Shooter's License... Pro or Con, Part 2

[Dennis]

Hawkgt said, “From reading the posts, and other topics it sounds like we all
agree that convicted criminals, of violent crimes ( murders,etc ) loose their
right to bear arms? Agree? The unfortunate reality is that they will be
released back onto the streets, unreformed and more determined not to go
back to jail, etc. So the question is how do we prevent people like that from
getting guns?”

I disagree with the question and the conclusion.

There is NO way to prevent criminals from getting guns. So let’s start from
the beginning.

1) Our citizenship as Americans means we are innocent until proven guilty.
Therefore, no citizen in good standing should suffer restrictions on legally
buying, possessing, or using firearms.

2) If indicted for a felony, firearms rights are suspended.

3) If convicted for a felony, firearms rights are suspended for the duration
of all punishment.

4) Upon completion of punishment, punishment is complete. Firearms
rights should be restored.

- Those who have been rehabilitated deserve the return of their rights.

- Those who have NOT been rehabilitated and still intend to be criminals
will obtain and use firearms whether or not we permit it.

- Therefore, we only hurt the rehabilitated, former criminal by denying him
the right to protect himself and his family. We do nothing to prevent crime.
If anything, we actually encourage further criminal activity as the former
felon wants to protect his family the same as we want to protect ours must
break the law to do so. Then he has nothing left to lose.
------

How do we prevent crime? Make the “criminal life” risky and unpleasant.
Again, severity of punishment does not deter as well as assuredness of
punishment.

- Write laws that mean what they say and say what they mean. No law
should be on the books unless it is both necessary and enforceable.

- Reform police departments from within. Police officers must quit covering
for the consistent crooks in law enforcement. Crooked, incompetent,
burned out, and violent cops dirty the 99% who are honest, competent,
dedicated, and professional. Good ones must clean out the bad cops.
Nobody else can do it.

- Reform the courts.

-- Increase required bail for violent offenders.

-- Increase required bail MUCH more for repeat offenders.

-- Bring offenders to trial quickly while giving the defense adequate time to
prepare. I’m talking a few months rather than a few years.

-- Stop irrational plea-bargaining merely to “clear the docket”.

-- Quit releasing murderers, rapists and robbers to make room in prisons
for those who make mistakes on their taxes or can not make their
exorbitant, financially crippling child support payments, or are drug addicts
or drunks. Prisons should house those who are dangerous to society and
present the threat of escape. Paperwork crooks, drug addicts and drunks
can be housed in jails and lower security facilities. Some could even qualify
for house arrest, work-release programs, or community service.

-- Enforce Project Exile and “Three Strikes” programs.


- Reform the prisons and jails.

-- Re-institute both “hard” and “soft” chain gangs. Have them mow grass
and clean up along the roads and in our parks.

-- Have qualified prisoners work in gardens where they grow their own
food. (This is done at our County Jail. It has many, many benefits.)

-- Teach releasable inmates (those sentenced to less than death or life
imprisonment) marketable skills. Keep them too busy to get into mischief.
It’s done in military basic training - it can be done in prisons and jails.

-- Clean up the prisons so they no longer represent “graduate studies” in
criminal career fields.

------

Now, to answer the cries that all this is impossible, I agree. But the
band-aid crap we’ve been doing doesn’t work.

To say, “It isn’t practical. We can’t do this.” Is to admit we either can not or
will not address the problem in an effective manner.

Therefore, any of these smaller, “do-able” steps will prove to be ineffective
and merely continue or exacerbate the problem.

Bottom line?

So long as we treat every honest citizen as a criminal who must be
supervised (licenses, training, registration, this check, that check, etc.) we
will continue to expand our government, increase the burden of government
on honest people, create even more criminals who will continue to commit
even more crimes regardless of the gun control laws, and we will continue
to pee and moan in vain.

I, for one, am tired of being increasingly treated like a criminal because of
these band-aid measures.

