Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/28/2001 3:00:49 PM EDT
I was on another forum and bought up the gun ownership topic. Almost immediately, someone posted the following response: ________________________________________________ I guess I'm one of those liberal do-gooders. I don't see the point in having a gun. Too many law-abiding citizens just out to protect themselves and their families find a dead kid that got curious. And to keep your kids safe, you need to have the gun locked up, the ammunition locked up and by the time you get all that stuff gathered up and put together, the one you're protecting yourself from has already beaten you unconscious. More people are likely to hurt themselves or a loved one with a registered, legally owned gun. Lots of the school shootings were done by kids carrying registered guns from their family home. You see my point? There may be lots of folks like you that are careful, knowledgeable and (I'm going to assume for the sake of argument) careful with their weapons. But there are just as many that think slipping a gun between the mattress and the bedspring is a good hiding place. Further, a lot of people that resent gun control are the ones that want the semi-automatics and guns that have no use but to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible. Why on earth does a homeowner need an AK-47 or anything like that? Finally, what I see as proof of my anti-gun stance, is that guy in Louisiana some years back that shot an exchange student to death because the kid was drunk, at the wrong house looking for a party and the homeowner didn't understand him. The guy was acquitted. If he didn't have that gun, that 18 or 19 year old kid could have gone on with his life rather than being dead due to error and a language barrier. ________________________________________________ Now, someone please help me respond to this person so that I may shut them up once and for all.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 3:08:01 PM EDT
The best approach is to post the URL of the board and let the members here express themselves directly.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 3:08:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2001 3:09:27 PM EDT by Ponyboy]
You'll never get this person to understand. You can reply with all of the factual data you want and they will just pull out the HCI lies to refute the facts. You might as well have a little fun and give em a..... [img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid28/pf080d1b6f24b5cf2a5e3329e0ffa39e0/fe0bb6d8.jpg[/img] (edited to fix pic)
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 3:09:25 PM EDT
Well I would attack on a couple of points. All of his concerns can be satisfied by TRAINING kids who are grads of firearm use courses are FAR LESS likely of being injured by firearms then any other group. For them the mystery has already been satisfied. As to the school shootings...how about we concentrate on creating a society where kids would never even think of blowing away their classmates?? Why did such things never happen 40 years ago when kids frequently brought guns to school for hunting on the way home? I need my AK for many reasons? However it is part of our society ( both american and Canadian) that you NEVER have to justify your desire to own ANYTHING.. some people collect cars I happen to enjoy shooting Military rifles...Until the day comes when I abuse them the Government has no buisiness in my hobby at all. As to the louisiana story....well both sides can trade horror stories till the cows come home. like the family killed by a nut with a pitchfork etc...however blips like that cannot be used to create laws!! That is akin to banning SUVs due to some persons missuse of them. Just plain silly. Good luck
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 3:11:58 PM EDT
I would start off with some data from the Kleck study, the one that proves there are about 2.5 million crimes prevented with firearms every year. That number dwarfs criminal use of firearms and accidents. IMHO, anyone serious about arguing against gun control should have a copy of this study photocopied from the original book (printouts from the internet just don't seem to have the same infulence). As for full auto, I like to cite the story of Harry Beckwith. [url]http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html[/url]. He needed full-auto. You can also quote the "it happened to me!" stories from gun magazines. For every incident like the one this person mentioned, you can find several instances where a responsible gun owner saved a life and/or stopped a crime.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 4:00:03 PM EDT
Use their "logic" against them. What is the purpose of anyone owning a car that can exceed the speed limit? More gunowners are killed in the family car than by the family gun. Are numbers important? In Florida, the most common "assault" weapon is a baseball bat. Would you like your head bashed in by a bat or shot off by a gun? Should we restrict bats? If he chooses anecdotes, refer to the hundred thousand/year that DEFEND themselves with a firearm. more to come...
