If the penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a crime were life in prison without chance of parole, and the penalty for shooting someone with a firearm in the commission of a crime were death I believe there would be less crime involving firearms in America.

Even though there will still be crime in America, as some people will just switch to using something else, like baseball bats, then perhaps people in the Government will then seek to outlaw baseball bats, and use the tired old response of "Protecting People" being their job.

I'm always reminded of the All in the Family episode where Archie and Gloria are talking about guns.....

Gloria: Do you know that sixty percent of all deaths in America are caused by guns?

Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?

I believe the Federal Government is restricted by law from entering into the Gun Control debate as long as the Second Amendment is in place as is, unless the Federal Government wants to go through the formal process of revoking ones citizenship to take the right to keep and bear Arms away.

Originally Posted by Gator

If the penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a crime were life in prison without chance of parole, and the penalty for shooting someone with a firearm in the commission of a crime were death I believe there would be less crime involving firearms in America.

Even though there will still be crime in America, as some people will just switch to using something else, like baseball bats, then perhaps people in the Government will then seek to outlaw baseball bats, and use the tired old response of "Protecting People" being their job.

I'm always reminded of the All in the Family episode where Archie and Gloria are talking about guns.....

Gloria: Do you know that sixty percent of all deaths in America are caused by guns?

Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?

I believe the Federal Government is restricted by law from entering into the Gun Control debate as long as the Second Amendment is in place as is, unless the Federal Government wants to go through the formal process of revoking ones citizenship to take the right to keep and bear Arms away.

I have never heard of a danranged batsman beating to death 14 people in a mall with a baseball bat. Or another other melee weapon for that matter...

The fact is its much, much, easier to commit murder even multiple murders with a gun than with any other civilian weapon.

Its like a camera you point and shoot. Any idiot can do it, thats what makes it so dangerous. It much harder to beat or stab someone to death.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I have never heard of a danranged batsman beating to death 14 people in a mall with a baseball bat. Or another other melee weapon for that matter...

The fact is its much, much, easier to commit murder even multiple murders with a gun than with any other civilian weapon.

Its like a camera you point and shoot. Any idiot can do it, thats what makes it so dangerous. It much harder to beat or stab someone to death.

Murdering 14 people at a Mall is an illegal act, would someone bent on killing 14 people at a Mall worry if the weapon is procured legally?

Going back to All in the Family..... would it make you feel better if those 14 people killed at the Mall were killed using a pipe bomb, or propane cylinder, or doused with gasoline from a super soaker and set ablaze?

Freedom is a dangerous enterprise, if it be the Federal Governments responsibility to protect human life then....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182809,00.html
School buses would be the only vehicle allowed on the roads during the hours that school buses run, and no one would be allowed to go to school on any vehicle other than a School Bus.

Likewise...
http://encarta.msn.com/media_7015003..._by_State.html
... it would need to be agaist the law to privately operate a motor vehicle in the United States of America and everyone would just ride the bus or take the train.

I can find where the Federal Government has the job of protecting the United States Constitution, I cannot find were the Federal Government has the job of preemptively preventing the loss of life at a Shopping Mall from an illegal act.

[quote=Gator;296525]Murdering 14 people at a Mall is an illegal act, would someone bent on killing 14 people at a Mall worry if the weapon is procured legally?

You've missed my point. While you could kill a individual with a knife or bat it considerable harder to kill large numbers of people (more than 2) without a gun. In response to your statement the answer is no, but thats why background checks are so important. It can keep the mentally unbalanced from buying guns.

Going back to All in the Family..... would it make you feel better if those 14 people killed at the Mall were killed using a pipe bomb, or propane cylinder, or doused with gasoline from a super soaker and set ablaze?

Thats precisely the reason why bombs are illegal too. And building bombs or other WMDs requires a certain level of technical expertise which most people thankfully do not have. The danger of firearms is its simplicity.

Freedom is a dangerous enterprise, if it be the Federal Governments responsibility to protect human life then....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182809,00.html
School buses would be the only vehicle allowed on the roads during the hours that school buses run, and no one would be allowed to go to school on any vehicle other than a School Bus.

Governments have the responsibility to protect its citizenry from all threats, Not just military. Thats included man-made or act of god.

[quote=mmarsh;296526]

Originally Posted by Gator

Murdering 14 people at a Mall is an illegal act, would someone bent on killing 14 people at a Mall worry if the weapon is procured legally?

You've missed my point. While you could kill a individual with a knife or bat it considerable harder to kill large numbers of people (more than 2) without a gun. In response to your statement the answer is no, but thats why background checks are so important. It can keep the mentally unbalanced from buying guns.

