as knives, clubs, ball bats, cricket bats, hammers, etc. And since the innocent people are unarmed, they can hardly fight off 1, 2, 3, 4 criminals - even if the victim is young, strong and healthy.

 

The action you recommended demonstrates a lack of knowledge of crime and of human behavior.

 

I hoope you are saying this "tongue in cheek."

[Subdeacon Joe]

I'm afraid you have provided hogwash.

 

How well has you suggested invasion of rights helped in Mexico?

- Have you been informed of the mass murder going on there?

 

How well has is helped keep people safe in England? Where you are over 4 times likely to be a victim of violent crime.

 

Where does Mexico get over 75% of their guns - from police and military.

 

By banning guns, you merely raise their value to criminals. Plus criminals go to alternate weapons such as knives, clubs, ball bats, cricket bats, hammers, etc. And since the innocent people are unarmed, they can hardly fight off 1, 2, 3, 4 criminals - even if the victim is young, strong and healthy.

 

The action you recommended demonstrates a lack of knowledge of crime and of human behavior.

 

I hoope you are saying this "tongue in cheek."

 

I think his intent was to show how the anti-civil rights lobby thinks.

[Dubious Don #56333]

They don't.

 

The communists called them 'useful idiots' that vast number of people who parrot the 'party line' and don't even have a clue. These are the same misguided folks who confuse 'assault weapons' with machine guns out of ignorance. These are the same people, many in our own ranks, who say background checks are a good thing. In other words, their willing to trade a little liberty for perceived safety even though that 'safety' is false.

 

Take the gun show loophole...there isn't one. The government's own statistics show the VAST majority of guns used by criminals are illegal; stolen or acquired from illegal sources. Only 1.9% came from gun shows and the vase majority were sold BY LICENSED DEALERS at a show so they were subject to background checks, etc. It is a miniscule problem but it sounds good, like they're 'doing something'.

 

Assault weapons used in crime are not the problem people think they are; once again people are victims of mis-information.

 

We have over 20,000 gun laws on the books. Do laws prevent other crimes like burglary, theft and murder? These too are against the law and there is no shortage of criminals these days even though crime is at its lowest point in many years. Yes, crime is significantly lower. Do criminals follow the law? Of course not and any new gun law won't stop them either. Heck, some of these shootings have happened in states with very strict gun laws. In fact, places with strict gun control seem to enjoy a much higher crime rate than places that don't.

 

If the intent of these new laws isn't to reduce violence, than what are they supposed to do?

[Six-Shot]

It's not about "gun control" . . . it's about CONTROL! The second amenment is not about guns for hunting or Cowboy Action Shooting . . . it's about the right to arm ourselves against a tyranical government. We can whine, and b#$%h, complain, argue, cajole, coerce, etc., etc. until they come for our guns. The question remains the same (and only each and every one of us can search our soul and answer it for ourselves) . . . "Will you fight or will you lay down your arms as the Cambodians, Jews, Russians, Chinese, Brits, and Aussies have?

 

molon labe! ("come and take them" if they dare)

[Shaky Molasses, SASS 20549]

I'm afraid you have provided hogwash.

 

How well has you suggested invasion of rights helped in Mexico?

- Have you been informed of the mass murder going on there?

 

How well has is helped keep people safe in England? Where you are over 4 times likely to be a victim of violent crime.

 

Where does Mexico get over 75% of their guns - from police and military.

 

By banning guns, you merely raise their value to criminals. Plus criminals go to alternate weapons such as knives, clubs, ball bats, cricket bats, hammers, etc. And since the innocent people are unarmed, they can hardly fight off 1, 2, 3, 4 criminals - even if the victim is young, strong and healthy.

 

The action you recommended demonstrates a lack of knowledge of crime and of human behavior.

 

I hoope you are saying this "tongue in cheek."