I, for one, am tired of repeatedly proving that band-aids are inadequate for
major surgery.
-----

Okay, now let’s hear it from the “we can’t do it” brigade....

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

 

[Futo Inu]

Look folks, assume for just a few moments if you will, that there is no second amendment, and focus exclusively (as the media does and antis do) on prudential arguments re "gun control", without regard to our Right TKBA.

From that perspective, we of course win all the major arguments hands down as well, because the social science supports "more guns=less crimes".

But let's not kid ourselves. There are in fact a FEW (very few) types of "gun control" measures which will in fact HELP our cause in the long run by actually reducing (at least by a LITTLE) criminals' and childrens' access to guns (which is already illegal mind you). Aside from the old NRA standby of ENFORCEMENT of existing laws, measures that actually work (and I therefore somewhat reluctantly support) are.

1. Enhanced sentencing measures: "Commit robbery, get 5-10 years; Commit robbery with a firearm, get 10-25 years". These reduce crimes committed with guns (that's a fact, not subject to reasonable dispute), and therefore help our cause. Contrary to liberal ideology, increased consequences in any form do in fact reduce crime. Lott proved it. However, this doesn't mean that such measures are needed at the federal level. The states do just fine in determining the need for and passing these. Look, if gun crimes continue to be a major societal problem in state X, the solution is simple - make it "robbery [or insert other crime here] with a firearm gets you life without parole, no exceptions".

2. Liability for negligent causation of your guns to get in hands of criminal (whether adult or child), when subsequently used in crime. Again, these should be at the state level, NOT federal. For starters, the law of manslaughter already provides criminal penalties for this type of thing where the actions were GROSSLY or wantonly negligent. The civil law provides penalties for simple or gross negligence, including possible punitive damages. We can and must make gun owners responsible for negligent allowance of their firearms to fall into the wrong hands. Strict rules in this area don't sit well with me generally, but they're a must to effectively fight the antis and gun bans. Now we can and should debate endlessly about what constitutes negligence. The Jonesboro kid had to commit burglary to get his grandfather's guns. That ain't negligence, and the grandpa there is not in any way culpable in my mind. But if you are in fact negligent in allowing your guns to be stolen/willingly given, etc., to your kid/kid's friend/felon, etc., you ought to be held civilly liable and if grossly negligent, criminally liable and do jail time.

OK, so what doesn't work? What have Lott and others proven does NOT reduce crime.

ANY type of restriction on the type of firearm/accessory/ammo, etc. (whether assault, .50 cal, full-auto, armor piercing, etc., etc., etc.), restrictions against CCW in certain PLACES, and many others they antis cook up.

As far as restrictions or bans on low-cost/junk/Sat night specials, I think, but am not sure that, the science shows these do reduce crime somewhat, but I am nevertheless adamantly opposed on second amendment/discrimination against the poor grounds.

As far as restoring RKBA to felons upon completion of sentence, I'll have to think about that some more, but initially I really like it because it obviously gives felons incentive to rehabilitate. Same thing goes for restoring right to vote. Instead of permanently disenfranchising felons, make em serve a stiff sentence, but then give them back the rights which were suspended. Makes a lot of sense to me. I for one would rehabilitate if faced with the chance of getting RKBA back. (This assumes of course that RKBA actually means something, which we're not sure of yet).

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited January 29, 2000).]

 

[Nancy Siebern]

