.

gun rights A MUST READ

Snake12129Snake12129 Member Posts: 2 ✭✭
Gun-rights advocates aren't the only people who believe that individuals should be free to own guns. Even gun-control advocates usually specify that they aren't trying to ban all guns.

But most activists on both sides of the gun issue say there must be limits on gun ownership.

Why?

So that guns don't fall into the "wrong" hands.

But if a law could keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be virtually no violent crime at all. Just pass a law specifying that bad people can't own guns and the problem of gun violence is solved.

Unfortunately, things don't work out that way in the real world.

The truth is that no gun-control law works because "bad" people who want guns can always get them. Either they'll buy them in the underworld or they'll simply steal them from good folks like you and me.

But shouldn't there be some limits on gun ownership?

No. Such limits don't reduce crime. They either render innocent people defenseless, give the police more power than they should have, or they are simply stupid, unenforceable laws.

Ex-Cons & Guns

Take, for example, the laws that prevent ex-convicts from acquiring guns.

Makes sense, doesn't it, that someone with a criminal record shouldn't be able to acquire a gun?

No, it doesn't.

If a convicted criminal pays his debt to society, he should have the same rights that every other citizen has - the right of free speech, the right to an attorney, the right to vote, the right to practice his religion, the right of habeas corpus, the right to keep and bear arms.

If he doesn't have the full protection of the Bill of Rights . . .

He will be vulnerable to any zealous prosecutor who wants to railroad him in order to pad a conviction record.

He won't be able to speak freely to others.

He might not be able to attend church.

He will be helpless to defend himself from thugs who will have no trouble acquiring guns in the underworld.

Dangerous Weapons

But what about assault weapons? Surely, no innocent person has any need for an assault weapon.

Actually, very few people can define what an assault weapon is. More than anything else, it's a bogeyman designed to scare people into thinking that laws are necessary to stop some folks from running around with weapons that could kill large numbers of people.

But, yes, there are innocent people who have good reason to own assault weapons. During most riots, the police are outnumbered and intentionally stay clear of gangs that are looting and vandalizing. Suppose your life savings are invested in a store the gangs are about to loot. And suppose you have little or no insurance because your store is in a dangerous section of town. How will you defend the store against the looters? With a knife? With a handgun against a dozen attackers? Or with an assault weapon?

If you prevent innocent citizens from acquiring assault weapons, criminal gangs will still acquire them - even if they have to smuggle them into America from thousands of miles away. So why pass laws that disarm only the innocent?

Mad Scientists

But shouldn't there be some limits. Would you want your next-door neighbor building a nuclear bomb in his basement?

If someone is building a bomb next door, he isn't likely to tell you - or anyone else - about it. So what good does it do to pass a law prohibiting it?

Such a law would simply give the police one more excuse to invade and inspect your home (not just that of your neighbor).

Backyard Battalion

Okay, let's make it something out in the open. Would you want your neighbor to have a tank in his backyard?

What business is it of mine what my neighbor wants to keep in his yard? It's his yard, not mine.

If he runs his tank into my yard, he's trespassing and should be prosecuted. But he would be trespassing if he ran his car into my yard, or entered my home without permission, or burnt garbage that stunk up my home. My only concern is that he stay on his side of the boundary - not what he keeps on his side of the boundary.

Gun Laws Don't Work

You might be able to imagine the perfect law that allows just the right people to own just the right types of guns, while prohibiting other citizens from owning inappropriate firearms.

But remember, you're only imagining such a law; it will never be a reality. Once the issue is turned over to the politicians, it will be decided by whoever has the most political influence - and that will never be you or I.

Like most laws, every gun law quickly turns into a tool to reward the friends of the politically powerful and to harm their enemies. But it doesn't make America safer.

The only valid policy is to have no laws regulating the ownership of guns, but to hold every citizen responsible for whatever harm he initiates against others - with or without a gun.

People should never be prosecuted for what they own, for what they think, for what they eat, drink, or smoke, or for what they believe. They should be prosecuted only for the physical harm they do to others.

And people who do harm others should be prosecuted - whether or not a gun is involved, and whether or not there is hate in one's heart or liquor on one's breath.

Comments

  • nitrouznitrouz Member Posts: 1,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    http://feinstein.senate.gov/assault-weapons-ban-support.html

    She has over 100 co-sponsors to ban guns on House Resolution 2038.

    20-redcoats-firing.gif
    American's Right to bear arm's is the only reason we're here today.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Only 100 out of a possible 435?? Whoop de do!!! That would mean many of those same representatives remeber just how many seats were lost for those who voted for these legislative idiot-savant laws. How about that???