 

Marauder: I did not provide any solution to anything. I disputed Dang It Dan’s assertion that an anti-gunner has no response to the question of “what law can be passed that will keep the criminal or the mentally unstable person from stealing a gun and using it?” I gave the response that an anti-gunner can give, namely that if/when all guns are confiscated, there won’t be guns available for the criminals/mentally ill to steal. And I do believe that this is the anti-gunner's goal, complete ban of all firearms. Maybe not just from the civilian population. Note that the Marines marching at the Inaguaration were carrying weapons with no bolts.

 

I did not assert that preventing the criminals and mentally ill from stealing guns would prevent violence. And I certainly did not recommend any course of action.

 

However, based on the fact that you have ascribed to me that which I never said, and have made arguments that have no bearing on what I said, I do have a course of action to recommend to you, Marauder: Remedial Reading Comprehension and Remedial Rhetoric.

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

I have often wondered ,Where do all those criminals get their guns ?? any answers??

[Shaky Molasses, SASS 20549]

I have often wondered ,Where do all those criminals get their guns ?? any answers??

 

Lots of criminals have their girlfriends buy a gun -- called "straw purchasers". Lots of criminals buy guns from the local bartender or unlicensed pharmacutical salesman. Lots of criminals steal guns -- both from family members or from strangers in burglaries.

 

During the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the Jewish rebels stole weapons from the bodies of German soldiers. Kill one soldier, steal his weapon, and use that one rifle to "liberate" more of them. Unfortunately, today, some weapons are stolen from policemen and from their cars. Not that I equate today's criminals with the Resistance of WWII, just that the method of gaining arms is still in use.

 

The bad guys always seem to have a large supply of guns.

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

Lots of criminals have their girlfriends buy a gun -- called "straw purchasers". Lots of criminals buy guns from the local bartender or unlicensed pharmacutical salesman. Lots of criminals steal guns -- both from family members or from strangers in burglaries.

 

During the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the Jewish rebels stole weapons from the bodies of German soldiers. Kill one soldier, steal his weapon, and use that one rifle to "liberate" more of them. Unfortunately, today, some weapons are stolen from policemen and from their cars. Not that I equate today's criminals with the Resistance of WWII, just that the method of gaining arms is still in use.

 

The bad guys always seem to have a large supply of guns.

 

 

Than background checks on ALL potential gun buyers may help and those guns Stolen from family and from others If they were in Safes maybe they would not have been stolen. Who knows just a thought.

[Shaky Molasses, SASS 20549]

Than background checks on ALL potential gun buyers may help and those guns Stolen from family and from others If they were in Safes maybe they would not have been stolen. Who knows just a thought.

 

Virtually none of the guns used in crime come from legitimate "private sales." These are the only sales that universal background checks would impact. Bartenders and drug dealers selling stolen guns are not going to comply with background check requirements. And straw purchasers are designed to get around background checks.

 

As to gun safes, well, such a law might help the problem, if the problem is guns in the hands of criminals. But first, let's define the problem. Is "the problem" gang bangers killing other gangbangers? Do we really give a damn?

 

Is the problem innocent bystanders being killed by gangbangers who are lousy shots, just wildly spraying the streets with rounds? But isn't it already illegal to shoot from a car? I seem to remember that from my hunter safety class! Is the solution target training so that the gangbangers will hit their targets (other gangbangers) intead of innocent bystanders? I might be able to get behind that, imposing marksmanship skills for gang initiation requirements. How do we enforce it though?

 

Let's discuss what the problem is. Sandy Hook? Well, that problem is a complex one, involving the entire degradation of society, the banning of God from the schools and from public life, elevating violence and destruction, the spreading of alienation and isolation among the youth, the creation of entitlement mentalities, even the media's giving huge play to the names of the killers.

 

How many Americans know the names of the Supreme Court Justices? How many Americans know the names of the recent mass killers? I'd like the media to refuse to publish the names and details of these killers, denying them any fame. That would certainly help. But we can't impose any law to that effect, because of the First Amendment. It would help more than some law preventing me from keeping a gun in my nightstand -- loaded, without any trigger guard or other disabling devise, round chambered, and ready to deploy immediately if a loud noise wakes me up in the middle of the night! And we can't impose any law like that because of the Second Amendment.

 

Some of my guns are in my safe, but others are kept loaded and ready, stashed around my home and office. And I am not intending to change that!

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

Virtually none of the guns used in crime come from legitimate "private sales." These are the only sales that universal background checks would impact. Bartenders and drug dealers selling stolen guns are not going to comply with background check requirements. And straw purchasers are designed to get around background checks.

 

As to gun safes, well, such a law might help the problem, if the problem is guns in the hands of criminals. But first, let's define the problem. Is "the problem" gang bangers killing other gangbangers? Do we really give a damn?

 

Is the problem innocent bystanders being killed by gangbangers who are lousy shots, just wildly spraying the streets with rounds? But isn't it already illegal to shoot from a car? I seem to remember that from my hunter safety class! Is the solution target training so that the gangbangers will hit their targets (other gangbangers) intead of innocent bystanders? I might be able to get behind that, imposing marksmanship skills for gang initiation requirements. How do we enforce it though?

 

Let's discuss what the problem is. Sandy Hook? Well, that problem is a complex one, involving the entire degradation of society, the banning of God from the schools and from public life, elevating violence and destruction, the spreading of alienation and isolation among the youth, the creation of entitlement mentalities, even the media's giving huge play to the names of the killers.

 

How many Americans know the names of the Supreme Court Justices? How many Americans know the names of the recent mass killers? I'd like the media to refuse to publish the names and details of these killers, denying them any fame. That would certainly help. But we can't impose any law to that effect, because of the First Amendment. It would help more than some law preventing me from keeping a gun in my nightstand -- loaded, without any trigger guard or other disabling devise, round chambered, and ready to deploy immediately if a loud noise wakes me up in the middle of the night! And we can't impose any law like that because of the Second Amendment.

 

Some of my guns are in my safe, but others are kept loaded and ready, stashed around my home and office. And I am not intending to change that!

 

 

You are correct on many points Yet there are thousands of guns getting into the wrong hands ,how is this happening you say straw sales If you require a background check on all sales this would stop a lot of these sales.

[Shaky Molasses, SASS 20549]

You are correct on many points Yet there are thousands of guns getting into the wrong hands ,how is this happening you say straw sales If you require a background check on all sales this would stop a lot of these sales.

 

Straw purchases go through background checks. The purchaser is the girlfriend or other person with a clean record, who can stand up to the background check. The purchaser buys the gun and commits a fraud on the 4473, falsely asserting that s/he is the untimate user of the gun. The purchaser then illegally sells/gives the gun to the criminal who did not have a clean record.

 

So-called "universal background checks" would not stop this ALREADY ILLEGAL transfer of the weapon. Just like a law against murder does not stop the criminal from murdering someone.

 

Jack Black, you are right that requiring all of us to have all of our guns locked up might hurt the supply of guns to the criminals. But there is a little problem there, namely the Second Amendment. My guns are NOT all going to be locked up. And my safe is only a minor deterrent, not a complete safeguard. If my guns are all locked up, and my home is invaded, and some thug holds a tree branch loper to my daughter's fingers, I am going to give him the key to my safe -- because I wouldn't be able to defend myself and my family with all my guns locked up. So at least one gun will remain on my hip, another will remain tucked into the cushion of my Easy-Boy, ...

 

I will NOT give up the Second Amendment because you and some others think that locking all my guns in a safe will help protect society. The right to BEAR arms -- not to keep them locked in a safe.

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

Straw purchases go through background checks. The purchaser is the girlfriend or other person with a clean record, who can stand up to the background check. The purchaser buys the gun and commits a fraud on the 4473, falsely asserting that s/he is the untimate user of the gun. The purchaser then illegally sells/gives the gun to the criminal who did not have a clean record.

 

So-called "universal background checks" would not stop this ALREADY ILLEGAL transfer of the weapon. Just like a law against murder does not stop the criminal from murdering someone.

 

Jack Black, you are right that requiring all of us to have all of our guns locked up might hurt the supply of guns to the criminals. But there is a little problem there, namely the Second Amendment. My guns are NOT all going to be locked up. And my safe is only a minor deterrent, not a complete safeguard. If my guns are all locked up, and my home is invaded, and some thug holds a tree branch loper to my daughter's fingers, I am going to give him the key to my safe -- because I wouldn't be able to defend myself and my family with all my guns locked up. So at least one gun will remain on my hip, another will remain tucked into the cushion of my Easy-Boy, ...

 

I will NOT give up the Second Amendment because you and some others think that locking all my guns in a safe will help protect society. The right to BEAR arms -- not to keep them locked in a safe.

 

I can not disagree with you on protecting yourself and loved ones.

 

I wish you well

 

 

We still have a problem in this country and I hope this all works out well

[Marauder SASS #13056]

 

Marauder: I did not provide any solution to anything. I disputed Dang It Dan’s assertion that an anti-gunner has no response to the question of “what law can be passed that will keep the criminal or the mentally unstable person from stealing a gun and using it?” I gave the response that an anti-gunner can give, namely that if/when all guns are confiscated, there won’t be guns available for the criminals/mentally ill to steal. And I do believe that this is the anti-gunner's goal, complete ban of all firearms. Maybe not just from the civilian population. Note that the Marines marching at the Inaguaration were carrying weapons with no bolts.

 

I did not assert that preventing the criminals and mentally ill from stealing guns would prevent violence. And I certainly did not recommend any course of action.

 

However, based on the fact that you have ascribed to me that which I never said, and have made arguments that have no bearing on what I said, I do have a course of action to recommend to you, Marauder: Remedial Reading Comprehension and Remedial Rhetoric.

Thank you for clarifying that what you said is evidently not what you believe, but what you would expect many anti-gun folks to say. But what you said, did lead to the conclusions I made. Sorry if I offended you.

 

But the answer I provided to the false argument by anti-gun folks still holds.

[Titus A. Gnatsass, SASS #71705]

Brings us back the the classic saying:

"If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns"

 

The actual truth to this is:

"If they outlaw guns, only outlaws and THE GOVERNMENT will have guns."

 

The second group scares me more than the first.

[Shaky Molasses, SASS 20549]

The actual truth to this is:

"If they outlaw guns, only outlaws and THE GOVERNMENT will have guns."

 

The second group scares me more than the first.

 

I don't think there is a difference between the guvmt and the outlaws. And if we do distinguish, I agree with you, the guvmt scares me more than the gangbangers.

[Marauder SASS #13056]

I got this in an email:

 

 

Brilliant way to put it. But because of the common sense aspect of it, no one in Washington will pay attention.

 

A person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST
THE LAW), breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), and commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW).

 

And there are people in this country that somehow think passing ANOTHER LAW banning guns would protect us from someone like this.

 

The only people that a gun ban law would impact are the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, which will only serve to cripple the ability to protect ourselves.

We all want to be safe.

Good people want to try to "fix" bad situations.

 

One of our main problems is realizing that there is only so much we can do before we actually make matters worse.

 

At a certain point, we need to realize that like is not entirely safe, nor will it be in the foreseable future. But most of the actions being proposed will only sacrifice freedom and will not make us safer.

 

It is a balancing act that our founding fathers struggled with and provided a pretty good solution. But we continue to strugle because it is so hard to live with the troubles in our world. A world that has continued violence and that we have seen incrreasing in our lifetimes. Because we have turned for the lives and life styles that produced the relative peace of our partents and grand partents time.

 

Merely wanting to "do something" to help is not the answer unless we are willing to look hard at the real issues - and be willing to face up to the mistakes we and others have made

 

And looking to laws to bring back peace is like looking to the body shop to fix car accidents. They come too late in the process. Like laws, they generally only do clean up after the fact.