Good points, all, Dennis. But let's hear it from the "it can be dones". A good example of retraining is (think it's in PRK, but not sure) the voluntary inmate program of firefighting. This enables convicts to learn a career that will serve them and the community upon release. It reinforces the concepts of teamwork, cameraderie, and work ethic. It raises their level of commitment to community. It restores (or, as in some cases, actually initiates) self-respect, respect for others, and dignity.
These inmates are serving time and go out on wildfire calls. There have been exceptionally few who have/have attempted to escape while fighting these fires. They all know that they must rely on each other if they are to stay alive and unharmed by the fires they fight, or are in need of rescue.
The fact that so few flee makes you have to think something about this program is working well.
In Detroit, an inner city church had enough with drug dealers taking over abandoned property and preying upon honest citizens who, because of their financial status, are unable to leave the area. Did they continue to depend on the government that was doing nothing to help? Nope. This church single-handedly set out to reclaim their neighborhood one block at a time. They knew the slum lord owners of abandoned houses would never recoup fair market value of their properties, so they made them offers on 3 houses to start. Volunteers from the church then worked to restore those houses and give one each to a deserving family. But there are a few strings attached. Each family that receives a renovated house must work on restoring other houses and keep their's up, or they lose their house - often the first and only opportunity to own a home of their own. Last time I checked, the church had reclaimed and refurbished 3 entire blocks of houses.
Maricopa County's Sheriff Joe Arpayo stood his ground against bleeding heart liberals, too. When his jails became overcrowded, he simply set up tent cities in the desert for convicts. Too hot and inhumane? His response was to say that if our American military personnel have to live in such conditions to keep America free, then convicts could, too.
It can be done. These are just 3 examples off the top of my head of people earnestly committed to America. I know there must be many more out there. They just don't get the media attention, and we all know why. It is only undoable as long as people who have never been directly confronted with crime or poverty, on an up-close and personal basis, are content to remain on their collectively smug and comfy posteriors until it lands on their doorstep. Until such time, I haven't a clue as to how to get them activated, because I haven't a clue as to how to capture the media and force them into pushing for such kinds of commitment.

------------------
Nancy

file:///C:/My%20Documents/donttread.gif

 

[Bud Helms]

This is the kind of discussion I really like!

However, Lavan's original post struck me as a little John Holt-esque, if you get my meaning.

Am I feeling a little too snake-bit?


------------------
Sensop

"Get your mind right and the body will follow." - Shino Takazawa, sinsei, hachi dan, Keishinkan do.
Sensop's Corner

 

[Dennis]

Nancy,

Bless your heart! I had become afraid there were no “it can be dones” left!
Super stories! You’ve given enheartening and encouraging examples
that we should FORCE our elected representatives to implement!
Outstanding! Insert a “Hooray” smilie right here!

Thank you, ma’am! (Fingers lightly touch the brim of the Stetson...)

-------
Futo,

I feel I’m on dangerous ground debating a master debater! But,
having a proven lack of discretion, here I go:

What you are calling gun control is NOT gun control. Therefore, I agree
with your conclusion but not your way of arriving!

1) Enhanced sentencing measures should be for any weapon. If the perp
had dynamite to blow up a school, hospital, or church full of people, I would
consider that even more deadly than a gun. Therefore, this is a violence
issue, not a “gun control” issue. I completely agree with increasing the
severity of the punishment in proportion to the perceived danger of the
offense.

2) There are many conflicting definitions of negligence and degrees of
negligence!

a) It would be extreme negligence to purposefully leave a firearm on the
hood of my car while I go inside a store or mall to go shopping. If I leave it
visible on the front seat of my parked car (locked or unlocked), I would
consider that to be negligence. But some folks could argue that it would be
negligence even if I locked the gun in the trunk of my sedan, “You knew or
should have known that you were going shopping where firearms are not
permitted, therefore you should have left your handgun at home in an
approved and locked safe!”.

Defining the finer points of negligence becomes an interpretation of the
“prudent man” principle - an area where the Brownshirts are totalitarians.


b) Leaving a ready-to-fire gun easily accessible to children may or may not
be negligence.

- If an actor willingly provides a weapon to someone the actor knows, or
should know, may (or will) commit an illegal act with that weapon, then the
actor is an accessory before the fact to the offense regardless of the age of
the perpetrator.

- Parents SHOULD be and ARE in fact responsible for their children - both
the child’s safety and his acts of omission and commission. With adults, it
is a different ball game. If the adult permits the child to have access to a
firearm, then the adult is responsible for the “sins” of the child.

- For a rancher in Montana to leave a .22 rifle easily obtainable for his
responsible 14 y/o youngster to use is not negligence. For a parent to do
the same in a Manhattan apartment smacks of negligence. Each situation
must be considered on its own merits - and that’s where the Brownshirts
refuse to see reason.

- Not for you, Futo, but to rule out the obvious for others I must say that
leaving a ready-to-fire firearm accessible to children in a daycare center
would be an example of extreme negligence. (Okay, okay, “willful, wanton,
and gross” negligence! )

- My wife and I live alone - no small kids visit. If I have a handgun hidden
but ready for use, I would not consider it negligence if a burglar illegally
entered my home and stole the handgun. HCI could call it negligence
because the gun was not disassembled, with parts and ammunition locked
in three or more separate $1500 safes!

- Tentatively, I would say, if the perp had to commit an illegal act to obtain
the weapon, then the owner should not be held negligent regardless of the
age of the perp!

- Again, drawing the line becomes problematic. I have a problem with the
term “allowing your guns to be stolen”. The HCI crowd could expand that
term to the point it would include (in practical terms) mere possession.
-----

So, I think we pretty well agree that violence should be punished and those
who facilitate it also are liable. I’m uncomfortable with the term “negligent
causation” because I fear the definition of the term may be inadequate or
overly inclusive.
-----

I am vehemently opposed to legislation as “tactics” to mollify or
out-maneuver gun control advocates. That is not justice. That is
appeasement and leads to tyranny - for the gun control advocates can not
be satisfied while there is any power in the world other than their rhetoric.


------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

 

[dog3]

------------------------
This post was grossly long winded, I pared it
down to this:
------------------------

Dennis;

Good post. I feel it needs to be magnified a bit for purpose of clarification to see how you feel about it. to wit:

1) Our citizenship as Americans means we are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, no citizen in good standing should suffer restrictions on exercising their rights protected under the bill of rights and the constitution.

2) If indicted for a felony, our citizenship is suspended. For this time, we may not vote, may not pay taxes, may not salute the flag, may not express our views, etctera.

3) If convicted for a felony, this suspension remains in place for duration until the courts are satisfied that we have "paid our debt, (whatever that means) to society".
This means for the time of punishment we are not legal citizens but true prisoners. A set of rights of prisoners can be drafted along the lines of fair treatment so as not to infringe on the right of the people to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments AS IS NOW THE CASE. (prison rape, torture, and all that. and oh by the way, its real enough).

4) Upon completion of punishment, punishment is complete. Civil rights are restored.
There would no such thing as "Convict". Only
Prisoner, or Citizen.

------------------------------------

Futo;
:Look folks, assume for just a few moments if
:you will, that there is no second amendment,
:and focus exclusively (as the media does and
:antis do) on prudential arguments re "gun
:control", without regard to our Right TKBA.

I cannot make this leap of logic. To assume no 2nd, I have to assume no 1st, 3rd, 4th, and so on. No Bill of Rights. This thinking makes the whole point moot.

No America.

Without the Bill of Rights, We would have become federal socialists long before now. Assuming of course, that we broke from Britian at all.

I sure as hell wouldn't have fought in such a war. And from reading my ancestors papers, I'm pretty they wouldn't have bothered to fight a revolution to better leverage the tax situation for a few wanna be kings, barons, esquires and so forth. I doubt it seriously. It was an all or nothing proposition. The 2nd provides insurance to the rest.



[This message has been edited by dog3 (edited January 29, 2000).]

 

[Lavan]

sensop..... I take exception to your "John Holt-esque" comparison. I started the thread to get discussion. It got it.
But.....I do think John Holt or ANYONE has a right to their own opinion without any stigma. They can be right or wrong, but they can say it.

I am one who thinks (maybe wierdly) that the ONLY reason this country is so great is that one CAN burn the flag if they so desire. I think it is an abominable act, but I would deport anyone who thinks they can't do what they want.