    Death to Tyrants!!! Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    thanks snake, that was so good I printed it to show to my daughter.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • nitrouznitrouz Member Posts: 1,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I agree with you gunphreak, but I'm writing those 100 co-sponsors and giving them a piece of my mind for supporting the bill...idiots.


    20-redcoats-firing.gif
    American's Right to bear arm's is the only reason we're here today.
  • trstonetrstone Member Posts: 833 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Nitrouz, I wish you hadn't put that link up. I clicked on it, and started to read what was there, and I wanted to toss my cookies after reading what the socialist witch was claiming about so-called
    "assault rifles" being used in drive-bys and such. (To be perfectly honest, the sight of her disingenuous baggy face is enough to make me ill.) I suspect the actual statistics would make a liar out of her, not that that would be anything new. "Assault rifles" are used in...what? Maybe one percent of all gun crimes? Or is it even that high?

    We need a few figures on this.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I emailed Dianne Swinestein using the email on the link on the message in this post. I told her that I was a member of Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership. I believe she's jewish, so this might strike her personally. I said that we needed military style weapons in order to protect ourselves from a government sponsored holocaust, and urged her to give up her anti-gun beliefs. I mentioned that the holocaust was caused by a gun grabbing politician, just like her.

    I think you should do the same. If she ever reads her email, she might get a surprise if she gets about 500 emails or so from concerned JPFO members.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I emailed Dianne Swinestein using the email on the link on the message in this post. I told her that I was a member of Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership. I believe she's jewish, so this might strike her personally. I said that we needed military style weapons in order to protect ourselves from a government sponsored holocaust, and urged her to give up her anti-gun beliefs. I mentioned that the holocaust was caused by a gun grabbing politician, just like her.

    I think you should do the same. If she ever reads her email, she might get a surprise if she gets about 500 emails or so from concerned JPFO members.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Have them get another 50 co-sponsors (one representative, one vote now, you filthy parasites) and I'll be sure to drop them a line.

    Right now, I'm not wasting my bytes on them. I have other projects that need attending. Make no mistake, though.. I'm watching those vile boogers closely. And I'm watching you, too, Mr. President. Put any effort into reauthorizing any Viktim Disarmament Edikts, and my vote will not be there, as I'm certain many others will not, either. Remember what happened in 1994 when all those seats were lost, and why they were lost.

    Vae victis!!!

    Death to Tyrants!!! Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    gunphreak: just a sincere question, not trying to put you on the spot or anything, just trying to resolve a conflict I have whenever I threaten to withhold my vote from President Bush or any Republician congressmen for their anti-gun activity. Question: If you don't vote for them, who ya going to vote for?

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    uh, longhunter, was my post "goofey" or would you vote for the cartoon character "Goofey"? I don't think I have done anything to make you mad so I am guessing you meant the cartoon character.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    Originally posted by tr fox
    uh, longhunter, was my post "goofey" or would you vote for the cartoon character "Goofey"? I don't think I have done anything to make you mad so I am guessing you meant the cartoon character.

    Uh ya Fox,I meant I'd vote for Goofey....should'a made myself clear pal...[;)] When it comes down to it I agree with you all as far as doing what we can at the booth etc.HOWEVER,(you knew that was coming eh?) It has taken since the 60's or better for them to get us where we are.....and it is more of a battle for us to reverse the process.....I do not see that we have 40 or more years to do this....That will be WAY to late!.....
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    A libertarian or Constitutionalist. Here's the bottom line.... should a Republikan decide he's going to be a Demonkrat anyhow, then my support will not be given, and I will still have the ability to onager.

    You never know, if enough people vote in a Democrat, we have powerful leverage on them because without us, they wouldn't be in office... now uphold the Constitution, or you will be voted out next.

    In the meantime, it will reshuffle the Republican's carefully stacked deck of cards, and they will know they are losing ground the the so-called silent majority.

    Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    gunphreak,some interesting thinking there.......
  • 2gun2gun Member Posts: 318 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    youre wrong the greens are still being blamed by the wackos for costing al gore the election and a lot of people say that enviromental legislation has taken a backburner from some politicians who are angry over it.

    gun owners are a large number, unfortunately most buy, hook,line,and sinker the idea that they are not after all the guns ,just the bad black ones that were designed for crazed gangbangers shooting up schoolyards. those hunting rifles,keep em and god bless you and your all american sport. that is why even the nra had no problem with the hi capacity mag ban.we who own military type rifles are a minority in the gunowning world no matter what we would like to believe.

    now lets say we withhold our votes from the republicans for renewing the assault weapons ban and making it permanent,who will we vote for? democrats? great so we'll add our numbers to the the very people who want our guns gone. not too smart.if we create a third party we will be just like the greens and the gungrabbers will reap the rewards of divide and conquer, bad deal there too.

    there is only one way to get back the ground we have lost and it takes time. there are few enough people who are motivated to vote, i think the numbers are like 30% because most people dont believe that te politicos represent them anyway( i certainly dont believe they represent me. start local and seize control by becoming active in the lacal party chapter with enough numbers that you are listened to. they listen to money and they listen to people who bring large numbers of votes. look at rock the vote as an example of raw people power.if you cant get enough people locally to vote your veiws how will you get a state election to reflect your views or even national? politicos know one thing , pandering, to whatever gets them elected and reelected. so if you can get your local sherrif elected because enough people agree with your views your off to a good start.
    if you cant now is the time to find out why.

    happiness is a warm gun, preferably preban
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    Listen to yourself 2gun.The problem as I see it stems from lack of support,period.Think of it ,sure you can go along and vote within the system,and you are swallowing,"hook,line,and sinker"the adage that ONLY the 2 party system will work.Just WHO do you think made it that way? WhO stands to lose?MAINE elected an INDEPENDANT govenor for TWO terms.That sent one he**ava important message around.Even when Ross Perot was failing ,again the voters in MAINE sent a message,We would have elected him ,hands down.If you think you can modivate enough voters to change things within the 2 party framework,than we should be able to motivate enough OUTSIDE of it.Even if folks do not get elected bt these 3rd partiers,the other parties MUST take notice,and MUST make adjustments to their policy.The key is in making a big enough wave so they MUST listen.Also third party,a strong enough one that is,an independant could ALWAYS wind up backing one of the 2 party members doen the line....That mass of votes would mean much,just as the NRA's votes do.This country was NOT always a 2 party system.If the 2 party boys are AFRAID of a split vote why thenthey will be listening won't they?The time for tip-toeing is over,I am with you,LETS MAKE SOME CHANGES....L.H.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Giving the voters the right to vote for as many canadiaates as they wanted to vote for would solve some of the problems you guys have mentioned. And that is something that is quick, easy, cheap, harmless (no downside) and could and would work. How about some support for the idea?

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • 2gun2gun Member Posts: 318 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    proportional voting would work but we would still have the same problem minimal amount of voter turnout. i think the australians have a good idea, if you dont vote there is a fine, it is a responsibility of democracy to vote and be counted.

    please remember longhunter that we are a minority even among gun owners and a lot of the bolt action people have not yet come to realize that their old .270 deer gun with a scope will be the next target as the evil sniper rifle used by military experts to kill the enemy 1000 yds away. even where the military type rifle was banned we havent heard a terrible cry. a few people left california but most stayed. they diddnt vote the banners out. they didnt have million gunowners marches.

    you want changes and a constitionalist party , you will run into a huge block of dont waste your vote, make it count vote for someone who has a chance at winning. thats effective here in the us , we like winning, thats why the greens were blamed for costing al gore the election. maine is a great place to visit but i dont see people running there because they elected an independent 2 times and who did they elect after that? did the independents ever field a whole slate and win the majority of them?

    thats the real test here, we are a republic and elect representatives who dont necesarilly represent after being elected but once they are elected it is their say so that makes laws so if we want to get thinggs done we need to start getting constitutionalists elected at the local and state level first. if you cant do that even if you get 1 member into congress he is only a swing vote that will be played when needed.

    happiness is a warm gun, preferably preban
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    2gun....Most all of what you say is true.....Now lets see,who would we have on OUR side?Who could we depend on to help....Who would give the money needed to make a difference,The gunmakers perhaps,The voter turnout issue has ALWAYS been an Issue.Perhaps adds that target the deer hunters and bird hunters etc, need to be utilized more...during PRIMETIME,yup, BIG bucks.The NRA had started an add campaign...and it worked,for a time.The party would have to work with the NRA as much as I hate to admit it,and the gooa...etc.I think that SOME of the throw your vote away thing can be overcome.A little at a time.As far as the Independant here ,He and the new REPUBLICAN gov.teamed up together to beat the Indian casino referandum here...They did it by a LANDSLIDE vote! It does work...you just gotta work it,and I agree one councillar here,one congressman there....SOMEONE needs to get the Gunclubs,hunting ,skeet and otherwise tigether,and include the trappers etc.....and then get the militias to vote with us...more organization than I think I have......SOMEONE has gotta start SOMEWHERE>....
Sign In or Register to comment.