The right (?) to bear arms

[gabosaurus]

The gun threads on DP remind me of an e-mail I sent to Obama a couple of months ago. One of his e-mails asked for comments about his campaign and what he could do, so I sent him one. He replied, too.

First of all, I know gun nuts will be pleading their "constitutional rights." Which were adopted back in the 1700s, when settlers had to deal with rogue bandits and Indian attacks. They weren't sitting comfortably in the suburbs.

Among my primary points was the licensing of guns. You need a license to drive a car, why not a license to shoot a gun? Take a gun safety course, pass a test and you get a license to own a gun. No whacko fruitcake should be able to just walk in off the street and buy a gun. There should be a licensing system. With a photo ID. And a computer background check.
Which would give you the right to own a gun. Singular. Why does anyone need more than one gun? And no automatic weapons. No civilian should have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to own an assault rifle. There is no use for one.

It works for vehicles. It works for keeping track of sex offenders. Why not for guns?

Unless you just want any fool to be able to buy and own a gun.

[82Marine89]

Driving is a privilege. Gun ownership is a right guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment.

[Little-Acorn]

You need a license to drive a car, why not a license to shoot a gun?
When government wants to take away your rights, their first move will NOT be to restrict your ability to drive a car by refusing to give you a driver's license.


Unless you just want any fool to be able to buy and own a gun.
Gabby, I even want YOU to be able to buy and own a gun! :poke:

[actsnoblemartin]

gabby has the right to think but apparently doesnt use it

:laugh2:


Driving is a privilege. Gun ownership is a right guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment.

[actsnoblemartin]

she's not smart enough to know how to use. :laugh2:


When government wants to take away your rights, their first move will NOT be to restrict your ability to drive a car by refusing to give you a driver's license.


Gabby, I even want YOU to be able to buy and own a gun! :poke:

[Little-Acorn]

she's not smart enough to know how to use. :laugh2:

Then perhaps she's smart enough to decide whether she wants to own one. Or if she gets one, smart enough to decide to get some training and practice, and most other gun owners do.

My statement stands. I trust Gabby's common sense in deciding whether she will own and carry a gun, far more than I trust the government to make that choice for her (and the rest of us).

Gabby, I even want YOU to be able to buy and own a gun. What you do with that ability, I leave up to your own good sense.

Not the government's.

[actsnoblemartin]

gabby and common sense are like arabs and peace.

:laugh2:


Then perhaps she's smart enough to decide whether she wants to own one. Or if she gets one, smart enough to decide to get some training and practice, and most other gun owners do.

My statement stands. I trust Gabby's common sense in deciding whether she will own and carry a gun, far more than I trust the government to make that choice for her (and the rest of us).

Gabby, I even want YOU to be able to buy and own a gun. What you do with that ability, I leave up to your own good sense.

Not the government's.

[pegwinn]

Gabby. You know me. You no longer visit the neighborhood, but it's ok. The lights are on.

I am not a gun nut. I am a weapons aficionado. I make and use mana a mano weapons like knives, stave's, chucks, mace (not the type with cfc's), flails, tonfa, etc. I also teach my neighbors how to improvise weapons such as a nifty slasher made with a broomstick, two 72 inch bootlaces, and a broken pane of glass. Of course this is Texas. Over here how you kill a home intruder is a score-able event

So, am I in the "No whacko fruitcake should be able to just walk in off the street and buy a gun." category yet?

You do understand that laws only really effect the law abiding right? Your one-gun limit will not be observed by Billy the Banger.

I want you to be armed and dangerous. You mentioned the frontier and the suburbs. Home invasions are prevalent even in my lil town of Lubbock. You cannot expect the cops to be your personal security detachment. You need to train yourself to be able to avoid the newspapers most common descriptor.... Victim.

The best part about the constitution is that I have the right to do as I please and so do you.

[diuretic]

Should ANYONE and EVERYONE be able to lawfully aquire and use a firearm without any restriction whatsoever?

I know, I know, yet another 2nd Amendment thread, but humour me, it's a straightforward question and I'd be interested in your views.

[actsnoblemartin]

She wants to take away all our guns, like a good little liberal, and let the government take care of us.




Should ANYONE and EVERYONE be able to lawfully aquire and use a firearm without any restriction whatsoever?

I know, I know, yet another 2nd Amendment thread, but humour me, it's a straightforward question and I'd be interested in your views.

[The Reverend]

The gun threads on DP remind me of an e-mail I sent to Obama a couple of months ago. One of his e-mails asked for comments about his campaign and what he could do, so I sent him one. He replied, too.

First of all, I know gun nuts will be pleading their "constitutional rights." Which were adopted back in the 1700s, when settlers had to deal with rogue bandits and Indian attacks. They weren't sitting comfortably in the suburbs.

Among my primary points was the licensing of guns. You need a license to drive a car, why not a license to shoot a gun? Take a gun safety course, pass a test and you get a license to own a gun. No whacko fruitcake should be able to just walk in off the street and buy a gun. There should be a licensing system. With a photo ID. And a computer background check.
Which would give you the right to own a gun. Singular. Why does anyone need more than one gun? And no automatic weapons. No civilian should have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to own an assault rifle. There is no use for one.

It works for vehicles. It works for keeping track of sex offenders. Why not for guns?

Unless you just want any fool to be able to buy and own a gun.
Well the USC doesn't mention anything about vehicles BUT it does gaurantee the RIGHT to own guns (plural).

Why have the ability to own automatic weapons? Protection from the government that's why. There is plenty of reasons to own them. Bet you are against semi-autos as well.

[stephanie]

I love being called a gun nut....it makes me feel macho..:dance:

[Yurt]

I love being called a gun nut....it makes me feel macho..:dance:

http://is1.okcupid.com/users/668/366/6683670258947387567/mt1152119029.jpg

[hjmick]

I love being called a gun nut....it makes me feel macho..:dance:

This from the cat with fruit a rind on her head.

Now, to Gabo...

The right of individuals to own guns is as pertinent today as it was when the amendment was drafted. The Second Amendment was not just about rogue bandits and Indians, in fact those two factors did not figured into it at all. As I have come to understand it, the amendment was inspired by the anti-Federalists who feared creation of a standing army not under civilian control that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties. The Second Amendment allowed for citizens to keep their own weapons which would allow for the formation of militias that could, if the need were to arise, fend off an army that may try to impose the will of a "tyrant" who achieved high office and had decided that he didn't like our current form of government and sought a change. By force.

Noah Webster wrote, "Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state."

I believe this to be as true today as it was then. Fear the government that fears your gun.

Furthermore, to your argument that we no longer need to fight "rogue bandits and Indians," I would say that you are wrong, at least where rogue bandits are concerned. There are never ending examples of "rogue bandits," armed and otherwise, breaking into homes intent on causing harm if resistance is encountered during the course of their robbery. I believe that a homeowner has every right to defend his or her castle, with deadly force if necessary. We may be living in the suburbs, but that doesn't mean we are safe. And we can't always wait the ten minutes it takes for the police to show up.

As for licensing of guns, that's fine with me, mine are registered and I see that as basically the same thing. I do not know how it works in other states, but in California, when buying a gun we have to go through a background check, a ten day waiting period, and, in the case of handguns, you must pass a written safety test.

As for why anyone needs to own more than one gun, why does anyone need to own more than one car? Because there are differences. Because the handling of one is different than another. Because the is an intrinsic beauty to fine craftsmanship. Because sometimes you need a different tool for different jobs. Because they just want to.

To assault weapons and fully automatic weapons, I don't care, they aren't my style.

[BoogyMan]

The gun threads on DP remind me of an e-mail I sent to Obama a couple of months ago. One of his e-mails asked for comments about his campaign and what he could do, so I sent him one. He replied, too.

First of all, I know gun nuts will be pleading their "constitutional rights." Which were adopted back in the 1700s, when settlers had to deal with rogue bandits and Indian attacks. They weren't sitting comfortably in the suburbs.

Among my primary points was the licensing of guns. You need a license to drive a car, why not a license to shoot a gun? Take a gun safety course, pass a test and you get a license to own a gun. No whacko fruitcake should be able to just walk in off the street and buy a gun. There should be a licensing system. With a photo ID. And a computer background check.
Which would give you the right to own a gun. Singular. Why does anyone need more than one gun? And no automatic weapons. No civilian should have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to own an assault rifle. There is no use for one.

It works for vehicles. It works for keeping track of sex offenders. Why not for guns?

Unless you just want any fool to be able to buy and own a gun.


Well, so much for that old "respect the constitution" mantra the wacko left has been screaming. I guess you guys only respect the parts of the constitution that you think you can make political points over? Yeah, thought so.

[manu1959]

Well, so much for that old "respect the constitution" mantra the wacko left has been screaming. I guess you guys only respect the parts of the constitution that you think you can make political points over? Yeah, thought so.

it is a living document you need to read it in the context of today....you don't need a gun....the guvment will take care of you.....and if you do need one we will give you a license if you need one....

what i find funny is the evil facist gop wants the public armed....

and the tree huggers wants the people diss armed......

i have always said the left accuses others of what they are most guilty....

hussein's plan

Barack Obama did not grow up hunting and fishing, but he recognizes the great conservation legacy of
America’s hunters and anglers and has great respect for the passion that hunters and anglers have for their
Were it not for America’s hunters and anglers, including the great icons like Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo
Leopold, our nation would not have the tradition of sound game management, a system of ethical, science-
game laws and an extensive public lands estate on which to pursue the sport. Obama recognizes that we
forge a broad coalition if we are to address the great conservation challenges we face. America’s hunters
anglers are a key constituency that must take an active role and have a powerful voice in this coalition.
PROTECTING GUN RIGHTS
Respect the Second Amendment: Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate
in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target and trap shooting that may not necessarily
involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the
constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding
Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Western_Sportsmen.pdf
as for the rest of you....

[Pale Rider]

The gun threads on DP remind me of an e-mail I sent to Obama a couple of months ago. One of his e-mails asked for comments about his campaign and what he could do, so I sent him one. He replied, too.

First of all, I know gun nuts will be pleading their "constitutional rights." Which were adopted back in the 1700s, when settlers had to deal with rogue bandits and Indian attacks. They weren't sitting comfortably in the suburbs.

Among my primary points was the licensing of guns. You need a license to drive a car, why not a license to shoot a gun? Take a gun safety course, pass a test and you get a license to own a gun. No whacko fruitcake should be able to just walk in off the street and buy a gun. There should be a licensing system. With a photo ID. And a computer background check.
Which would give you the right to own a gun. Singular. Why does anyone need more than one gun? And no automatic weapons. No civilian should have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to own an assault rifle. There is no use for one.

It works for vehicles. It works for keeping track of sex offenders. Why not for guns?

Unless you just want any fool to be able to buy and own a gun.

Quick question Gab... do you hate guns, and if so, why?

[pegwinn]

Should ANYONE and EVERYONE be able to lawfully aquire and use a firearm without any restriction whatsoever?

I know, I know, yet another 2nd Amendment thread, but humour me, it's a straightforward question and I'd be interested in your views.

Yes, without exceptions. And to address some of the most commonly advocated exceptions .......

For those who say that Felons don't deserves weapons...... then keep em in prison. If the parole board says they are not a danger then they deserve to have their rights fully restored.

For those who are demanding mental health exceptions........ If someone is so mentally deranged that they are a danger to others, they should not be walking the street.

In my case guns are simply a subset of "arms". While it may be nothing but an historical trivia item..... firearms were not the most common weapon of the day. Bladed weapons were far more likely to be encountered. So, if you wish to wander the streets with a Conan Sword of Demon Doom strapped over the shoulder..... go for it. Bet it will make muggers think twice.

[Mr. P]

The gun threads on DP remind me of an e-mail I sent to Obama a couple of months ago. One of his e-mails asked for comments about his campaign and what he could do, so I sent him one. He replied, too.

First of all, I know gun nuts will be pleading their "constitutional rights." Which were adopted back in the 1700s, when settlers had to deal with rogue bandits and Indian attacks. They weren't sitting comfortably in the suburbs.

Among my primary points was the licensing of guns. You need a license to drive a car, why not a license to shoot a gun? Take a gun safety course, pass a test and you get a license to own a gun. No whacko fruitcake should be able to just walk in off the street and buy a gun. There should be a licensing system. With a photo ID. And a computer background check.
Which would give you the right to own a gun. Singular. Why does anyone need more than one gun? And no automatic weapons. No civilian should have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to own an assault rifle. There is no use for one.

It works for vehicles. It works for keeping track of sex offenders. Why not for guns?

Unless you just want any fool to be able to buy and own a gun.

So what did he say?

[Pale Rider]

Yes, without exceptions. And to address some of the most commonly advocated exceptions .......

For those who say that Felons don't deserves weapons...... then keep em in prison. If the parole board says they are not a danger then they deserve to have their rights fully restored.

For those who are demanding mental health exceptions........ If someone is so mentally deranged that they are a danger to others, they should not be walking the street.

In my case guns are simply a subset of "arms". While it may be nothing but an historical trivia item..... firearms were not the most common weapon of the day. Bladed weapons were far more likely to be encountered. So, if you wish to wander the streets with a Conan Sword of Demon Doom strapped over the shoulder..... go for it. Bet it will make muggers think twice.

Or maybe you'd prefer something like my Case Bowie.... :D

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2061/2299723410_1eb168652d.jpg

[emmett]

The gun threads on DP remind me of an e-mail I sent to Obama a couple of months ago. One of his e-mails asked for comments about his campaign and what he could do, so I sent him one. He replied, too.

First of all, I know gun nuts will be pleading their "constitutional rights." Which were adopted back in the 1700s, when settlers had to deal with rogue bandits and Indian attacks. They weren't sitting comfortably in the suburbs.

Among my primary points was the licensing of guns. You need a license to drive a car, why not a license to shoot a gun? Take a gun safety course, pass a test and you get a license to own a gun. No whacko fruitcake should be able to just walk in off the street and buy a gun. There should be a licensing system. With a photo ID. And a computer background check.
Which would give you the right to own a gun. Singular. Why does anyone need more than one gun? And no automatic weapons. No civilian should have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to own an assault rifle. There is no use for one.

It works for vehicles. It works for keeping track of sex offenders. Why not for guns?

Unless you just want any fool to be able to buy and own a gun.

Ok, you are in your home asleep when yourealize that your home has been broken into and someone is rustling around n your hallway. You do not have a gun because you do not believe that someone should have a gun, but the criminal outside your door does. He enters your room, you call your only resource, 911, of course you can't talk to them because the criminal will hear you. You are now hidden dow beside your bed. You hope the intruder doesn't find you but he does. I guaren-damn-tee you the last thing you think about before he blows your head off is that you wish you had a gun.

Gabby, I guarentee you this is true and you know it. Don't tell me you don't think life is precious enough to protect.

I am sure that each and every person who was ever killed in this manner and there have been thousands Gabby, wished the hell they had a gun.

[DragonStryk72]

I fall squarely in with the greater number of people owning guns group. It is true, the only people who are slowed down from getting guns in this manner are the exact people who need them: law-abiding citizens. A person who has gotten to the point of deciding to end someone's life with a gun, is not generally worried so much about the getting it illegally part of the run.

My current compliment of weapons knowledge include:
barehands (both Karate, and Wrestling)
sword
axe
tonfas
knives
staff
bokken
bows
crossbow
handguns
bolt-action rifles
12-guage shotgun
M-14

Now, understand, I hate fighting, with a passion. I don't like the thought of hurting someone else, but, that said, if I must fight, then I will win that fight by the most efficient means available.

also remember, the same government you are saying will protect you is the same government that helped during Katrina, and created the situation in Iraq.

