Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun control is out of control!
The Dryden Observer ^ | 11 December 2002 | editor

Posted on 12/12/2002 11:37:15 AM PST by 45Auto

Gun control is out of control!

One of the foulest phrases I can think of right now is ‘firearms registration.’ Since this whole thing began back a few years ago, I’ve been laughing – but it’s not so funny anymore. The powers that be are actually going to go through with this hair-brained idea - despite all the cost, opposition and common sense applied against it. Even if one doesn’t take into account the rights of all the gun owners who never would have broken the law until they refused to register, this plan would have fallen through on the basis that it WON’T WORK!

I’ve covered the stories for years – wife shot by husband; criminal shot by criminal; passersby shot by lunatic; anybody shot by crack addict.

I can honestly say that gun registration wouldn’t have changed the outcome of any of them. Why? Just take the time to ask the people who’ve actually been involved in shootings. Take for example, the case of the man who lost his mind when he came home from sea early to find his wife and cousin in a "compromising position." He took out his hunting rifle and shot both of them. Police found him at the scene with the weapon draped across his lap.

I asked him if there might have been a different outcome had gun registration been in affect then. He stared at me as if I was a journalist who had just asked a really stupid question, and said, "I had never broken the law up to that point – so there wouldn’t have been a problem with me registering a gun. Would it have been different? Yes, they would have both been killed with a registered gun." Hmmm… from the mouths of cold-blooded killers.

How about the fella who lived on the wrong side of the tracks for years, and eventually ended up taking three bullets from a druggie who was desperate for his next fix? He lived to speculate about what differences firearms registration might have had in his attack.

"You don’t have a lot of experience dealing with crack addicts – do you?" he asked in between bouts of hysterical laughter. "They had the guy – they had the gun. What might have made a difference was if the Crown hadn’t swung a deal with the shooter so he’d only end up doing two years." Since that time, I’ve learned that these deals, used all too frequently in the administration of justice, may have killed more people than guns have.

Justice isn’t supposed to be a trade-off of one criminal for another… and more importantly, it’s not supposed to come at the expense of law-abiding citizens who’ve done nothing wrong!


TOPICS: Canada; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: banglist; canada; guns; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: proxy_user
Most adults are reasonable enough to see the wisdom in compromise. But the problem is, a politician's promise is worthless. We have allowed the compromise of the Constituion in so many ways over the last 80 years, that now, the bastards we put into elected office think they no longer have to consult that venerable document before writing and passing law. Consequently, strict constructionists of the Constitution now find themselves playing "catch up", trying not to restore lost liberty, but just trying to hold the line on further encroachments. Many RKBA advocates no longer are interested in any level of compromise with the 2nd or the right to keep and bear, because we have been burned so many times in the past.
21 posted on 12/12/2002 1:18:06 PM PST by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dd5339
Leader of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising!


22 posted on 12/12/2002 1:24:22 PM PST by rockfish59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Politician's words may be worthless, but establishing programs creates a constituency that binds politicians. That's why it's so hard to get rid of programs once they're enacted, or to reform them.

In this case, such legislation would create a large class of licensed gun owners who are also voters. It would also allow many people, residing in states with restrictive laws, to own guns legally for the first time.

Yes, Congress 'could' repeal Social Security tomorrow--that is to say, they have the legal authority to do so. But with all the voters receiving SS, this isn't going to happen. The same situation would exist with legal gun licensing.
23 posted on 12/12/2002 1:49:18 PM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
"Federal gun registration, and licensing, might give gun owners many rights that they do not now have...."

Senator Dianne Feinstein told Sam Donaldson, on national TV, that if she had 51 votes in the Senate, "It would be Mr. and Mrs. America -- turn them in."

24 posted on 12/12/2002 1:54:48 PM PST by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
Give us your opinion of the 1928 German gun law that required registraion and licensing of firearms.
25 posted on 12/12/2002 1:57:34 PM PST by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
"Man, that machine-gun insurance is going to be really expensive! GEICO will be quoting $12,000/yr for $100,000 liability coverage. I suggest we be content with a handgun for self-defense. For a middle-aged, middle-class homeowner with a clean record, the insurance cost would probably be only several hundred a year."

