Very interesting article

[jfields 0]

Quote

Let me try to give you the correct information, since you are totally misinformed.

To a large degree, I stand by my comment, and reiterate the one on the brainwashing.

Sorry, but that is how I feel, and there are plenty of facts to support it.

[flyingferret 0]

See Justin, we agree on this! You said it yourself, stricter punishment. Apply this logic to gun control. By the way I am a Harley rider, and I would have not problem with people being required to ride a moped of motorcycle for one year, then maybe they would see us after that. I think the penalty for DUI should be HUGE. See....same logic, big penalty, people don't want to do it.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[jfields 0]

FlyingFerret,

Thanks for the rational response and willingness to discuss a middleground on some of the issues.

I know that there are technical issues with some safety precautions in some circumstances. I'm not saying it is a one size fits all solution.

I agree with you that there are plenty of laws on the books. In another thread awhile ago, I stated that I wasn't out to add lots of laws limiting gun rights, or complicating things. There should be fewer laws, but better ones. I also agree that the penalties for violating the laws should be strictly enforced. In my opinion, they should also be more severe. Like you said, that will act as a deterrant.

Quote

So, if you have other measures to propose, I am willing to consider them, seriously. I just feel that in and of itself that will never be enough. We have to get tough with the law we already have, BOTH on gun owners and criminals alike.

Well said, and agreed. It is just tough to find people on the pro-gun side that are willing to discuss compromises that would help public safety, no matter how small the inconvenience or how big the benefit, if it in any way changes the free and convenient access to firearms.

[flyingferret 0]

While qouting their own website might not be such good proof, I would like to point this out:

Quote

What is the Eddie Eagle Program?
The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program teaches elementary school children four important steps to take if they find a gun. These steps are presented by the program's mascot, Eddie Eagle, in an easy-to-remember format consisting of the following simple rules:


If you see a gun:
STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.



This program, specifically designed for young children from pre-kindergarten through six grade, was developed through the combined efforts of such qualified professionals as clinical psychologists, reading specialists, teachers, curriculum specialists, urban housing safety officials, and law enforcement personnel.
The Eddie Eagle Program is used by schools, law enforcement agencies and other groups and organizations concerned with the safety of children. Materials available through this program include student workbooks, 7-minute animated video, CD-ROM, instructor guides, posters, and student reward stickers.

I think that is excellent. And I would like to know why every parent could not teach their kid the same thing? As mentioned before a lot of problems in America right now are due to lack of responsibility followed by lack of accountability. A lot of this is in the parental arena.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[kallend 1,625]

Do any of the gun advocates have any specific suggestions about how to deal with the tide of illegal guns entering cities like Chicago? Given that most of the anti-gun sentiment is actually anti illegal guns, it is just as much in your interest to find a solution.

All guns start out (presumably) legal. How do legal guns become illegal, and what would YOU do to stop it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jfields 0]

That program does sound good. I'm all for things that help with the problem, rather than contribute to it. Mike and I just disagree on where the NRA falls on their overall score. I think negative, he thinks positive. Such is life. People don't always agree.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Do any of the gun advocates have any specific suggestions about how to deal with the tide of illegal guns entering cities like Chicago? Given that most of the anti-gun sentiment is actually anti illegal guns, it is just as much in your interest to find a solution.

All guns start out (presumably) legal. How do legal guns become illegal, and what would YOU do to stop it?

Well, I think it's completely ludicrous in these times of technological prevalence that each gun can't be traced from manufacturer to owner. A gun is a deadly weapon, and I have no problem with their being a requirement at each point of sale for proper record keeping for how and to whom guns change hands. If that is done properly, it should be relatively simple to find out who the last legal entity was to have posession of the weapon and hold them responsible for it being present on the black market.

[mnischalke 0]

I was pointing out that the NRA does just a wee bit more than lobby and "buy" politicians.

Sorry, but the buying politicians arguement is absurd. As a non-profit, the NRA is under an insane amount of scrutiny by the IRS. They buy ads for politicians and contribute (suprisinly little on the grand scheme) to the polititian's campaign kitty. But, what organization representing members political interests does not do that?

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[flyingferret 0]

Alright, we have some middle ground. As I mentioned before, I think a lot of gun owners are very cautious evaluting restrictions because of cases in the past where they have been knowingly abused to help confiscate guns. I dont think we are all opposed, maybe just very cautionary and interested in the reasoning behind it.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[jfields 0]

The objection that came up before in the "Ballistic Fingerprinting" thread was that even having to register a gun is supposedly a violation of civil rights. Ownership should be anonymous, so the goverment can't use the list to repress the people.

Or so I was told...

[jfields 0]

Quote

I was pointing out that the NRA does just a wee bit more than lobby and "buy" politicians.

Yeah, sometimes that damned good deeds stuff slips in by accident.

[mnischalke 0]

It is impossible to trace the number of firearms already in circulation without creating a registration system. Sorry, every systematic gun confiscation program in history started with registration. Registration don't have a very good track record, so I for one would never be part of it.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The objection that came up before in the "Ballistic Fingerprinting" thread was that even having to register a gun is supposedly a violation of civil rights. Ownership should be anonymous, so the goverment can't use the list to repress the people.