[DragonStryk72]

One addendum I did not mention: I believe that the people should form up militias, a modern civilian military. I believe that were that to happen, were the people themselves to gather in sufficient numbers, and be armed for the task, that you would no longer see gang territories in cities.

[diuretic]

Yes, without exceptions. And to address some of the most commonly advocated exceptions .......

For those who say that Felons don't deserves weapons...... then keep em in prison. If the parole board says they are not a danger then they deserve to have their rights fully restored.

For those who are demanding mental health exceptions........ If someone is so mentally deranged that they are a danger to others, they should not be walking the street.

In my case guns are simply a subset of "arms". While it may be nothing but an historical trivia item..... firearms were not the most common weapon of the day. Bladed weapons were far more likely to be encountered. So, if you wish to wander the streets with a Conan Sword of Demon Doom strapped over the shoulder..... go for it. Bet it will make muggers think twice.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

On felons - they have to get out some time no? For what it's worth I think people with serious criminal records should not be allowed to lawfully possess/use etc a firearm.

Mental health - not every patient is serious enough to keep in a secure facility (apart from the cost think of the civil liberties implications). But for mine (again fwiw) I think if someone wants to have a firearm lawfully then they should be free of any mental illness (even depression) which they may be suffering.

I was thinking of the utility of certain firearms in reflecting on the type that might be lawfully used. Interesting point about blade weapons. I should have remembered though, if you go to a domestic always stay out of the kitchen :coffee:

[Sitarro]

The gun threads on DP remind me of an e-mail I sent to Obama a couple of months ago. One of his e-mails asked for comments about his campaign and what he could do, so I sent him one. He replied, too.

First of all, I know gun nuts will be pleading their "constitutional rights." Which were adopted back in the 1700s, when settlers had to deal with rogue bandits and Indian attacks. They weren't sitting comfortably in the suburbs.

Among my primary points was the licensing of guns. You need a license to drive a car, why not a license to shoot a gun? Take a gun safety course, pass a test and you get a license to own a gun. No whacko fruitcake should be able to just walk in off the street and buy a gun. There should be a licensing system. With a photo ID. And a computer background check.
Which would give you the right to own a gun. Singular. Why does anyone need more than one gun? And no automatic weapons. No civilian should have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to own an assault rifle. There is no use for one.

It works for vehicles. It works for keeping track of sex offenders. Why not for guns?

Unless you just want any fool to be able to buy and own a gun.

Hopefully, if Borat Hussein Obamit believes the crap you have written here, he reveals it to all voters so we can end his attempt to take over our lives by somehow sneaking into the Presidency. He will commit political suicide because even the most naive democrat, except you and a very small percentage of others, know that there are plenty of reasons to keep our second amendment rights intact. I have a number of unregistered weapons and plenty of ammo for each, nobody will take them from me.

Hussein is insane if he thinks for a second he could possibly get away with the bullshit in your post, he couldn't get the cooperation he would need to do it. :fu:

[actsnoblemartin]

I say any president who takes away our right to defend our life and liberty should be shot :laugh2:, and congressmen and senators

From my cold dead hands - charleston heston :pee:

QUOTE=Sitarro;209863]Hopefully, if Borat Hussein Obamit believes the crap you have written here, he reveals it to all voters so we can end his attempt to take over our lives by somehow sneaking into the Presidency. He will commit political suicide because even the most naive democrat, except you and a very small percentage of others, know that there are plenty of reasons to keep our second amendment rights intact. I have a number of unregistered weapons and plenty of ammo for each, nobody will take them from me.

Hussein is insane if he thinks for a second he could possibly get away with the bullshit in your post, he couldn't get the cooperation he would need to do it. :fu:[/QUOTE]

[waterrescuedude2000]

It is just true newspaper accounts of people who own firearms defending themselves. http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

[actsnoblemartin]

excellent source.


It is just true newspaper accounts of people who own firearms defending themselves. http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

[5stringJeff]

Should ANYONE and EVERYONE be able to lawfully aquire and use a firearm without any restriction whatsoever?

I know, I know, yet another 2nd Amendment thread, but humour me, it's a straightforward question and I'd be interested in your views.

Peg already answered this, but here's my take. There's only two types of people whose 2nd Amendment rights are taken away: felons and mentally unstable types. For felons, if the crime was a violent felony, I support keeping them from restoring their ability to own firearms. For non-violent felons, though, they should be able to own firearms. For mentally unstable individuals, I agree with you that not everyone with a mental disease should be locked up. I think the bill that the NRA worked on last year after the Virginia Tech shootings is a good law - people on medications for mental health problems get a check mark next to their names so that when they go to purchase a firearm, the instant background check shows that they are ineligible.

[5stringJeff]

The gun threads on DP remind me of an e-mail I sent to Obama a couple of months ago. One of his e-mails asked for comments about his campaign and what he could do, so I sent him one. He replied, too.

First of all, I know gun nuts will be pleading their "constitutional rights." Which were adopted back in the 1700s, when settlers had to deal with rogue bandits and Indian attacks. They weren't sitting comfortably in the suburbs.

How about the single mother in the inner city, who has to deal with gangstas instead of "rogue bandits?" Should her rights be violated? How about the family who lives far out in the country, with wild animals nearby?


Among my primary points was the licensing of guns. You need a license to drive a car, why not a license to shoot a gun? Take a gun safety course, pass a test and you get a license to own a gun. No whacko fruitcake should be able to just walk in off the street and buy a gun. There should be a licensing system. With a photo ID. And a computer background check.

As 82Marine stated, driving is a privilege. Self-defense is a God-given right.


Which would give you the right to own a gun. Singular. Why does anyone need more than one gun? And no automatic weapons. No civilian should have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to own an assault rifle. There is no use for one.

First, your own analogy with vehicles fails. If you get a driver's license, you can buy, own, and operate as many vehicles as you want. Second, who are you (or who is the government) to tell me how many guns I "need?" Third, civilians ought to be able to own automatic weapons (which is different than "assault weapons"), if they so choose. The muskets that people owned in the 1700s were military-grade firearms; there's no reason that we shouldn't be able to own military-grade firearms today.

[Immanuel]

The gun threads on DP remind me of an e-mail I sent to Obama a couple of months ago. One of his e-mails asked for comments about his campaign and what he could do, so I sent him one. He replied, too.

First of all, I know gun nuts will be pleading their "constitutional rights." Which were adopted back in the 1700s, when settlers had to deal with rogue bandits and Indian attacks. They weren't sitting comfortably in the suburbs.

Among my primary points was the licensing of guns. You need a license to drive a car, why not a license to shoot a gun? Take a gun safety course, pass a test and you get a license to own a gun. No whacko fruitcake should be able to just walk in off the street and buy a gun. There should be a licensing system. With a photo ID. And a computer background check.
Which would give you the right to own a gun. Singular. Why does anyone need more than one gun? And no automatic weapons. No civilian should have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to own an assault rifle. There is no use for one.

It works for vehicles. It works for keeping track of sex offenders. Why not for guns?

Unless you just want any fool to be able to buy and own a gun.

1) I am all for licensing. I have no problem requiring a person to get a license to own a gun after completing required safety courses.

2) I do not agree that it should be limited to a single gun. Why should collectors be singled out?

3) I don't believe Assault Weapons should be banned either. Although, I cannot think of why anyone would need an assault weapon for legitimate reasons beyond collecting it doesn't mean there are not legitimate reasons. Also, just because a person owns an assualt weapon does not mean they intend on going on a killing spree.

Immie

[Gaffer]

Remember....When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[BoogyMan]

it is a living document you need to read it in the context of today....you don't need a gun....the guvment will take care of you.....and if you do need one we will give you a license if you need one....

what i find funny is the evil facist gop wants the public armed....

and the tree huggers wants the people diss armed......

i have always said the left accuses others of what they are most guilty....


Ummm, WHAT???

I guess it isn't a living document when the left is claiming that the right is destroying the constitution? Egads.....

[Monkeybone]

Ummm, WHAT???

I guess it isn't a living document when the left is claiming that the right is destroying the constitution? Egads.....

yah see, there is a dif Boogy. Right ingores (destroy) while the Left just wants to take parts out since "they are so old". see? big dif.

[JohnDoe]

voting is a "right" also, but you have to register to do it and need two id's and one with a pic on it, and all kinds of things have been required to be able to act on that "right" NOT privilege, but "right".....

Some states take away the RIGHT to vote from felons, some don't....?

I do not see a problem in requiring a gun licence, all law abiding citizens have the right to be able to get guns, bear arms, with the exception of the mentally ill incapable of making rational decisions imo.

[theHawk]

The gun threads on DP remind me of an e-mail I sent to Obama a couple of months ago. One of his e-mails asked for comments about his campaign and what he could do, so I sent him one. He replied, too.

First of all, I know gun nuts will be pleading their "constitutional rights." Which were adopted back in the 1700s, when settlers had to deal with rogue bandits and Indian attacks. They weren't sitting comfortably in the suburbs.

Among my primary points was the licensing of guns. You need a license to drive a car, why not a license to shoot a gun? Take a gun safety course, pass a test and you get a license to own a gun. No whacko fruitcake should be able to just walk in off the street and buy a gun. There should be a licensing system. With a photo ID. And a computer background check.
Which would give you the right to own a gun. Singular. Why does anyone need more than one gun? And no automatic weapons. No civilian should have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to own an assault rifle. There is no use for one.

It works for vehicles. It works for keeping track of sex offenders. Why not for guns?

Unless you just want any fool to be able to buy and own a gun.


Should people be required to get a permit for every other Constitutional right?

[Monkeybone]

voting is a "right" also, but you have to register to do it and need two id's and one with a pic on it, and all kinds of things have been required to be able to act on that "right" NOT privilege, but "right".....

Some states take away the RIGHT to vote from felons, some don't....?

I do not see a problem in requiring a gun licence, all law abiding citizens have the right to be able to get guns, bear arms, with the exception of the mentally ill incapable of making rational decisions imo.

i just wanna know where all of these states that don't require licences are!i know you have to register in most and i know that Alaska and i believe vermont don't. they are unrestricted. they say and i quote
You shouldn't have to licences a right which i agree with. but i also agree that there should be registraition and tracking and such.

[Immanuel]

voting is a "right" also, but you have to register to do it and need two id's and one with a pic on it, and all kinds of things have been required to be able to act on that "right" NOT privilege, but "right".....

Some states take away the RIGHT to vote from felons, some don't....?

I do not see a problem in requiring a gun licence, all law abiding citizens have the right to be able to get guns, bear arms, with the exception of the mentally ill incapable of making rational decisions imo.

Since when do you need to have an id to vote?

You guys on the left and you in particular have argue extensively against that one. We don't need an id and according to you shouldn't need an id to vote.

Immie

[hjmick]

voting is a "right" also, but you have to register to do it and need two id's and one with a pic on it, and all kinds of things have been required to be able to act on that "right" NOT privilege, but "right".....

Some states take away the RIGHT to vote from felons, some don't....?

I do not see a problem in requiring a gun licence, all law abiding citizens have the right to be able to get guns, bear arms, with the exception of the mentally ill incapable of making rational decisions imo.

Yes, you have to register to vote. My guns are registered. I didn't show any ID when I registered to vote nor do I show any ID when I go to my polling place, where do you vote? I merely give my name and address and sign my name.

Violent felons should have their right to own a gun revoked, I'm not sure where I stand on non-violent offenders. The mentally ill should be prevented form owning, but how to you weed them out?

[gabosaurus]

So what is with all the misunderstanding?

I do NOT want to take anyone's guns away. I just want requirements to one one. I want everyone to be properly trained and licensed. I want people to legally own a gun.

Oddly enough (don't everyone keel over at once), my husband and plan to own a gun. In our new house. My dad is one of the country's most liberal people and he owns a gun.

I don't believe the constitution guarantees anyone the right to own an assault rifle. Or an arsenal of rifles and other weapons.

So what is the beef?

[Monkeybone]

So what is with all the misunderstanding?

I do NOT want to take anyone's guns away. I just want requirements to one one. I want everyone to be properly trained and licensed. I want people to legally own a gun.

Oddly enough (don't everyone keel over at once), my husband and plan to own a gun. In our new house. My dad is one of the country's most liberal people and he owns a gun.

I don't believe the constitution guarantees anyone the right to own an assault rifle. Or an arsenal of rifles and other weapons.

So what is the beef?

there already are restrictions (a few more won't hurt), so i don't get what the big deal for ppl calling for more or some altogether is all about.

and why limit? does it hurt anyone if someone likes to collect guns?

[gabosaurus]

So someone can break into your house and gain use of an arsenal of munitions?
It's like collecting hand grenades or land mines.

[JohnDoe]

Yes, you have to register to vote. My guns are registered. I didn't show any ID when I registered to vote nor do I show any ID when I go to my polling place, where do you vote? I merely give my name and address and sign my name.

Violent felons should have their right to own a gun revoked, I'm not sure where I stand on non-violent offenders. The mentally ill should be prevented form owning, but how to you weed them out? in massachusetts, it was the same as your state, you go to your polling spot, give your name, address, and your Political Party. I have not voted since i moved to maine so I am not certain about here.

HOWEVER, in many states, two id's are needed at the voting booth, or 1 govt id authorized by the state....in order to vote...the state of Georgia comes to mind....

And Texas and Florida don't allow ex felons to vote, while most other states do allow them to vote after they have done their "time" and parole....

all of these things seem to be legal and constitutional...though I personally am not convinced they are....

jd

[JohnDoe]

In very simplistic and general terms....I thought in our history, the Brits tried to take our guns away....and without those guns we could not have had a revolution....this is why the 2nd amendment was created and very important to our liberty and freedoms, so thought the founders....?

Did I learn this wrong in school?

Granted I went to a great deal of schools on Military bases, and maybe this is what they just taught us???? But you would think that even schools on base should have to follow some sort of education curriculum at least level to the rest of America?

jd

[hjmick]

In very simplistic and general terms....I thought in our history, the Brits tried to take our guns away....and without those guns we could not have had a revolution....this is why the 2nd amendment was created and very important to our liberty and freedoms, so thought the founders....?

Did I learn this wrong in school?

Granted I went to a great deal of schools on Military bases, and maybe this is what they just taught us???? But you would think that even schools on base should have to follow some sort of education curriculum at least level to the rest of America?

jd

I don't believe that this is completely inaccurate, but, as I remember my history, the 2nd was also partly inspired by the Shays Rebellion and the inability to mount a Federal response to said armed uprising.

[Monkeybone]

So someone can break into your house and gain use of an arsenal of munitions?
It's like collecting hand grenades or land mines.

and they could break in and steal one. oh well. it's also what gun safe are for which, if you have more than one/collecting 99% of the ppl have.

and hand grenades or land mine arguement is weak/shock one, why not throw in a Stinger Missle launcher while you're at it it you're gonna make a point like that. :lame2:

[Monkeybone]

i believe those are the main reasons JD and HJ. also, you never know if we will have to do that again. you wnat a Facist state? i believe that it would start down the hill with taking guns. (not to be paranoid, OMFG the gov is coming sounding person)

[Sitarro]

So someone can break into your house and gain use of an arsenal of munitions?
It's like collecting hand grenades or land mines.

Most people that collect guns are responsible enough to keep them in an extremely heavy safe. Guns aren't hard to get illegally and won't stop being easy to get when you demand licensing for all of those that obey the law. The only people more laws effect are those that obey them, there are plenty already.

[Gaffer]

The first step to banning guns is registration.

Those who have permits for concealed carry are licensed. They have under gone the training and met all the requirements.

