"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson http://www.fightthebias.com/quotes/thomas_jefferson.htm When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet. – Lyle Myhr Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out … People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically right. Guns ended that, and a social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. – L. Neil Smith (from The Probability Broach) When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... - George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun owners than in one of disarmed citizens – even if you don't own a gun yourself. – Harry Browne Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins. – Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, whose testimony convicted John Gotti To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. – Richard Henry Lee 1788 I say that the Second Amendment doesn't allow for exceptions – or else it would have read that the right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless Congress chooses otherwise." And because there are no exceptions, I disagree with my fellow panelists who say the existing gun laws should be enforced. Those laws are unconstitutional [and] wrong – because they put you at a disadvantage to armed criminals, to whom the laws are no inconvenience. – Harry Browne, meetings with NRA's EVP, Wayne LaPierre and other panelists at a gun rights rally in Hot Springs, AR, 8/8/2000 “A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed.” I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. This is basically what the so-called states rights people argue with respect to the well-regulated militia, vs. the right to keep and bear arms. – Bruce Tiemann Switzerland is a land where crime is virtually unknown, yet most Swiss males are required by law to keep in their homes what amounts to a portable, personal machine gun. –Tom Clancy To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. – George Mason Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them. – Walter Mondale Try to halt violence by restricting gun ownership and you won't halt violence. But you will create entire classes of new criminals – people who make paperwork errors, violate technical specification of the law, or rebel against the new restrictions. And you'll create new bureaus, new enforcement arms, new prisons to punish them. You'll make hordes of lawyers and bureaucrats very happy. Organized criminals will be grateful to the naive moral crusaders ("useful idiots") as they profit by selling an illegal product. And ordinary street criminals will bless fools, legislators, and "leaders" for making their job so much safer. – JPFO's "Bill of Rights Sentinel", Fall 2001. Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. – John F. Kennedy Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764 Criminals obey "gun control" laws in the same manner politicians follow their oaths of office. – Anonymous Suppose the Second amendment said "A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read? – Robert Levy, Georgetown University professor Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? - Patrick Henry ...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them. -- Thomas Paine "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. - Patrick Henry http://www.americanrevival.org/quotes/2a.htm They'd better hope and pray that line drawn in the sand is NEVER crossed. And the LORD help and have Mercy on those that do cross that line.
The powers that be, united nations, global fascists, bilderberg group, and others like them, are hell bent on the destruction of the United States, our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for ALL. We are the biggest, last, and final threat and resistance that stands in the way of them fully implementing their one world government, new world order system. They have to destroy U.S. The powers that be know that the majority of U.S. Military and Law Enforcement will NOT follow or obey unConstitutional rules, laws, orders, commands, regulations and legislations. The powers that be will use foreign troops(united nations and international police) to do their global fascist bidding of confiscating the American Peoples legally and lawfully owned firearms. The international small arms treaty / arms trade treaty recently shot down in late July, 2012, will be eventually signed, passed, and ratified under the radar of other proposed legislation, OR by executive order, exactly the same way obama passed and signed national defense authorization act(ndaa), and obama's murder care. They're going to try to pass the international small arms treaty / arms trade treaty under the radar legislation of soon to be government controled internet. Look into it. Check out Dudley Browns articles on National Association for Gun Rights. http://www.nationalgunrights.org/ This is NO conspiracy theory. These are the FACTS and TRUTHS. Do the research. Also check out: www.oathkeepers.org They'd better hope and pray that line drawn in the sand(The 2nd Amendment) is NEVER crossed. And the LORD help and have Mercy on those that do cross that line.
gun control......two hands... eyes at 9 12 3 o'clock...... 45 degrees to 10 ft in front of you. Safety on until you are clear to shoot. If you can't pull the trigger, you should have never bought one to begin with.
This post is so amusing it makes my playful... So a bunch of shadowy supervillain figures (remeniscent of the "League of Evil" from 80s 'Superfriends' cartoons) that are on the edge of controlling the whole world are somehow concerned with uncle Jebediah's shotguns? That sounds vaguely realistic... said no one, ever. While I was in the service, I would have put a hole in anyone designated a "domestic terrorist". Remember Waco? Slaves were once lawfully owned as well. Just sayin'. Yeah, that NDAA thing the President signs every year, along with that thing that ensures American citizens don't go bankrupt if they get sick... How diabolical... Right... *backing away from the gun toting paranoid lunatic* - - - Updated - - - LOL, or maybe from watching all those violent movies that are being made today... Unlike the plethora of 80s movies based on Rambo and/or vietnam...
would not know...like I've told everyone else. I wasn't there, my guns were not there. I did not kill those children. However, you are begging to get even more killed. .........tell us again, Mr Collaborator, how giving up lawful owners guns will make your world safer? You have said that you would kill Americans. You have stated that we are only targets. You're the one with the lack of humanity. You judge the rest of us as measured against yourself. You cannot trust yourself, why should we trust you?