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 5:19:31 PM EDT
Sadly this person will not see the light until a violent emergency intrudes into their own life. After it's over, they will probably still not take responsibility for their own well being and will complain that some uniformed person didn't bring a gun to their location and fire it for them in a timely manner. Put the kids to bed and go do momma. Don't waste time worrying about these folks and their dangerous ideas.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 6:28:10 PM EDT
Why bother? You can't change his mind just as he can't change yours. You are, perhaps, clearer in your thinking than he is. Obviously, he gets all of his knowledge during the interval between commercials. And tell him I said so!
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 6:37:32 PM EDT
Excellent points to refute any antis nonsense with.... "Give It to Them Straight" by John Ross Author, Unintended Consequences The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue, and letting our enemies define the terms. THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns." WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: The implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a reasonable plan.) WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun." THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine fro hunting deer -- they're only for killing people." WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.) WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice." THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West, with shoot-outs all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it." WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." (flaw: You have implied that if studies showed CCW laws equaled more heat-of-passion shooting, CCW should be illegal. WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important that anything else, why don't we throw out the Fifth amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 6:39:14 PM EDT
THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period." WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would be a good idea.) WHAT WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny." THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have atomic bombs." WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ." WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission." THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these weapons of mass destruction." WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb. WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, where firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to do anything if you don't use them on public property. If you DO want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property."
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 6:39:45 PM EDT
Final comment, useful with most all arguments: YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything." THEY SAY: "Huh?" YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither Bill Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to open up internment camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you REALLY what your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it BY YOU?"
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 6:45:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: You'll never get this person to understand. You can reply with all of the factual data you want and they will just pull out the HCI lies to refute the facts. You might as well have a little fun and give em a..... [img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid28/pf080d1b6f24b5cf2a5e3329e0ffa39e0/fe0bb6d8.jpg[/img] (edited to fix pic)
View Quote
OMG....I woke up my 18 month old son when I hit the floor laughing at this....!!!!!
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 6:54:28 PM EDT
Eric Estrada RULES! Damn thats some funny shit! hahahahahaha
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 7:12:14 PM EDT
Here is one that I wrote up some time ago. There are a couple points you have to hammer without fail: 1: WHAT WE LEGALLY OWN IS NOT MANDATED BY "NEED". WE MAY LEGALLY OWN WHAT WE "DESIRE/ENJOY" BUT HAVE NO "NEED" TO HAVE. 2. IF WE ARE TO "BAN" SOMETHING THAT "MAY" OR "MIGHT" BE USED ILLEGALLY, WE WOULD BAN MATCHES (to prevent arson), INK PENS (prevent bad checks from being wrote), CORVETTES AND BEER (speeding and drunk driving) 3. It is a fact that legal gun ownership saves many more innocent lives than it cost. You can get a TON of information on THAT!! Here is a little ditty for you. It is too long for one entry so (my apologies) it has to be entered in two parts. Enjoy! "I am an active shooter and shoot about 1,000 rounds a month from my 15 shot .45 automatic. While I could give facts and figures that support a pro-gun position, let me be a bit more personal than that. As a person that enjoys guns, I keep them in my house, as do all shooters. I would not think of being so rude as to try to force my beliefs on a person that does not like guns by trying to force that person to buy a gun. I only ask the same courtesy in return; that the anti-gunners not try to force THEIR views on me. Over the years we shooters have tried to compromise - give a little here, give up a little there - hoping that those that want to take our gun rights from us would perhaps be satisfied and leave us in peace. But this was not to be. First they told us "Let's be reasonable. We don't want to take anyone's right to own a gun from them! All we want to do is stop the sales of these cheap, easy to conceal 'Saturday Night Specials'. What's so bad about that?". Then, years later, it was "Let's be reasonable. We don't want to take anyone's right to own a gun from them! All we want to do is stop the sales of these expensive, hard to conceal 'Assault Weapons'. We stood by while two 'catchy words' stirred up visions of pending doom; 'Saturday Night Special' (instead of 'Inexpensive Pistol') and 'Assault Weapon' (instead of 'Semiautomatic Rifle'). Then we were asked the favorite question anti-gunners just love to ask when referring to any semiautomatic rifle; "What does anyone NEED with a gun like that?" Well, I will answer THEIR question if they will answer mine. My answer? No one. No one "NEEDS" a "...gun like that". I have a "gun like that" because I like to shoot it and I enjoy owning it. I have a legal right to own, shoot and enjoy that gun, but I will not DIE if I do not have it; therefore, I do not "need" it but simply want it. Now it is my turn to ask MY question. - END OF PART #1 -
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 7:14:47 PM EDT
Now it is my turn to ask MY question: "What do you NEED with your golf clubs? You will not die if you do not play golf. What do you NEED with a $30,000 (or more expensive) automobile when a $4,000 used car would provide transportation? What do you NEED a car that will go 140 MPH when the speed limit is only 70 MPH? What do you NEED a 27" color television for? You will not die without it so therefore you do not "need" it. However, we live in a society where what we may own is not based on what we need. We have more freedom that that. We may own what we want to own so long as the item is legal. Just as it is legal for you to own YOUR recreation items and YOUR luxury items, it is legal for me to own my guns. Why then are the anti-gunners always asking what I "....need with a gun like that" but see no reason to base their belongings on "need". Besides, like it or not, I have a constitutional right to my guns but not my car, television or golf clubs. Please people. I shoot in pistol competitions all over the country and know hundreds of shooters that own thousands of guns. They are not killers. They are not criminals, They do not abuse their firearms. Just as we do not seek to ban alcohol to stop drunk driving deaths or ban sales of matches to prevent arson, may I ask the anti-gunners to stop causing so much trouble for those of us that enjoy shooting and owning guns. Now to want to outlaw a certain 'OBJECT' such as a gun because an EXTREMELY SMALL minority of citizens misuse that object in an illegal manner, we would have to outlaw those objects that cause more deaths than the so-called 'assault rifle'. What do I mean? Look at the Uniform Crime Statistics to see how many people are murdered by what means in one year. MURDERED BY KNIVES: 3,265 MURDERED BY FEET AND BARE HANDS: 1,114 MURDERED BY BLUNT OBJECTS (hammer/baseball bats/tire irons/etc) : 1,029 MURDERED BY RIFLES OF ALL TYPE (Bolt action, pump, single shot, semiautomatic and so-called 'assault rifle') : 698. My gosh!!! We must start a movement to outlaw knives and the 'aluminum baseball assault bats' that are easy for our children to get their hands on!!!"
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 7:15:29 PM EDT
Here is one that I wrote up some time ago. There are a couple points you have to hammer without fail: 1: WHAT WE LEGALLY OWN IS NOT MANDATED BY "NEED". WE MAY LEGALLY OWN WHAT WE "DESIRE/ENJOY" BUT HAVE NO "NEED" TO HAVE. 2. IF WE ARE TO "BAN" SOMETHING THAT "MAY" OR "MIGHT" BE USED ILLEGALLY, WE WOULD BAN MATCHES (to prevent arson), INK PENS (prevent bad checks from being wrote), CORVETTES AND BEER (speeding and drunk driving) 3. It is a fact that legal gun ownership saves many more innocent lives than it cost. You can get a TON of information on THAT!! Here is a little ditty for you. It is too long for one entry so (my apologies) it has to be entered in two parts. Enjoy! "I am an active shooter and shoot about 1,000 rounds a month from my 15 shot .45 automatic. While I could give facts and figures that support a pro-gun position, let me be a bit more personal than that. As a person that enjoys guns, I keep them in my house, as do all shooters. I would not think of being so rude as to try to force my beliefs on a person that does not like guns by trying to force that