Having a gun in your home for protection should not require anything but the necessary checks to buy a weapon.

[JohnDoe]

i believe those are the main reasons JD and HJ. also, you never know if we will have to do that again. you wnat a Facist state? i believe that it would start down the hill with taking guns. (not to be paranoid, OMFG the gov is coming sounding person) And from my understanding of it, this IS THE objection of 2nd amendment lovers.... having to register their guns with the gvt....because the gvt keeping records on gun owners would then quickly know where to go to confiscate them, IF it ever came to that....

jd

[Monkeybone]

And from my understanding of it, this IS THE objection of 2nd amendment lovers.... having to register their guns with the gvt....because the gvt keeping records on gun owners would then quickly know where to go to confiscate them, IF it ever came to that....

jd

double edged sword. good to have to do it, bad incase of above mentioned.

i do agree with the Gaffer though.

i would rather see background checks and a "national database" sorta thing in the screening process before i saw complete registration.

just to add also, this week i am sending in my pistol CCW request. stupid money grubbers

[hjmick]

Well, hell, upon reflection I guess my guns are not necessarily registered. Though there is a record of their purchase as I did buy them legally. I feel safer already!

[Pale Rider]

My guns are registered.

Mine aren't, and threads like this are the prime reason why.

"See avatar..."

[hjmick]

Mine aren't, and threads like this are the prime reason why.

"See avatar..."

Unless the purchase record acts as registration, neither are mine. I suppose I got confused somewhere during the course of the conversation.

[The Reverend]

http://www.marylandshallissue.org/images/decision.jpg
http://f3c.yahoofs.com/auc/MX7GXnQnRoCA/akelly110-img249x273-shirt_t_s__24_ill_give_up_my_gun.jpg?auAmqsLBRKc76 g1M

[manu1959]

And from my understanding of it, this IS THE objection of 2nd amendment lovers.... having to register their guns with the gvt....because the gvt keeping records on gun owners would then quickly know where to go to confiscate them, IF it ever came to that....

jd

well at least they would know the names of the people that are shooting back at them.....

now why would the govt. want to take away the peoples guns......and which party is it....and what are they afraid of anyway......

[JohnDoe]

well at least they would know the names of the people that are shooting back at them.....

now why would the govt. want to take away the peoples guns......and which party is it....and what are they afraid of anyway......
it is the police in local city neighborhoods that lobby for more gun laws....

people wouldn't live without their guns in Maine...shoot, I hear them going off all the time in the rural area that i live and the state offers a course in gun safety for the children at AGE 11, they can legally use a gun here to hunt or practice shooting on their own property, if they take the course!

Cities is where the problem lies and i believe those against gun ownership in the city believe that with guns legal to buy, that guns on the street to buy on the black market becomes more easily done...thus guns in the hands of criminals....less cops killed....less students on campus killed...so far, all of the campus killings have been done with guns purchased legally if you get down to it.... there is alot of stress going on in big cities, i am sure the fear of people just shooting eachother for a parking space could be considered as well! :)

I do not agree with this logic, because they can go the town over to get one illegally or legally and the honest law abiding citizen is left helpless, when the cops aren't around, and some criminal approaches them with a gun.


jd

[diuretic]

Peg already answered this, but here's my take. There's only two types of people whose 2nd Amendment rights are taken away: felons and mentally unstable types. For felons, if the crime was a violent felony, I support keeping them from restoring their ability to own firearms. For non-violent felons, though, they should be able to own firearms. For mentally unstable individuals, I agree with you that not everyone with a mental disease should be locked up. I think the bill that the NRA worked on last year after the Virginia Tech shootings is a good law - people on medications for mental health problems get a check mark next to their names so that when they go to purchase a firearm, the instant background check shows that they are ineligible.

Again, thanks for taking the time to post. As I read your post I was thinking - and yes, call me Captain Obvious :laugh2: - that the "gun control" debate (and I mean everywhere, I'm not locating it solely in the US) is beset by clashing ideologies and even confused wordings. The two extremes - the total banning of all firearms and the complete lifting of any controls at all - are both unrealistic. So the real debate comes from two polarities - one that starts off just a tad into the realistic side of total ban and the other that starts off in the realistic side of no controls at all. As I said, a bit obvious, but I just needed to state it.

[waterrescuedude2000]

So someone can break into your house and gain use of an arsenal of munitions?
It's like collecting hand grenades or land mines.

Thats why you have gun safes and so on. And if you do have a class 3 you can legally own fully automatic weapons but they are required to be locked up and you have to give the ATF a blueprint of your house and exactly where the guns are kept i believe.

[actsnoblemartin]

she is a liberal parrot, just repeats what ever she is told, she is a good little brain washed, non thinking sheep

bah gabby :laugh2: bah


Thats why you have gun safes and so on. And if you do have a class 3 you can legally own fully automatic weapons but they are required to be locked up and you have to give the ATF a blueprint of your house and exactly where the guns are kept i believe.

[Yurt]

she is a liberal parrot, just repeats what ever she is told, she is a good little brain washed, non thinking sheep

bah gabby :laugh2: bah

martin, she actually has a good head on her shoulders. just because we may disagree with most of her ideas, does not make her a bad person or any less of an american. if we don't like her ideas, as long as she is not threatening imminent harm, is not fair to say that we should use our "right" ideas to set her straight?

what good does it do to continually insult someone instead of debating them on their ideas?

[manu1959]

So someone can break into your house and gain use of an arsenal of munitions?
It's like collecting hand grenades or land mines.

it is called a gun safe...you put all you shit you don't want stolen or burned up in it....google it ..it is cool...

[pegwinn]

Or maybe you'd prefer something like my Case Bowie.... :D

Sweeeeeet


Thanks for taking the time to respond.

On felons - they have to get out some time no? For what it's worth I think people with serious criminal records should not be allowed to lawfully possess/use etc a firearm.

Mental health - not every patient is serious enough to keep in a secure facility (apart from the cost think of the civil liberties implications). But for mine (again fwiw) I think if someone wants to have a firearm lawfully then they should be free of any mental illness (even depression) which they may be suffering.

I was thinking of the utility of certain firearms in reflecting on the type that might be lawfully used. Interesting point about blade weapons. I should have remembered though, if you go to a domestic always stay out of the kitchen :coffee:
My thoughts on felons are that once they have fully paid thier debt to society, they should be members of society. They will still have a tough life which is justified. Criminal records are a pain when looking for a job.....

I figure that if he or she is a danger to society, they should not be let out, at all. So, you could say I support life without parole for a sociopath even if all he did was simple assault.

Mental patients are either dangerous to themselves and/or others, or not. IF dangerous they should be locked away for the safety of themselves and others. I know it sounds harsh. I am not trying to simply warehouse the mentally ill. I want them to get help or be healed.

Also, I fear the precedents that allow us to abrogate a free citizens constitutional rights. At least incarcerated persons and mental patients are there after due process of sorts. Imagine if you needed a permit to speak out?


martin, she actually has a good head on her shoulders. just because we may disagree with most of her ideas, does not make her a bad person or any less of an american. if we don't like her ideas, as long as she is not threatening imminent harm, is not fair to say that we should use our "right" ideas to set her straight?

what good does it do to continually insult someone instead of debating them on their ideas?

Well Said.

[gabosaurus]

So tell me why you don't want to register your guns. No one wants to take them away from you. If gun owners are so peaceful and law abiding, why would they be opposed to registering their guns? Might keep weapons away from those who aren't supposed to own them.



she is a liberal parrot, just repeats what ever she is told, she is a good little brain washed, non thinking sheep

Grow up and get a life, Martin. Your mommy can't take care of you forever.
By the way, I found a nice Jewish girl who wants to meet you. She is willing to overlook the fact that you are a shmendrik

[Pale Rider]

No one wants to take them away from you.

But what about your guy obama? Kind of looks like he wants to take them away from people living in a city...


Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

I'd think that people in the city probably probably have more of reason to own a firearm for protection than anybody else, since that's where most crooks, deviants, rapists, thieves, perverts and killers are.

[WRL]

The gun threads on DP remind me of an e-mail I sent to Obama a couple of months ago. One of his e-mails asked for comments about his campaign and what he could do, so I sent him one. He replied, too.

First of all, I know gun nuts will be pleading their "constitutional rights." Which were adopted back in the 1700s, when settlers had to deal with rogue bandits and Indian attacks. They weren't sitting comfortably in the suburbs.

Among my primary points was the licensing of guns. You need a license to drive a car, why not a license to shoot a gun? Take a gun safety course, pass a test and you get a license to own a gun. No whacko fruitcake should be able to just walk in off the street and buy a gun. There should be a licensing system. With a photo ID. And a computer background check.
Which would give you the right to own a gun. Singular. Why does anyone need more than one gun? And no automatic weapons. No civilian should have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to own an assault rifle. There is no use for one.

It works for vehicles. It works for keeping track of sex offenders. Why not for guns?

Unless you just want any fool to be able to buy and own a gun.

lol you guys go ahead and run on that... At least you're being honest about it...

[DragonStryk72]

So what is with all the misunderstanding?

I do NOT want to take anyone's guns away. I just want requirements to one one. I want everyone to be properly trained and licensed. I want people to legally own a gun.

Oddly enough (don't everyone keel over at once), my husband and plan to own a gun. In our new house. My dad is one of the country's most liberal people and he owns a gun.

I don't believe the constitution guarantees anyone the right to own an assault rifle. Or an arsenal of rifles and other weapons.

So what is the beef?

Right, so how does that protect the citizenry from the people who simply *break the law*? You still aren't answering that point. Gun laws only get followed by the responsible, law abiding citzens, and I've no problem with that group having guns. Now, yes, they should have them put up, safely, but most gun owners will tell you that they do in fact have them locked up in some manner.

You regulate all you want, but as long as black markets exist, it will only hurt those who are trying to protect themselves.

[diuretic]

Right, so how does that protect the citizenry from the people who simply *break the law*? You still aren't answering that point. Gun laws only get followed by the responsible, law abiding citzens, and I've no problem with that group having guns. Now, yes, they should have them put up, safely, but most gun owners will tell you that they do in fact have them locked up in some manner.

You regulate all you want, but as long as black markets exist, it will only hurt those who are trying to protect themselves.

Firearms restriction laws are indeed intended for responsible, law-abidiing citizens. By definition crooks don't care about laws so introducing them into the firearms control debate is always a red herring and best left out of the debate.

The point about firearms laws is that they seek to regulate the lawful use/ownership/control etc of firearms. The objectives of firearms laws vary of course but I think it's reasonable that they cover (a) people who want to use firearms and (b) the firearms themselves. The details of course have to be worked on but that's essentially the purpose. If I can use an exaggerated question to make my point - should a drunk 13 year old be allowed to carry a machine-gun in the local shopping mall? If it's agreed that's not a desirable situation then the logical outcome has to be a discussion on who should lawfully be allowed to use/possess/own what sort of firearm in what sort of circumstances. It's not about taking them away from everyone, that's patently ridiculous and unworkable.

[pegwinn]

So tell me why you don't want to register your guns. No one wants to take them away from you. If gun owners are so peaceful and law abiding, why would they be opposed to registering their guns? Might keep weapons away from those who aren't supposed to own them. The rest was deleted since love spats should be kept private :laugh2:

To be quite honest Gabs ol girl, it's none of the .govs business. Of course I despise having to complete the annual dossier required to prove that I am in compliance with the income tax statute as well. IF the .gov knows that my house is fully armed, where are they going to head if they ever decide to permanently adjust the governments relations with the citizenry?


Firearms restriction laws are indeed intended for responsible, law-abidiing citizens. By definition crooks don't care about laws so introducing them into the firearms control debate is always a red herring and best left out of the debate.

The point about firearms laws is that they seek to regulate the lawful use/ownership/control etc of firearms. The objectives of firearms laws vary of course but I think it's reasonable that they cover (a) people who want to use firearms and (b) the firearms themselves. The details of course have to be worked on but that's essentially the purpose. If I can use an exaggerated question to make my point - should a drunk 13 year old be allowed to carry a machine-gun in the local shopping mall? If it's agreed that's not a desirable situation then the logical outcome has to be a discussion on who should lawfully be allowed to use/possess/own what sort of firearm in what sort of circumstances. It's not about taking them away from everyone, that's patently ridiculous and unworkable.

Excellent points. About the only regulation I would completely approve of is ICO minors. In that case the parents would be criminally liable for any events the minors are involved in.

[Nukeman]

Came across this article the other day and thought I would post a few stats for you Gabby. This is what gun ownership is about and should always be thought of BEFORE you decide to restrict to the average citizen..

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57641



When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1986, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.

And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.


The brief cites a study that discovered, based on interviews with felony prisoners in 11 prisons in 10 states, one third of the felons had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim," and nearly four in 10 had decided against committing a specific crime because they thought the victim might have a gun.

"Seventy-four percent agreed with the statement that 'One reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot,'" the study said.


"Numerous surveys show that firearms are used (usually without a shot needing to be fired) for self-defense at least 97,000 times a year, and probably several hundred thousands times a year. The anti-crime effects of citizen handgun ownership provide enormous benefits to law enforcement, because there are fewer home invasion emergencies requiring an immediate police response, and because the substantial reductions in rates of burglary, assault, and other crimes allow the police and district attorneys to concentrate more resources on other cases and on deterrence."

[Mr. P]

Came across this article the other day and thought I would post a few stats for you Gabby. This is what gun ownership is about and should always be thought of BEFORE you decide to restrict to the average citizen..

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57641

Add this one....about 40 mins away from me.


The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm


In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw ? responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. ? unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting ? as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available ? for the year 2005 ? show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.


By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

[DragonStryk72]

Firearms restriction laws are indeed intended for responsible, law-abidiing citizens. By definition crooks don't care about laws so introducing them into the firearms control debate is always a red herring and best left out of the debate.

The point about firearms laws is that they seek to regulate the lawful use/ownership/control etc of firearms. The objectives of firearms laws vary of course but I think it's reasonable that they cover (a) people who want to use firearms and (b) the firearms themselves. The details of course have to be worked on but that's essentially the purpose. If I can use an exaggerated question to make my point - should a drunk 13 year old be allowed to carry a machine-gun in the local shopping mall? If it's agreed that's not a desirable situation then the logical outcome has to be a discussion on who should lawfully be allowed to use/possess/own what sort of firearm in what sort of circumstances. It's not about taking them away from everyone, that's patently ridiculous and unworkable.

Right, however, we already have the laws to prevent all of those, so why are we adding to them? Those laws keeping 13 year olds from drinking, and from owning a firearm, much less a fully automatic, have been around for years. So why are we changing the laws again? It's a useless point to keep putting in laws that are already existant.

[Mr. P]

Right, however, we already have the laws to prevent all of those, so why are we adding to them? Those laws keeping 13 year olds from drinking, and from owning a firearm, much less a fully automatic, have been around for years. So why are we changing the laws again? It's a useless point to keep putting in laws that are already existant.

Cuz it's not about guns at all. It's like alcohol sales here on Sunday. You can't buy it from a store on Sunday. It's not about alcohol, it's about "CONTROL" just like (most) of the gun laws.

[diuretic]

Right, however, we already have the laws to prevent all of those, so why are we adding to them? Those laws keeping 13 year olds from drinking, and from owning a firearm, much less a fully automatic, have been around for years. So why are we changing the laws again? It's a useless point to keep putting in laws that are already existant.

