***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE***

[timschochet]

1. There has never been an instance in human history where private ownership of guns was the key to resistance against a dictatorship. 2. There has never been an instance in human history where the seizure of private ownership of guns was the key to imposing a dictatorship. The truth is that when it comes to the formulation of government, and the establishment of a free society vs. a non-free society, private ownership of guns is almost completely a non-factor. (I don't want to say completely because there are very rare times when it has played a small anecdotal role, but that role has NEVER been decisive.)

I've only been in the thread for the last 1000 posts and I know we've shot you down on these "facts" a couple times, and I'm sure it happened another dozen times in the previous 4,500 posts.

You ahven't shot me down once. You're welcome to try though.

 

[pantherclub]

Our founding fathers were not for a big controlling government. Our government is just getting larger and more controlling with these measures. Those living in their land of unicorns and rainbows are just being obtuse.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corp's that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

-Thomas Jefferson

whoopshttp://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

Yep you got me there, and as snopes points out "Jefferson certainly expressed disdain and mistrust of banking institutions and paper currency on many occasions." It doesn't change the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

lolololololololololololololol

They will build great shrines in your name when you are gone!!!

yes by all means keep hanging your hat on a poster that posts made up crap.

It's a commonly mis-attributed quote. It's not like he just made it up.

wow

 

[timschochet]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

It might not prevent the rise of a dictator, but private gun ownership would allow the people to resist a dictatorial regime. Why do you think dictators are so quick to seize privately held guns when they rise to power.

1. No it wouldn't. It NEVER has. 2. The truth is, contrary to revisionist history, is that this rarely happens.

So you are saying it wouldn't (your opinion), but that it is possible. Shocking.

We are not arguing the likelihood that it will definitely happen in the U.S. and certainly not over any time span but that the possibility exists. Furthermore having a well armed populace reduces the chances that it can or would be attempted.

You keep saying it doesnt make it trueIts a weak, psychotic and paranoid excuse that the gun owners love to try and trot out.

And your side always trots out "psychotic and paranoid". Sorry to tell you but our founders disagree with you. That is the reason it's there, Not for hunting. But it is obvious you are certainly smarter then the founders of this great nation. So please enlighten us more with your wisdom.ETA: I see you just did while I was responding. Thank you great one.

The Founding Fathers didn't get it wrong. The Second Amendment is fine. What continues to be wrong is your interpretation of it.

 

[Widbil83]

Anybody see the Piers Morgan interview with Ben Shapiro last night?Entertaining if nothing else.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

Morgan gets This pretty much sums it up.The right: interprets the 2nd Amendment as the right to bear arms for the purpose of the citizens being able to defend themselves against a potential tyrannical government.The left: calls the the right idiots and

Best part is at 11:25 Morgan: You come in and you brandish your little book...Shapiro: That's not a little book thats the constituion.Morgan: I know what it is!Shapiro: Do you?Piers is such a turd.

 

[Cookiemonster]

1. There has never been an instance in human history where private ownership of guns was the key to resistance against a dictatorship.

2. There has never been an instance in human history where the seizure of private ownership of guns was the key to imposing a dictatorship.

The truth is that when it comes to the formulation of government, and the establishment of a free society vs. a non-free society, private ownership of guns is almost completely a non-factor. (I don't want to say completely because there are very rare times when it has played a small anecdotal role, but that role has NEVER been decisive.)

I've only been in the thread for the last 1000 posts and I know we've shot you down on these "facts" a couple times, and I'm sure it happened another dozen times in the previous 4,500 posts.

You ahven't shot me down once. You're welcome to try though.

1) How in the hell do you state that as a fact? I'm sure some dictatorships never made it to power because they couldn't oppress the population. I believe our history books calls overthrowing a government by use of arms a revolution. Guns, bombs, swords, spears... all the same animal.2) You have been given a half dozen examples of this in the last 80 years. It gets more frequent as you go further back in history and use swords instead of guns. You chose to ignore the atrocities enacted by governments on it's people.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Why is it unnerving to believe this? We can point to a list of tyrannical governments that exist TODAY. It's not like we've having to believe in something that hasn't happened in 600 years.

Actually it's exactly like that, except it's not 600 years, it's forever. Two points:1. There has never been an instance in human history where private ownership of guns was the key to resistance against a dictatorship.

2. There has never been an instance in human history where the seizure of private ownership of guns was the key to imposing a dictatorship.

You mean like in 1774 and 1775 when the British were removing arms from the states? The British Parliament banned the export of muskets and ammo to the colonies. This was all before the Revolutionary War and one of the causes of it. State militias were hiding their cannons and #### out in the woods so they wouldn't be confiscated.Acts like this are one of the primary reasons George Mason argued for the inclusion of right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. They didn't want standing federal armies during peacetime that could enforce the government's will like English kings used to do. There were always political struggles involving Kings, Legislatures and Churches and gun control laws and standing armies were used to weaken enemies.

