Catherine: I thought if you buy a gun today, you have to have a background check done...so infringment of privacy isn't the issue as far as I can see.
I oppose the background checks, as well, as that is also an infringement on privacy rights!!! If I ever buy guns, it's private sale or gun show. I don't want the government knowing what I have and don't have.
Perhaps this will resonate.
Would all of you pro gun regulation folks approve if Newspaper Writers had to get Gov't approval before writing for the newspaper? How about if each story had a 24 hour waiting period? What if a newspaper employees had to be approved by Gov't? What if the newspaper itself had a 24 hour waiting period so it could be vetted by Gov't?
Bet you don't like that? hummmm.....
[quote="thejohnchapman"]I could see a possible rationale for a previously unqualified purchaser. the "argument" is that you don't know what the hell he or she is going to do with it.
What sense does a waiting period make if the person already owns a firearm just like the one sought for purchase?[/quote]
Just out of curiosity...why does the state have a right to know 'what the hell he or she is going to do with it'? Where in the constitution of either the state or the feds is the bit about knowing what a citizen will do with a right? Unless the citizen has a track record of abuse of the right (an armed criminal) the state should be assuming the citizen has an absolute right to the weapon.
The national Firearms Act of 1934 would never stand a straightfaced Constitutional test. It is in direct conflict with Ammendment II. That was the opening salvo in the Federal takeover of our individual rights!
Ammendment II says our right to own arms shall not be "infringed"
The Maine Constitution says it shall "never be questioned".
Nowhere in either does it say wait till tomorrow, or next week, or next month, or never.
Read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross and you will see what's coming!
I'm no HUGE fan of waiting periods, but I have a personal litmus test. "If a given law does not prevent me from owning one less gun or kind of gun, or prevent me from shooting in one less place, I'll talk about it."
Waiting periods don't offend my personal litmus test. With that said, a law imposing a waiting period for purchase of a THIRD Winchester 30-30 lever action rifle doesn't seem to make much sense. Just what is it preventing?
Again - not saying they necessarily make sense HERE, but that they do NOT make sense for the class of avid gun owners / shooters.
PS: If they gas the machine gun ban of 86', I would be happy to trade that for a national waiting period. That's true compromise - give and take. Not just take.
I'm no HUGE fan of waiting periods, but I have a personal litmus test. "If a given law does not prevent me from owning one less gun or kind of gun, or prevent me from shooting in one less place, I'll talk about it."[/quote]
Ah, but you see my litmus test is...does the proposed rule have a snowballs chance in hell of making the difference the proponents claim? If not it is simply a nusance. A waiting period for me would mean two trips to Kittery for a shootin iron, one more than needed and one moere than is reasonable.
Howsabout a 24hr waiting period on buying cigarettes in Bangor?
Its for the CHILDREN!!!!!!
With the correct kind of instant check system, you are probably right. I don't think the database links to the psych wards and nuthouses.
My litmus test gets the proposal to the "i'll talk about it" stage. Yours is what should be the standard for imposing a new law after discussion.
PS: I like instant check. It works well. It is relatively convenient. It assumes that che NCIC usually gets it right, and if it doesn't, we are all in for it.
FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE: [quote]The film premieres Sunday in a showing at Central Maine Community College in Auburn.[/quote]
Why have educators chose to show one side of an argument? Eddie the Eagle would make every one of them look like an A$$.
[quote="apondsong"]I don't know how a person can call themselves pro-life and not be supportive of this simple and pretty unobtrusive saftey measure. But..that's ok. I realize that many think their guns are going to be taken away from them by the government...or whatever. That would be horrible...for sure. I just think it is too much of a streatch, equating this measure with rabid gun-control.[/quote]
I don't see how anyone who claims to be a "pro-choice" champion of privacy and freedom can support this blatent violation of privacy and freedom?
The number of deaths caused by people buying guns are no where near the 100% level of those having abortions.
[quote]Anybody who feels their life is in imminent danger, needs to go to the police. And I'm pretty sure any danger of that magnitude was a long time in developing...plenty of time to seek and acquire a firearm for self-defense.[/quote]
This logic would remove all fire extinguishers from the house because if a kid plays with them, the foam is poisonous. If you have a fire, just cdall the fire department its what they are there for.
The only difference is, its a lot easier to get out of a burning building safely than to get out of a house with an armed burglar in it.
If Nicole Simpson had owned a gun we would know who tried to kill her.
[quote="Paul Mattson"]FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE: [quote]The film premieres Sunday in a showing at Central Maine Community College in Auburn.[/quote]
Why have educators chose to show one side of an argument? Eddie the Eagle would make every one of them look like an A$$.[/quote]
The three characters involved in making and promoting this film know very well how to manipulate both liberals in the media and the lefties in academia. Their know-how makes it relatively easy for them to arrange for puff pieces in the media and conduct what amount to lovefests in the colleges.
Because not many in either the media or academia are sympathetic to guns and not many gun owners have the skills to sell their views to largely hostile demographics, guess which side is going to lose this one.
If Nicole Simpson had owned a gun we would know who tried to kill her.[/quote]
They didn't just "try", they succeeded. And OJ is going to tell us who did it someday!
ANY gun restrictions are, inherently, "rabid" restrictions. (When one is afflicted with rabies, it takes a few days for the symptoms to show up...same goes with the infringement of our God given and constitutional rights...when one chips away at something, every little chip that is chipped away is, by defnition, gone.)
So, why restrict it to just guns? Why not a 24 hour waiting period to buy gasoline? Or go out to eat? Or shop at LL Beans or the mall? Why not a 24 hor period every time one attempts to use a credit or debit card? Chip away, all.
PS: I like instant check. It works well. It is relatively convenient. It assumes that che NCIC usually gets it right, and if it doesn't, we are all in for it.[/quote]
I agree, I hacve no problem with the instant check as long as the record of the check is flushed when reported.
My revulsion at the thought of any infringement of our 2nd Ammendment rights notwithstanding, I'm somewhat skeptical that a 24 hour waiting period would have saved this lady's son or anyone else bent on suicide. It is unlikely that the young man was sitting around one day and all of a sudden decided to blow his brains out. Obviously he had some major unresolved issues for some time leading up the the event, and was disinclined to seek help. It is doubtful that he would have been anymore inclined to seek help a day or two later. A tragedy to be sure, but one that would have been far more likely to be prevented had his loved ones maybe paid a bit more attention to what was going on in his life.
They didn't just "try", they succeeded. And OJ is going to tell us who did it someday![/quote]
My point is, if she had a gun they wouldn't have succeeded.
[size=18]GUN CONTROL MOVIE AT USM TONIGHT[/size]
A mother's grief turns into a mission to change gun control laws in Maine.
Her story, captured on film, can been seen tonight at U.S.M.
"There Ought to be a Law" is a documentary about Lewiston mother Cathy Crowley, whose teenage son killed himself in 2004.
Crowley became outraged after she learned her son had purchased a shotgun at a local Wal-Mart.
Are opposing views welcome at our Maine Colleges?
Factual data minus emotion?
Gun control laws don't work. It really is that simple.
[size=18]Mother fights to change gun laws[/size]
By Nancy Grape
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Cathy Crowley of Lewiston is easy to recognize. With her dark hair touched with gray, a generous smile and clothes that have seen plenty of wearing, she looks like many women you've stood behind in a checkout line at Wal-Mart.
In May 2004, however, Crowley went to Wal-Mart for a very different reason.
She wanted a store manager to introduce her to the sales clerk who, earlier that weekend,
Nancy Grape wrote what most of us, I believe, would expect her to write. Did anybody who has ever read her columns expect her to see the other side of this story? Unfortunately, the other side doesn't get much coverage anywhere, except in the form of letters to the editor from angry gun owners.
What intrigues me is how easily the media can be minipulated by people with an agenda and some knowledge of how the media operates. In these stories the name of Shoshanna Hoose, a former and perhaps present contributor to the Portland newspapers, keeps popping up. I don't have any problem with Hoose pushing her anti-gun agenda, but I do have a problem with how willingly the media is to play along with it.
The grieving mother in these stories is a sympathetic figure and an easy sell for the anti-gun crowd. But that doesn't mean her emotion is well directed and that her story does not need to be placed in perspective.
Sucking up to whatever's the fashionable craze/scare sells papers/radio time/TV time; editors, publishers & producers know this and are quick to capitalize on it. In this case, the pun is intended.
[size=18]Revised gun bill will face hearing[/size]
By PAUL CARRIER, Staff Writer
Saturday, February 24, 2007
AUGUSTA - A gun-control bill that generated a lot of discussion before going down to defeat in the Legislature two years ago has been resurrected by its sponsor, who sees it as a tool in the fight against youth suicide.
The newest version of the bill, which comes up for a public hearing Monday, would force anyone under 21 years old to wait 10 days before buying a rifle or a shotgun...
[quote]"Once people get to that point of despondency," a waiting period may not deter them, said Kim Adams, vice president for shooting sports at the Kittery Trading Post. "I don't think it would be particularly effective."
"Kids have plenty of ways of killing themselves," said Howell Copp of Howell's Gun Shop in Gray. "Teenage suicide in this country is a terrible problem, (but) if somebody is going to do it, they're going to do it."[/quote]
A better cas can probably be made for a waiting period prior to conception, or even taking the kid home from the hospital. It mght have saved a life in this situaion.
The bill ran out of gas thank gawd.
[size=24]Bill to restrict gun sales to minors salvaged[/size]
March 16, 2007
AUGUSTA, Maine --A Lewiston lawmaker's gun-control bill that was given up for dead Friday morning was alive again by the end of the day.
[size=24]But[/size] the 13th committee member, House Chairman Stanley Gerzofsky, who wasn't around for the 12-0 vote, decided to keep the bill alive so it can be debated on the House floor.
[size=24]Gerzofsky's amendment also calls for a study into who owns firearms that are used in suicides in Maine.[/size]
What other weapons do the Democrats want to control?
Easy answer, Paul:
Thinking via gov't schools.
Self determination via welfare.
Self achievement via taxes and burdensome regulation.