How would you respond to this?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - How would you respond to this?

Posted: 10/18/2004 11:54:14 AM EDT

Someone on another forum wrote:

Time to chime in... I have no clue what laws have been past to regulate what weapons and wether or not they've been effective. I dont own a firearm, nor will I ever own one since I dont believe I can personally hold myself responsible for such great power. It is my belief that people in this country have totally lost their minds when it comes to assault weapons. Making connections with the past and the framers of the constitution here is like comparing apples to oranges. You cant go out and say the framers would ever even have been able to fathom the techonlogical advances in weapons or the changes in societical trends that their constitution would govern. I mean come on people, these guys wrote the constitution and 2nd amendment when they were worried about 2 things: Oppresive governments that were WAY more powerful than they, and Native Americans. Furthermore the only guns they had back then were muzzle loading muskets and rifles, not fully-automatic killing machines. Heres a shocker, those 2 things dont exist anymore, so we have to write a new rulebook.

When I think about guns/assault weapons/etc 2 thoughts run through my mind. Preventing the loss of life due to abuse of the power of holding such a weapon, and similarly, having those shitheads who do abuse them alive so I can punish them for the rest of their natural born lives. I'm a hardass when it comes to crime and murder and using guns to do it. Its my belief that we need to be way harder on criminals across the board, regardless of the cost. I'd rather see us spend more money on law enforcement and rehabilitation of criminals than on foreign wars and aid.

Therefore my proposal is simple yet expensive and I know all you republicans would HATE it. Every single last firearm in this country should be registered with the government to its owner. Anyone found carrying a non-registered firearm (used, unused, in their trunk, I dont care) goes away for 10 years. If you want to have and own a firearm, fine. Prove to me you're responsible enough to be held accountable for it. Anyone caught selling a non-registered firearm goes away for 20 years, and any shop they run is siezed by the government. The power is in the salesman's hand to ensure its registered before it leaves his/her store, dont F with that. Any firearm salesman caught KNOWINGLY selling an improperly registered firearm (i'm not talking spelling mistakes, rather alternate identities here) gets the same treatment as someone selling a non-registered one. No commuted sentances, no opportunity for parole. If we need more jails, frikking build them.

As for the weapons themselves. No civilian should have the opportunity to use any form of high-explosive weapon (grenade, launchers, bombs, missiles, etc) thats more than a projectile. Possessing such weapons = 20 years. Furthermore, no one needs fully automatic weapons nowadays in my view. Any form of full auto or bust-fire weapon = 20 years. Any weapon with a clip of greater than 10 rounds = 20 years. People in this country have 2 needs for firearms. Hunting and self defense. Neither of which require full-auto, high explosives, or high-round clips. Wanna hunt? Get some skill and learn how to shoot a bow and arrow.

Finally, crimes committe with a firearm. Assault (victim not killed) = 30 years. Murder in the 1st = life (and death penalty if your state allows). Murder in the 2nd = life. No such thing as manslaughter in my court system. Accidental injury or death related to usage of a firearm = lifetime probation for firearm related crimes (2nd firearm offense of any type during that time = life).

Do I realize that'll never happen? Yes. Do I realize that would cost the country billions of dollars to impliment? Yes. Is all of that a product of Mike Happy land? Yes. But, do I believe that such proposals would drastically reduce senseless gun violence, murder, violent crime, and gang related crime? Hell Yes

I responded with this:

Registeration is the first step to confiscation. Your plan is very frightening to a lover of freedom like me. I feel as if I am wasting my time responding to you, since your ideas are so far from reality I don't think you will ever find the right path. But for the benefit of people who can see both paths and are trying to decide which to take, read this.

As I said before, the politicians who are writing these gun laws like the AWB have admitted that their goal is total gun banishment. NOT registeration, BANISHMENT!

There is an extremely strong coorelation between the rise in gun laws and the rise in crime, and vice-versa. Guns, in the hand of citizens, are by far the most effective method of deterring crime.

Now you say that we should be able to own guns, but they have to be registered. Notwithstanding the fact that complete registeration WILL lead to banishment, what do you think registeration will accomplish? Criminals who own guns are already breaking the law, so adding a stupid registeration law won't do anything. Law-abiding citizens will find it much harder to get a gun, and this will make criminals more confident.

