Large Scale Central

They're after our firearms, again

General Discussion
#21
David Hill said:
What guns, officer? I sure won't turn them in voluntarily like the Brits and Aussies.
Of course we 'voluntarily' handed our modern cartridge-firing handguns in. The option was a ten-year jail term at best, or get shot on your own door-step at worst.

But only in England, Scotland and Wales.

The REST of the UK [that’s Northern Ireland and the States of Jersey - the Channel Islands] and the associated Crown Dependency of the Isle of Man told Westminster to go boil their collective heads.

tac
www.ovgrs.org

#22

Gun registration is not required in all 50 states, and background checks are sometimes required on hand guns only.

Ownership of fully-automatic machine guns is still permitted, but must be registered with BATFE. The Supreme Court definitively decided that modern firearms are covered under our Second A protection from government interference. Criminals do not register or buy their guns or ammunition.

Almost all genocide in the 20th century was proceeded by gun registration then confiscation.

The Founding Fathers were dolts and couldn’t see beyond their own nose?

I fear a government that fears it’s citizens.

To the Brits and Aussies I say, “From My Cold, Dead Hands!” Americans are citizens not subjects.

#23
Ric Golding said:
I believe it is the other way around. The "Bill Of Rights" was established to restrict government, not GIVE rights to the people.
Exactly! And as an extension to that, the federal government has no right to override the laws of any state. Thats what all the latest hubbub thats going on about states (particularly ones like NH that give more money to the feds than the get) are getting all "Washington, out of my government".
#24
M. Verbrugge said:
(Big Snip) Rights are given in the US, but too many expect their rights granted and refuse to take the responcibility that goes with it.
Mark, I agree with you that rights are given, but from whom are those rights given? The answer might surprise you.
#25

Good one Steve. Let’s see if they can figure it out?
N

#26
Steve Featherkile said:
M. Verbrugge said:
(Big Snip) Rights are given in the US, but too many expect their rights granted and refuse to take the responcibility that goes with it.
Mark, I agree with you that rights are given, but from whom are those rights given? The answer might surprise you.
Well some would say "God given rights" but Lord knows I don't want to start that one again! :)
#27

Rights in America are, in the declaration of independence, claimed to be something we are “endowed with by the creator.” The philosophical rationale for this is as follows–I cannot NOT have an opinion, by virtue of being human. Having opinions is part of my nature and the nature of all men. If I naturally have an opinion, I must have a “natural right” to an opinion. A tyrant might stop me from voicing my opinion, but that would be the essence of his tyranny–violating my “natural being.” he could silence me, but he could not stop me from having an opinion.

Natural rights could be described as coming from god, or they could be described as coming from “nature” more generally. The Declaration clearly says “endowed by their creator.”

But the Constitution, which is much more pertinent here than the declaration, is largely silent on the nature and source of rights. It pretty much implies that rights are contractual or social–that “we the people” have gathered to secure for each other a set of rights and protections. You will find only one reference to God in the Constitution, and it’s pretty much a formality.

It particularly implies that in the 2nd amendment is a social, not a god-given right. And it explicitly ties that right to the militia, which no longer exist in the form the existed in 1789.

Speaking for myself, I’m a gun owner, grew up with guns in the house, and enjoy shooting, but I would be happy to see more stringent gun regulations. They’re absurdly easy to buy.

Kevin, to my mind, puts the point beautifully

#28

I grew up with guns in my house too. As a teenager I nearly killed my best friend with a 357 semi-automatic rifle that belonged to my older brother. We loaded up a clip and popped a few rounds out the window into the dirt in the back yard of a very densely populated neighborhood. Scared shitless by the noise and recoil, we pulled out the clip and set the rifle on my brothers bed. Thinking the rifle was now unloaded, I picked it up by the trigger and it discharged. Fortunately it was pointing away from my friend. The slug penetrated the mattress, box spring, two plaster walls and framing and siding of our house exiting to parts unknown outside.

I fully support laws that require firearms to have trigger locks.

#29

I had a small firearms business many years ago. I ran it out of my house and had all sorts of special regulations to live by. It wasn’t worth it in the end but I will say it’s kind of nice that I’m still covered by some “extra” laws because I am still required to have archives of my sales records. Those records make my house a federally protected facility. Meaning, if anyone rips me off or breaks any other laws on the property we skip the local and state police. It’s a full blown federal issue handled by the BATF. So that means, no slaps on the hands for being bad. Instead the perpetrators will get the full blown ride in the federal system.

But back to the original post. I’m not giving up my guns either!

