Posted on 02/02/2003 5:56:41 PM PST by FSPress
Here are some to the same arguments that we hear today about guns. This was a plea that helped establish the Gun Control Act of 1967. Stop and Think. Would you have supported this legislation? The person who spoke the words is today a defender of the second amendment.
TWO WEEKS AGO, ROBERT F. KENNEDY BECAME ONE OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS STRUCK DOWN BY AN ASSASSIN'S BULLET. SOMETIME TODAY, IN SOME CITY IN AMERICA, A GUN SHOT WILL RING OUT AND SOMEONE ELSE WILL FALL DEAD OR WOUNDED. THE VICTIM MAY BE A PUBLIC LEADER OR A PRIVATE CITIZEN, BUT, WHOEVER HE IS AND WHEREVER HE FALLS, HE IS NOT ONLY THE VICTIM OF THE GUNMAN....HE IS THE VICTIM OF INDIFFERENCE. THE TRAGEDY IS STARK AND REAL. THE SCARS LAST FOREVER, AND THE ULTIMATE AND SENSELESS HORROR IS THAT SO MUCH OF THIS SLAUGHTER COULD BE PREVENTED. OUR GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE SO LAX THAT ANYONE CAN BUY A WEAPON....THE MENTALLY ILL, THE CRIMINAL, THE BOY TOO YOUNG TO BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNING A DEADLY WEAPON.
THE SOUND OF THAT GUNFIRE WILL ECHO AGAIN...TOMARROW, THE DAY AFTER, AND ALL THE DAYS TO FOLLOW, UNLESS WE ACT!!! 6,300 PEOPLE ARE MURDERED EVERY YEAR WITH FIRE- ARMS IN THESE UNITED STATES. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE AND WHEN IT IS COMPARED WITH THE FAR, FAR LOWER RATES IN OTHER FREE COUNTRIES, IT IS INTOLERABLE.
LIKE MOST AMERICANS, WE SHARE THE CONVICTION THAT STRONGER GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IS MANDATORY IN THIS TRAGIC SITUATION. WE DO NOT SPEAK FROM IGNORENCE OF FIREARMS. THE FIVE OF US COUNT OURSELVES AMONG THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO RESPECT THE PRIVILEGE OF OWNING GUNS AS SPORTSMEN OR AS PRIVATE COLLECTORS. WE HAVE USED GUNS ALL OUR LIVES BUT THE PROPER USE OF GUNS IN PRIVATE HANDS IS NOT TO KILL PEOPLE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CONGRESS HAS RECENTLY GIVEN US SOME PROTECTION AGAINST PISTOLS IN THE WRONG HANDS. BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH....NOT NEARLY ENOUGH, THE CARNAGE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THERE IS EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER THE SALE OF RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS.
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE. MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE. MEDGAR EVERS WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE.
NOT LONG AGO, A DEMENTED SNIPER PERCHED ON A TOWER AND KILLED FOURTEEN PEOPLE IN COLD BLOOD......BY RIFLE. FOR MANY LONG MONTHS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS ASKED THE CONGRESS TO PASS SUCH A LAW... BUT THE CONGRESS WILL NOT LISTEN UNLESS YOU, THE VOTER, SPEAKS OUT....UNLESS THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY RISE UP AND DEMAND THAT THE CONGRESS GIVE US A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL LAW.
THE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN INTRODUCED. IN THE SENATE, IT IS S-3633. IN THE HOUSE IT IS HR-)7735.
THIS BILL IS NO MYSTERY. LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT IT. IT'S PURPOSE IS SIMPLE AND DIRECT. IT IS NOT TO DEPRIVE THE SPORTSMAN OF HIS HUNTING GUN, THE MARKSMAN OF HIS TARGET RIFLE, NOR WOULD IT DENY TO ANY RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN HIS CONSTI- TUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM. IT IS TO PREVENT THE MURDER OF AMERICANS. IT CONTAINS THREE SENSIBLE AND REALISTIC RULES.
FIRST, IT WILL OUTLAW THE MAIL ORDER SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES. IF THIS LAW WERE IN FORCE SEVERAL YEARS AGO, IT MIGHT HAVE STOPPED LEE HARVEY OSWALD FROM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUYING THE HIGH-POWERED RIFLE HE USED TO MURDER PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY. EACH YEAR ONE MILLION RIFLES ARE SOLD THROUGH THE MAILS.
SECOND, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO MINORS - PEOPLE TOO YOUNG TO BEAR THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY PLACED IN THE HANDS OF A GUN OWNER.
THIRD, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO STRANGERS. PEOPLE WHO DRIFT ACROSS STATE LINES, TOO OFTEN WITHOUT CREDENTIALS, BUY THESE WEAPONS, AS EASILY AS THEY BUY CIGARETTES AND CANDY. THE STATES WHICH HAVE STRONG GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL BE PROTECTED.