You said, "I'm a hardass when it comes to crime and murder and using guns to do it". What if the criminals used another weapon? Would that be OK? Criminals' job is to steal, kill, rape, etc. They will do it whether they have a gun or not. If law-abiding citizens have no effective means to defend themselves, criminals, being criminals, will find it easier to do their job. Also, since they are criminals, they will have no qualms about stealing a gun, so they will have a distinct advantage over people following the law.

Now I want to address your comment about the fact that you would not trust yourself with a gun. If you cannot trust yourself with a gun, how can you trust yourself in a car? Cars can kill people, including you, quite easily. In fact, cars cause hundreds and thousands of times more deaths per year (including criminal use) than guns.

If you cannot trust yourself with a gun, you have serious personal issues. I trust myself with a gun, because I know how to use one safetly, and I trust myself. People like you believe that if everyone had a gun people would be shot when someone else pissed them off. You are speaking from complete ignorance, and projecting your thoughts onto others. Unlike you, we gun owners know the truth, because we know guns, and other gun owners. The fact is, a person with a gun is LESS likely to get in a fight. I have talked to dozens of gun owners, and they all say the same thing.

Anothe very frightening thing that you said was that "No one needs full-auto guns in my view, and therefore they should be banned." First of all, no crime has ever been committed in the USA with a machine gun, except for a cop who went beserk, and two guys in LA. No one was killed during the latter (except for the perps), and I don't know about the cop incident. I am sure you have heard the old tired reply, "No one needs a V-8, they're only good for getting away from the police". That is a good rebuttal, but it misses the main point entirely. The point is, who the hell are you to say what I may or may not do? If I want to spend the extra dollars and buy a machine gun because I enjoy it, who are you to say that I should be punished? Who the hell do you think you are? This is the United States of America! We should not be limited to what we may own by what we NEED! Countries who dictate what a person may own based on what they need are COMMUNIST COUNTRIES! WE ARE A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC! So get out of my face!

Along the same lines, who ever said that gun ownership is ONLY about hunting or home-defense? They are the main uses (along with recreation), but in the US of A, why in the hell should laws be passed based on what things are most often used for?

Would there be anything you would add or change? How did I do? As I said in the beginning, I wrote this to other people, not this person since he is obviously too far gone.

Posted: 10/18/2004 11:58:27 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Someone on another forum wrote:

Time to chime in... I have no clue what laws have been past to regulate what weapons and wether or not they've been effective. I dont own a firearm, nor will I ever own one since I dont believe I can personally hold myself responsible for such great power. It is my belief that people in this country have totally lost their minds when it comes to assault weapons. Making connections with the past and the framers of the constitution here is like comparing apples to oranges. You cant go out and say the framers would ever even have been able to fathom the techonlogical advances in weapons or the changes in societical trends that their constitution would govern. I mean come on people, these guys wrote the constitution and 2nd amendment when they were worried about 2 things: Oppresive governments that were WAY more powerful than they, and Native Americans. Furthermore the only guns they had back then were muzzle loading muskets and rifles, not fully-automatic killing machines. Heres a shocker, those 2 things dont exist anymore, so we have to write a new rulebook.

When I think about guns/assault weapons/etc 2 thoughts run through my mind. Preventing the loss of life due to abuse of the power of holding such a weapon, and similarly, having those shitheads who do abuse them alive so I can punish them for the rest of their natural born lives. I'm a hardass when it comes to crime and murder and using guns to do it. Its my belief that we need to be way harder on criminals across the board, regardless of the cost. I'd rather see us spend more money on law enforcement and rehabilitation of criminals than on foreign wars and aid.

Therefore my proposal is simple yet expensive and I know all you republicans would HATE it. Every single last firearm in this country should be registered with the government to its owner. Anyone found carrying a non-registered firearm (used, unused, in their trunk, I dont care) goes away for 10 years. If you want to have and own a firearm, fine. Prove to me you're responsible enough to be held accountable for it. Anyone caught selling a non-registered firearm goes away for 20 years, and any shop they run is siezed by the government. The power is in the salesman's hand to ensure its registered before it leaves his/her store, dont F with that. Any firearm salesman caught KNOWINGLY selling an improperly registered firearm (i'm not talking spelling mistakes, rather alternate identities here) gets the same treatment as someone selling a non-registered one. No commuted sentances, no opportunity for parole. If we need more jails, frikking build them.