Jon.

#30
Quote:
... Gun registration is not required in all 50 states, and background checks are sometimes required on hand guns only.
Thanks, I stand corrected, but that arguably underscores the need for some kind of check and balance even more. Can anyone make a legitimate argument that people who are legally barred from gun ownership (for whatever reason) be able to buy a gun unchecked? Clearly the current system allows that to happen. (I'll readily accept that no system is foolproof, and the criminal element will always exist, but we don't have to support a thriving environment for such activities because we're afraid of a little regulation.)

Still, registration as it exists in some states (and proposed in this bill) is not a hindrance to ownership. It’s paperwork–nothing more, nothing less. To suggest that registration is the first step to confiscation in this country is completely laughable. The Supreme Court affirmed the rights of citizens to own guns last year. Gun ownership is even more engrained in the American psyche than car ownership, and it’s not going anywhere. Even most non-gunowners support the right to own guns. Most just want common-sense controls to make it more difficult for guns to get lost or end up in the hands of people who legally can’t own them.

Later,

K

#31

How about registering your keyboard?

How about only using the printing technology in place at the signing of the Constitution?

Maybe a mandatory lock for your keyboard so only government authorized and registered users may access your computer.

What part of “…shall not be infringed” do you all not understand?

The militia IS still to this day: " every free able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,"

It is a God-given right to defend myself and my loved ones from nefarious characters and government tyranny.

#32
David Hill said:
............The Founding Fathers were dolts and couldn't see beyond their own nose?

I fear a government that fears it’s citizens.

To the Brits and Aussies I say, “From My Cold, Dead Hands!” Americans are citizens not subjects.


David,
was it not you that stated that we should follow the constitution to the letter and yet now are calling the founding fathers dolts (whatever that is. Must be a local colloqial term)?

      You are living in the past.  You pride yourself on knowing your own country's history and obviously know nothing of that of other countries.  Australians are CITIZENS of their country.  We are members of the Commonwealth and are not subjects of her majesty.  We 'respect' the Queen as the Head of the Commonwealth.   Remember that at one time your country was also a British colony, as was our country.   I really suggest you get a little model railroading underway and spend less time spruiking your biasses.   Hope you are not missing out on your medication?
#33
Tim Brien said:
David Hill said:
............The Founding Fathers were dolts and couldn't see beyond their own nose?

I fear a government that fears it’s citizens.

To the Brits and Aussies I say, “From My Cold, Dead Hands!” Americans are citizens not subjects.


David,
was it not you that stated that we should follow the constitution to the letter and yet now are calling the founding fathers dolts (whatever that is. Must be a local colloqial term)?

      You are living in the past.  You pride yourself on knowing your own country's history and obviously know nothing of that of other countries.  Australians are CITIZENS of their country.  We are members of the Commonwealth and are not subjects of her majesty.  We 'respect' the Queen as the Head of the Commonwealth.   Remember that at one time your country was also a British colony, as was our country.   I really suggest you get a little model railroading underway and spend less time spruiking your biasses.   Hope you are not missing out on your medication?</blockquote>

The “dolts” term was my attempt at sarcasm, a “dolt” translates to “a stupid person”.

I readily admit I do not know the history of your country. I understood it to be a British colony as we once were, beginning as a penal colony and “Quigley Down Under” is one of my all-time favorite movies. I did consider moving to Australia after the war in the mid-1970s. As I recall, Australia was advertising for skilled tradesmen and educated immigrants. Some of my friends took R&R leave down-under and loved it.

I’ve posted a few questions about RRing, but have little to contribute, since I know much about the hobby yet.

I have been studying the effect rail transportation had on the American Civil War in general and in specific battles, since this is the era I want to model. That would encompass my interests in American history, the military (as an mechanized cavalry veteran), woodworking, landscaping and now model railroading. The equipment was unique and the structures were in some cases fairly ornate.

#34

‘Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.’

~ Thomas Jefferson

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

  1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

  2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

  3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

  4. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.

  5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

  6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

  7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

  8. If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.

  9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

  10. The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.

  11. What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?

  12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

  13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

  14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

  15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

  16. You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

  17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

  18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

  19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

  20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

  21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

  22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

  23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don’t make more.

  24. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.

  25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

#35
David Hill said:
'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'

~ Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson never said that! (http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Those_who_hammer_their_guns_into_plows)


But why let reality slow down a good bunch of slogans?

#36
mike omalley said:
David Hill said:
'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'

~ Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson never said that! (http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Those_who_hammer_their_guns_into_plows)


But why let reality slow down a good bunch of slogans?

