In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
A bounty on guns? Target criminals
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
A bounty on guns? Target criminals Should a bounty be placed on a gun? Would it reduce crime or simply demonize an inanimate object? The Gun Stoppers program initiated by Pittsburgh police pays snitches that rat out unlicensed firearms owners. Your information can make you $100 per arrest and $25 for every illegal gun confiscated. I feel safer already. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Pittsburgh schools police are co-sponsors of the program. The ATF conducted a training session in April on how to identify someone who is carrying a gun illegally. Perhaps the feds picked up some pointers in Waco during the Branch Davidian siege. Pittsburgh police Chief Robert W. McNeilly Jr. was quoted as saying, "They are trained to look for ... certain mannerisms and things people do when they're carrying a gun." Maybe the officers' time would be better spent looking for certain mannerisms and things criminals do when they are raping, robbing or murdering. Shouldn't there be a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of criminals instead of their guns? In the last week, you've seen how inanimate objects such as box cutters and airplanes can be turned into lethal weapons. The one common denominator is how someone uses them. While it's clear the Gun Stoppers' supporters mean well, you'd think by now they'd realize a gun - any gun - cannot cause harm unless someone abuses it. As a strong believer in the Second Amendment, I get frustrated by many of my fellow lovers of personal freedom when the issue is ex-felons owning guns. Our side is very uncomfortable with the idea of felons (who've done their time) owning guns. While there may be some pro-gun groups who believe felons should have the right to own guns - after paying their debts to society - I cannot name one person or group who admits it publicly. The Bill of Rights protects all Americans from their federal government. When a criminal is released back into society, the Bill of Rights covers him as well - or at least it should. The government cannot violate his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth amendment rights, yet no one seems to mind he's no longer protected by the Second Amendment. If an ex-con still has the right of free speech, he should still have the right to own a gun. If he doesn't have to worry about an informant turning him in because of what he says, he shouldn't have to worry about being turned in for what he owns. Does that thought make you uncomfortable? I suspect it makes a lot of folks uncomfortable, but either the Bill of Rights applies to all free people equally or else the government has the power to decide which citizens are covered by what amendments - kind of like the system we have now for ex-felons who own guns. As has been pointed out by other lovers of freedom, we don't need a license from the government to use our other rights, but we need the government's written authorization to use our Second Amendment one. Today Gun Stoppers. Tomorrow Free Speech Stoppers. Dimitri Vassilaros is the morning radio talk host on News Radio 1170 WWVA. His e-mail address is dimitriv@stargate.net.
Comments