 

[timschochet]

1. There has never been an instance in human history where private ownership of guns was the key to resistance against a dictatorship.

2. There has never been an instance in human history where the seizure of private ownership of guns was the key to imposing a dictatorship.

The truth is that when it comes to the formulation of government, and the establishment of a free society vs. a non-free society, private ownership of guns is almost completely a non-factor. (I don't want to say completely because there are very rare times when it has played a small anecdotal role, but that role has NEVER been decisive.)

I've only been in the thread for the last 1000 posts and I know we've shot you down on these "facts" a couple times, and I'm sure it happened another dozen times in the previous 4,500 posts.

You ahven't shot me down once. You're welcome to try though.

1) How in the hell do you state that as a fact? I'm sure some dictatorships never made it to power because they couldn't oppress the population. I believe our history books calls overthrowing a government by use of arms a revolution. Guns, bombs, swords, spears... all the same animal.2) You have been given a half dozen examples of this in the last 80 years. It gets more frequent as you go further back in history and use swords instead of guns. You chose to ignore the atrocities enacted by governments on it's people.

1. I state it as a fact because it's true. You're correct that some dictatorships have never achieved power because they couldn't oppress the population. And you're also correct that, in certain cases, it's because the population was armed. But private gun ownership has never been the key to the population being armed. First off, private ownership of anything is rare in the history of human society (sadly). But when it has happened, it was never the key to an armed resistance. With extremely few exceptions, armed resistance in history has only been possible through outside help- usually another country supplying the arms and military aid (to cite two examples- France helping us in the American revolution, and the North Vietnamese helping the Viet Cong in the 1960s, along with China and the USSR.) It's hard to come up with any examples of a rebellion that even had a modicum of success without outside help. I'm sure there probably is one, but it doesn't occur to me- usually, like the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, they get crushed very quickly due to superior firepower from the ruling government. The issue of private gun ownership doesn't even come into it.2. Sorry but I haven't been given one example of privately owned guns being seized prior to imposing a dictatorship, because there isn't one. What I HAVE been given is examples of rulers, once having imposed a dictatorship, seizing some guns. Most of these "examples" are blatantly false, particularly in the cases of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. In the few cases where they actually took place, it was a means to impose military rule, not necessarily dicatorship (for instance, our occupation in 1945 of West Germany.) If you ever study political science, you will learn that there are many factors that contribute to the establishment of a dictatorship. The seizure of privately owned guns is not a factor.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Forever!Never!

 

[timschochet]

Why is it unnerving to believe this? We can point to a list of tyrannical governments that exist TODAY. It's not like we've having to believe in something that hasn't happened in 600 years.

Actually it's exactly like that, except it's not 600 years, it's forever. Two points:1. There has never been an instance in human history where private ownership of guns was the key to resistance against a dictatorship.

2. There has never been an instance in human history where the seizure of private ownership of guns was the key to imposing a dictatorship.

You mean like in 1774 and 1775 when the British were removing arms from the states? The British Parliament banned the export of muskets and ammo to the colonies. This was all before the Revolutionary War and one of the causes of it. State militias were hiding their cannons and #### out in the woods so they wouldn't be confiscated.Acts like this are one of the primary reasons George Mason argued for the inclusion of right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. They didn't want standing federal armies during peacetime that could enforce the government's will like English kings used to do. There were always political struggles involving Kings, Legislatures and Churches and gun control laws and standing armies were used to weaken enemies.

There is so much wrong with what you wrote here that I'm not sure where to start but:1. Although some of the colonists brought their own privately owned guns to militias, more were given guns BY the militia, and these guns were not owned but were the shared property of the militia.

2. Many of the weapons we used to defeat the British were given to us by France. We also received from France training and direct military aid, and these facts are the key to our success in the American Revolution, not the presence of privately owned guns.

3. The spiritual descendents of our early militia movement is not today's private gun owner, but our military forces and the national guard.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Hey, Tim...FERDINAND E. MARCOS, FORMER PRESIDENT/DICTATOR OF THE PHILIPPINES

President Marcos declared Martial Law by virtue of Proclamation No.1081 on Sept.21, 1972 and on the following day issued General Order No. 6 declaring that no person shall keep, possess or carry any firearms with penalties ranging up to death. The Philippines was under his dictatorship for the next 14 years.

ADOLF HITLER

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”

gunfacts.info

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.In 1970, Uganda embraced gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed.In all, over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century.*523523 (Most of the genocide statistics were reported in “Death by ‘Gun Control’: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament,” Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens, 2001.

56 million divided by 100 years = 560,000 deaths per year by their own government.Of 311,591,917 people in the U.S.We had 12,664 murders in 2011.We had 8,583 firearm murders in 2011 in the U.S.We had 323 rifle murders in 2011.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Hey, