O.K. before you burn me in effigy just follow this link!
http://www.sightings.com/general6/finally.htm
ENJOY!!!!
http://www.sightings.com/general6/finally.htm
ENJOY!!!!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A sensable gun registration plan that I like
- Thread starter IZZY
- Start date
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Sorry, but this idea doesn't fly with me.
Registering non-gun owners and charging them a fee is no different than what they seek to do to us.
I agree that it puts them on the defensive for a change, but I won't stoop to their level. I believe that every person has the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Whether a person chooses to exercise that Right is a personal decision that shouldn't be forced upon anyone.
Registering non-gun owners and charging them a fee is no different than what they seek to do to us.
I agree that it puts them on the defensive for a change, but I won't stoop to their level. I believe that every person has the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Whether a person chooses to exercise that Right is a personal decision that shouldn't be forced upon anyone.
Jeff Thomas
New member
Actually, it is time we play a little hardball ...
This idea will seem nutty, so perhaps that is reason enough to laugh it off. However, the concept is roughly valid.
Ever bought or sold a car? Smart sellers of any big ticket item usually ask for more than the selling price they are ultimately willing to accept. Buyers usually offer less than they are ultimately willing to pay. It is tradition, and it fits with human behavior. IMHO, RKBA supporters need to be just as wise.
It takes some devotion of resources, but it is foolish to only pay defense in this game. By putting the dark side on the defensive, (1) they waste their political capital by fighting our offense, (2) more radical pro-self defense proposals (by some parties) can make less radical pro-self defense proposals (by other parties) appear relatively more reasonable, and (3) we can imcrementally take back some of the fundamental civil rights they have destroyed in the last decade.
We're right in our cause. We also need to be smart. And, play hard ... no quarter to those who are willing to allow us and our families to die at the hands of BG's, while the dark side denies us the fundamental human right of self defense.
Regards from AZ
This idea will seem nutty, so perhaps that is reason enough to laugh it off. However, the concept is roughly valid.
Ever bought or sold a car? Smart sellers of any big ticket item usually ask for more than the selling price they are ultimately willing to accept. Buyers usually offer less than they are ultimately willing to pay. It is tradition, and it fits with human behavior. IMHO, RKBA supporters need to be just as wise.
It takes some devotion of resources, but it is foolish to only pay defense in this game. By putting the dark side on the defensive, (1) they waste their political capital by fighting our offense, (2) more radical pro-self defense proposals (by some parties) can make less radical pro-self defense proposals (by other parties) appear relatively more reasonable, and (3) we can imcrementally take back some of the fundamental civil rights they have destroyed in the last decade.
We're right in our cause. We also need to be smart. And, play hard ... no quarter to those who are willing to allow us and our families to die at the hands of BG's, while the dark side denies us the fundamental human right of self defense.
Regards from AZ
Ed Brunner
New member
What price freedom??
Bluesman;
Is this really stooping to their level or is it an acknowledgement that citizens have a duty to defend certain aspects of our freedom or to pay someone else to do it in their place?
Is gun ownership really a matter of personal choice?
Is it a right to bear arms?
Is it a right NOT to bear arms?
Bluesman;
Is this really stooping to their level or is it an acknowledgement that citizens have a duty to defend certain aspects of our freedom or to pay someone else to do it in their place?
Is gun ownership really a matter of personal choice?
Is it a right to bear arms?
Is it a right NOT to bear arms?
Caeca Invidia Es
Staff Alumnus
I have to agree with TheBluesMan. I find the proposal hilarious, and it seems like the guy is just trying flipping the bird at HCI and friends (alot like Virgin Ut.) But I can't agree with trying to force people to own guns anymore then I can agree with forcing people to not own guns. And quite frankly, there are a few people I know that I would prefer didn't have guns.
While I'd not approve of actually implementing the plan, pushing the proposal is great. Anti-gunners have a "not me" mentality that makes it easy for them to push restrictions on others; this proposal uses their ideas but reverses the application, saying "if you think people should be registered, then let's register YOU."
I've spent my $500 (times N) to promote "the security of a free state"; it's about time the anti-gunners do their fair share.
I've spent my $500 (times N) to promote "the security of a free state"; it's about time the anti-gunners do their fair share.
If it werent so darn cold in Vermont I would live there!
I believe the Idea that our founding fathers had in mind was a citizen army Vs. the proffessional one of today. ( which is probly neccesary due to the expansiveness of our empire). So indeed legaly most grown men do have a level of community responsability to keep at least one good rifle at home.