I'm not ignoring your questions, I just try to stay out of domestic issues. I mean, I reckon it's a bit off for me to comment on US gun control laws. I'll discuss the topic in abstract form or explain how it is here in Australia but I think it's a bit rude of me to wander in and tell you how it should be in your own country. Well at least on this issue :laugh2:

[diuretic]

Cuz it's not about guns at all. It's like alcohol sales here on Sunday. You can't buy it from a store on Sunday. It's not about alcohol, it's about "CONTROL" just like (most) of the gun laws.

No grog on Sunday?????? What the hell does everyone do???? :eek:

[gabosaurus]

None of this tells me why you don't want gun registration. What are you afraid of?

[LuvRPgrl]

Should ANYONE and EVERYONE be able to lawfully aquire and use a firearm without any restriction whatsoever?

I know, I know, yet another 2nd Amendment thread, but humour me, it's a straightforward question and I'd be interested in your views.

ALL rights have some restrictions.

As for the drivers license, me thinks it is much harder to learn to drive a car, than to shoot a gun, not to mention, the roads you drive on are PUBLICLY owned. The public has a right to control them.

[LuvRPgrl]

The gun threads on DP remind me of an e-mail I sent to Obama a couple of months ago. One of his e-mails asked for comments about his campaign and what he could do, so I sent him one. He replied, too.

First of all, I know gun nuts will be pleading their "constitutional rights." Which were adopted back in the 1700s, when settlers had to deal with rogue bandits and Indian attacks. They weren't sitting comfortably in the suburbs.

Among my primary points was the licensing of guns. You need a license to drive a car, why not a license to shoot a gun? Take a gun safety course, pass a test and you get a license to own a gun. No whacko fruitcake should be able to just walk in off the street and buy a gun. There should be a licensing system. With a photo ID. And a computer background check.
Which would give you the right to own a gun. Singular. Why does anyone need more than one gun? And no automatic weapons. No civilian should have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to own an assault rifle. There is no use for one.

It works for vehicles. It works for keeping track of sex offenders. Why not for guns?

Unless you just want any fool to be able to buy and own a gun.

So, only people in suburbs shouldnt be able to own guns?
You dont think the threat of criminals today is up there with "rogue bandits" of the past? If things have changed so much, make an amendment to counter the 2nd. Hmmm, didnt think so, You guys dont want what is right or good, you want CONTROL

[DragonStryk72]

None of this tells me why you don't want gun registration. What are you afraid of?

It really isn't a matter of fear, gab. What I'm saying, at least, is that gun laws do nothing to lower crime, they only deprive the honest of the ability to defend themselves, as well as to push us further onto the overstretched government dependency that's killing us right now.

[diuretic]

ALL rights have some restrictions.

Possibly - but I'm not meaning to be picky.

If I can just make one point though and it's about context. In the US because of the existence of the 2nd Amendment and its current interpretation (of which I have no comment) it means that the gun control debate is framed differently from the various debates elsewhere, at least in those countries/states/jurisdictions where having a firearm is seen as a qualified privilege and not a right.



As for the drivers license, me thinks it is much harder to learn to drive a car, than to shoot a gun, not to mention, the roads you drive on are PUBLICLY owned. The public has a right to control them.

And in my country we regard a driver's licence as being a qualified privilege as well. But that's just us. In my state it's probably as difficult to get a firearms licence as it is to get a driver's licence. But as I said before, we don't have to negotiate the equivalent of the 2nd Amendment.

[Mr. P]

No grog on Sunday?????? What the hell does everyone do???? :eek:

Be prepared, buy on Saturday. The ridicules part is, you can go to a restaurant and drink on Sunday and then drive home! :cuckoo:

[JohnDoe]

No grog on Sunday?????? What the hell does everyone do???? :eek:every state is different on alcohol...even towns within states are different....

ocean city, new jersey, was ALWAYS DRY, no liquor sold there, ever, 24/7....but u could buy it in a town right across the causeway/bridge and bring it back to O.City.

in another town i lived in, you could buy liquor after 12 noon on sundays.....it depends, is the bottom line..... in las vegas, i think there is 1 hour that alcohol can't be served/bought out of 24 hours....? don't even know what the law is here in Maine...guess i need to find out....lol?

jd

[Monkeybone]

None of this tells me why you don't want gun registration. What are you afraid of?

why have it at all? how would it help? as long as you have a licences you are fine.

also, it might be the slippery slope thinking. you do this, then they just start adding more and more restictions.

[Mr. P]

None of this tells me why you don't want gun registration. What are you afraid of?

I oppose registration because it's a knee-jerk feel good requirement that amounts to nothing more than another avenue into private life by the government and the control freaks.

You can make it next to impossible to "legally" own a firearm by imposing obstacle after obstacle to legal ownership and the criminals will still have them and continue to commit crimes with them. Only by addressing the criminal element, not the law abider's, will there be a reduction in gun crime (if that's the true intent).

I think penalties should be increased and strictly ENFORCED, for any crime committed with a firearm, no pleas, no first time offender loophole, no probation but with mandatory long term jail time.

I have to go now. The department of homeland gun control (a branch of the IRS) is coming by for my semi annual "registered" firearms and ammunition audit. They also collect my semi annual firearms owner tax. I sure hope I counted my ammunition right, there's a large fine and a probation penalty if you miscount. Second offense they confiscate all of your firearms.

[hjmick]

None of this tells me why you don't want gun registration. What are you afraid of?

I'm not "afraid," per se, but I see the idea of registration as a bit of a conundrum. One would think that law abiding citizens really should have no issue with the idea, but if the criminals are not registering their guns, why should we? Secondly, if the day ever comes that the government wishes to force us to give up our firearms, registration of said weapons will act as a road map to the locations of each and every gun in the country. Between you and me, if that day ever comes, I'd just as soon they have to do a little work before they kill me.

[Little-Acorn]

None of this tells me why you don't want gun registration. What are you afraid of?

From http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=28

Registration lists have led to gun confiscation in Australia, Bermuda, Cuba, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia and other countries. It has also happened here, and the history of firearms registration in New York City is particularly instructive.

In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. Concerns over the potential use of those registration lists to confiscate guns in the future were dismissed as paranoia. In 1991, gun owners' legitimate fears were realized, when the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, despite the police commissioner's testimony that no registered firearms of the types banned had been used in violent crimes in the city. New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were told that any licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. They were warned that they might be subject to "spot checks."

And our benevolent government-is-here-to-help-you liberals keep insisting "It can't happen here"... when it already has.

So when they change their tune and tell us, "Well, it's won't happen again.".... remind me why we should believe them this time?

Gabby, does that tell you why we don't want gun registration?

[diuretic]

From http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=28

Registration lists have led to gun confiscation in Australia, Bermuda, Cuba, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia and other countries. It has also happened here, and the history of firearms registration in New York City is particularly instructive.

In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. Concerns over the potential use of those registration lists to confiscate guns in the future were dismissed as paranoia. In 1991, gun owners' legitimate fears were realized, when the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, despite the police commissioner's testimony that no registered firearms of the types banned had been used in violent crimes in the city. New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were told that any licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. They were warned that they might be subject to "spot checks."

And our benevolent government-is-here-to-help-you liberals keep insisting "It can't happen here"... when it already has.

So when they change their tune and tell us, "Well, it's won't happen again.".... remind me why we should believe them this time?

Gabby, does that tell you why we don't want gun registration?

Whoever wrote the stuff about Australia is wrong. More bullshit from an industry lobby group.

[manu1959]

Whoever wrote the stuff about Australia is wrong. More bullshit from an industry lobby group.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

so this story isn't true.........

[Nukeman]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

so this story isn't true.........Don't confuse him with fact on his own country. Sometimes I think he only has "opinions" about the US but gets rather defensive when the table are turned.

Diuretic: can you dispute any of the information in the article, is it false and if so can you prove it? I think the writer of the article did some research on this topic and may know a little about the subject, especially since the left are always touting the success of Australia and the UK...:poke:

[pegwinn]

No grog on Sunday?????? What the hell does everyone do???? :eek:

Heh, I dunno. I make my own beer. Since I live in a dry city it comes in handy. And, unlike the big box breweries.... my beer kicks like bruce lee and goes great with a steak. Did some cross training with members of the RAR. A Colour Sergeant named Blake IIRC stated for the record that my homebrew was worth drinking. Unlike Coors and other watered down imitations. :beer:


every state is different on alcohol...even towns within states are different....

ocean city, new jersey, was ALWAYS DRY, no liquor sold there, ever, 24/7....but u could buy it in a town right across the causeway/bridge and bring it back to O.City.

in another town i lived in, you could buy liquor after 12 noon on sundays.....it depends, is the bottom line..... in las vegas, i think there is 1 hour that alcohol can't be served/bought out of 24 hours....? don't even know what the law is here in Maine...guess i need to find out....lol?

jd

See the above, you will never go back.


None of this tells me why you don't want gun registration. What are you afraid of?

I am not sure, but I think I answered this once before. Tis nunya bidness dearie, nor da gubmits either. So long as I break no laws nor cause harm with them, tis my business only. I know that it is unfair to the poor sap who tries to mug, carjack, or housebreak.... but that would be TMFB.

But, this licensing thing could take off with a bit of compromise. From now on IOT obtain a legal abortion you simply submit to a class and a mental screening. Then wait two or three weeks for cooling off. Then we will issue a permit for a maximum of one, and only one, abortion.

Fair nuff sweetie?

[diuretic]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

so this story isn't true.........

Some of it is. Martin Bryant did kill people at Port Arthur. The rest of it is rubbish.

[manu1959]

Some of it is. Martin Bryant did kill people at Port Arthur. The rest of it is rubbish.

can you prove your claim.....

[diuretic]

Don't confuse him with fact on his own country. Sometimes I think he only has "opinions" about the US but gets rather defensive when the table are turned.

Diuretic: can you dispute any of the information in the article, is it false and if so can you prove it? I think the writer of the article did some research on this topic and may know a little about the subject, especially since the left are always touting the success of Australia and the UK...:poke:

If you want to make this personal then let me know and I'll be happy to trade smears with you.

Now, for something more constructive. Please take any claim made in the article and post it. Your choice. I will then either dispute it and prove it wrong or accept it as being correct. I think that's probably the best way of examining these claims.

[diuretic]

can you prove your claim.....

Hop in with Nukeman and put out the claims that interest you and we'll see how it goes.

[manu1959]

Hop in with Nukeman and put out the claims that interest you and we'll see how it goes.

just asking dude.....why so defensive....

[diuretic]

just asking dude.....why so defensive....

Firstly I don't appreciate being addressed in the third person in a thread. This is not directed at you.

Secondly, I can't abide bullshit and propaganda and this crap has been circulating the internet for years.

Thirdly, while I don't own any firearms now, I used to have them. I'm not anti-gun. I am pro-gun control and no, that's not a reference to the Weaver Stance.

Fourthly, the previous federal government here in Australia was responsible for the two gun buybacks (the long weapons and the handguns). They were both populist policies which achieved absolutely nothing worthwhile in terms of policy, but pissed taxpayers money up against the wall by exploiting an irrational fear of firearms in much of the Australian population.

Fifthly, the causes of crime and the analysis of the incidence of crime in Australia, as in any other country, are complex matters. When they're reduced to the sort of generalised spray that appears in the article they're difficult to counter because (a) it takes a while to hunt down the info and (b) the thread would go on forever.

If anyone wants to have a look at crime in Australia then the best site I know of is here - http://www.aic.gov.au - it also has so good links.

[diuretic]

Oh and I specifically don't get into the debate on gun control in the US. I judge that as being intrusive on a purely domestic issue. But I'm happy to discuss the pros and cons of it in my country.

[Nukeman]

[QUOTE=diuretic;211426]Firstly I don't appreciate being addressed in the third person in a thread. This is not directed at you.

Cry me a river!!!!


Secondly, I can't abide bullshit and propaganda and this crap has been circulating the Internet for years.How is it propaganda. Were the guns taken or not even if they were in a "buy back" was it forced or not??


Thirdly, while I don't own any firearms now, I used to have them. I'm not anti-gun. I am pro-gun control and no, that's not a reference to the Weaver Stance.Good for you your choice, notice I said CHOICE..


Fourthly, the previous federal government here in Australia was responsible for the two gun buybacks (the long weapons and the handguns). They were both populist policies which achieved absolutely nothing worthwhile in terms of policy, but pissed taxpayers money up against the wall by exploiting an irrational fear of firearms in much of the Australian population. Once again was this compulsory or voluntary? you have yet to answer this question.


Fifthly, the causes of crime and the analysis of the incidence of crime in Australia, as in any other country, are complex matters. When they're reduced to the sort of generalized spray that appears in the article they're difficult to counter because (a) it takes a while to hunt down the info and (b) the thread would go on forever.It should be easy to dispute any FALSE information in the article or are you just having a hard time finding an article that reflects your agenda?


If anyone wants to have a look at crime in Australia then the best site I know of is here - http://www.aic.gov.au - it also has so good links. Don't really care since its not my country and I don't plan on living there. Unlike you I will not state an opinion on the current state of YOUR country.


Aren't we testy when your country is called into play, yet you are the first to come up with how we should be dealing with any problems in our country(albeit you are rather self effacing when you do it, what with all your "just my opinion" BS). I find it rather ironic that you come to a board of almost ALL Americans and comment on or current affairs and when the tables are turned ever so slightly you get defensive as hell and also get your dander up.

Tell you what unbunch your panties and realize you don't live in the perfect society and neither do we... Which by the way you are fond of pointing out...(ours that is):poke:

[manu1959]

Oh and I specifically don't get into the debate on gun control in the US. I judge that as being intrusive on a purely domestic issue. But I'm happy to discuss the pros and cons of it in my country.

gun control means using two hands...no?

[Nukeman]

Oh and I specifically don't get into the debate on gun control in the US. I judge that as being intrusive on a purely domestic issue. But I'm happy to discuss the pros and cons of it in my country.Don't say that! You are jsut being hypocritcle when you make a staement like this.

IF YOU WERE NOT INTERESTED IN A DEBATE ON GUN CONTROL IN THE US WHY AR YOU EVEN IN THIS THREAD????

Can you answer that?

[diuretic]

[QUOTE]

Cry me a river!!!!

How is it propaganda. Were the guns taken or not even if they were in a "buy back" was it forced or not??

Good for you your choice, notice I said CHOICE..

Once again was this compulsory or voluntary? you have yet to answer this question.

It should be easy to dispute any FALSE information in the article or are you just having a hard time finding an article that reflects your agenda?

Don't really care since its not my country and I don't plan on living there. Unlike you I will not state an opinion on the current state of YOUR country.


Aren't we testy when your country is called into play, yet you are the first to come up with how we should be dealing with any problems in our country(albeit you are rather self effacing when you do it, what with all your "just my opinion" BS). I find it rather ironic that you come to a board of almost ALL Americans and comment on or current affairs and when the tables are turned ever so slightly you get defensive as hell and also get your dander up.

Tell you what unbunch your panties and realize you don't live in the perfect society and neither do we... Which by the way you are fond of pointing out...(ours that is):poke:

I hate multiple choice questions. But here goes:

1. The buyback was a policy programme that was instigated by the federal government. They used their funding powers to force the states to amend their firearms laws to outlaw certain long weapons (predominantly s/auto types). While the legislation in the various states was being drafted the federal government, again using threats of withdrawal of funds to the states, got the states to agree to and administer the buyback programme. The public were told that some of the weapons they owned would be prohibited under state legislation and subject to seizure and forfeiture. To make the pain easier to bear owners were offered the chance to bring their lawful (soon to be unlawful) firearms in to be purchased by the state government where they lived. So it wasn't compulsory, it was voluntary, but of course any gun owner possessing a prohibited firearm after the legislation was enacted would have had the firearm seized and been prosecuted. The smart choice was to surrender the weapon and get money for it.