Going back to All in the Family..... would it make you feel better if those 14 people killed at the Mall were killed using a pipe bomb, or propane cylinder, or doused with gasoline from a super soaker and set ablaze?

Thats precisely the reason why bombs are illegal too. And building bombs or other WMDs requires a certain level of technical expertise which most people thankfully do not have. The danger of firearms is its simplicity.

Freedom is a dangerous enterprise, if it be the Federal Governments responsibility to protect human life then....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182809,00.html
School buses would be the only vehicle allowed on the roads during the hours that school buses run, and no one would be allowed to go to school on any vehicle other than a School Bus.

Governments have the responsibility to protect its citizenry from all threats, Not just military. Thats included man-made or act of god.

I'm not talking about "Governments" I'm talking about "Government" as in the United States Federal Government, I do not care what other Governments in the World do to their people or what other Governments on Earth allow there people to have.
I'm talking about the United States Constitution, what is legal, and what is illegal for the Federal Government to impose upon the Citizens of the United States of America at this point in time.

Constitution of the United States

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Oaths

United States Constitution Article II, Section 1
President of the United States of America
Oath of Office
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

United States Constitution Article VI, clause 3:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Oath of Office
United States Congress
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]

United States Military Oath
"I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Do you see the pattern? Do you see anything about the protection of people in a Shopping Mall or anywhere else for that matter?
The loss of a mere 14 Americans in a Shopping Mall Shooting pales in comparison to the loss of the United States Constitution, as the United States Federal Government has the power to end just about all human life on Earth, and the United States Constitution is in my opinion the only thing keeping such a potentially destructive force at bay.

Do you see the pattern? Do you see anything about the protection of people in a Shopping Mall or anywhere else for that matter?The loss of a mere 14 Americans in a Shopping Mall Shooting pales in comparison to the loss of the United States Constitution, as the United States Federal Government has the power to end just about all human life on Earth, and the United States Constitution is in my opinion the only thing keeping such a potentially destructive force at bay.

Do you fight for your people or for your government? The government is there for the people. The constitution has been changed before, and it can be changed again. The constitution was around when the US became the first and only country to use atomic weapons on an opposing country. I'm not saying this was wrong, I am saying that the constitution cannot stop this.

Originally Posted by Wallabies

Do you fight for your people or for your government? The government is there for the people. The constitution has been changed before, and it can be changed again. The constitution was around when the US became the first and only country to use atomic weapons on an opposing country. I'm not saying this was wrong, I am saying that the constitution cannot stop this.

-
As for Japan, the US Congress has the power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations, the President is CinC of the US Military, and War was declared by the US Congress on Japan.

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared;
and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan;
and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.

The US Military defends the Constitution, it is why it was legal, and so very easy for some to kill Americans in the Southern States during the United States Civil War.

The Second Amendment has not been changed, which I believe I had already pointed out in the way of saying "at this time" and such.

HR1022 is very scary....

And you can do all the background checks in the world but if a criminal wants a gun they will get it...Last time I checked fully automatic weapons where illegal, so then tell me how does a criminal get a UZI?

Most gun laws only affect law abiding citizens...

Furthermore thinking that everything can be solved by making things illegal is just stupid logic, I mean look at the speed limit....

Education is the best defense and thus why so many politicians through out history have always been afraid of an educated public...Wasn't it Roosevelt that said something along those lines?

The only defense against armed criminals would be placing automated sentry machineguns in all public places and watching over everyone with UAVs. Thanks to human nature, there will always be murders.

Originally Posted by Gator

I just wanted to get the differing views.
You sayyou believe it is correct that the Federal Government can infringe on Firearm Ownership, that is all I was after.

Note I said: "I believe that if a person is convicted of a crime with a weapon then that person has lost all rights to own a weapon. . . " That puts a different type of light on the topic than what you seem to be implying.

That you view the Federal Government has the Constitutional Power to deny a Citizen the privilege of owning a weapon is on record.

Not sure where you see that I said anything about the Government having the actual constitutional power to deny anyone anything. But it is my understanding - though it may be wrong - that the Supreme court does have that power. The references were for your edification on the power that the Supreme court holds over all and sundry regardless or even in regards to the Constitution.

You apparently believe that there should be absolutely no infringement upon people to own or purchase firearms regardless of their history or background.

So tell me, a person gets out of jail on parole after killing 2 people with a handgun and wounding two others for one reason or another. Would it be wise to allow this very same person to walk down to the local gun store and allow him to legally purchase a weapon?

The needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few. I would rather convicted criminals be denied the right to own a firearm than read about a convicted criminal having killed someone with a firearm purchased from the local gun store.