A good defense is the strongest counter attack you can put up. Static defense works only when the enemy is out of it's element. Given the fact that today socialists determine much of the playing feild we must fight them for the turf before we become able to "take the high road".
Peace and War...
IZZY
I believe the Idea that our founding fathers had in mind was a citizen army Vs. the proffessional one of today. ( which is probly neccesary due to the expansiveness of our empire). So indeed legaly most grown men do have a level of community responsability to keep at least one good rifle at home.
A good defense is the strongest counter attack you can put up. Static defense works only when the enemy is out of it's element. Given the fact that today socialists determine much of the playing feild we must fight them for the turf before we become able to "take the high road".
Peace and War...
IZZY
Here are a couple...
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..."
Thomas Jefferson to Justice John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45. (Complete letter of June 5, 1824)
"A free people ought...to be...armed..."
George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790
I kinda like the idea...it makes me smile.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..."
Thomas Jefferson to Justice John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45. (Complete letter of June 5, 1824)
"A free people ought...to be...armed..."
George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790
I kinda like the idea...it makes me smile.
To all who agree with BluesMan,
Do you think we should pay for (via our taxes) the police to 'protect and serve' us? We all do. So what's the real difference? If you choose to make use of the services the police provide more often than I do as a gun owner, then you (non-gun owner) should be willing to not only PAY a little more than I do for that service, but the police should KNOW that when they arrive at your residence, you will not have protected yourself and could find you in all sorts of trouble from people intent on harming an unarmed individual. I think it's only fair, if you place more pressure on the police resources than I do, YOU SHOULD pay more than I. Should they be registered? I don't see the purpose, other than allowing the police to know who is and isn't armed. This would actually be a REVERSE REGISTRATION of gun owners. Not on the list? You MUST be a gun owner.
Please, no flames. I'm using the pluralistic YOU, meaning non gun owners, not the 'you' who agree with The Blues Man.
Do you think we should pay for (via our taxes) the police to 'protect and serve' us? We all do. So what's the real difference? If you choose to make use of the services the police provide more often than I do as a gun owner, then you (non-gun owner) should be willing to not only PAY a little more than I do for that service, but the police should KNOW that when they arrive at your residence, you will not have protected yourself and could find you in all sorts of trouble from people intent on harming an unarmed individual. I think it's only fair, if you place more pressure on the police resources than I do, YOU SHOULD pay more than I. Should they be registered? I don't see the purpose, other than allowing the police to know who is and isn't armed. This would actually be a REVERSE REGISTRATION of gun owners. Not on the list? You MUST be a gun owner.
Please, no flames. I'm using the pluralistic YOU, meaning non gun owners, not the 'you' who agree with The Blues Man.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Wallew is right about us all paying for the police to "protect and serve" us, but, often times police officers are nothing more than mop-up men who come in and take notes after a crime has been committed. I don’t think that non-gun owners put more pressure on police resources than gun owners do; it’s criminals who put pressure on police resources. Wallew is also very right about the de facto Reverse Registration.
Ed Brunner - I respect your opinion very much, but I believe that this is stooping to their level. We need to support the rights of all, even those who oppose us, or we are not worthy of those rights ourselves. Having First Amendment Rights doesn’t mean that I have to go to church. Having Fourth Amendment Rights doesn’t mean that I cannot ever submit to a search. Having Fifth Amendment Rights doesn’t mean that I cannot admit to a crime. Of course this registration and fee system does give the antis the chance to "feel our pain" for a change.
I support the right of the people to not exercise their rights if that is what they choose to do. Conscientious objectors to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms can serve in a capacity to defend our freedom that does not interfere with their beliefs.
Ed Brunner - I respect your opinion very much, but I believe that this is stooping to their level. We need to support the rights of all, even those who oppose us, or we are not worthy of those rights ourselves. Having First Amendment Rights doesn’t mean that I have to go to church. Having Fourth Amendment Rights doesn’t mean that I cannot ever submit to a search. Having Fifth Amendment Rights doesn’t mean that I cannot admit to a crime. Of course this registration and fee system does give the antis the chance to "feel our pain" for a change.
I support the right of the people to not exercise their rights if that is what they choose to do. Conscientious objectors to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms can serve in a capacity to defend our freedom that does not interfere with their beliefs.
Here's the rub:
Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend themselves;
Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend their families;
Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend their neighbors;
Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend strangers about them;
Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend the state;
Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend the nation, and;
Firearms owners stand at the ready to assist the lawful local, state, and federal authorities in time of need.