Actually, machine-gun insurance would be very cheap. First, machine guns rarely get damaged or need expensive repair. Second, they are rarely stolen. Third, they are rarely misused in a way that damages others. Most importantly, by making newly-manufactured ones available to civilans, that $5000-10,000 machine gun will now be replaceable for less than $1000, making insurance repair and theft premiums even lower.

But keep in mind that if we are to regulate guns like cars, then only liability insurance would be required, and then only for machine guns regiustered for operation on public property.
26 posted on 12/12/2002 2:17:14 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
"GEICO will be quoting $12,000/yr for $100,000 liability coverage."

I will start a company and make a fortune offereing $100,000 coverage at $100 per year, with exclusions for intentional criminal acts, and only underwriting those who have clean criminal records.

Machine-gun owners are probably one of the most squeaky-clean, affluent and careful segments of society. Comparable to private pilots (who I would not be eager to insure due to the risks their actities entail.)
27 posted on 12/12/2002 2:20:21 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
It is time to organize the 20'th century minute man. A national organization of gun owners with a grass root organization and a network of support. Such an organization would be used to defend the right to keep and bare arms from any state or local area that ever attempted to confiscate weapons. An organization founded on constitutional grounds to defend constitutional rights with the direct threat of armed confrontation just as Thomas Jefferson described to put the fear of God into government gone astray. An individual is powerless but a group as a whole the larger it is can easily protect the rights of all. Even if half the NRA members or a few hundred million members that could show up armed at any location within hours or days to protect citizens from having illegal gun seizures from occuring would prevent the government from attempting to do so out of fear alone. The governemt does not fear a radical militia movement. What the government fears is a more determined type of NRA that is willing to organize and act more than just to lobby. When lobbying fails and government steps beyond its constitutional contraints than it is time for a more activist organization of people like our founding fathers and patriots formed when they secured their rights by throwing out the British. If the United States governemnt on any level ever attempts to take the arms of its citizens for any reason than it is time to step up to the plate and defend ourselves, our families, our homes, our communities, and our guns by using them if required to do so in keeping them and the right for self defense and personnal liberty.

FREEDOM

28 posted on 12/12/2002 2:34:10 PM PST by Mat_Helm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
idiot
29 posted on 12/12/2002 2:34:16 PM PST by thepitts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
Federal gun registration,...

If you ask me to register my guns, then I'll be an outlaw. It's bad enough that I have to have a license to carry as a law-abiding citizen under the 2nd amendment (GRRRR!), but leave my lawfully obtained weapons out of it!! It's nobody's dam*ned business what guns I own (especially since I firmly agree with the premiss that the only true purpose of weapons registration is the ultimate confiscation of same)!!

I agree, though, as long as I've got to have a license (even I can see a case for screening carriers, and licensing to carry is one way to screen and, at the same time, assure at least a minimal level of weapons training), make it federal so I can carry in all states without fear that some east-coast (or wherever) liberal "alpha-hotel" is going to try to confiscate the self protection I've driven 1500 miles with before having to pass through their sorry state!

30 posted on 12/12/2002 2:35:44 PM PST by mil-vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto; Clemenza; RaceBannon; Yehuda; rmlew; PARodrig
And to think that this editorial apopeared in a paper in the socialist province of Ontario, Canada.
31 posted on 12/12/2002 2:36:25 PM PST by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mil-vet
oops! "premiss" = "premise". I'm series!
32 posted on 12/12/2002 2:36:50 PM PST by mil-vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
Why should it be that expensive? How much annual damage is perpetrated by people with machine guns in any typical year? (Note: criminals and JBTs don't count.) That's the sort of costs the insurance agency needs to spread over all its policyholders, to pay the inevitable claims.
33 posted on 12/12/2002 3:05:30 PM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

READ THIS BOOK!!!!

34 posted on 12/12/2002 3:07:49 PM PST by Doomonyou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thepitts
"idiot"

Well, I don't know. It seems like I've persuaded at least several hard-core gun owners to consider the advantage of Federal registration, if implemented by conservatives in such a way as to expand, rather than contract, gun owners rights, and make it legally and socially more acceptable to own a gun.

But we only need a majority...
35 posted on 12/12/2002 4:32:29 PM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mat_Helm
Actually obeying the law, the Constitution and BOR may be a radical idea these days, but that's what 99.999% of the militia (we the people) want. Our founding fathers were considered radical too. The militia of today has one big advantage though, the Constitution has been ratified and is law. All we have to do is restore recognition of our lawfull rights.