Or so I was told...

Well, I didn't make that argument. There's a difference between goverment registration and requiring proper record keeping. I don't think the government should maintain a massive database of who owns guns. But if a gun is found on the street, they should be able to subpoena specific records from the manufacturer and subsequent retailers to positively identify who the last legal owner was. Then hold them responsible for being irresponsible or acting illegally and allowing that gun on the street.

The ballistic fingerprinting thing is ridiculous though. It's not a "fingerprint", it's easily alterable and will just be a huge waste of tax money. What I proposed is self regulation with government oversight, not a massive money sucking government beauracracy.

[jfields 0]

Quote

Sorry, every systematic gun confiscation program in history started with registration. Registration don't have a very good track record, so I for one would never be part of it.

So all the stuff about duty, honor and being a good law-abiding citizen is just fluff? You are only obligated to obey the laws you like? Must be nice.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

It is impossible to trace the number of firearms already in circulation without creating a registration system.

Never said we should register or anything about existing guns. I'm suggesting that moving forward people be required to keep good records so that they can be subpoenaed after a crime has been commited and hold responsible whoever made that gun available illegally. It won't be an instant solution, but eventually, it will make an impact on the black market availability of guns without revealing information to the government about legal, responsible, gun owners. They'd only find out about those who let guns that they were responsible for make it into the black market.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You are only obligated to obey the laws you like? Must be nice.

Ok, putting on my Liberal cap.

Quote

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth--certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.

Henry David Thoreau
On The Duty of Civil Disobedience
http://www.transcendentalists.com/civil_disobedience.htm

[Guest]

Quote

Trigger locks: you cannot effectively carry a gun with one on, so that remains a measure to take at home. Which is fine with me, but how do you enforce it? You probably will not be able to until a crime occurs. But according to past argument, that does not matter, because you are interested in safety not on conviction after the crime.

FYI:

In my home state of Washington in 1997, a voter initiative (676) was put on the ballot with seemingly "reasonable" questions:

"Shall the transfer of handguns without trigger-locking devices be prohibited and persons possessing or acquiring a handgun be required to obtain a handgun safety license?" YES / NO.

At least, that's the way it appeared on the surface.

In reality, the initiative, if passed, would have codified 20 pages of oppressive new laws about gun locks, registration, licensing, etc., in effect, making firearm owners lawbreakers by default. It was a naked, blatant gun-grab, and everybody in the state (especially the firearms owners) knew it.

Even the hyper-liberal Seattle Post-Intelligencer newspaper (which I refer to as the "Pravda-Intelligencer"), whose editorial staff had never seen a liberal issue they didn't adore and gush over, declared that the initiative was "bad law" and urged readers to vote "NO".

How do such laws make me safer? Not only do such laws do nothing to make me safer, they serve to do nothing but increase my already utter lack of respect for government.

Here's another example of stupid laws. In some states, it is unlawful to re-enter your automobile while pumping gasoline; the ostensible reason being the possibility of electrostatic discharge causing ignition of fuel vapors.

So, you're supposed to stand there in the middle of the Winter in South Dakota instead of waiting in your nice warm car.

This is an example of blatantly stupid socialist thinking. Got a problem? Just pass another law.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to approach the petroleum distributors with the problem and let them engineer a solution that wouldn't affect individuals directly, like, say, installing grounding strips in the fueling areas so that the chance of a spark is eliminated? But Nnnnoooooo, we have to pass laws.

My point is that legislators always have to look like they're "doing something", in order to justify their phony-baloney existence, rather than taking a common-sense approach.

I'm through with these threads. I've made my views known about individual rights and liberty, and have criticized the opinions of those who think that rights are somehow "collective" and are what the mandarins in DC say they are from moment to moment, rather than what the Founders said they were.

Wanna know what the f*** is wrong with our country? Don't watch "Bowling for Columbine". Instead, read this interview with Russell Means.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[jfields 0]

Kevin,

I understand completely. But a person can't have it both ways.

One can't talk about civil disobedience at the same time they are talking about being justified in emptying Glocks at criminals and "perps".

There comes a point where they just need to pick a side and stick with it.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Kevin,

I understand completely. But a person can't have it both ways.

One can't talk about civil disobedience at the same time they are talking about being justified in emptying Glocks at criminals and "perps".

There comes a point where they just need to pick a side and stick with it.

They're two different issues. Are you saying that if you have liberal viewpoints about one issue (civil disobedience) that you can't have a conservative viewpoint regarding gun control? Well, I do. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons I believe guns should not be restricted from legal owners is expressly for the reason that armed civil disobedience could be necessary some day if the government becomes repressive enough to warrant it. Hopefully the existence of large numbers of guns in the civilian population will remain a deterrent to repression.

[Deuce 1]

One word: decaf.