This thread is now being continued with a life of its own. I can see the problems with a shooters license and it would not be workable nor desirable.

But, discussion is the heart of all solutions.

Our main problem as gun owners is that we are LOSING the battle from any objective observation.

Few battles are won by solely RESPONDING to attack. Sometimes a feint or a step back to gain a better advantage is a good tactic.

Again.......Lavan is a supporter of unfettered gun ownership.

 

[foxfire]

dog3,

I like your clarification of Dennis' idea of a person really 'paying his/her debt to society'. A person truly then would either be a citizen or prisoner.

This also would eliminate the stigma surrounding an "ex-con". And give the 2nd-chance citizen an opportunity not revert back to the 'old ways'.

I'm also in favor of no parole and no time off for good behavior. Do the crime, you do the WHOLE time.
No exceptions....

------------------
...defend the 2nd., it protects us all.
No fate but what we make...

 

[FNG]

Since we all can become instant criminals for not participating in certain firearms registration schemes, so-called assault weapons bans, high-capacity magazine bans, other licensing schemes, etc. we have to re-evaluate what actually constitutes the forfeiture of unalienable rights. When the government is perceived as the agent of the people it may see logical to deny criminals these rights while they serve their sentence.The reality is, we will be unable to legally obtain and own firearms. This effectively institutes the perfect gun-control plan.

 

[dog3]

Lavan;

No, you are not the only one.

Foxfire;

Right on!

FNG;

Yeah, if I were "king of the world" I'd look more deeply into crime and incarceration as Dennis proposed.

Yes, it is precisely for the reasons you describe, amongst others, that the difference between prisoner and citizen should be established. Most and boy do I mean MOST of the laws we have a waste of paper, time, manpower, taxdollars, and so forth.

If you are going to deny *any* civil right, you practically *must* deny ALL civil rights. One cannot be a "partial" citizen. If you must pay taxes, you can vote, period. Taxation without representation was something of a sticking point wasn't it? One can be labled felon, ex-felon, convict, whatever pretty much arbitrarily under the weight of the laws on the books today.

This sort of approach I think would put an end to a lot of these laws of convience passed to win popularity cases, like the trendy laws the politicians have always been so in love with. Tax you to death, pass laws to show you are doing a good job and deserve all that tax money. Sheesh.

 

[Jeff White]

Convicted Felons already get most of their rights back. This was part of a rehabilitation scheme passed into law in the 70s.

I agree that we should force criminals to pay the entire penalty and then return them to society with no restrictions. With this execption..No public official convicted of official misconduct or malfeasance of office can ever serve in the government in any capacity again. We can accomplish this two ways, we can make life the minimum sentence for these crimes or we can just pass a law prohibiting them from ever being on the public payroll again. I am in favor of option one as a deterrent to corruption.

I have lived with the Firearm Owners ID card here in Illinois for years. It is nothing but a hassle. A few years ago the State Police were so far behind processing renewals that the Governor had to step in and get them caught up before hunting season opened. Since the instant check (we had it years before Brady required it nationwide) it became moot. The State Police even supported an initiave to do away with the FOID cards after instant check came on line, but it didn't go anywhere in the legislature. What does the FOID card accomplish, it allows the state to have a list of gunowners. There are provisions in the law to allow the State Police to revoke the FOID card and seize the guns of those who no longer meet the criteria to have one. A few years ago a man checked himself into a hospital for treatment of depression, a little while after he had been released the State Police showed up and took his guns. The man was an avid duck hunter and there was a hue and cry in the media about allowing him to hunt. He got his FOID and guns back. I wonder if they would have supported him if he had been a highpower shooter and they had taken his "evil" AR15?

I am against having to carry a card to prove that I was a good citizen or that I am permitted to exercise my rights. The FOID card doesn't replace the instant check when buying a firearm.

Jeff

 

[Bud Helms]

Lavan,

Easy friend. No offense intended.

Perhaps this is a case where I should have thought twice and not posted. I did not think of the offense you might have taken.

Apologies offered.

 

[Art Eatman]

This site http://www.zolatimes.com/writers/kocher.html has been recommended before, but I think a read of the author's segment on gun control and his introduction to his "book" is a bit of a "must read" for the pros and cons of a Good Guy license.

That is, and I'm saying again, I'm looking at the world we live in, not the way it used to be.

We're fighting a holding action, at best, since I think (mostly) that we're overall in a minority position. Certainly in a minority position with respect to the most powerful force in America today: The Media.

With that in mind, and after at least some browsing of Kocher, could we look at it again?

Regards, Art

 

[Nancy Siebern]

Dennis, Thank you for the kind words. I don't know about the concept of forcing our elected things to act like our employees that they are and make them legislate these kinds of things.
However, I most adamantly do agree that we should force them to insist on:
An end to plea bargaining
No more trial suppression of evidence by either side
Sentencing to the fullest extent of the law for violent crimes
Completion of entire sentence, no time off for "good" behavior
No parole
3 strikes and you're out for recidivist violent criminals
One appeal
Completion of the death sentence in a timely manner if appeal is lost
Jury nullification option to be explained before deliberation
No more judicial reversal of juries' decisions
Prohibition of inmate lawsuits
Prohibition of inmate perks - access to computers, cell phones, law libraries, weight training equipment and the like
Victim restitution by violent criminals after serving entire sentence
No income from book/tv/movie rights to their "story" before, during or after incarceration
No income from artwork during incarceration
No artwork made during incarceration allowed to be taken with violent convicts upon their release
No jailhouse interviews by any media format
Mandatory inmate work 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, cleaning highways and prisons they live in, and any other public-related menial labor for the community benefit.
In short, if you are imprisoned, you lose ALL your rights until such time as you have served your entire sentence, no exceptions.

I guess I would appeal to churches and community agencies like the YMCA, etc. to follow working examples like Detroit and take back the neighborhoods one block at a time. That way those who help and are helped are not indentured to the government.




------------------
Nancy

file:///C:/My%20Documents/donttread.gif

 

[jeffelkins]

As far as a Federal Shooter's License goes, I think that it's inevitable. Perhaps not now, but I'll wager by the time my granddaugher reaches her majority it will be law.

If a FSL for each gunowner is mandated, this is what I'd like to see:

1. Each holder of an FSL will have an license to CCW or open carry that supercedes any state or local regulation.

2. Once issued an individual FSL, the holder wouldn't be subject to any type of waiting period or limits on purchases.

3. Once issued an individual FSL, the holder would be allowed military-form weapons and magazines of his choice.

4. Anyone convicted of a violent felony would lose the right forever to hold an FSL.

5. The FLS will be 'shall issue'.

We have these rights now under the 2nd. Amendment, illegally denied us by the state. Since the call for an FSL is merely a ploy to deny us weapons, I seriously doubt that the provisions I suggested would ever be enacted.

[This message has been edited by jeffelkins (edited January 31, 2000).]

 

[kjm]