The NRA doesn't want restoration of our inalienable right to keep and bear arms, they'd be out of business. Don't expect any help from them. Join a local militia or start your own.

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Molon Labe !

36 posted on 12/12/2002 9:07:04 PM PST by TERMINATTOR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: gatex
Senator Dianne Feinstein told Sam Donaldson, on national TV, that if she had 51 votes in the Senate, "It would be Mr. and Mrs. America -- turn them in."

Lots would get turned in - bullets first.

38 posted on 12/13/2002 11:36:09 AM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
It seems like I've persuaded at least several hard-core gun owners to consider the advantage of Federal registration, if implemented by conservatives in such a way as to expand, rather than contract, gun owners rights, and make it legally and socially more acceptable to own a gun.

Not me. First, understand that a right cannot be taken or created by the government. Rights pre-existed the formation of our nation, and will survive our nation's existence. Government only gets its authority to act from US.

You also have to understand that guns are different from cars. No one ever resisted tyranny with a car, but the number of people who've resisted with guns is legion. And anyone interested in increasing their power at the expense of the people, in any country at any time, knows this. Hence, in order to carry out their plans to control more of your life and mine, they need to reduce your power to resist. Viola, gun control. Ask yourself if the Armenians, Kulaks, Jews, Chinese peasants, Cambodians, Ugandans, Rwandans, etc. (i.e. victims of genocides in the 20th century) wished that they'd have had guns. The answer is undoubtedly yes - but they all found out the consequences of being unarmed too late.

Guns are a great equalizer. Before guns were invented, you had to be strong and well-trained (i.e. YEARS of training) to effectively utilize a sword or longbow - and most people weren't. A few knights on horseback could have effectively destroyed a substantially larger group of peasants, or even farmers armed with pitchforks and the like, and probably did on many occasions. Women certainly weren't, and it is no coincidence that they were oppressed until fairly recently - weakness invites oppression. Anyone of virtually any size and strength can be taught to shoot a gun accurately enough to make a difference in just a few hours. As the saying goes, "God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal."

But we only need a majority...

For what? To deny us our RIGHT to keep and bear arms? To force us to register (and, of course, PAY for the privilege) to exercise a RIGHT? Let me tell you something - I won't do it. To have to register to carry legally is bad enough. History has shown that confiscation inevitably follows registration. And no, not just overseas - RIGHT F'ING HERE! NY City registered long guns in 1966, "to be able to catch more criminals." City officials swore up, down and sideways that those lists would NEVER be used to confiscate guns. Well, even if those particular officials were being honest, the lists existed. And in 1992 Mayor David Dinkins had the police send letters to every one of those people still alive and living in NYC to turn in "assault rifles." The next time it will be "sniper weapons" (also known as deer guns, which are simply scoped, bolt-action rifles), and the next after that the shotguns (because the street gangs saw them off and thus have very deadly concealable weapons). California will do the same with those morons that registered their "assault rifles." England and Australia, 2 very similar countries to our own have already banned most firearms, but this was only possible with registration lists.

You register YOUR guns - I will not. There is NO purpose for the registration of either law-abiding gun owners or their lawfully-acquired property. None, that is, EXCEPT confiscation at some point in the future.

Gun control isn't about guns - it is about control!

Slaves are disarmed, free men are armed.

MOLON LABE!!*

*Uttered by the Spartan King Leonidas I at Thermopolyae in 480 BC to the Persians, in response to the Persian request to drop their weapons in exchange for being allowed to live. It means "come and take them." Leonidas and his 300 Spartans faced more somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 Persians. In the face of these odds, the Spartan's intense desire to remain free motivated them to kill over 20,000 of the Persians over the next 3 days, many of whom were the "elite" so-called Immortals that formed the personal body guard of the Persian Emporer. In the end, they lost only because they were betrayed by a fellow Greek that loved money more than freedom. Their sacrifice enabled the rest of the Greek city-states to mobilize their armies and defeat the Persians. Had the Greeks lost, Western Civilization would have died in its cradle.

39 posted on 12/13/2002 12:17:27 PM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
I was talking with someone about a week ago about AK-47 rifles. He couldn't understand why anybody would want to own one of these rifles. I stated that the AK-47 would be used to defend all the other guns he owned.
40 posted on 12/16/2002 5:52:16 AM PST by 2nd_Amendment_Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson