Would you support this as 'common sense' gun control?

Hatuey · Dec 24, 2008

Perhaps you should wait 72 hours before uttering any comment about politics.

Gag order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A gag order (or suppression order) is an order, sometimes a legal order by a court or government, other times a private order by an employer or other institution, restricting information or comment from being made public.

Gag orders are often used against participants involved in a lawsuit or criminal trial. They are also a tool to prevent media from publishing unwanted information on a particular topic. A National Security Letter, which is an administrative subpoena used by the FBI, has an attached gag order, restricting the recipient from ever saying anything about that they were served with one.

A Criminal Court, for instance, will issue a gag order on the media if the judge believes that potential jurors in a future trial will be influenced by the media reporting or speculation on the early stages of a case. Another example might be to ensure police are not impeded in their investigations by media publicity about a case.

A gag law is intended to limit freedom of the press, as by instituting censorship or restricting access to information. In the United States, a court can only order parties to a case not to comment on it; a court has no authority to stop unrelated reporters from reporting on a case. Most statutes which restrict what may be reported have generally been found unconstitutional and void. However, the gag provisions of the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act have been upheld.

TurtleDude said:
waiting periods have no usefulness and thus on that ground alone have no business being part of our laws.

So a waiting period to determine whether those trying to purchase what they legally can not is not useful? Explain why.

Ikari · Dec 24, 2008

The gag order, by the way, isn't universal. It's very limited to an individual or a small group. It oft accompanies some form of criminal trial or sensitive information. Waiting periods on guns are universal. So instead of taking it on an individual basis, it would be as if the gag order was permanently attached to us all; which would certainly be an infringement upon the 1st amendment.

Tucker Case · Dec 24, 2008

I'm in agreement with the F on the license. It can be removed after a certain time showing that there is no recidivism for violent felons. (5 years perhaps) and we can make it a PART of their sentence that must also be served.

Sure, they can get around it, but being caught with a fake ID for that purpose can be considered a violation of sentence and they can be treated as such.

If someone who is supposed to have the "F" is found with a fake that doesn't have it, this should be a felony in it's own right.

TurtleDude · Dec 24, 2008

Hatuey said:
Gag order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So a waiting period to determine whether those trying to purchase what they legally can not is not useful? Explain why.

A waiting period of less than a month does not result in a more accurate BG check than the one that is done instantly.

Oftencold · Dec 24, 2008

Ikari said:
. . . First off, we've done away with public ridicule as a form of punishment. . .

This, I believe, is one of the fundamental reasons for out intractable crime rates.

Hatuey · Dec 24, 2008

Oftencold said:
This, I believe, is one of the fundamental reasons for out intractable crime rates.

Considering the 'crime rate' wasn't even being recorded when public ridicule was around what exactly makes you think there was less crime 200 years ago then there was 100 years ago? I say 100 years because that's when the U.S. started gathering crime statistics on a country wide basis. I'll wait for this.

Statistics: Reporting Systems and Methods - History Of Crime Statistics

Jerry · Dec 24, 2008

Goobieman said:
Pursuant to my conversation with Tucker... :2wave:

In order to stop criminals from illegally buying guns in a manner that does NOT infringe on the rights of the law abiding, I argue that, upon conviction, the state should tattoo a large red F on their foreheads.

In alternate, I would have a similar F placed onto their driver's license, as part of the background behind the personal information, in a manner plainly visible to anyone looking at it.

Other letters may be used to denote other legal handicaps, as necessary.

This would prevent criminals from getting guns (from gun dealers, anyway)
This would not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.

Would you support this as 'common sense' gun control?
If not, why not?

<poll pending>
Options:
Yes
No

So you're saying that black market dealers selling hot weapons on the street wouldn't sell to known felons?

Would you support this as 'common sense' gun control?