We should examine our criminal justice system a litte closer too. I have worked as a jailer and a Park Ranger who supervised those getting out of the joint, and I must say that Denis is absolutely correct in that they should have their citizenship reinstated in FULL. No if's and's or but's. A typical story goes like this: A guy gets hammered for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. They tack on every possible charge they can to it, like Contributing to the delinquency ect... They even do this if they know for a fact you had no intent to distribute. I remember several "old hippy" types who were slammed when their private "garden" got raided. So the fella decides to plea bargain for a smaller sentance. He gets 10 years, and so he serves 18 months. When he gets his parole, he thinks all is well, and he can go back to his life, but suprise, suprise, suprise! He meets his parole officer, who makes some simple sounding demands: he make all his appointments with the PO, he does 40,000 hours of community service with a minimum of 40 hours a week, and pays 15,000 dollars restitution. He's supposed to give 300 bucks a month for restitution, and do those 40 hours a week for free, and try to keep his job when it gets interupted 8 times a week for a meeting with the parole officer. I have worked closely with these parole officers, and aside from being cop wannabe's, they typically are rude, arrogant, and powerhungry. They perhaps have the largest ego's of any career field around, and wouldn't be welcome as cops on most police forces. Well, our guy tries like hell, but can't quite meet those demands and try to patch up his shattered marriage, so what does he do? He truly becomes a dealer, or a thief, or any illegal activities so that he can meet his restitution, and feed his kids too. I've seen it over and over again. If you don't want a lot of repeat offenders, then you must keep them behind bars until their debt has been paid in full and do away with parole. If he's good enough to be paroled (back to our streets) then he's good enough to be a full citizen again. To echo dennis' point, we SHOULD NOT jail for non-violent offenses, but rather do the community service in order to keep these decent people from getting a graduate education in violent crime.
Oh if I were only the Governor! I'd have the place cleaned up quick and then we'd be able to pay cops what they deserve instead of the squat we pay 'em now.

 

[Schmit]

IMO a F/SL is simply BS! What part of NOT don't they understand (re 2nd Amendment)

You want proof I'm not a felon? Here is my Voters Registration Card!

You want proof of Safety Classes? If my NRA, GTC, DOJ Creds won't sufice here is my DOD I.D. Card and related DOD Firearms Creds!

However, none of these matter... what part of NOT don't you understand

A Right regulated in no longer a Right Dr. M. L. King Jr


------------------
Schmit
GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"

[This message has been edited by Schmit (edited January 31, 2000).]

 

[Lavan]

sensop... Apology noted but not needed. In the first forum where I started this thread, I only wanted to get a discussion started and several thought I was introducing a bill to congress.
We are still friends as I hope all are who responded to the thread. Only as allies do we win.
We need more gun owners and vociferous ones too.

 

[dog3]

We The People, are a hair's breadth away from being felons. So many of us buy into this idea that somehow the system of law is just.

Remember the old saw "When Guns are Outlawed, only Outlaws will have Guns?" Well? Do you?

Already, across this country, all kinds of weapons ownership is criminalised.

Those of you with your "Three Strikes, you're out" Consider that for one thing, this type of legislation is unconstitutional, for another thing, if you own 3 firearms, its only a small gust of wind that could have you tried on felony counts 3 times and tossed away. Far fetched? is it?

Bayonette lugs? "Hi Capacity" magazines? "
Cop Killer" bullets?

How far fetched is it really?

I think it was Ayn Rand who summed it up nicely with "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. ...Create a nation of law-breakers, and then you cash in on the guilt." --Atlas Shrugged

I'm sorry for being terse. I just kinda steamed up about how somehow there is this idea that under the current system it is possible to bow low enough that you won't be bothered, and those evil criminal types will be punished appropriately.

ALL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, PERIOD.

If someone has some empirical evidence to the contrary, lets hear it.

They must all be repealed.
There will be no "Id Card" that is "sufficient" for purchase, no CCW. Either I am a citizen, or I am a subject. The constitution says one thing, the LAW says another.

It is impossible to appease a tyrant.

"When patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality."
--Thomas Jefferson to M. deStael, 1807.

"Before Adolf Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to be law abiding that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums own guns. What fools we were. It truly frightens me to see how the government, media and some police groups in America are pushing for the same mindset." Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor

"There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not "brainwashed" about gun ownership and had been well armed. ... Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half-starved group of Jews took 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazis." Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor

"These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, that a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to Liberty than street criminals or foreign spies." Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government."
--Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823.

[This message has been edited by dog3 (edited January 31, 2000).]

 

[deanf]

I'm sorry. I can't find the first part of this thread. Can someone point me to it? Thanks.

------------------
Keep yer stick on the ice.