Does the United States need more strict gun-control laws?

[FWiedner]

Pro - Does the United States need more strict gun-control laws?

By Sara Runnels

Despite President Bush's aggressive anti-terrorism program, the Bush Administration has a blind spot when it comes to gun laws in America. The number of people killed by firearms has unfortunately risen after seven consecutive years of decline, and there are critical loopholes and ambiguities in the United States' federal gun laws. In light of this news, the Bush Administration must focus on keeping U.S. citizens safe from internal threats.

While the Second Amendment clearly gives citizens the right to bear arms, Americans have continued to radically abuse this right. Elaborate mass shootings frequently haunt the nation's front pages, and smaller incidents casually go unnoticed. According to bradycampaign.com, 82 people die from gunshot injuries in the United States every day. This number alone is reason enough to immediately re-examine the roots of this recurring problem and implement suitable solutions. Brian Malte, the outreach director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, believes that it's time for the public to realize the severity of the problem with gun control. He told the Los Angeles Times, "When you have a lot of these incidents happening at about the same time, people start to put one and one together."

Past and present gun-related statistics can be partially attributed to the recklessness of Congress and the Bush Administration's lack of gun law reformation. Bush's 2005 budget could possibly force 88,000 police officers off the streets, causing a deficiency in state security. Congress' failure to renew the familiar assault weapons ban has immunized gun manufacturers from civil liability for letting weapons fall in the hands of gun traffickers, snipers and terrorists - a critical factor in the dramatic nationwide killing spree.

In 1999, Bush verbally endorsed the assault weapons ban and still articulates his pledge to sign the bill with little hesitation if it reaches his desk. But sticking with a political trend of unfulfilled promises, he hasn't called on a single Congressman in support of its renewal. As a president who has been relentless in pressuring Congress on almost every issue important to him, his actions (or lack thereof) in regard to the bill are undoubtedly questionable and negligent.

Federal law concerning gun sales and ownership is a complete legislative mess. The vague regulations have forced states to fill in the gaps, causing a plethora of troublesome loopholes. As a result of the poorly written laws, a category known as private sellers exists, where anyone who wants to sell guns from his private collection doesn't need to conduct background checks, keep any records, research the buyer's qualifications or be knowledgeable of firearms in any way.

Since the horror of Sept. 11, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has repeatedly reminded us that the airplane hijackers used box cutters - not guns - to terrorize the nation. This observation holds little significance when compared to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, which found that 47 suspects on an FBI terrorist watch list legally purchased firearms in the United States last year. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., told the Associated Press that the "FBI knows that terrorist access to guns in our country is a real problem. Hopefully, the FBI can talk some sense into the rest of the Bush Administration and put the safety and security of the American people ahead of the interests of the gun lobby."

By examining specific cases involving links between terrorism and guns, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has revealed alarming results that scream for reformation. Specifically, the study found that gun shows are a breeding ground for terrorist gun sales; nothing in federal law prevents terrorists from instantly amassing arsenals of weapons; the irresponsibility of the gun industry allows corrupt gun dealers to funnel guns to terrorists, and the loopholes in the law have allowed terrorists to buy military ammunition magazines and "gun kits" through the mail that can be assembled into untraceable assault weapons.

The Brady Campaign issues an annual report card that analyzes and grades each state based on a checklist of overall gun safety. The Campaign claims that while some states have successfully strengthened their laws and blocked efforts by gun lobbyists to weaken existing laws, a number of states continue to drag their feet on gun safety measures. Texas received a D- for its efforts, a slight decline from previous years; and eight other red states with equally insufficient grades are still pursuing an easier system for citizens to carry concealed handguns.

A false sense of security has surfaced within the United States, and gun-related fatalities are a constant reminder of this inadequacy. While the Administration's efforts have protected us from malicious outsiders, they have neglected to acknowledge the trend of trigger-happy Americans. Without a doubt, the government should bite the bullet on gun control and start prioritizing the safety of its citizens.

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2005/03/31/Opinion/Pro-Does.The.United.States.Need.More.Strict.GunControl.Laws-907457.shtml

.

[pinduck]

What total and utter garbage, just more of the same old b###. This must appeal to all the sheeple out there or otherwise why waste print and bandwidth?