A couple of questions, just so I can try to understand your pathology and find a way of explaining things to you in terms you'll understand (I'd normally try diagramming with crayons at this point, but that's impracticle online): - "Collaborator" again.... What foreign invader or enemy of the country am I "collaborating" with? - By removing the tools of choice for people attempting murder, how exactly am I "begging to get even more killed"? - When did I say citizens are only targets? - At what point did I indicate I don't trust myself? I DID say that, during my military service, I would have killed "domestic terrorists" if ordered to do so... Would you accept any less from a member of the military who was sworn to defend the US? I DID say that SOME controls need to be put in place to avoid the mentally unbalanced from having easy access to weapons, and that - since a law has to be applied fairly or be called 'discriminatory' - I would be willing to abide by it as well... The fact that you do not like what I am saying is because you cannot find a reasonable flaw in my position. This threatens you because you are incapable of the maturity required to admit there are some things you had not previously considered. Your means of dealing with this exposure of incompetence is to begin hurling insults and villifying the person you are intellectually threatened by - another sign of immaturity. Is that clear enough?
No one will ever control the human mind and the thought process. All the laws we need are already in place. I know in my state, I can't buy a handgun unless I have a permit to buy or a permit to carry. These permits tell the seller that I have had a back ground check done on me. And also I legally can't sell a handgun to some one unless they have a permit to buy or permit to carry. I won't for my own protection. We need to police our selves so that the government doesn't have to. I want all the freedom I can get but with freedom comes risk. I don't want some one telling me what I can or can't buy, or what size pop I can have and so on. Whether I carry a gun for self defense is nobody else's business because I never plan on using it illegally for anything. Don't take away my right to defend myself and family just because someone else doesn't want the right to defend themselves. That's their choice, not mine. We need better education on firearms (they can be used for good, it's all in the mindset)
Here's a couple of points that would be considered "gun control" if implemented: - Mandatory safety training and a written test in order to get a license - Mandatory shooting lessons and proficiency test in order to get a license - Mandatory liability insurance, negated by the purchase/use of a gun safe or comparable safety precaution to prevent guns being stolen - Background check and psych test in order to obtain license. - License presented in order to purchase firearm (includes private sales) - onus on seller. - License expires yearly (updated background check only to renew). This would make the actual purchase procedure easier, while minimizing the risk you've mentioned. Fewer accidental/negligent shootings due to the training, fewer stolen weapons in the hands of criminals, easier tracking of weapon sales to limit straw purchases that put firearms in criminal hands... How is this form of "gun control" a bad thing?
I agree with most of what you say except, Yearly renewall is a little much with the current cost, maybe drop the price of the renewal and make it bi-yearly, no liability insurance, but liabilaty laws, insurance companies are just flat out criminals in my book!
So, how popular is REGISTRATION? The ONLY way to enforce the sham of "universal background checks"? How was it implemented in Chicago during the handgun ban? By refusing to ALLOW registration. There are LOTS of us out here telling truth about this attempted bait and switch.
Registering our guns would be like: You have a friend or family member who has been in a lot of trouble with the law. And they have to register all their family and friends… Now just because you associate with them, you need to call down to the police and let them know that you will be leaving home to go to here, here and here to do this, this and this. Now you have to account for all of your time you were gone….. You could be just like them and just haven’t gotten caught yet. As long as I have that gun legally, I shouldn’t have to register. Training and back ground checks, yes… Registration? No!! I don’t think any of us want a police state…… And that is where we seem to be going…… I don’t want to take that chance….. New York has already let it out that after mandatory registration it might lead to confiscation…
Unfortunately it doesn't provide a selection I can vote for. My position is that the government should open up the law enforcement databases for voluntary online access by law abiding citizens. First open up the background check database so that a private seller can run a background check on the buyer. Law abiding gun owners don't want to sell a firearm to a person that is prohibited from possessing one and they would be responsible for ensuring that the buyer is not a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. Next open up the database of stolen firearms online so that a private buyer can check to verify that a gun they want to purchase isn't stolen. Law abiding gun owners don't want to own stolen firearms. Just making this information voluntarily available online for sellers and buyers will result in compliance because it's in the best interest of law abiding gun sellers and buyers to use these databases. Those private sellers and buyer that wouldn't use these databases voluntarily wouldn't use them even if they were mandated under the law. Gun control freaks complain that these checks aren't being done while ignoring the fact that they can't be used by the average person currently. Basically they complain about that which cannot be done because our government doesn't let us do it.
I believe that the New York law is unconstitutional because it creates an ex post defacto criminal act. A firearm (or magazine) that is legally purchased cannot be made illegal to own after the fact. They can prevent future sales but not past purchases. I've actually contacted the ACLU about this because it's not a 2nd Amendment issue but instead it's an Article I Section 10 issue.
