The Limits of Gun Ownership

http://www.harrybrowne.org/ ^ | October 23, 2003 | Harry Browne

[bc2]

interesting article from Harry Browne.

Assault weapons, bombs, tanks... oh my!

[bc2]

bang

[vannrox]

The only limits on the right to bear arms should be identical to those limits imposed on the 1st amendment.

[Batrachian]

So just ban and confiscate all guns. That would solve the problem.

Actually, it wouldn't, for the very good reason that criminals won't obey this law any more than they obey any others. Also it would clearly violate the 2nd Amendment (liberals don't care). Lastly, it isn't just criminals who would ignore such a law. This isn't England, where the populace meekly surrender their guns just because the government says so. The citizens of the U.S. never will.

Let's get one thing straight. Gun control isn't about reducing crime. It's about making America safe for tyranny.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

True- in fact, even CCW holders are disarmed by the law at airports, schools, and government buildings- making these places LESS safe, not more. But the basic problem here is that liberals just do not trust the people- they are convinced that everything in life has to be left to "experts", including personal defense.

This is the same argument you get from them about bloggers vs. TV network news- the bloggers don't have the benfit of "experts" (that is, editors) to tell them what they can and cannot say. (They use the same argument to prop up an educational system that is manifestly failing millions of children). It is a mindset which is just about impossible to change.

[19th LA Inf]

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

Don't know how it is in other places, but an "inoperable" vehicle (i.e. lacking current registration and safety sticker)in any back yard anywhere in the Dallas metro area will get you in a heap of trouble with the local defenders of civilization.

[headsonpikes]

Guns are bad...mmmkay?

[chainsaw]

Actually, very few people can define what an assault weapon is.

It is any weapon that is used for self defense when being assaulted.

[Paul_B]

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?

So that, despite not advertising his activities, if found out, he can be arrested and prosecuted before he completes his project?

[M Kehoe]

You might change my mind one day.

5.56mm

[epow]

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.

That one sentence sums up my philosphy regarding guns and weapons perfectly. It's the ONLY weapons policy that makes sense and would work 100% of the time if followed to the letter.

Now if we just could convince 50 or 60 million other American voters.........

[tahiti]

"The only valid policy is to have no laws regulating the ownership of guns,..."

"That one sentence sums up my philosphy regarding guns and weapons perfectly."

My philosophy as well.

And I will take this philosophy to its logical conclusion.

It is anti-liberty, it is defenseless, and it is dangerous that we allow our federal government to unconstitutionally pass and enforce laws prohibiting the private owners of airline companies from allowing their customers to bear arms on their aircraft to share and help in the defense of their property and other passengers lives from death at the hands of terrorist hijackers.

September 11, 2001 would have never happened. 3000 fellow citizens would have never died because potential hijackers would have known that 10, 30, 60 plus people would be armed on any aircraft to foil such an attempt.

The ultimate blame for the deaths and destruction of property on September 11, 2001 are the federal president's, federal congress people, federaljudges, and voters who supported such unconstitutional, anti-liberty laws now and in the past.

I do not have that blood stain on my hands.

Unconstitutionally prohibiting free, moral people, which are an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens, from bearing arms, does nothing more than empower the few dangerous citizens among us to commit crimes against we fellow unarmed citizens, as Harry Browne stated in the article.

I voted for Harry Browne in 2000 election.

[Jeff Head]

50 Million Round March

[KiaKaha]

That right the worst that could have happened was a shoot out.

[Major_Risktaker]

Pass a "MITTEN LAW"

For public safety all
people must wear MITTENS.
So people can't pull the trigger
on those evil assult weapons.

[Alas Babylon!]

It ain't just the federales. Two of those planes took off from Boston's Logan Airport. Boston is the capital of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, once a proud example of gun ownership and rights, but now a cesspool of gun banners.

[autoresponder]

Registration and licensing of all media people.

Concealed newsprint licenses.

Fingerprinting and digital eyeprints.

works fer me!

[autoresponder]

Taxachussetts

Logan Gateway to 911

Passing a DMV lisense for illegal aliens

WTC III

Coming to a building under you soon

[Critter]

50 Million Round March

LOL! I was just talking about that the other day. :)

How goes the battle?

[epow]

Your conclusion is perfectly logical and I fully agree with every word. My son flys for a major airline, and they strongly oppose even arming pilots. I think all the major lines oppose it. He says they are opposed because of the potential liability risk. Another way ambulance -chasing lawyers have screwed up this nation, every company is scared out of their wits that they will be sued if someone gets a hangnail on their property or from their product.