As for the weapons themselves. No civilian should have the opportunity to use any form of high-explosive weapon (grenade, launchers, bombs, missiles, etc) thats more than a projectile. Possessing such weapons = 20 years. Furthermore, no one needs fully automatic weapons nowadays in my view. Any form of full auto or bust-fire weapon = 20 years. Any weapon with a clip of greater than 10 rounds = 20 years. People in this country have 2 needs for firearms. Hunting and self defense. Neither of which require full-auto, high explosives, or high-round clips. Wanna hunt? Get some skill and learn how to shoot a bow and arrow.

Finally, crimes committe with a firearm. Assault (victim not killed) = 30 years. Murder in the 1st = life (and death penalty if your state allows). Murder in the 2nd = life. No such thing as manslaughter in my court system. Accidental injury or death related to usage of a firearm = lifetime probation for firearm related crimes (2nd firearm offense of any type during that time = life).

Do I realize that'll never happen? Yes. Do I realize that would cost the country billions of dollars to impliment? Yes. Is all of that a product of Mike Happy land? Yes. But, do I believe that such proposals would drastically reduce senseless gun violence, murder, violent crime, and gang related crime? Hell Yes

I responded with this:

Registeration is the first step to confiscation. Your plan is very frightening to a lover of freedom like me. I feel as if I am wasting my time responding to you, since your ideas are so far from reality I don't think you will ever find the right path. But for the benefit of people who can see both paths and are trying to decide which to take, read this.

As I said before, the politicians who are writing these gun laws like the AWB have admitted that their goal is total gun banishment. NOT registeration, BANISHMENT!

There is an extremely strong coorelation between the rise in gun laws and the rise in crime, and vice-versa. Guns, in the hand of citizens, are by far the most effective method of deterring crime.

Now you say that we should be able to own guns, but they have to be registered. Notwithstanding the fact that complete registeration WILL lead to banishment, what do you think registeration will accomplish? Criminals who own guns are already breaking the law, so adding a stupid registeration law won't do anything. Law-abiding citizens will find it much harder to get a gun, and this will make criminals more confident.

You said, "I'm a hardass when it comes to crime and murder and using guns to do it". What if the criminals used another weapon? Would that be OK? Criminals' job is to steal, kill, rape, etc. They will do it whether they have a gun or not. If law-abiding citizens have no effective means to defend themselves, criminals, being criminals, will find it easier to do their job. Also, since they are criminals, they will have no qualms about stealing a gun, so they will have a distinct advantage over people following the law.

Now I want to address your comment about the fact that you would not trust yourself with a gun. If you cannot trust yourself with a gun, how can you trust yourself in a car? Cars can kill people, including you, quite easily. In fact, cars cause hundreds and thousands of times more deaths per year (including criminal use) than guns.

If you cannot trust yourself with a gun, you have serious personal issues. I trust myself with a gun, because I know how to use one safetly, and I trust myself. People like you believe that if everyone had a gun people would be shot when someone else pissed them off. You are speaking from complete ignorance, and projecting your thoughts onto others. Unlike you, we gun owners know the truth, because we know guns, and other gun owners. The fact is, a person with a gun is LESS likely to get in a fight. I have talked to dozens of gun owners, and they all say the same thing.

Anothe very frightening thing that you said was that "No one needs full-auto guns in my view, and therefore they should be banned." First of all, no crime has ever been committed in the USA with a machine gun, except for a cop who went beserk, and two guys in LA. No one was killed during the latter (except for the perps), and I don't know about the cop incident. I am sure you have heard the old tired reply, "No one needs a V-8, they're only good for getting away from the police". That is a good rebuttal, but it misses the main point entirely. The point is, who the hell are you to say what I may or may not do? If I want to spend the extra dollars and buy a machine gun because I enjoy it, who are you to say that I should be punished? Who the hell do you think you are? This is the United States of America! We should not be limited to what we may own by what we NEED! Countries who dictate what a person may own based on what they need are COMMUNIST COUNTRIES! WE ARE A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC! So get out of my face!

Along the same lines, who ever said that gun ownership is ONLY about hunting or home-defense? They are the main uses (along with recreation), but in the US of A, why in the hell should laws be passed based on what things are most often used for?

Would there be anything you would add or change? How did I do? As I said in the beginning, I wrote this to other people, not this person since he is obviously too far gone.

We are a Representative Republic

ETA Link: www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=278022

Posted: 10/18/2004 12:00:41 PM EDT

[#2]

I dont own a firearm, nor will I ever own one since I dont believe I can personally hold myself responsible for such great power

Thats the only part you need to read.