When you confuse "gun control" with "gun ban" you've removed yourself from the discussion by putting words in your opponents' mouth, a debating no-no. Wayne LaPierre, who seems to rarely bother with the truth, says there's no point in background checks because criminals don't "bother" with them anyway. Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). That's why California is trying to round up 40,000 guns now ... all were issued "legally", via the proper channels which were supposed to include a background check, to convicted felons and the mentally ill. So yes, L'il Wayne, the criminals and psychos are going through so-called "background checks" and arming up right before our very eyes. These 40,000 permits would've been denied if the system had been working. So what I suggest is a national background checking system and strict penalties for any FFL who forgoes them. And if you think that infringes on your 2A rights you're at odds with the vast majority of Americans and every court in the land.
I have no problem with private owners being able to run a background check. Nobody wants the bad guys getting weapons. I wish the left would stop vilifying law-abiding gun owners. - - - Updated - - - That is California's own problem. The law for a background check is in place, along with 20,000 other guns laws. They just need to be enforced.
What are you talking about? It would be more like registering your car, except you'd have to do it even if your gun was to stay on private property (since guns can affect people off private property even without leaving the property). You would not have to tell the authorities every time you leave your home, that's just unfounded BS. As for confiscation, can you explain why other first-world democratic nations that have firearm registration have NOT confiscated weapons? Switzerland even mandates keeping them... Get a clue.
The FFL's do run background checks and there are severe penalties if they don't. An FFL caught not running a background check would lose their Federal Firearms License and could receive severe fines and even be sent to prison for not running a background check. Few would risk this for the few hundred dollars they would make selling a firearm illegally. If there are 40,000 firearms in the hands of those that are prohibited from owning them then they didn't come from the FFL's. They would have acquired these either by theft or a private sale where the private seller doesn't have the ability to run an instant background check online like an FFL. Gun control advocates seem to ignore the fact that they're complaining about private sellers not running background checks when the system doesn't allow a private seller to run a background check. The problem isn't the seller, the problem is that the government doesn't allow private individuals to run a background check. Yes, a private person can run the transaction through and FFL but the FFL charges the person a fee (from $25 to $50) just to run the background check. Additionally the buyer and seller have to go to the FFL's location, normally a gun shop, which creates a unnecessary restriction on the sale of the firearm. The FBI should open up their instant background check system to the general public so we can access it online. Law abiding gun owners will use it and we don't need that mandated under the law. ACCESS, ACCESS, ACCESS to the database is the issue.
Yes, a firearm on private property can kill someone in the public but it is so rare as to not be an argument. It's far more rare than a spectator at racing event being killed by a race car that is an unregistered vehicle. People need to stop and think for a minute before tossing out absurd arguments. A firearm that never leaves private property does not represent a threat to the public safety.
In response to the OP, I voted: "I am a gun owner, and support more gun control." From my point of view, universal background checks are appropriate, all new gun owners should need to sign up for, then pass a series of training and safety courses to receive a license which ought to need renewal every few years. Also, folks should have to register their firearms, related accessories, and ammunition with their respective provincial governments. No "waiting period" is needed beyond whatever amount of time is taken by a complete background check. All folk aged 16 and above ought to be eligible for licensing and ownership, in my humble opinion. Those who suffer mental or emotional issues which convey a heightened risk of violence - if demonstrated in many pertinent, empirical studies - should be denied the right to bear arms until they have undergone treatment for their conditions and received a go-ahead from a psychologist. Felons convicted of violent crimes may legally own and carry firearms provided they agree to pay for and wear tracking devices police can use to monitor them. Semi-automatic and automatic guns are fine. So are high-capacity magazines, hollow-point bullets, and other tools and devices compatible with the use of small arms. Few light weapons (those which are non-lethal) and no heavy ones should be legal for private interests to own... though under certain, highly-unlikely circumstances I would gladly encourage folks to ignore those restrictions and satisfy their demands via the black market. I am generally opposed to having armed guards assigned to malls, theaters, etc. in response to recent killing sprees - or saturating public schools with guns - but would tolerate firms hiring private security if they feel it is a cost worth taking on for the protection of consumers and property. Overall, I have a positive opinion of responsible gun ownership yet a relatively negative impression of private militias and anti-statist individuals who amass arsenals. Then again, it seems to be none of my business to intervene so I would prefer to leave them be. For better or worse, this is one of those issues where I've apparently reached a moderate compromise out of caution as opposed to going all-out civil libertarian on principle.
This "gun show" loophole baloney is a red herring. There is no gun show loophole. Licensed dealers display at gun shows and they are all required to do background checks. What they mean, without actually saying it (typical of demagogues), is private sales between individuals, sometimes occurring between private individuals walking around at gun shows, but predominantly having nothing to do with gun shows. In fact, I think requiring background checks for private sales is fine, if they give you access to the database and you can check it without the government keeping track of it or knowing of it. You can check the database and it will tell you whether the person you intend to sell to is barred from purchasing guns and you can refuse to sell to them. Those who would obey the law would be highly likely to refuse the sale. Those who would not be likely to obey the law would not. Same result as if you require them to go to the police for the background check. Those law-abiding citizens will. Criminals will not. The only difference is that the way gun control fanatics want it, the government will get to track who has guns. Wonder what they would want that information for? Yeah, I know, to trace stolen guns and those used in crimes. I will let you know if you need that information on any guns that I might own.