On the other hand:
Non-firearms owners defer their defense to those who respond bearing arms on their behalf;
Non-firearms owners stand idly by while their neighbors are harmed;
Non-firearms owners stand idly by while strangers about them are harmed;
Non-firearms owners stand idly by while the state is attacked;
Non-firearms owners stand idly by while the nation is attacked, and;
Non-firearms owners are completely dependent on the local, state, and federal authorities for their defense; while having no thought to any duty to reciprocate when those who are so employed are themselves in peril.
This means that these people are a drain on the resources that are in place -- which are for the investigation of crimes, not their personal defense -- and, as such, they should be expected to pay more for that upon which they incessantly depend. It is time they paid for the lives of those who they employ to lose their lives in their stead.
Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend themselves;
Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend their families;
Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend their neighbors;
Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend strangers about them;
Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend the state;
Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend the nation, and;
Firearms owners stand at the ready to assist the lawful local, state, and federal authorities in time of need.
On the other hand:
Non-firearms owners defer their defense to those who respond bearing arms on their behalf;
Non-firearms owners stand idly by while their neighbors are harmed;
Non-firearms owners stand idly by while strangers about them are harmed;
Non-firearms owners stand idly by while the state is attacked;
Non-firearms owners stand idly by while the nation is attacked, and;
Non-firearms owners are completely dependent on the local, state, and federal authorities for their defense; while having no thought to any duty to reciprocate when those who are so employed are themselves in peril.
This means that these people are a drain on the resources that are in place -- which are for the investigation of crimes, not their personal defense -- and, as such, they should be expected to pay more for that upon which they incessantly depend. It is time they paid for the lives of those who they employ to lose their lives in their stead.
Ed Brunner
New member
jimpeel; My point exactly!
I think the decision to rely on others for any service makes us indebted. This debt is also paid by those who elect not to depend.
It's sort of like the anti-smoking argument. The smokers allegedly relied on nonsmokers for their health care, so look what happened.
TheBluesMan; thank you for the kind words. We can agree or disagree. This looks like a totally minor disagreement.
I think the decision to rely on others for any service makes us indebted. This debt is also paid by those who elect not to depend.
It's sort of like the anti-smoking argument. The smokers allegedly relied on nonsmokers for their health care, so look what happened.
TheBluesMan; thank you for the kind words. We can agree or disagree. This looks like a totally minor disagreement.
Missing a point?
Perhaps so. Note that this does not require anyone to own a gun. You have a choice: own a gun, no registration; don't own a gun, get registered.
Have any of the anti-gun proposals ever had a concientious objector clause for those who object to being dependent upon the state for their protection?
I'm for it, and would support it were it introduced in my home state.
I agree with Jim; it's those who are dependent upon the state who put the drain on resources by allowing criminals to commit so many crimes through their lack of direct action. If you shoot a goblin in valid self-defense, sure, the police are still going to have to respond, and sure, there'll be a lot of paperwork, but at least everyone involved has the satisfaction of knowing that the perp is either in custody or removed from the gene pool. No time or effort has to be spent tracking him/her down.
Agree also with the point that we should indeed introduce some very radical pro-defense laws which create a lot of controversy so that in the meantime, we can slip in a few less radical but just as needed laws. It's not honest, but then, we're talking politics, and politics, by its very nature, is not honest. Politics is the dark science of convincing people whose behavior is moral that they should subject themselves to rules and restrictions needed only for those whose behavior is not moral.
Let's fight fire with fire.
Perhaps so. Note that this does not require anyone to own a gun. You have a choice: own a gun, no registration; don't own a gun, get registered.
Have any of the anti-gun proposals ever had a concientious objector clause for those who object to being dependent upon the state for their protection?
I'm for it, and would support it were it introduced in my home state.
I agree with Jim; it's those who are dependent upon the state who put the drain on resources by allowing criminals to commit so many crimes through their lack of direct action. If you shoot a goblin in valid self-defense, sure, the police are still going to have to respond, and sure, there'll be a lot of paperwork, but at least everyone involved has the satisfaction of knowing that the perp is either in custody or removed from the gene pool. No time or effort has to be spent tracking him/her down.
Agree also with the point that we should indeed introduce some very radical pro-defense laws which create a lot of controversy so that in the meantime, we can slip in a few less radical but just as needed laws. It's not honest, but then, we're talking politics, and politics, by its very nature, is not honest. Politics is the dark science of convincing people whose behavior is moral that they should subject themselves to rules and restrictions needed only for those whose behavior is not moral.
Let's fight fire with fire.