[unspellable]

of the 82 people killed, how many are justifiable shootings?  How many are suicides?  How many are perhaps justifiable suicides, by which I mean some one who is terminally ill and in pain?

I have a long long laundry list of problems in this country that cost far more than 82 lives per day and can be fixed without trampling on inalienable rights.

[Don Fischer]

Yes we do need stricter gun laws. Eliminate every one we have and one new one: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be inf......, Oh I'm sorry, we have that one. Maybe what we need is a government with the gonads to tell the anti's what the law say's? :wink:

[Leverdude]

82 people per day huh. Thats pretty darn good for a country this size. Take out the ones shot by police & its probably 10 or less.
Wonder how many die from car accidents per day? Or from choking on a hot dog. Wonder how many lives were saved because of private gun ownership.
Wonder how many taxpayer dollars get wasted keeping track of useless statistics?

[Raimford]

Will Rogers, a political satirist, said, "It's not what you don't know that's gonna hurt you.  It's what you know that ain't so".

Dresden James said, "A truths initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply a lie was believed.  When a well packaged web of lies has been handed to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly ridiculous and its speaker a raving lunatic”.

Sir Winston Churchill said, “Everyone, at least once in their lives, trips over the truth.  Most just pick themselves up, dust themselves off and scurry upon their way”.

TRUTH:  An “Act of Congress” only has authority within the Territory owned and ceded to the United States unless a contrary intent is evident.  

Example of plenary authority: Washington D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, enclaves ceded by the Lawful Authority of the Union states to the United States and accepted by the United States for the provisions of Article 1, Section 8, Claus 17 of the Constitution of the United States (UCS 40 Section 255).  

See California Supreme Court decision in “People ex rel. Attry. Gen. v. Naglee 1 Cal. 234 (1850).  See also: Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821); The Mayor, Aldermen, City Councel of New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. 662, 10 Pet. 662; 9 L.Ed. 573 (1836);  Buffington v. Day, 11 Wall., 78 U.S. 122 (1871); United States v. Coe, 155 U.S. 76, 15 S. Ct. 16 (1894).

“An act of Congress does not have sanctity of constitutional provision, and even though the act is valid within orbit of Congress, the operation of the act can affect only those subjects over which the central government has jurisdiction.”  People v. Kelley, 122 Pl2d 655 (1942)

TRUTH:  State Citizenship/Nationality is the primary citizenship in the United States of America.

“the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens.  See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S.(16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873).  Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”  Jones v. Temmer, 829 F. Supp. 1226 (1993).

14th Amendment:  All persons born or naturalized in the United States,  
                            and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
                            the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country.”  Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927).

“The rights of citizens of the states and of citizens of the United States are each guarded by these different provisions.  That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. [83 U.S.] 36, recently decided by the supreme court.  The rights of citizens of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment.  They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions.”  United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. Page 829, (Case No. 14, 459) (1873).

QUESTIONS:

What “Federal Gun Control Laws” have full force and effect within the 50 states of the Union?  I think very few.
 
Are you a citizen of the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

If you are, quit your bitching cause the United States Government can cram anything it wants down your throat.

Did you register to vote as a “citizen of the United States or U.S. Citizen”?  

Does your state statutes require that your elected officials be “citizens of the United States”?

If so, then you have elected your city, county or state officials as inchoate (incomplete) Federal State Officials (subject to the jurisdiction thereof) and you have no dejure (truthful) state representatives, and they, the inchoate Federal State officials, can cram down your throat whatever they have been told to.  Look up the word “sophistry” in the dictionary.

CONCLUSION:

You have just been tripped.  Are you now going to “pick yourself up, dust yourself off and scurry upon your way”?
Do these truths “seem utterly ridiculous and its speaker (writer) a raving lunatic”?

One of the beautiful things about this country is that it is now your choice. You can agree or disagree.  I hope that those that disagree, disagree from a position of greater knowledge and will share this knowledge.  But alas, most who will disagree, will disagree out of ignorance. So perhaps, the latter need to put down their beers, turn off their televisions and start studying the Constitution of the United States and the Laws of the United States of America.  No insults intended.

Thank you for your time,

Douglas Smith
An Oregon National/Citizen