2. The article is a pile of steaming horseshit.

3. You're welcome to have an opinion about my country. Of course it helps if you've been here but I won't carp.

4. Actually I appreciate the tolerance of most Americans on forums for non-Americans like me and opinions like mine. I can tell you that Australian-based forums are usually not as tolerant of non-Australian's opinions and I have to admit I find that an embarrassment. But it's reflective of the xenophobia that's just under the surface in my country.

5. I don't live in the perfect society, there's much wrong with it. Fortunately we just tossed out the previous government and now we have one that is much, much better and things are looking up.

6. Don't be so defensive about your country, it has a lot going for it. I'm looking forward to yet another visit when the current regime is replaced.
I'm sure you're proud of your country and that's a good thing, but it's always more pleasant to discuss cultural variations and comparative politics with a patriot than a nationalist.

[diuretic]

Don't say that! You are jsut being hypocritcle when you make a staement like this.

IF YOU WERE NOT INTERESTED IN A DEBATE ON GUN CONTROL IN THE US WHY AR YOU EVEN IN THIS THREAD????

Can you answer that?

I can, but you won't like the answer.

[Mr. P]

[QUOTE=Nukeman;211447]

I hate multiple choice questions. But here goes:

1. The buyback was a policy programme that was instigated by the federal government. They used their funding powers to force the states to amend their firearms laws to outlaw certain long weapons (predominantly s/auto types). While the legislation in the various states was being drafted the federal government, again using threats of withdrawal of funds to the states, got the states to agree to and administer the buyback programme. The public were told that some of the weapons they owned would be prohibited under state legislation and subject to seizure and forfeiture. To make the pain easier to bear owners were offered the chance to bring their lawful (soon to be unlawful) firearms in to be purchased by the state government where they lived. So it wasn't compulsory, it was voluntary, but of course any gun owner possessing a prohibited firearm after the legislation was enacted would have had the firearm seized and been prosecuted. The smart choice was to surrender the weapon and get money for it.

2. The article is a pile of steaming horseshit.

3. You're welcome to have an opinion about my country. Of course it helps if you've been here but I won't carp.

4. Actually I appreciate the tolerance of most Americans on forums for non-Americans like me and opinions like mine. I can tell you that Australian-based forums are usually not as tolerant of non-Australian's opinions and I have to admit I find that an embarrassment. But it's reflective of the xenophobia that's just under the surface in my country.

5. I don't live in the perfect society, there's much wrong with it. Fortunately we just tossed out the previous government and now we have one that is much, much better and things are looking up.

6. Don't be so defensive about your country, it has a lot going for it. I'm looking forward to yet another visit when the current regime is replaced.
I'm sure you're proud of your country and that's a good thing, but it's always more pleasant to discuss cultural variations and comparative politics with a patriot than a nationalist.

Sounds like our "voluntary" income tax system. In fact it's not voluntary at all.
Same as your "voluntary" gun confiscation.

[diuretic]

[QUOTE=diuretic;211550]

Sounds like our "voluntary" income tax system. In fact it's not voluntary at all.
Same as your "voluntary" gun confiscation.

And your point would be what? Give me something to work with here.

[Mr. P]

[QUOTE=Mr. P;211579]

And your point would be what? Give me something to work with here.

I thought it clear, neither are truly "voluntary" just sold as such.

[diuretic]

Okay here we go:

Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.

This is the opening hook, hyperbole is permissible.

After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

This was policy driven by the conservative federal government. I was and still am opposed to it because it’s populist policy. It was driven by our populist Prime Minister who has thankfully been kicked out of the parliament and government.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell

More accurately, the bans were on firearms with certain magazines and mechanism. From memory the focus was on magazines with larger than 5 (I think) and all semi-auto rifles and shotguns (eg gas-operated shotguns and even slide-operated shotguns, the double-barrel – either under and over or side by side – were not subject to the buyback scheme).

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
• Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
• Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
• Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
• In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
• In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
• There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

Assuming these statistics are accurate, then the question “so what?” has to be asked. Crime rates fluctuate. The causative factors in crime are known to be complex. If the author is claiming that there’s a link between the gun buyback and the crime rates he claims then where’s the evidence of causation?

This claim - In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily - seeks to cover the years 1971 -1996. The author needs to cite source. Crime statistics in Australia have historically been notoriously inaccurate. Scan the Australian Bureau of Statistics website for details – http://www.abs.gov.au. Documents are available in pdf format(look for the Year Books).

At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996 shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the continent had an annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000 persons, "a safe society by any standards," said Tidswell. But such low rates of crime and rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John Howard from calling for and supporting the weapons ban.

Howard reacted to the public horror of the Port Arthur shootings by forcing the states to tighten up firearms laws. Howard’s reaction was populist and poor policy. Nothing new here.

Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian Sporting Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 -- a 200 percent increase.

Not surprising. Among law-abiding gun owners there was a lot of anti-Howard government sentiment. Most Australians don’t belong to a political party but gun-owners who were helped in the process of self-identification by the Howard government looked to the ASSA for help.

Australian press accounts report that the half a million-plus figure of weapons turned in to authorities so far only represents a tiny fraction of the guns believed to be in the country.

So what? The long weapons that were deemed to be prohibited fell into certain classes. The number of weapons that fall outside those classes is apropos of nothing.

According to one report, in March 1997 the number of privately-held firearms in Australia numbered around 10 million. "In the State of Queensland," for example, the report said only "80,000 guns have been seized out of a total of approximately 3 million, a tiny fraction."

The report isn’t cited. The seizure cited here isn’t properly described. The gun buyback was a voluntary scheme, gun owners handed over their firearms. I don’t know if that’s “seizure” according to the uncited report. However it may well be that the 80,000 firearms were subject to seizure under the new legislation. The remainder may well have been legal and therefore not subject to seizure. The uncited report doesn’t give details.

And, said the report, 15 percent of the more than half a million guns collected came from licensed gun dealers.

Again, not cited and again no surprise. Gun dealers would be stupid to hold onto firearms they could no longer sell legally so they handed them in.

Moreover, a black market allegedly has developed in the country. The report said about 1 million Chinese-made semi-automatics, "one type of gun specifically targeted by the new law," have been imported and sold throughout the country.

Again the report isn’t cited. How the report finds that 1 million Chinese-made semi-automatics have been imported and sold throughout the country is not cited

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said the situation in Australia reminds him of Great Britain, where English lawmakers have passed similar restrictive gun control laws.

Good for Larry.

"In fact, when you brought up the subject of this interview, I didn't hear you clearly -- I thought you were talking about England, not Australia," Pratt told WorldNetDaily. "It's hard to tell the difference between them."

Larry, get a hearing aid.

Pratt said officials in both countries can “no longer control what the criminals do,” because an armed society used to serve as a check on the power and influence of the criminal element.

I can’t speak for the UK but I can say that in Australia that assertion is wrong.

Worse, Pratt said he was “offended by people who say, basically, that I don’t have a right to defend myself or my family.” Specifically, during debates with gun control advocates like members of Handgun Control, Inc. or similar organizations, Pratt said he routinely asks them if they’re “against self defense.”

The law here is quite specific about self-defence. Provided certain requirements are met then it’s legal. No parliament in this country has enacted to remove self-defence from the statute books.

Most often, he said, “they don’t say anything – they just don’t answer me. But occasionally I’ll get one of them to admit it and say ‘yes.’”

Oh. That’s nice.

Pratt said, based on the examples of democracies that have enacted near-total bans on private firearm ownership, that the same thing could happen to Americans. His organization routinely researches and reports incidents that happen all over the country when private armed citizens successfully defend themselves against armed robbers or intruders, but “liberals completely ignore this reality.”

This is rhetoric and since it doesn’t contain anything of substance I have no comment.

Pratt, who said was scheduled to appear in a televised discussion later in the day about a shooting incident between two first graders in Michigan on Tuesday, said he was in favor of allowing teachers to carry weapons to protect themselves and their students on campus.

So what?

Pratt pointed to the example of a Pearl, Mississippi teacher who, in 1997, armed with his own handgun, was able to blunt the killing spree of Luke Woodham.

I hope the teacher’s courage was recognised.

“By making schools and even entire communities ‘gun free zones,’ you’re basically telling the criminal element that you’re unarmed and extremely vulnerable,” Pratt said.

Probably more an American thing. No comment.

Pratt also warned against falling into the gun registration trap.
"Governments will ask you to trust them to allow gun registration, then use those registration lists to later confiscate the firearms," he said. "It's happened countless times throughout history."

Some examples of this happening in liberal democracies would be useful. Since it’s alleged to have happened “countless times throughout history” it should be easy to put them up.

Sarah Brady, head of Handgun Control, Inc., issued a statement calling on lawmakers in Michigan and in Washington to pass more restrictive gun access laws.

No comment.

"This horrible tragedy should send a clear message to lawmakers in Michigan and around the country: they should quickly pass child access prevention or 'safe storage' laws that make it a crime to leave a loaded firearm where it is accessible by children," Brady said.

Common sense I would have thought.

Brady also blamed gun makers for the Michigan shooting.
"The responsibility for shootings like these do not stop at the hands of the gun owner," Brady said. "Why are ... gun makers manufacturing weapons that a six-year old child can fire? This makes no rational sense. When will gun makers realize that they bear a responsibility to make sure that their products do not mete out preventable deaths, and that they do not warrant nor deserve special protection from the law to avoid that burden? Instead of safeguarding the gun makers, we should be childproofing the guns."

No comment.

In contrast to near-complete bans in Australia and Great Britain, many U.S. states have passed liberal concealed carry laws that allow private citizens to obtain a permit to carry a loaded gun at all times in most public places. According to Yale University researcher John R. Lott, formerly of the University of Chicago and a gun control analyst who has conducted the most extensive study on the impact of concealed carry laws in the nation's history, the more liberal the right to carry, the less violent crime occurs.

What’s a near-complete ban in Australia? This article was citing the number of firearms still in this country. That tells me we in Australia don’t have a “near-complete” ban.

Lott, who examined a mass of crime data spanning decades in all 3,200-plus counties in the United States, concluded that the most important factor in the deterrence of violent crimes were increased police presence and longer jail sentences. However, his research also demonstrated that liberal concealed carry laws were at the top of the list of reasons violent crime has dropped steadily since those laws began to be enacted by state legislatures a decade ago.

The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a division of Handgun Control, Inc., disagreed with Lott's findings, as well as the overall assumption that a reduction in the availability of guns in society reduces violent crime.

"Using violent crime data provided by the FBI, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence determined that, on average over a five-year period, violent crime dropped almost 25 percent in states that limit or prohibit carrying concealed weapons," the Center said. "This compares with only a 11 percent drop in states with lax concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws. Moreover, states with some of the strongest laws against concealed weapons experienced the largest drops."

Without naming its source, the Center also claimed "a prominent criminologist from Johns Hopkins University has stated that Lott's study was so flawed that 'nothing can be learned of it,' and that it should not be used as the basis for policy-making."

In his most recent research, Lott noted a few examples of mass shootings in schools when teachers who were armed, albeit illegally, were able to prevent further loss of life among students indiscriminately targeted by other students with guns.

Ironically, both Lott and Handgun Control acknowledge that the reams of gun control laws on the books in Washington and in all 50 states have been ineffective in eradicating mass shootings or preventing children from bringing weapons to school. However, Lott's research indicates the criminal element has been successful in obtaining weapons despite widespread bans and gun control laws, while HCI continues to push for more laws that further restrict, license or eliminate handguns and long guns.

Lott has pretty much had his credibility – er – shot to pieces. Good luck with that. :laugh2:

[LOki]

First of all, I know gun nuts will be pleading their "constitutional rights." Which were adopted back in the 1700s, when settlers had to deal with rogue bandits and Indian attacks. They weren't sitting comfortably in the suburbs.

Irrellevent.


Among my primary points was the licensing of guns. You need a license to drive a car, why not a license to shoot a gun?

For the same reason you should not be required to have a license to petition the government, or have a trial by jury, or be secure in your papers, or be free from unwarranted search, to not be compelled to testify against yourself--it's wrong to license rights.


Take a gun safety course, pass a test and you get a license to own a gun.

Or, better yet, make gun safety classes as compulsory as drug education classes, and sex education classes are for our children--then there's no need to posess a license to demonstrate you've taken the class.


No whacko fruitcake should be able to just walk in off the street and buy a gun. There should be a licensing system. With a photo ID. And a computer background check.

Agreed--for the whacko fruitcakes. Make them take extra classes, and make them go to rigorous therapy, and make them obtain special certification that demonstrates that they have overcome their mental illness, or their predispostion to criminal violence; and then require that they obtain and maintain a license. Just don't require it of the rest of us; we've done nothing wrong.


Which would give you the right to own a gun. We already have that right--the government can't give it to us, but it is obligated to protect that right.


Singular.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Plural.


Why does anyone need more than one gun?

Irrelevent. Besides, why do you think you can determine what someone does and does not need? What gives you the right to do so, and enforce it?



And no automatic weapons. No civilian should have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to own an assault rifle. There is no use for one.

How would you know? What do base this assertion upon?


It works for vehicles. It works for keeping track of sex offenders. Why not for guns? Unless you just want any fool to be able to buy and own a gun.

You do not have a constitutionally protected right to a vehicle. And you're not talking about licensing everyone who reaches puberty and registering their genitals for the sex offender registry--that's why.

[LOki]

So tell me why you don't want to register your guns.

Because I don't neccessarily want the government to know how many, and what kind of arms private citizens own.


No one wants to take them away from you.

You are wrong. Look into the Brady Campaign; Look into The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence--really look into them.


If gun owners are so peaceful and law abiding, why would they be opposed to registering their guns?

Because keeping and bearing arms is aright protected by the constitution, and registering guns has no real legitimate purpose but to create a list of gun owners and their guns for the purpose of confiscation.

Why do people who want to confiscate guns universally endorse gun registration?


Might keep weapons away from those who aren't supposed to own them.

Will it keep them away from tyrants?

[hjmick]

Lott has pretty much had his credibility – er – shot to pieces. Good luck with that. :laugh2:

Shot to pieces by people who support banning guns, funny how that works, don't you think? I would hardly expect a group that wants to prevent citizens from owning guns to agree with a study that suggests liberal carry laws reduce crime. I'd expect them to seek out someone whose study or ideas would directly contradict or minimize Lott's study.

[Yurt]

how many registered guns to you think gang members (crips, bloods, mexican mafia, hells angels...) have? what about seriel killers that use guns, registered? isn't true that the majority of those who commit murder are those who would never register a gun. and if you want to get ugly, the news lately is full of law abiding citizens that just went beserk, and used registered guns to murder numerous people in one killing spree.

what is it about registration that you feel will make us safer?

[diuretic]

Shot to pieces by people who support banning guns, funny how that works, don't you think? I would hardly expect a group that wants to prevent citizens from owning guns to agree with a study that suggests liberal carry laws reduce crime. I'd expect them to seek out someone whose study or ideas would directly contradict or minimize Lott's study.

No his methodology was attacked by people who know about these things. No doubt the pro-gun control lobby took advantage of it but that's a given.

[diuretic]

how many registered guns to you think gang members (crips, bloods, mexican mafia, hells angels...) have? what about seriel killers that use guns, registered? isn't true that the majority of those who commit murder are those who would never register a gun. and if you want to get ugly, the news lately is full of law abiding citizens that just went beserk, and used registered guns to murder numerous people in one killing spree.

what is it about registration that you feel will make us safer?