WE URGE YOU, AS A RESPONSIBLE, SENSIBLE AND CONCERNED CITIZEN, TO WRITE OR WIRE YOUR SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN IMMEDIATELY AND DEMAND THEY SUPPORT THESE BILLS. IN THE SENATE, IT IS BILL S-3633. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IT IS BILL HR-17735.
IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY....IN THE NAME OF CONSCIENCE....FOR THE COMMON SAFETY OF US ALL.... FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA, WE MUST ACT....IT IS UP TO YOU....YOU ALONE AND THE TIME IS NOW.
Sweet. This reply's gotta a hemi.
SENATE, IT IS BILL S-3633. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IT IS BILL HR-17735.
IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY....IN THE NAME OF CONSCIENCE....FOR THE COMMON SAFETY OF US ALL.... FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA, WE MUST ACT....IT IS UP TO YOU....YOU ALONE AND THE TIME IS NOW.
IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY? [bite me] FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA, WE MUST ACT [Yes you must ] act like idiots that is !
IT IS UP TO YOU....YOU ALONE AND THE TIME IS NOW. [ Thats right its time to scrap unconstitutional laws and unconstitutional congressmen and lawmakers who pass them the time is now for ACTION not just to act like its happening. ]
Adult? OK, - that a reasonable regulation on the rkba's.
Forbidding ex-felons? They shouldn't be 'ex' if they are still dangerous to society.
Rational? To give our government the power to determine the 'rationality' of non-dangerous persons is a non-rational act in itself.
Proving that you are the person you claim to be (with no record of the transaction required to kept on any file or computer) is not unreasonable. Will it do much good? I doubt it.
But neither do I see it doing any harm. If you have a convincing arguement otherwise, or can show a violation of the 2nd Amendment, I'm all ears.
The 'harm' is in allowing ~any~ level of government to exceed 'reasonable' regulations on our rights.
We allowed the feds to so exceed in both the 1934 & 1968 gun control 'acts', and we are now reaping the whirlwind in not only unreasonable fed/regs, but in CA., a state totally out of control.
If they wish to buy one for their child, more power to them.
But they should be prepare to be culpable for the child's actions
Having to prove that oneself is not a criminal is an infringement ...
I did not say that.
I said you had to prove that you were you.
you didn't answer my questions but instead are asking me some of your own
Socratic method.
BTW...you didn't answer mine.
Do you think that "children" in South Central LA should be able to walk into a store and purchase a gun?
Should people have to prove who they are to worship or speak freely?
Neither worship nor (non-slanderous) speech interfere's with another's right. Death does.
Well that's nice, though I disagree, but it certainly isn't what we have now: the "background check" includes make, model, and serial numbers of guns purchased - full blown registration.
And I'm against it....thus my statement.
I ask again: then why do you support it?
I didn't say I supported it...just that I didn't see that it violates the 2nd.
I do, it's a privacy violation.
That right was found in the "preumbra" that allowed Roe v Wade.
You sure you want to go down that road?
Why should I have to prove who I am, because the government releases people into society, to live among us, that it does not trust with guns?
Because S$%t happens.
Now I am not coming at this from a bleeding-heart frame of mind.
I have NO sympathy for criminals and think incarceration should be both longer and tougher. I made my peace with 'vengeance as justice a long time ago.
But in this case, I will take the old "Government is the people" argument and say "it's a good thing" to try and attempt to lessen the cases of children, criminals, and nutcases having guns.... as long as it does not violate the 2nd.
You both have me on this point.
Shall we amend it that to "criminally insane" as found in a court of law, and/or as to be found so incompetent as to be under the care of a legally appointed guardian?
I see no violations in the proposed laws at the top of this thread.
MOST gun laws today are in violation, but that's not the premise of this thread.
As I stated in a subsequent post, I find that restricting of the TYPE of firearm to a citizen to be a violation of the 2nd.
In VA, I have an absolute right to carry a handgun openly (where I live), and a permit to carry a handgun concealed.
In NY, I am not, as a non-state-resident, permitted to carry a handgun at all.
You may not think this is an infringement: I do. I invite you to confront a 400-lb. bear in the woods, sans gun, thirty miles from a neighbor.
Note that carrying a long gun on skis is problomatic.
You both have me on this point. Shall we amend it that to "criminally insane" as found in a court of law, and/or as to be found so incompetent as to be under the care of a legally appointed guardian?
Here's the real problem with 'regulating' sales of weapons. It gives the state the ability to, in effect, prohibit person to person transfers, as per existing CA law. -- I cannot legally give my adult grandson a gun. It must be a registered transaction thru a licensed dealer.
This violates a number of my constitutional rights to property [see 14th], as well as the 2nd.
I most certainly do!
The point at the top of the thread was the method of purchasing guns.
Inconvenienced is not necessarily infringed.
Yes I would.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.