Criminals for Gun Control

[sabashimon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L3kMuN8sjk

[SaddleSarge]

Copious amounts of truth there.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.

[TTUshooter]

yeah, it drives alot of the points home...

[myfaforumname]

Perhaps you can actually type what sort of point you have next time and other people can actually comment.

[SaddleSarge]

Originally Posted by TTUshooter

yeah, it drives alot of the points home...

Does it ever. Reminds me of some case law. Although same thing only different..., it serves the same theme as the topic.

...We decline to put police doing their jobs in the same category as criminals doing theirs. Because criminal activities serve no legitimate purpose, there is no reason to spare criminals from even remote consequences of their actions; deterrence, by forcing criminals to assume responsibility for all the harm they cause by their anti-social conduct, is the very essence of criminal law. Law enforcement personnel, by contrast, serve important purposes; the risk of personal liability, if taken beyond its proper scope, may make police timid and deter activities necessary for our protection. Criminals, moreover, can largely control the circumstances of their crimes and thus minimize the risk that force will be necessary; law enforcement personnel must take the situation as they find it... VERA CRUZ v CITY OF ESCONDIDO 9556782v2

Beautiful case law and from the Ninth too! The last line is BEAUTIFUL for all law abiding citizens and will be referred to often!! (And all from a little 'ol dog bite. )

[TranterUK]

Well this is pretty much the situation we have in the UK. Although still allowed, with a licence, to own shotguns and rifles the amount of people who do are few. The government has made it more and more difficult over recent years to get and renew licences. In the opinion of many this has been a deliberate and effective ploy to reduce the number of firearms in public hands.

Criminals here know with almost 100% certainty a house will not contain firearms that might endanger their safety. As the guy in the clip says, it just helps increase their productivity!

[user]

I'll tell you a story about institutionalized criminal culture. In 1968, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which included the Eavesdropping, Wiretapping, and Electronic Surveillance Act (which makes it a felony for executive branch governmental persons to do electronic surveillance on citizens without a warrant or court order). In doing so, Congress provided that the States could pass similar legislation as long as it was at least as protective of citizens' rights as the federal law. Six states didn't go along. And the reason was that the governments of those states had a long history of political corruption and criminal behavior, and they didn't want investigators to be able to do wiretaps on the political bosses and officials. So in Maryland, for example, unless everyone who's a party to the conversation gives his consent in advance, there can be no wiretapping; there can't be a warrant issued on the basis of the affidavit of a confidential informant, because the conversation can't be recorded just on the basis of his agreement.

I see "gun control" as essentially the same thing, and the states that are the biggest "gun control" states are those in which the political structure relies on political corruption and criminal behavior. They are, in fact, "pro-crime" states, and they like it that way. They don't want the citizens armed because they want the sheep to be easily fleeced.