Is that for me?

Of course they don't. I mean here we seize unregistered and unlawful (ie prohibited) weapons on the odd occasion from outlaw motorcycle gangs, of course they're not going to register them, they can't legally possess them.

Registration is simply our way of who has what and where. Registration of firearms is for law-abiding firearms owners. Dirtbags and crooks will use unregistered weapons for sure, one of the reasons is that they don't want to leave evidence. As for people who go postal, it makes no difference if the weapon is registered or not.

Registration is about safety in that a person who brings a firearm in to be registered (here where I live I mean) has to have it inspected and of course because they're licensed to use certain weapons it can be ascertained that the weapon is appropriate to their licence. Knowing that the weapon exists, that it's owned by someone and where it's kept is good information, especially for police if they're called to a job at that address.

Anyway that's my take on how it works here.

[Monkeybone]

from outlaw motorcycle gangs

*gasp!!* like Toecutter's?

[Mr. P]

Is that for me?

Of course they don't. I mean here we seize unregistered and unlawful (ie prohibited) weapons on the odd occasion from outlaw motorcycle gangs, of course they're not going to register them, they can't legally possess them.

Registration is simply our way of who has what and where. Registration of firearms is for law-abiding firearms owners. Dirtbags and crooks will use unregistered weapons for sure, one of the reasons is that they don't want to leave evidence. As for people who go postal, it makes no difference if the weapon is registered or not.

Registration is about safety in that a person who brings a firearm in to be registered (here where I live I mean) has to have it inspected and of course because they're licensed to use certain weapons it can be ascertained that the weapon is appropriate to their licence. Knowing that the weapon exists, that it's owned by someone and where it's kept is good information, especially for police if they're called to a job at that address.

Anyway that's my take on how it works here.

From outlaw motorcycle gangs? Do the lawful gangs register as such? If so, I guess the Gov will always know where they are, just in case, ya know, in the event a gang commits some crime they know where to find em. :poke:

[MtnBiker]

*gasp!!* like Toecutter's?

There is an obscure MadMax reference.

[Nukeman]

*gasp!!* like Toecutter's?

More like "Lord Humungous":coffee:

[Little-Acorn]

Registration of firearms is for law-abiding firearms owners.

Registration is about safety....

Knowing that the weapon exists, that it's owned by someone and where it's kept is good information, especially for police if they're called to a job at that address.

Wait a minute. Didn't you say that registration is for law-abiding firearms owners?

If that's so, why are the police going to that address?

Maybe for a kitty stuck in a tree, and they're going there to help get him down? Or to sell tickets to the Annual Policemen's Ball? If so, what do they have to fear from firearms kept by law-abiding owners in those houses?

Gun registration is indeed for law-abiding firearms owners only. And the reason it's implemented, is so that government can have a measure of protection against those law-abiding citizens should they need it. And the reason government needs that protection, is because they're aware that they (government) itself is contemplating NOT being "law-abiding" - or more exactly, they are contemplating violating their citizens' rights, whether those violations are enacted in law or not. And if government is contemplating going up against law-abiding citizens, you can bet the violations government is contemplating, are NOT sanctioned by law.

A demand for gun registration for law-abiding citizens, is a direct admission of pending conspiracy to violate the rights of those citizens. There is no other reason to impose gun registration on law-abiding citizens.

[diuretic]

There is an obscure MadMax reference.

To me it means "internal investigations" :laugh2:

[Nukeman]

There is an obscure MadMax reference.

I am impressed that you know that. Just more useless trivial information in your skull??????

Monkey and I are like that too!!!:cheers2:

[diuretic]

From outlaw motorcycle gangs? Do the lawful gangs register as such? If so, I guess the Gov will always know where they are, just in case, ya know, in the event a gang commits some crime they know where to find em. :poke:

Here's a primer:

1. Hells Angels - outlaw motorcycle gang (Australian chapter, I'm sure the lads in Oakland are really nice blokes who love their mothers).

2. Ulysses Motorcycle club - not outlaw motorcycle gang.

Difference - one is involved in organised crime the other is involved in riding motorcycles.

Simple eh? :laugh2:

[diuretic]

Wait a minute. Didn't you say that registration is for law-abiding firearms owners?

If that's so, why are the police going to that address?

Maybe for a kitty stuck in a tree, and they're going there to help get him down? Or to sell tickets to the Annual Policemen's Ball? If so, what do they have to fear from firearms kept by law-abiding owners in those houses?

Gun registration is indeed for law-abiding firearms owners only. And the reason it's implemented, is so that government can have a measure of protection against those law-abiding citizens should they need it. And the reason government needs that protection, is because they're aware that they (government) itself is contemplating NOT being "law-abiding" - or more exactly, they are contemplating violating their citizens' rights, whether those violations are enacted in law or not. And if government is contemplating going up against law-abiding citizens, you can bet the violations government is contemplating, are NOT sanctioned by law.

A demand for gun registration for law-abiding citizens, is a direct admission of pending conspiracy to violate the rights of those citizens. There is no other reason to impose gun registration on law-abiding citizens.


You have to accept that I'm speaking from my own cultural orientation. While Americans have developed a fear of government, judging by your remarks, here we're not frightened of our government. So I see it differently.

When police are asked to a violent incident at a location, say a private house, it's important for them to know if there are any registered weapons there. This doesn't obviate the need for operational safety processes but it does help to have that information.

[manu1959]

You have to accept that I'm speaking from my own cultural orientation. While Americans have developed a fear of government, judging by your remarks, here we're not frightened of our government. So I see it differently.

When police are asked to a violent incident at a location, say a private house, it's important for them to know if there are any registered weapons there. This doesn't obviate the need for operational safety processes but it does help to have that information.

if the police respond to a call with shots fired........don't the know a gun is present....

[Mr. P]

if the police respond to a call with shots fired........don't the know a gun is present....

Or here's a novel idea, ASSUME there are firearms present until proven otherwise.

[manu1959]

Or here's a novel idea, ASSUME there are firearms present until proven otherwise.

that sounds like a good way not to get shot....

[Little-Acorn]

Or here's a novel idea, ASSUME there are firearms present until proven otherwise.

Here's an even more novel idea - assume that people have the right to keep and bear arms, and that the maintenance of that right is MORE important than keeping police and government officials as safe as possible by registrations that could later be used against those citizens by an abusive government (or by an accidental leak that lets criminals know who has guns and who doesn't). This is because numerous data have shown that societies where everyone is allowed to be armed (whether they actually choose to arms themselves or not) are safer for law-abiding citizens, than societies where they are not so allowed.

The purpose of government, is to keep societies free and safe. Not to keep government free and safe.

And for those thinking about becoming cops or government agents, keep the above priority in mind before you apply. The right of the people to own and carry guns is MORE important than your safety as a cop or agent. Know that going in, when you apply to become a cop or agent.

[Mr. P]

Here's an even more novel idea - assume that people have the right to keep and bear arms, and that the maintenance of that right is MORE important than keeping police and government officials as safe as possible by registrations that could later be used against those citizens by an abusive government (or by an accidental leak that lets criminals know who has guns and who doesn't). This is because numerous data have shown that societies where everyone is allowed to be armed (whether they actually choose to arms themselves or not) are safer for law-abiding citizens, than societies where they are not so allowed.

The purpose of government, is to keep societies free and safe. Not to keep government free and safe.

And for those thinking about becoming cops or government agents, keep the above priority in mind before you apply. The right of the people to own and carry guns is MORE important than your safety as a cop or agent. Know that going in, when you apply to become a cop or agent.

Don't lecture future law enforcement as though 'they' want your guns. I think the example diuretic used was used as proof that registration would be beneficial. Remember he's in a different country. In my opinion the example is, as intended by so many control freaks, very misleading. In fact, most cops I've ever had conversations with promote private ownership of firearms.

diuretic...I'm not suggesting you are a control freak but that manor of justification for control is used here a great deal. They may buy it in AU but that dog won't hunt here. Well maybe in California it might.

[diuretic]

if the police respond to a call with shots fired........don't the know a gun is present....

They would, provided the caller actually knew what a gun going off sounded like :laugh2:

But the problem lies where there's no gunfire. I'll give you an example. Call by a woman who has been beaten up by her husband. Go to screen door (solid door is open behind it). Hear woman's voice shrieking. Hear man yelling. Yell out "Police! Open up!" Hear the sound of a shotgun slide as the bloke inside loads the pump action shotgun up. Due to pathetic information system some years ago I had no idea the bloke had a firearm. Nowadays i would know exactly how many and what type of registered firearms were in the house. As I said, it doesn't lessen your caution but it does heighten it.

[diuretic]

Or here's a novel idea, ASSUME there are firearms present until proven otherwise.

Problem there is that here where I live I am constrained from acting in a certain manner unless I can prove that I suspected on reasonable grounds that a situation existed where I needed to draw and level my handgun.

[diuretic]

Don't lecture future law enforcement as though 'they' want your guns. I think the example diuretic used was used as proof that registration would be beneficial. Remember he's in a different country. In my opinion the example is, as intended by so many control freaks, very misleading. In fact, most cops I've ever had conversations with promote private ownership of firearms.

diuretic...I'm not suggesting you are a control freak but that manor of justification for control is used here a great deal. They may buy it in AU but that dog won't hunt here. Well maybe in California it might.

I did try and point out cultural differences and I am trying to keep out of your domestic context and I think the posters understand that. It's a fact that we do have what most Americans would consider to be highly restrictive gun control laws. But here we're okay with them. It's just a cultural perspective. It works for us, it won't work for you and I understand that.

[Yurt]

so we've established that gun control is really only for law abiding citizens...

gabs?

maybe all of us law abiding citizens should register as sex offenders, cause you never know....

[Mr. P]

I did try and point out cultural differences and I am trying to keep out of your domestic context and I think the posters understand that. It's a fact that we do have what most Americans would consider to be highly restrictive gun control laws. But here we're okay with them. It's just a cultural perspective. It works for us, it won't work for you and I understand that.

I understand.

Hey, do you say tomato or tamoto? We say mater in da south. :cheers2:

[pegwinn]

so we've established that gun control is really only for law abiding citizens...

gabs?

maybe all of us law abiding citizens should register as sex offenders, cause you never know....

Just as soon as all the wimminfolk register for their constitutionally protected emanations and penumbras.

[diuretic]

I understand.

Hey, do you say tomato or tamoto? We say mater in da south. :cheers2:

We say tomarto like the Brits. Where I am though we have a different regional accent from the rest of Australia, eg we pronounce dance as "darnce" like the Brits but in every other state it's pronounced dance as most Americans pronounce it. We get heaps over it from the other states here :laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

From http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=28

Registration lists have led to gun confiscation in Australia, Bermuda, Cuba, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia and other countries. It has also happened here, and the history of firearms registration in New York City is particularly instructive.

In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. Concerns over the potential use of those registration lists to confiscate guns in the future were dismissed as paranoia. In 1991, gun owners' legitimate fears were realized, when the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, despite the police commissioner's testimony that no registered firearms of the types banned had been used in violent crimes in the city. New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were told that any licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. They were warned that they might be subject to "spot checks."

And our benevolent government-is-here-to-help-you liberals keep insisting "It can't happen here"... when it already has.

So when they change their tune and tell us, "Well, it's won't happen again.".... remind me why we should believe them this time?

Gabby, does that tell you why we don't want gun registration?

The first amendment liberal freaks, who believe NAMBLA should be able to publish books on pedophilia and how to get away with it, that FUCK YOU is free speech in schools, but GOD is a forbidden word, also seem to forget, that to enforce the freedom of speech, ultimately guns would be needed. Collection of taxes is done at the threat of gunpoint, and Hitler first disarmed the public before his other methods were implemented.
TOday I heard about a shooting in Israel. A terrorist opened fire in a public place of some sort, killing seven Jews, when an armed Jew stopped the guy. I hope he shot him dead, and I hope the guy suffered a LOOONG time before dying.

Personally, if I had the opportunity, I would shoot such an evil asshole in the knees, work up to the elbows, the shoulders, then the ankles, and let him bleed to death while hearing me blasheme against his pedophile prophet.

[LuvRPgrl]

You have to accept that I'm speaking from my own cultural orientation. While Americans have developed a fear of government, judging by your remarks, here we're not frightened of our government. So I see it differently.

When police are asked to a violent incident at a location, say a private house, it's important for them to know if there are any registered weapons there. This doesn't obviate the need for operational safety processes but it does help to have that information.

We havent developed one, we were founded by them, and the govt we feared was your own mother govt.
Americans are fiercely independent and self supporting, innovative and pioneering. Govt only gets in the way. People who support bigger govt are simply seeking a larger security blankets, only problem with security blankets is they obscure your view and prevent you from growing up.

Comparing anything about Australia and the US is futile at best. Apples and Oranges, our culture and societies are so much different. We Americans are not all decendents of criminals. :cool:

[LuvRPgrl]

if the police respond to a call with shots fired........don't the know a gun is present.... Im wondering if its important to know if there are any unregistered guns there too.

[LuvRPgrl]

They would, provided the caller actually knew what a gun going off sounded like :laugh2:

But the problem lies where there's no gunfire. I'll give you an example. Call by a woman who has been beaten up by her husband. Go to screen door (solid door is open behind it). Hear woman's voice shrieking. Hear man yelling. Yell out "Police! Open up!" Hear the sound of a shotgun slide as the bloke inside loads the pump action shotgun up. Due to pathetic information system some years ago I had no idea the bloke had a firearm. Nowadays i would know exactly how many and what type of registered firearms were in the house. As I said, it doesn't lessen your caution but it does heighten it.


At what point in time would you find out the guy had registered guns? Not to mention, so what, if NONE showed up as registered, are you going to now proceed as though there are no guns there?

[LuvRPgrl]

so we've established that gun control is really only for law abiding citizens...

gabs?

maybe all of us law abiding citizens should register as sex offenders, cause you never know....

Ive never understood that one. If you make them register, it means you fear them repeating their crime, so why the hell let them back out>? They know pedophiles never change, so why not make the crime a life sentence, or like twenty to forty years.

[diuretic]

We havent developed one, we were founded by them, and the govt we feared was your own mother govt.
Americans are fiercely independent and self supporting, innovative and pioneering. Govt only gets in the way. People who support bigger govt are simply seeking a larger security blankets, only problem with security blankets is they obscure your view and prevent you from growing up.

Comparing anything about Australia and the US is futile at best. Apples and Oranges, our culture and societies are so much different. We Americans are not all decendents of criminals. :cool:

I have to say I can understand anyone fearing the British government in the 18th Century. It took a revolutionary war for the US to get its independence. But the fear of government being expressed is about contemporary US government. I don't know where that comes from.

You're right though, the cultural differences are huge. It's why I try to avoid suggesting to Americans that "this is the way we do it, it's the way you should do it". I might sometimes recommend a look at an aspect of our society, eg how we do healthcare (not perfectly but pretty well) but I do so only to thrown a bit more information into the debate, not to suggest that it should be adopted wholesale.

[diuretic]

At what point in time would you find out the guy had registered guns? Not to mention, so what, if NONE showed up as registered, are you going to now proceed as though there are no guns there?

It's about risk analysis and risk management. It's a bit complex and I'm reluctant to explain how it works in the forum.

[JohnDoe]

It's about risk analysis and risk management. It's a bit complex and I'm reluctant to explain how it works in the forum.

Good Morning Diurectic....let me ask a few questions...i have not read this entire thread so if this was addressed already, I apologize.

If everyone was allowed to own a gun, unless a criminal or mentally ill, and maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of the population actually decided to exercise that right and owned one....