person to buy a gun. I only ask the same courtesy in return; that the anti-gunners not try to force THEIR views on me. Over the years we shooters have tried to compromise - give a little here, give up a little there - hoping that those that want to take our gun rights from us would perhaps be satisfied and leave us in peace. But this was not to be. First they told us "Let's be reasonable. We don't want to take anyone's right to own a gun from them! All we want to do is stop the sales of these cheap, easy to conceal 'Saturday Night Specials'. What's so bad about that?". Then, years later, it was "Let's be reasonable. We don't want to take anyone's right to own a gun from them! All we want to do is stop the sales of these expensive, hard to conceal 'Assault Weapons'. We stood by while two 'catchy words' stirred up visions of pending doom; 'Saturday Night Special' (instead of 'Inexpensive Pistol') and 'Assault Weapon' (instead of 'Semiautomatic Rifle'). Then we were asked the favorite question anti-gunners just love to ask when referring to any semiautomatic rifle; "What does anyone NEED with a gun like that?" Well, I will answer THEIR question if they will answer mine. My answer? No one. No one "NEEDS" a "...gun like that". I have a "gun like that" because I like to shoot it and I enjoy owning it. I have a legal right to own, shoot and enjoy that gun, but I will not DIE if I do not have it; therefore, I do not "need" it but simply want it. Now it is my turn to ask MY question. - END OF PART #1 -
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 7:17:46 PM EDT
Very sorry!! My two entries are in "reverse order" and you should read the second one first in order for them to makse sense. Sorry. I posted them in the WRONG ORDER!! My mistake!
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 7:28:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By HiCap45: Very sorry!! My two entries are in "reverse order" and you should read the second one first in order for them to makse sense. Sorry. I posted them in the WRONG ORDER!! My mistake!
View Quote
What about the third one? Does it really go first or is it second? If we switch the first two does that really make the third one the second or does it stay the third or do we read the second, third then the first? If the third one is really second, is it the second as in the way it stands now or second after we switch the first two, which would really be switching the first and third since the third one is actually the second as you said in your fourth post. So which one is it, one or two?[%|]
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 7:29:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2001 7:30:38 PM EDT by Robbie]
I guess I'm one of those liberal do-gooders. I don't see the point in having a gun.
View Quote
Fortunately, inalienable human rights are not based upon your personal failure to see a point.
And to keep your kids safe, you need to have the gun locked up, the ammunition locked up and by the time you get all that stuff gathered up and put together, the one you're protecting yourself from has already beaten you unconscious.
View Quote
It would seem apparant that you are lacking in some basic education on firearms. The information you've posted above is false. It does require education and adherance to that education just as operating a motor vehicle, storing various household chemicals or other such items to keep out of the hands of children and other unauthorized persons. Locking in a safe in a [b]cold storage[/b] condition is only one possibility, but there are also many safe methods of [b]hot storage.[/b]
More people are likely to hurt themselves or a loved one with a registered, legally owned gun. Lots of the school shootings were done by kids carrying registered guns from their family home.
View Quote
Thank you for displaying Kellerman's research though it has been disproved several times thoughout the years by those in the scientific community. Many of which have mentioned Kellerman's work as some of the worst of junk science. Not the least of which has to do with Kellerman failing to provide a control group. In addition to all this is Kellerman's own work where he says that the report is not conclusive. And when asked about it he replies, "Well sure, if it was my own family, I'd want them to have a .38." To the contrary, firearms are used more often to prevent crimes than they are used to commit crimes. Plus in every area of the U.S. where laws permit citizens to carry results in lower crime and conversely in areas where the laws restrict such things, crime is up. Even HCI did their own test on this...though they selected out specific times and locations and even then the results were against them.
You see my point? There may be lots of folks like you that are careful, knowledgeable and (I'm going to assume for the sake of argument) careful with their weapons.But there are just as many that think slipping a gun between the mattress and the bedspring is a good hiding place.