The answer is...."I" have no problem being responsible...and since I "am' responsible..I can handle hazardous tools...

Posted: 10/18/2004 12:02:15 PM EDT

[#3]

I thought a republic was by definition representative.

republic: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

Posted: 10/18/2004 12:22:30 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
I thought a republic was by definition representative.

republic: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

Yes, but a democracy by definition ISN'T representative.

Posted: 10/18/2004 12:23:10 PM EDT

[#5]

It's seems everyone has they're own view of what our stucture is called.

I've always thought it was a democratic republic myself, We DIRECTLY VOTE for who will REPRESENT us.

Sounds like a democratic republic to me, but other here at AR15.com say otherwise.

Posted: 10/18/2004 12:24:41 PM EDT

[#6]

^
|
| What he said.

Posted: 10/18/2004 12:26:34 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
It's seems everyone has they're own view of what our stucture is called.

I've always thought it was a democratic republic myself, We DIRECTLY VOTE for who will REPRESENT us.

Sounds like a democratic republic to me, but other here at AR15.com say otherwise.

And what of the Electoral College?

Posted: 10/18/2004 12:31:05 PM EDT

[#8]

That's an easy answer... "Sir, please put down the crack pipe step away from your deluded world and come back to the real world"

Posted: 10/18/2004 12:31:32 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It's seems everyone has they're own view of what our stucture is called.

I've always thought it was a democratic republic myself, We DIRECTLY VOTE for who will REPRESENT us.

Sounds like a democratic republic to me, but other here at AR15.com say otherwise.
And what of the Electoral College?

I don't know you tell me, I'm the one still learning this stuff.

The electoral college still seems like a democratic republic to me, we vote for a representives and they make the call for us.

Posted: 10/18/2004 12:45:48 PM EDT

[#10]

My reply would be this:

You say that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, and that we need a new rulebook. Fine. Hold a Constitutional Convention, have the 2nd Amendment erased, and you win!

Good luck with that, let me know how it goes for you. In the meantime, I'll be shooting my full-auto killing machine.

Posted: 10/18/2004 12:59:55 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Someone on another forum wrote:

Time to chime in... I have no clue what laws have been past to regulate what ~~weapons~~speech and wether or not they've been effective. I dont ~~own a firearm~~say controversial things, nor will I ever ~~own one~~ since I dont believe I can personally hold myself responsible for such great power. It is my belief that people in this country have totally lost their minds when it comes to ~~assault weapons~~speech. Making connections with the past and the framers of the constitution here is like comparing apples to oranges. You cant go out and say the framers would ever even have been able to fathom the techonlogical advances in ~~weapons~~speech or the changes in societical trends that their constitution would govern. I mean come on people, these guys wrote the constitution and ~~2nd~~1st amendment when they were worried about 2 things: Oppresive governments that were WAY more powerful than they, and Native Americans. Furthermore the only ~~guns~~speech they had back then were ~~muzzle loading muskets and rifles~~person to person, not ~~fully-automatic killing machines~~fully automatic Internet speech to the entire world. Heres a shocker, those 2 things dont exist anymore, so we have to write a new rulebook.

Snip, as everyone knows where I am going with this

The point is, who the hell are you to say what I may or may not do? If I want to spend the extra dollars and buy a ~~machine gun~~T1 line because I enjoy it, who are you to say that I should be punished? Who the hell do you think you are? This is the United States of America! We should not be limited to what we may own by what we NEED! Countries who dictate what a person may own based on what they need are COMMUNIST COUNTRIES! WE ARE A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC! So get out of my face!

Would there be anything you would add or change? How did I do? As I said in the beginning, I wrote this to other people, not this person since he is obviously too far gone.

Fixed it to cover two constitutionally protected rights.

I would also add an argument about how the framers knew exactly how time and technology could advance which is why they made a peaceful way to change the constitution to reflect changes in society. They were all within one or two generations of the first newspaper published in the colonies, and saw themselves the blossoming of the newspaper business, yet they still thought it important enough to have freedom of the press in the constitution.

Posted: 10/18/2004 1:09:35 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's seems everyone has they're own view of what our stucture is called.

I've always thought it was a democratic republic myself, We DIRECTLY VOTE for who will REPRESENT us.

Sounds like a democratic republic to me, but other here at AR15.com say otherwise.
And what of the Electoral College?