Exactly! Truth is truth regardless of the author. Agreed?

#37

Not if the point is that Jefferson said it–if the point is the statement, then don’t falsely append Jefferson’s name to it.

#38
Quote:
... What part of "..shall not be infringed" do you all not understand?
In general, the "infringe" part of it, as you're applying it to your argument:

Infringe - “actively work to break terms of an agreement or law” or “act as to limit or undermine.”

There are two fundamental arguments which you have yet to effectively make a case for:

  1. The act of registering a gun inherently limits or prohibits one’s ability to own a gun. (And by this, I mean registration by an individual who is legally entitled to own a gun, not someone like a convicted felon whose rights have been forfeited.)

I have yet to see any argument proving why the simple act of registering anything in any way hinders our ability to actually own that object. In truth, the existing gun laws that set age limits and establish where you can and cannot carry or use your weapons do more to “infringe” gun ownership than anything else. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’d think you’re perfectly fine with the laws that keep 4-year-olds from packin’ heat. Having to register your vehicle does not keep you from owning your vehicle. Once you legally own it, you can drive it wherever, whenever, however you wish–subject to the traffic laws which govern automobile usage in your state. It’s not the registration that keeps you from driving 90 mph through the neighborhood, it’s the cop standing under the 25 mph sign with the radar gun. Gun ownership is the same way. The registration doesn’t keep you from owning or doing whatever you want to with your gun. It’s the laws that state you can’t brandish a weapon in a bank that will get you arrested if you were to do something that silly.

  1. Gun registration in the states which have it leads to state-sponsored confiscation of weapons.

Now, you can argue that gun registration is a bit “Big Brother-ish.” What you cannot do is make any claim whatsoever that any such government-sponsored property registry has been used to deprive those on that registry of their rights to the property which they legally entitled. Yes, any database has the potential to be searched and used for such nefarious purposes, but it’s a completely unrealistic expectation. If–hypothetically–the government corrupted to the point where it ignored the constitution and wanted to go after guns, they wouldn’t let such a piddly thing as a registry get in their way of looking for them wherever they wanted to. I’d be right there beside you feeding you ammo so you can reload.

Again–I don’t think anyone on this list (or even my most liberal-leaning friends) are against gun ownership. It’s guaranteed in the constitution for very good reason–and upheld by the Supreme Court. Guns do have their place in society, and do as much to prevent crime as they do to cause it. The particular bill being debated in this thread is flawed (for reasons I’ve argued on previous pages), but the basic premise behind registering a gun and creating a process by which guns can be better kept out of the “wrong” hands is laudable.

Turn the tables a bit…

Premises:

  1. The Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun.
  2. Vehicle ownership is not specifically guaranteed in the Constitution.
  3. We have spotty gun registration laws.
  4. We have mandatory vehicle registration laws.
  5. DUI accidents kill more people per year than guns.
  6. DUI is a felony (in many cases).
  7. Convicted felons cannot own guns unless authorized by the court.

Why don’t we deny convicted DUI offenders their ability to own a vehicle? Since it’s not constitutionally guaranteed, isn’t it an easier argument to make?

(Yes, they do forfeit their driver’s license. That’s like telling a gun owner he’s just not allowed to pull the trigger.)

Later,

K

#39

David,
Australia stopped being a colony 110 years ago. We are a parliamentary form of government, with members of government directly elected by the people in their individual ‘electorates’. People generally vote along party lines, although ‘swinging voters’ sometimes throw in the occasional surprise (these are voters with no party allegiance). The leader of the party with the most number of electorates won, is the prime minister and it is his responsibility, alone, to appoint his ministers and set up government. We also elect a senate (the upper house), with members from each state and it is they who ratify bills/laws passed by the lower house (the government)).

     It was not unusual for American servicemen on R&R,  from Vietnam in the early 1970's,  to consider taking up residence in Australia on their discharge and I am proud to have known several who actually did so.

    Your movie, 'Quigley down Under',  with Tom Selleck,  was, in reality,  more an American western 'set' in Australia.  It was an entertaining movie,  although a little 'over the top' with its western emphasis on the use of firearms.  While very under rated as an actor,  I did enjoy all of Tom's movies and television series.
#40
mike omalley said:
Not if the point is that Jefferson said it--if the point is the statement, then don't falsely append Jefferson's name to it.
My mistake, I have read thus as a quote by T.J. many times over the years. Just a simple error on my part. Thanks for the correction.

Obviously (to most) it was the content of the quote that is important, not the author.