View Quote
I share your goal of saving lives, even applaud it. However disarming law abiding citizens has been unsuccessful in the U.S. and results in more people getting killed (and the innocent people getting killed too). Rather than attempting to legislate behavior which again only affects those who wish to follow such legistlation, I believe that education is paramount. For a single adult who doesn't have children or other unauthorized visitors, the mattress storage for a firearm, while a cliche, would not be a safety hazard. For myself with some very beautiful children, I would never consider such a place. For my own situation, I would never even consider "just a hiding place" as kids are quick learners. Certainly there were always be people who make decisions that are less than wise, I see them on the freeway as one example. Passing a law will leave this demographic unaffected, but jeapardize the lives of innocent people. (continued)
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 7:29:45 PM EDT
(part 2)
Further, a lot of people that resent gun control are the ones that want the semi-automatics and guns that have no use but to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible. Why on earth does a homeowner need an AK-47 or anything like that?
View Quote
Your inference as to the purpose of century old technology again negates the appearence of education about such things. Nobody is requiring that you do find such education, but if you desired to converse on such a topic, communication would be more fluid if you were versed on the topic. I wouldn't mind answering your question at all, but I'm inferring that you're not posting here for educational purposes and any answer I gave would be irrelevant. If you are committed to such an education, let's choose a date and we'll meet in Las Vegas at a respected firearms training school for the answer to such an education. Suffice to say your statement is false. Otherwise you've just labled almost every law enforcement officer in the U.S. as a killer who "kill as many as possible as quickly as possible." With the exception of a fleeing felon to protect the community at large, law enforcement officers are under the same laws as civilians in regards to using potentially lethal force. And why only semi-automatic firearms, what about full-automatic firearms? After all, there are some 260,000+ full-automatic firearms legally in private hands in the U.S. And I'd be willing to give you a cookie if you gave me the number of those guns that have been used to commit a crime.
Finally, what I see as proof of my anti-gun stance, is that guy in Louisiana some years back that shot an exchange student to death because the kid was drunk, at the wrong house looking for a party and the homeowner didn't understand him. The guy was acquitted. If he didn't have that gun, that 18 or 19 year old kid could have gone on with his life rather than being dead due to error and a language barrier.
View Quote
A tragedy indeed. However this falls short of what is proof by a long shot. "What if's," anecdotes and stories may never be used to prove a point. They may only be used to disprove a point that is based upon the concept of "always" or "never." The reason for this is because the thread would only become a match as to could post the most stories. You post a tragedy (which I'll guess many of which are the result of lack of education), and then I'd post a story to the contrary. Even then, the sheer number of stories would be in my favor.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 8:54:08 PM EDT
If you're opponent brings up the typical Kellerman and Bellasarius BS, inform him of their most recent embarrassments and disgraces amoung scholars both right and leftwing. These fact checking groups all strongly critised K and B's data collecting techniques and so called facts. Kellerman has since reduced his books conclusions of "47 times" more likely to "4x". And that number is still debatable. Bellasarius still hasn't come up with an excuse for data he included in his study that had been burned up in the 1906 San Fransico fire. One gross error amoung many. Dig up any Insurance Companies stats on all accidental deaths and post the results. Firearms deaths won't even crack the top ten. Buckets of water, bicycles and swimming pools each kill more children yearly than firearms do by a long shot. If you choose to fight for the lives of children by starting at the bottom of the list, you are either a zelot bent on destroying the Bill of Rights piece by piece or a complete idiot. There is no third choice. Registration and Licensing is only for those that obey the law. Outlaws never license or register their guns. So who, by doing so, are you trying to keep from getting guns? No piece of paper, a license, ever stopped a rampaging car from killing pedestrians. Look up the murderer "David Attias" Firearms amoung the common citizenry is the major reason why we have never been invaded by a foriegn enemy. Everyone that we have fought in the past and present are well away of this fact and attack with small acts of terror or sabotage. If any is stupic enough to bring up geographical distance, just tell them, "Then how did we manage to take the fight over there so many times?" Firearms in the citizens hands will keep our Government at bay also. The Fourth check in a system of checks and balances. An Executive branch, the Legistative branch, the Judicial branch and a Citizenry with the ability to fight back when any one of those