I don't know you tell me, I'm the one still learning this stuff.

The electoral college still seems like a democratic republic to me, we vote for a representives and they make the call for us.

This is true only if you have it in your mind that republic is a category of democracy.
US constitution, Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Note these two hits:
Democracy is the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
and
Republic is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Yoiu will notice that the clause "or by their elected representatives" in the definition of democracy would describe a republic. But look at the converse: Attaching the descriptive 'democratic' to republic is redundant at best, contradictory at worst.
So let's dig a little to find this:
Genus: Type of government Differentia: Rule by the people Comment: In true democracy, all government decisions are made by vote. Link: Article
www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Dictionary.html
Are ALL government decisions made by a vote? All the ones in the form of bills are, when the House of Representatives and the Senate vote on them, but then the President signs the bill, vetoes it, or sends it back for reconsideration. He is an official who is chosen by the Electoral College, who ideally will vote for him in the same pattern that the general population voted.
A textbook I have from 1874 explains in multiple places that we are a Federative Republic, and says nothing about republic being a definition of democracy.
The old sources say we are a Republic, the new say we can be both a Republic and a Democracy.
We are left with the confusing and maddening conclusion that we are a Democracy, and a Republic, but not a Democratic Republic, and perhaps we are a Democratic Republic.
(The above is exactly why I HATE the concept of 'living language'!)

Posted: 10/18/2004 1:32:07 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
I dont own a firearm, nor will I ever own one since I dont believe I can personally hold myself responsible for such great power

Thats the only part you need to read.

The answer is...."I" have no problem being responsible...and since I "am' responsible..I can handle hazardous tools...

The most powerful device most people will ever use is.................................................. AN AUTOMOBILE. Cars are responsible for 4X's as many deaths as guns. Cars are responsible for billions of dollars of lost revenue ever year, due to injuries, insurance claims etc.

When someone drinks and drives, do you blame the car? Or the driver? Do you advocate banning certain tpyes of cars because of how they look? Of course not. People that misuse cars get punished. Not EVERY driver, or the cars they drove. Why is it different when dealing with guns?

A gun is an inanimate object. They do nothing without a person.

"Assualt weapons" are generally much LESS powerful than "hunting weapons". Assualt weapons are disproprtionately under represented in criminal acts involving firearms. Shotguns are used more than any other long guns in crimes. If "gun control" was about actual crimes, shotguns would be the first long guns banned.

Machine Guns have been heavily regulated since 1934. There have only been 1 or 2 crimes committed by people using legally possessed machine guns. 2 crimes in 70 years. All of the offenders have been police officers, all 1 or 2 of them. Why take action against firearms that have been succesfully regulated for 70 years?

I agree with the spirit of your second to last parargrapgh. But why limit it to "gun crimes"? Let's rigorously enforce, prosecute, and punish ALL violent criminals. But you see, that would cost money. More money for prisons etc. Banning flash supressors, or bayonet lugs costs nothing. Politicians can then strut around and say the "got tough" on crime................... Many drive by bayonettings where you live?

Let responsible gun owners make their own choices. Just like you would want to make your own life choices. Punish CRIMINALS for their crimes.

Posted: 10/18/2004 6:44:50 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
First of all, no crime has ever been committed in the USA with a legally registered machine gun, except for a cop who went beserk, and two guys in LA.

Fixed it for you...

Just a few tek-nickle-tees...

MG's were used in crimes - mostly during the 20's and 30's. All those that were registered have not since been used in crimes. All FA's that were manufactured since (obviously, most prior to '89), and sold through legal channels, and are legally owned, have never been used in crimes. THere have been cases of FA's being stolen, but that makes them products of a crimes, and therefore, not legal, or legally owned.

There have been cases of drug smugglers and a few street gang members using FA's in crimes (the oriental gangsters in the (LA?) mall robbery-turned-hostage situation in CA late 80's - early 90's comes to mind) , but those guns were either stolen from lawful owners, or "imported" (ie smuggled) illegally, and therefore, do not constitute "legal" firearms.

The two guys in the North Beach robbery used semi-autos converted to fully-automatic without being FFLS, and registering them - therefore illegal.

The moral of the story - if you're gonna go through the background checks, and pay the fees, you're not a street crook looking to jack a 7/11... [logic]

Bitchin' response, otherwise :D

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - How would you respond to this?

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us