[PhillyKev 0]

Here are a few quotes showing people that did not "take a side" as you put it. Also a few of those who took the side of restricting weapons owned by the populace for the purpose of repression

Quote

If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.
-- Edward Abbey

The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an 'equalizer.' Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed -- but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense,and the final defense against tyranny.
-- Edward Abbey

Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon -- so long as there is no answer to it -- gives claws to the weak.
-- George Orwell

Without freedom there will be no firearms among the people; without firearms among the people there will not long be freedom. Certainly there are examples of countries where the people remain relatively free after the people have been disarmed, but there are no examples of a totalitarian state being created or existing where the people have personal arms.
--Neal Knox

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the people are armed,and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.
-- Noah Webster

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they likely to end up with either.
-- Benjamin Franklin

All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all guns, that way no guns can ever be used to command the party.
-- Mao Zedung, Selected Works of Mao Zedong, 1965

The data from the 1990 Harvard Medical Practice Study suggest that 150,000 Americans die every year from doctors' negligence -- compared with 38,000 gun deaths annually. Why are doctors not declared a public health menace? Because they save more lives than they take. And so it is with guns. Every year, good Americans use guns about 2.5 million times to protect themselves and their families, which means 65 lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.
-- Dr. Edgar Suter, San Francisco Chronicle, 7/12/94, Opinion (p. A17).

It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.
-- Justice Robert H. Jackson

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to William S. Smith, 1787 in Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover, ed., 1939)

The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
-- Chief Justice Joseph Story

The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of these elements make difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. Therefore, the heads of provinces, official agents, and deputies are ordered to collect all the weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the government.
-- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, 29 August 1558

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.
-- James Madison

[jfields 0]

The are two sides of the same issue, which is legality.

If you believe that as a law-abiding citizen, you have the right to use deadly force against a criminal who is doing something wrong to you, you need to be consistant in your attitude and definitions.

If you choose the path of civil disobedience against bad laws, then, by definition, you are a criminal. I'm just saying that you cannot be both law-abiding and a criminal at the same time. If you are a criminal, even according to all the pro-gun folks in this thread, you should not have the right to own weapons.

The gun advocates have been very clear about the difference between law-abiding and criminal, and how the rights of the former should not belong to the latter. In willfully disobeying the law, they should also acknowledge their change in status and be willing to be treated accordingly.

I'm not saying that civil disobedience is a bad thing, just that you have to take personal responsibility for your actions. (Woah, what a concept, when used against a pro-gun argument.) During the civil rights movement, people expected to be arrested for their violations of the laws. They realized the consequences and accepted them.

[jfields 0]

Quote

One word: decaf

Deuce,

The funny thing is that I don't even drink coffee. This morning, the tea I had WAS decaf. Maybe the one word should have been: Ritalin.

[PhillyKev 0]

The problem, I think, is that you're trying to wrap everything up in to neat little labels. "law-abiding citizen" "criminal", etc. It's not that simple. It may win you points in a judged debate, but it's not realistic when talking about the real world. Plus, they are two different situations.

Also, I never said a law-abiding citizen had a right to use deadly force against a criminal doing something wrong to them. I have said that if someone is threatening me with deadly force, I have a right to respond in kind and have the tools available to do so.

Also, if you choose the path of armed civil disobedience you are pretty much stating that the laws are wrong, so even though someone else would label you a criminal, in your mind you would be a patriot, or soldier, or whatever.

And during the civil rights movement, people did expect to be arrested, in fact they planned to in order to bring attention to their cause. I think the tactics would be different during a situation requiring armed resistance to government oppression vs. a sit in.

[jfields 0]

Quote

The problem, I think, is that you're trying to wrap everything up in to neat little labels. "law-abiding citizen" "criminal", etc. It's not that simple.

I'm not saying that at all, but I see where you could get that impression. I agree with you, that it isn't that simple.

Throughout the gun ownership/gun control debate, those terms have been thrown around by the gun advocates with amazing regularity, and used in illustrating the differences between groups. They have been cited as the reason why we don't need more gun laws, and why gun laws don't work. Those same definitions have been tied to the second amendment, and to rights and freedoms.

Quote

Also, I never said a law-abiding citizen had a right to use deadly force against a criminal doing something wrong to them.

True. You are a moderate, rational voice in the discussion. Others have said that, often with lots of derrogatory terms thrown in. A lot of people have used street terms like "perp" and "scum" for criminals, without realizing they fall into those same categories based on some of their actions. I'm just calling them on the double standard.

Quote

And during the civil rights movement, people did expect to be arrested, in fact they planned to in order to bring attention to their cause. I think the tactics would be different during a situation requiring armed resistance to government oppression vs. a sit in.

Also correct. Like so many issues we talk about on the forums, it isn't the clear cut "us" and "them" division some people make it out to be. For example, the "raghead terrorists" as they've been called, are fighting for what they believe in. Granted, it isn't the same thing we believe in. But they are disobeying laws and responding to how they see themselves being opressed. But the same people talking about willfully disobeying our laws are talking about "bombing them back to the stone age".

I just think the folks talking about they are above our laws should be aware that they are calling for the absolute annhilation of people like themselves. The sad yet amusing thing is that many of them don't even realize it. I'm not saying there aren't differences between suicide bombers and the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, just that there are more similarities than some people care to admit.

I think we agree on more than we disagree, but that isn't necessarily true with some of the more vocal and unreasoning people in this debate.