HOW do you see this as a threat to a community? If 90% of the guns on the street, (so to say) were owned by law abiding citizens? I am allowing for 10% of ownership to be illegal ownership, or black market ownership, as a guess out of the air, and maybe this is where I have gone wrong..... but, what makes this situation more harmful for the average citizen?.....NOT the cops....that is another discussion altogether because we are sovereign, over and above the police or the govt, per say....in other words and as said, what is best for the citizen?

Maybe you could explain why there is an overwelming fear it seems of your neighbor owning a gun for self defense?

I think everyone should have a decal in their window warning that there is a "gun on board"..... or "annie Oakley and Dale Evans, LIVES HERE" decal:), even if they don't have one, just to make the robber or intruder think twice before entering your house.

I just do not understand how ownership of guns by law abiding citizens HURTS anything? It only seems as though it would help....what am I missing?

NOTE!
Anyone is free to answer my questions. :)

jd

[diuretic]

Evening jd - I don't actually see lawful private firearms ownership as being a threat to the community's safety.

[JohnDoe]

Evening jd - I don't actually see lawful private firearms ownership as being a threat to the community's safety.
evening to you too diuretic!
then why do you want the gvt to keep track through registration records kept, the names of these law abiding citizens if it is not for the community's safety?

and like i said, have not read the entire thread, i could have misunderstood?

jd

[diuretic]

I can't speak for the US but here registration of firearms and licensing of users is about enhancing community safety. If someone purchases a firearm they have to take it in for registration. The firearm is inspected, it's history is checked and the owner has to be licensed to use that particular firearm. It's a fair balance of rights and interests.

[LOki]

I can't speak for the US but here registration of firearms and licensing of users is about enhancing community safety.

No it's not--not ever.


If someone purchases a firearm they have to take it in for registration.

Which does nothing to enhance community safety.


The firearm is inspected,...

Which does not require registration.


...it's history is checked and...

Which does nothing to enhance community safety.


...the owner has to be licensed to use that particular firearm.

Which does nothing to enhance community safety.


It's a fair balance of rights and interests.

Nope.

[pegwinn]

I can't speak for the US but here registration of firearms and licensing of users is about enhancing community safety. If someone purchases a firearm they have to take it in for registration. The firearm is inspected, it's history is checked and the owner has to be licensed to use that particular firearm. It's a fair balance of rights and interests.

With respect I simply don't believe that it is about the community. I think it's about the .gov keeping tabs on her citizens and nothing more.

[gabosaurus]

Good luck with that in Los Angeles. If the police walk into a house and you are holding a gun, it's usually time to call the morgue. LAPD doesn't give jack about your right to own guns.

Don't think it doesn't happen, either. A few years back, LAPD was called to a domestic disturbance. They knocked at the door, no one answered. They bust in the door, go to the other room. Hubby turns around with a gun in his hand. Two police officers open fire on him.
The inquest stated that the officers used "reasonable force."

[diuretic]

No it's not--not ever.



Which does nothing to enhance community safety.



Which does not require registration.



Which does nothing to enhance community safety.



Which does nothing to enhance community safety.



Nope.

Apart from simple contradictions, do you have any argument at all?

[diuretic]

With respect I simply don't believe that it is about the community. I think it's about the .gov keeping tabs on her citizens and nothing more.

No problem, you're entitled to see it any way you wish.

[LOki]

Apart from simple contradictions, do you have any argument at all?

Apart from a simple denial, do have any rebuttal at all? :popcorn:

[diuretic]

Do I have to do ALL the work? Jeez I should get an hourly rate for this.

Why does licensing of owners/users and registration of firearms enhance community safety? For these reasons:

1. A firearm imported (legally) or manufactured here (this of course is in the Australian context) is given a serial number. That serial number allows the firearm to be traced so that at any given time it can be located, provided it's registered.

2. The firearm is registered which means that its owner and location is known. When it's first purchase or when it's transferred it has to be inspected. Provided the firearm is in a safe condition it will be registered to the new owner. That ensures that unsafe firearms are not transferred and are taken out of circulation. Thus that enhances community safety.

3. The owner/user of a firearm has to be licensed to use a firearm. Someone can't be licensed until they've undergone training in firearm safety. Thus that enhances community safety.

This is a fair balance of private rights and public interests.

Now, if there's a counter-argument I'd like to read it. Blanket denials without rationale or parsing each word or sentence aren't counter-arguments.

[LOki]

Do I have to do ALL the work? Jeez I should get an hourly rate for this.

Why does licensing of owners/users and registration of firearms enhance community safety? For these reasons:

1. A firearm imported (legally) or manufactured here (this of course is in the Australian context) is given a serial number. That serial number allows the firearm to be traced so that at any given time it can be located, provided it's registered.

Which, of course does nothing to enhance community safety, but certainly makes it easier to find firearms for the purposes of confiscation.


2. The firearm is registered which means that its owner and location is known.

Which, of course does nothing to enhance community safety, but certainly makes it easier to find firearms for the purposes of confiscation.


When it's first purchase or when it's transferred it has to be inspected.

Which, of course, can be performed without registering a single gun, or creating any database that makes it easier to find firearms for the purposes of confiscation.


Provided the firearm is in a safe condition it will be registered to the new owner.

Which, of course does nothing to enhance community safety, but certainly makes it easier to find firearms for the purposes of confiscation.


That ensures that unsafe firearms are not transferred and are taken out of circulation. Thus that enhances community safety.

Inspection of firearms arguably enhances community safety; it certainly enhances personal safety--but you'r not arguing for inspection, you're arguing for registration, which serves only to create a database that makes it easier to find firearms for the purposes of confiscation.


3. The owner/user of a firearm has to be licensed to use a firearm.

Presenting a person with government sanction to own a firearm does not enhance community safety.


Someone can't be licensed until they've undergone training in firearm safety. Thus that enhances community safety.

Training in the safe use and handling of firearms arguably enhances community and personal safety, but you're not arguing for safety training; you're arguing for licensing--which is irrelevent to safety training, and serves only to support a database that makes it easier to identify firearms owners for the purposes of arresting them when firearm ownership is criminalized.


This is a fair balance of private rights and public interests.

Nope.


Now, if there's a counter-argument I'd like to read it. Blanket denials without rationale or parsing each word or sentence aren't counter-arguments.

Now you have it. ENJOY!

[Joe Steel]

Do I have to do ALL the work? Jeez I should get an hourly rate for this.

Why does licensing of owners/users and registration of firearms enhance community safety? For these reasons:

1. A firearm imported (legally) or manufactured here (this of course is in the Australian context) is given a serial number. That serial number allows the firearm to be traced so that at any given time it can be located, provided it's registered.

2. The firearm is registered which means that its owner and location is known. When it's first purchase or when it's transferred it has to be inspected. Provided the firearm is in a safe condition it will be registered to the new owner. That ensures that unsafe firearms are not transferred and are taken out of circulation. Thus that enhances community safety.

3. The owner/user of a firearm has to be licensed to use a firearm. Someone can't be licensed until they've undergone training in firearm safety. Thus that enhances community safety.

This is a fair balance of private rights and public interests.

Now, if there's a counter-argument I'd like to read it. Blanket denials without rationale or parsing each word or sentence aren't counter-arguments.

Registration adds accountability.

Conservatives are always ranting about accountability so they should love registration. A registered gun is the responsibility of the registered owner. That makes anyone who owns the gun lawfully, take care to see that it's always under control and that when he transfers it to someone else, it's done lawfully. He has to store it securely so that it's less likely to be stolen and he has to make sure any future purchaser is a lawful purchaser because he, the registered owner, is responsible for it.

Registration. It's the conservative thing to do.

[diuretic]

Which, of course does nothing to enhance community safety, but certainly makes it easier to find firearms for the purposes of confiscation.



Which, of course does nothing to enhance community safety, but certainly makes it easier to find firearms for the purposes of confiscation.



Which, of course, can be performed without registering a single gun, or creating any database that makes it easier to find firearms for the purposes of confiscation.



Which, of course does nothing to enhance community safety, but certainly makes it easier to find firearms for the purposes of confiscation.



Inspection of firearms arguably enhances community safety; it certainly enhances personal safety--but you'r not arguing for inspection, you're arguing for registration, which serves only to create a database that makes it easier to find firearms for the purposes of confiscation.



Presenting a person with government sanction to own a firearm does not enhance community safety.



Training in the safe use and handling of firearms arguably enhances community and personal safety, but you're not arguing for safety training; you're arguing for licensing--which is irrelevent to safety training, and serves only to support a database that makes it easier to identify firearms owners for the purposes of arresting them when firearm ownership is criminalized.



Nope.



Now you have it. ENJOY!

That's a dreadful attempt. Not only have you failed to make a counter argument you've actually twisted around my own arguments. And you've stated the obvious. Of course it's easier for confiscation. Confiscation enhances public safety. An unsafe firearm is withdrawn from the community, therefore public safety is enhanced. An unsafe owner or user has a firearm taken away, therefore public safety is enhanced.

And worse, you're fantasising again, some sort of idea of wholesale public confiscation. Fantasy arguments are useless. I'm referring to the here and now in concrete terms and you're constructing fantasies to throw at me.

Give me some substance, something I can look at and think about.

[diuretic]

Registration adds accountability.

Conservatives are always ranting about accountability so they should love registration. A registered gun is the responsibility of the registered owner. That makes anyone who owns the gun lawfully, take care to see that it's always under control and that when he transfers it to someone else, it's done lawfully. He has to store it securely so that it's less likely to be stolen and he has to make sure any future purchaser is a lawful purchaser because he, the registered owner, is responsible for it.

Registration. It's the conservative thing to do.

I wish I'd thought of that. It makes sense and does a lot to enhance public safety.

[5stringJeff]

That's a dreadful attempt. Not only have you failed to make a counter argument you've actually twisted around my own arguments. And you've stated the obvious. Of course it's easier for confiscation. Confiscation enhances public safety. An unsafe firearm is withdrawn from the community, therefore public safety is enhanced. An unsafe owner or user has a firearm taken away, therefore public safety is enhanced.

And worse, you're fantasising again, some sort of idea of wholesale public confiscation. Fantasy arguments are useless. I'm referring to the here and now in concrete terms and you're constructing fantasies to throw at me.

Give me some substance, something I can look at and think about.

Confiscation does NOT enhance public safety. It only enhances government control of its citizens. And "unsafe firearms" (whatever that means) are only unsafe in the hands of someone using it in an unsafe manner - against which there are numerous laws, even in America. :)

And wholesale public confiscation of guns happened in Nazi Germany (http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=67), Canada (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=4&issue=006), and even Washington DC. It is not a fantasy argument.

[diuretic]

Confiscation does NOT enhance public safety. It only enhances government control of its citizens. And "unsafe firearms" (whatever that means) are only unsafe in the hands of someone using it in an unsafe manner - against which there are numerous laws, even in America. :)

And wholesale public confiscation of guns happened in Nazi Germany (http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=67), Canada (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=4&issue=006), and even Washington DC. It is not a fantasy argument.

I have to disagree on the issue of confiscation and this is where I see the cultural differences. An American may interpret it as government control but it's not the way it's seen here. Given that those are subjective judgements based on cultural considerations then both are correct.

My point about unsafe (that is mechanically unsafe or otherwise dangerous) firearms and unsafe (ie irresponsible) firearms owners stands. If an unsafe/dangerous firearm is removed then of course public safety is enhanced. Same for the unsafe user. We want to keep both to the minimum possible so as to enhance public safety.

You cited some sources for firearms confiscation so I read them. The NRA one mentions Jews in Germany. But was the whole of the German population subjected to firearms confiscation? The other parts of the article discuss the German occupation forces confiscating firearms. An army of occupation is going to do that. It's a fantasy though to think that your own legitimate government will confiscate all firearms. That was my point. It's disingenuous to refer to the Nazis victimisation of Jews and the behaviour of the Germans in occupied countries as some sort of proof of confiscation by legitimate government.

The Canadian reference isn't to confiscation, it's to registration and I have to say that Canada stuffed that up royally, they should have asked us how to do it.

From the article:


"Let us not hear that (registration) is a prelude to the confiscation by the government of hunting rifles and shotguns," Canadian Justice Minister Allan Rock said in Clintonesque tones on Feb. 16, 1995. "There is no reason to confiscate legally owned firearms."

Ten months after Rock's remarks, Parliament passed the Canadian Firearms Act, and confiscating legally owned firearms is precisely the first thing the new law did. The first of three major provisions to go into effect banned private ownership of well more than half of Canada's legally registered pistols. Any handgun of .32 or .25 caliber and any handgun with a barrel length of 105 mm (4.14") or less--more than 553,000 legally registered handguns--became illegal with the stroke of a pen.

This is also disingenuous but more likely a deliberate distortion. If a firearm is declared illegal/prohibited then it's subject to confiscation. This wasn't some sort of strongarm confiscation, it was pursuant to proper, democratic legislative process.

I'm fine to discuss this topic in another thread and at some length but really the sources you've used are very poorly argued, if not downright dishonest.

And isn't the prohibition in DC on handguns only? I'm not sure, but again subject to proper process I would think and subject as we've read to a constitutional interpretation in the US Supreme Court. Again, hardly a wholesale Nazi-style confiscation.

[Kathianne]

I have to disagree on the issue of confiscation and this is where I see the cultural differences. An American may interpret it as government control but it's not the way it's seen here. Given that those are subjective judgements based on cultural considerations then both are correct.

My point about unsafe (that is mechanically unsafe or otherwise dangerous) firearms and unsafe (ie irresponsible) firearms owners stands. If an unsafe/dangerous firearm is removed then of course public safety is enhanced. Same for the unsafe user. We want to keep both to the minimum possible so as to enhance public safety.

You cited some sources for firearms confiscation so I read them. The NRA one mentions Jews in Germany. But was the whole of the German population subjected to firearms confiscation? The other parts of the article discuss the German occupation forces confiscating firearms. An army of occupation is going to do that. It's a fantasy though to think that your own legitimate government will confiscate all firearms. That was my point. But then you haven't been in Chicago, NY, or DC when the 'government in control', did just that.
It's disingenuous to refer to the Nazis victimisation of Jews and the behaviour of the Germans in occupied countries as some sort of proof of confiscation by legitimate government.

The Canadian reference isn't to confiscation, it's to registration and I have to say that Canada stuffed that up royally, they should have asked us how to do it.

From the article:



This is also disingenuous but more likely a deliberate distortion. If a firearm is declared illegal/prohibited then it's subject to confiscation. This wasn't some sort of strongarm confiscation, it was pursuant to proper, democratic legislative process.

I'm fine to discuss this topic in another thread and at some length but really the sources you've used are very poorly argued, if not downright dishonest.

And isn't the prohibition in DC on handguns only? I'm not sure, but again subject to proper process I would think and subject as we've read to a constitutional interpretation in the US Supreme Court. Again, hardly a wholesale Nazi-style confiscation.

[diuretic]

I've been to NY, DC and Chicago, I must have missed confiscation season ;)

[Kathianne]

I've been to NY, DC and Chicago, I must have missed confiscation season ;)

Could be, but they happened and will again. In any case, no causality between the guns turned in or confiscated and serious crime.

[diuretic]

Could be, but they happened and will again. In any case, no causality between the guns turned in or confiscated and serious crime.

Same thing happened with our two national buybacks. Who handed in their soon-to-be-prohibited weapons? Responsible gun owners complying with the proposed new laws. Who didn't? Crooks. Really stupid pieces of public policy but I think I may have condemned the policies in those terms before.

[Kathianne]

Same thing happened with our two national buybacks. Who handed in their soon-to-be-prohibited weapons? Responsible gun owners complying with the proposed new laws. Who didn't? Crooks. Really stupid pieces of public policy but I think I may have condemned the policies in those terms before.

Yes and no. In Chicago they offered $100 bucks, not questions asked. No charges would come against one turning in the gun. Imagine the after effects? Needless to say, several weapons involved in shootings were 'turned in.' How likely is it that those that held them are suddenly choir boys?

[5stringJeff]

I have to disagree on the issue of confiscation and this is where I see the cultural differences. An American may interpret it as government control but it's not the way it's seen here. Given that those are subjective judgements based on cultural considerations then both are correct.

My point about unsafe (that is mechanically unsafe or otherwise dangerous) firearms and unsafe (ie irresponsible) firearms owners stands. If an unsafe/dangerous firearm is removed then of course public safety is enhanced. Same for the unsafe user. We want to keep both to the minimum possible so as to enhance public safety.

You cited some sources for firearms confiscation so I read them. The NRA one mentions Jews in Germany. But was the whole of the German population subjected to firearms confiscation? The other parts of the article discuss the German occupation forces confiscating firearms. An army of occupation is going to do that. It's a fantasy though to think that your own legitimate government will confiscate all firearms. That was my point. It's disingenuous to refer to the Nazis victimisation of Jews and the behaviour of the Germans in occupied countries as some sort of proof of confiscation by legitimate government.

The whole point is that the Nazi government disarmed people who they subsequently abused (i.e. the Jews). So it's not a fantasy to say that a legitimately elected government (which the Nazis were) would do a blanket confiscation.


The Canadian reference isn't to confiscation, it's to registration and I have to say that Canada stuffed that up royally, they should have asked us how to do it.

From the article:



This is also disingenuous but more likely a deliberate distortion. If a firearm is declared illegal/prohibited then it's subject to confiscation. This wasn't some sort of strongarm confiscation, it was pursuant to proper, democratic legislative process.

If you have to register all your firearms, then the government declares your firearms illegal, guess what? You're screwed. If you don't turn it in, they know where you live, and you're a criminal through no fault of your own. If you are not required to register firearms, and a weapon is declared illegal, then you get to keep your firearm.

[5stringJeff]

Same thing happened with our two national buybacks. Who handed in their soon-to-be-prohibited weapons? Responsible gun owners complying with the proposed new laws. Who didn't? Crooks. Really stupid pieces of public policy but I think I may have condemned the policies in those terms before.

I don't think any Australian had a choice. If they had registered their firearms, and the government then declared it illegal, then they pretty much had to "sell it back," or the gov't would be knocking down their doors.

[diuretic]

Yes and no. In Chicago they offered $100 bucks, not questions asked. No charges would come against one turning in the gun. Imagine the after effects? Needless to say, several weapons involved in shootings were 'turned in.' How likely is it that those that held them are suddenly choir boys?

Yes, it seems like a strange way to organise it but then I suppose they're doing what they can.

[diuretic]

The whole point is that the Nazi government disarmed people who they subsequently abused (i.e. the Jews). So it's not a fantasy to say that a legitimately elected government (which the Nazis were) would do a blanket confiscation.



If you have to register all your firearms, then the government declares your firearms illegal, guess what? You're screwed. If you don't turn it in, they know where you live, and you're a criminal through no fault of your own. If you are not required to register firearms, and a weapon is declared illegal, then you get to keep your firearm.

So you advocate law breaking?

[diuretic]

I don't think any Australian had a choice. If they had registered their firearms, and the government then declared it illegal, then they pretty much had to "sell it back," or the gov't would be knocking down their doors.

That's what would have happened. And it did, but not in large numbers. From that I concluded that the overwhelming number of gun owners were responsible in complying with the law. But I still refuse to see the buybacks as necessary or as reasonable (along with the prohibitions on certain weapons forced on the states by the fed govt).

[DragonStryk72]

The fundamental difference here is that, in the US, the second amendment exists in order that the people can protect themselves properly against those people who don't care about laws. Yes, it also is to protect us against government pushing us about, but the expectation is that, while the police are there to arrest, and keep the peace, it is up to the individual to see to their own personal defense.

Banning certains types of guns, or banning ownership of handguns does absolutely nothing to increase personal safety, because, like you said diuretic, the only people who are going to hand over those weapons are the law-abiding citizens, the exact ones we want to be in possession of them.

[LOki]

That's a dreadful attempt.

Nonsense. You simply refuse to accept you're wrong about this.


Not only have you failed to make a counter argument you've actually twisted around my own arguments.

More nonsense. You tried to argue registration of firearms, while trying to call it a "safety inspection."


And you've stated the obvious. Of course it's easier for confiscation. Confiscation enhances public safety.

I have stated the obvious--and the obvious conclussio is that registration is about disarming the governed, not the safety of the governed.


An unsafe firearm is withdrawn from the community, therefore public safety is enhanced. An unsafe owner or user has a firearm taken away, therefore public safety is enhanced.

Again, neither registration of firearms or licensing of owners are required to achieve this, nor do they achieve this--the purpose of registration and licensing of firearm and their owners remains criminalization of firearm owners and confiscation of firearms.


And worse, you're fantasising again, some sort of idea of wholesale public confiscation. Fantasy arguments are useless. I'm referring to the here and now in concrete terms and you're constructing fantasies to throw at me.

Give me some substance, something I can look at and think about.

The fantasy is you denial that registration has NOT been instrumental in every widespread confiscation of firearms.


Registration adds accountability.

Nonsense.


A registered gun is the responsibility of the registered owner.

A gun is the responsibility of its owner--registered or not.


That makes anyone who owns the gun lawfully, take care to see that it's always under control and that when he transfers it to someone else, it's done lawfully.

This is true for guns--registered or not.


He has to store it securely so that it's less likely to be stolen and he has to make sure any future purchaser is a lawful purchaser because he, the registered owner, is responsible for it.

This is true for guns--registered or not.

Licensing owners is the first step in criminalizing ownership--it has no other purpose. Registration s nothing but creating a database of guns, their owners, and their respective locations for the purpos of confiscation and arrest.


Registration. It's the conservative thing to do.

Registration. It's the authoritarian thing to do.


I have to disagree on the issue of confiscation and this is where I see the cultural differences. An American may interpret it as government control but it's not the way it's seen here.

Perception or not, where you are, gun registration led to gun confiscation; where you are gun licensing is the government controlling what guns you may own. Regardless of how you were sold on registration and licensing, you government has criminalized having firearms--just having them.


Given that those are subjective judgements based on cultural considerations then both are correct.

There's nothing subjective about the reality of it.


My point about unsafe (that is mechanically unsafe or otherwise dangerous) firearms and unsafe (ie irresponsible) firearms owners stands.

It's been refuted. Safety inspection is not, and does not require registration; safety training is not and does not require licensing.


If an unsafe/dangerous firearm is removed then of course public safety is enhanced.

Of course, but registration is not required to accomplish this, and it does not accomplish this.


Same for the unsafe user.

Of course, but licensing is not required to accomplish this, and it does not accomplish this.


We want to keep both to the minimum possible so as to enhance public safety.

Of couse, but neither registration of firearms or licensing of firearm owners is required to accomplish this, nor do they accomplish this.


You [5stringJeff] cited some sources for firearms confiscation so I read them. The NRA one mentions Jews in Germany. But was the whole of the German population subjected to firearms confiscation?

No. Ranking Nazi Party members, the police, and the military were not subjected to firearms confiscation.


It's a fantasy though to think that your own legitimate government will confiscate all firearms. That was my point.

It's a fantasy argument that those in our governemnt who seek registration of firearms are not doing so with the intent of confiscating them all in the future.


It's disingenuous to refer to the Nazis victimisation of Jews and the behaviour of the Germans in occupied countries as some sort of proof of confiscation by legitimate government.

It's disingenuous to claim that the confiscaions conducted by the Nazi government were not conducted by a legitimate government.


The Canadian reference isn't to confiscation, it's to registration and I have to say that Canada stuffed that up royally, they should have asked us how to do it.

From the article:<blockquote>"Let us not hear that (registration) is a prelude to the confiscation by the government of hunting rifles and shotguns," Canadian Justice Minister Allan Rock said in Clintonesque tones on Feb. 16, 1995. "There is no reason to confiscate legally owned firearms."

Ten months after Rock's remarks, Parliament passed the Canadian Firearms Act, and confiscating legally owned firearms is precisely the first thing the new law did. The first of three major provisions to go into effect banned private ownership of well more than half of Canada's legally registered pistols. Any handgun of .32 or .25 caliber and any handgun with a barrel length of 105 mm (4.14") or less--more than 553,000 legally registered handguns--became illegal with the stroke of a pen. </blockquote>
It appears, Diuretic, that the registration of the guns cited was instrumental in their confiscation--how do you claim that it wasn't?


This is also disingenuous but more likely a deliberate distortion. If a firearm is declared illegal/prohibited then it's subject to confiscation.

There's nothing disingenuous or distorted about it--the process is right there in front of you: First you make a list of all the guns and all the people who own them, then you have fireams "declared illegal/prohibited" and you confiscate them, and arrest those who retain ownwership of their arms, by "illegal/prohibited" means.


This wasn't some sort of strongarm confiscation, it was pursuant to proper, democratic legislative process.

Disingenuous and distorted is the notion that everyone who lost their firearms, lost them voluntarily for the benefit of everybody else.


Same thing happened with our two national buybacks. Who handed in their soon-to-be-prohibited weapons? Responsible gun owners complying with the proposed new laws. Who didn't? Crooks. Really stupid pieces of public policy but I think I may have condemned the policies in those terms before.

Your "buybacks" were not voluntary--it was "sell" them or else be declared a criminal. A fine example of how a legitimate government will attempt to confiscate all firearms.

This also illustrates nicely the actual purpose of such disarmament schemes: to disarm responsible law abiding folks; leaving them defenseless, in favor of allowing criminals to remain armed.

[diuretic]

The parsing! The parsing! Oh the horror!

Seriously, if you have to do that, slicing the salami stuff, without looking at the essence of the argument and taking another view of it, what happens is that we end up chasing everything until we're discussion my punctuation.

I tried to read it but it was just too much.

[LOki]

The parsing! The parsing! Oh the horror!

I suspect your problem is that I am critical of your argument; and in being critical, I have done so by carefully considering each point--parsing is beside the issue.


Seriously, if you have to do that, slicing the salami stuff, without looking at the essence of the argument and taking another view of it, what happens is that we end up chasing everything until we're discussion my punctuation.

Seriously, if the "essence" of your argument is something other than what you're saying, perhaps you should just state the actual argument you're making.


I tried to read it but it was just too much.

No, refuting it was just too much for you.

[diuretic]

Think what you wish, I'm not at all fussed. Meanwhile the caravan moves on.

[Mr. P]

Think what you wish, I'm not at all fussed. Meanwhile the caravan moves on.

Would that be the confiscation caravan, with the signs that say "For your own good"? Or the confiscation caravan with the signs that say "public safety is enhanced now"?

[hjmick]

Think what you wish, I'm not at all fussed. Meanwhile the caravan moves on.


Would that be the confiscation caravan, with the signs that say "For your own good"? Or the confiscation caravan with the signs that say "public safety is enhanced now"?

Unless I am mistaken, it would be the caravan at which the dogs are barking.

[diuretic]

Unless I am mistaken, it would be the caravan at which the dogs are barking.

You're definitely not mistaken.

[Mr. P]

Unless I am mistaken, it would be the caravan at which the dogs are barking.

Get er right! It's DAWGS! :slap:

[5stringJeff]

So you advocate law breaking?

As opposed to registering a gun that will later be confiscated? Yes.

[diuretic]

As opposed to registering a gun that will later be confiscated? Yes.

And is breaking the law the right thing to do?

[Mr. P]

And is breaking the law the right thing to do?

How many rights must be stripped and new "laws" created before EVERYONE is a law breaker?

IMO, imposing one "NO" after another will eventually result in revolt.

[5stringJeff]

And is breaking the law the right thing to do?

Was taking up arms against the British in 1775 the right thing to do? Yes. Was it legal? No. The two don't always correlate.

[diuretic]

How many rights must be stripped and new "laws" created before EVERYONE is a law breaker?

IMO, imposing one "NO" after another will eventually result in revolt.

But if an elected legislature is legislating, doesn't that mean the laws are valid and should be obeyed?

[diuretic]

Was taking up arms against the British in 1775 the right thing to do? Yes. Was it legal? No. The two don't always correlate.

Good point. But in a mature society with a democratically elected legislature would it be morally right to advocate overthrow? I know it's not legally right so that's not even in dispute, but what about the morality of the action?

[Kathianne]

Good point. But in a mature society with a democratically elected legislature would it be morally right to advocate overthrow? I know it's not legally right so that's not even in dispute, but what about the morality of the action?

I suppose it depends on what the legislature is doing? I live in IL, they've banned smoking in nearly any venue. Yet do nothing about crime of white or blue level. I live in the US, they are running up a deficit without end, if it were for a reason that would be understandable, but the idea of a war without other cuts? No. I live in a county that is totally out of control paying for privileges for the rich, while cutting services to all, yet raising taxes.

Am I angry? Yes. Question is, whom to blame. My own representatives on the state/local level vote the way I wish. On the national level, not so much, but more of IL citizens agree with them, so they are doing their best.

[LOki]

Good point. But in a mature society with a democratically elected legislature would it be morally right to advocate overthrow? I know it's not legally right so that's not even in dispute, but what about the morality of the action?

[ I ] hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[Little-Acorn]

Good point. But in a mature society with a democratically elected legislature would it be morally right to advocate overthrow? I know it's not legally right so that's not even in dispute, but what about the morality of the action?

Since when does "mature" and "democratically elected" inoculate government against violating our rights?

Loki quoted the Declaration of Independence, and it's the most bedrock of all our founding documents. The most important passage is the one that says the purpose of government is to protect our rights. It may come as a surprise to those on the left, but there is no other purpose for government.

And another part that's almost as important: If govt doesn't protect our rights, and starts violating them instead, then it's our duty to change or abolish it.

And it doesn't say "Unless society is mature or govt is democratically elected".

BTW, the Fed govt has NO authority to make laws that violate the Constitution. That can only be done by the amendment process, which they have been careful NOT to use, knowing they could never get the states to agree with most of their agenda. So laws regulating guns, in particular, should be null and void on their faces.

[diuretic]

Heck Bush can't even get himself impeached. You blokes are living in fantasy land. Overthrow your government :laugh2:

[Hobbit]

Heck Bush can't even get himself impeached. You blokes are living in fantasy land. Overthrow your government :laugh2:

Bush has committed to crimes while in office, so impeachment wouldn't be an option, even if he were the main problem. The problem is entrenched, career politicians who see MY money as their own, personal expense account. If I thought that both government corruption and citizen readiness merited a new revolution, and I led it, the first thing I did after taking the capital would be to forever bar anyone currently in a federal elected or politically elected office or working directly for such a person from ever holding any of those positions in government ever again. The next thing I'd do is repeal nearly every law passed since 1900, and many passed before that, so as to get rid of all of these vote-buying projects and government overreaches that the incumbents use to stay in office. I'd also repeal the income tax and senatorial election amendments.


Good point. But in a mature society with a democratically elected legislature would it be morally right to advocate overthrow? I know it's not legally right so that's not even in dispute, but what about the morality of the action?

A government that remains truly accountable to its people and protects the rights it is supposed to and nothing more has nothing to fear from an armed populace. However, an unarmed populace is always just one election removed from tyranny.