fail. The day guns are registered, licensed and then conficated will be the day the the Republic ends and we will become just one more tyranny reincarnated. The Romans at one time had a Representative Republic, with a Senate, voting, strong domestic armies, inalienalbe rights and very strict rules on what rulers could and couldn't do etc etc etc. That is until the populace grew fat,lazy and apathetic. They just wanted to let the "other guy" take care of things. A serendipitous event occurred. Spatacus and his gladiators broke free and raped and pilaged their way up and down Italy just before the time of Christ. The Armies couldn't stop him. The general public was screaming for someone to come along and save them. They were so frightened they voluntarily gave up their rights to gain some temporary saftey. These rights never returned. Rome eventually just disolved and fell apart into several Autocratic kingdoms. Civil Rights are funny that way, easy to lose but nearly impossible to get back once voluntarily surrendered. Germany was also once a Republic, that was until their citizens gave up some civil rights for the "greater" good. In the 1920's Germany had gun registration, followed shortly by confiscation, followed shortly by...you know what happened after that. Without the gun, those that opposed the Nazis had no way to fight back.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 9:02:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 9:25:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 6:55:34 AM EDT
DoubleFeed, I liked your comment. I had someone ask me once "What is the big deal about registering guns anyway? You register your car don't you?". My reply was "No one is trying to take away my ability to own a car. There are no organizations out there working hard, spending lots of money, alining all the political support they can to pass laws that will take away my automobile and make it illegal to own a car".
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 7:06:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 7:15:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 7:29:36 AM EDT
Great thread. I just printed it and will add it to my RKBA file. There is also some great into re: CCW at [url]http://www.wisconsinconcealedcarry.com/[/url]. Check this link for an outstanding legislative information piece [url]http://www.wisconsinconcealedcarry.com/legislator_piece.pdf[/url].
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 7:30:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 7:32:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2001 7:55:05 AM EDT by offctr]
Originally Posted By HiCap45: DoubleFeed, I liked your comment. I had someone ask me once "What is the big deal about registering guns anyway? You register your car don't you?". My reply was "No one is trying to take away my ability to own a car. There are no organizations out there working hard, spending lots of money, alining all the political support they can to pass laws that will take away my automobile and make it illegal to own a car".
View Quote
Actually there is a group that does not want to take away your car just make everybody drive the same red econobox electric powered POS instead of the vehicles of individual expression we have now. But that too is beside the point, Your car is registered and you licenced to drive both of which the state can suspend or revoke at will and yes come get your car if you dont pay taxes and tickets or auction it off if you get too deep in debt --or even sieze it by accusing you of being a drug dealer--one that in some states dosent even have to be proven for the seizure to be legal as well as any cash/funds house etc thus proving the point that registration is (besides just revenue collection)a facilitator for confiscation down the road. The typical Anti response is "well thats diffrent I have a right to drive a car.." To which the respose is -- actually no you do not driving is a priviledge granted and removed by the state,Firearms ownership IS a right stated in the US constituition as well as some state constitution's . BTW watching TV last evening 3 commercials came on in rapid sucession 1st was agianst alcohol.. "Alcohol kills more teens every year than all other things combined..yadyaydayada. 2nd was of course guns... "Guns kill more kids every year than all the things in the known universe (paraphrasing) combined...yada yada yada." 3rd was drugs... "Drugs kill more teens "..you know the rest Well if each kill more than all of the others combined than the streets must be littered with the bodies of 2 to 21 year olds and we are doomed as a race after our generation.. this all makes no sense they need to get anew byline, Also has anyone seen the new "antiviolence" commercial with our favorite ER doc Erique Lasalle and his quote "teach your kids that violence in ANY situation is wrong " what what whhhaat!! HUH!!!?? what are we raising children or good consumer/victims here ? Not that I would take advice from some talking head idiot on tv but where the hell are we going in this country ?? All followed by a Travellers Insurance Co commercial that starts out "ya know cars kill more teeenage drivers every year...."
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 9:22:42 AM EDT
Regarding the cars/guns comparison; we should realize that no licence or registration is required to buy or own a car or to operate one on private property. Licence & registration are required to operate a car in the public way.
Top Top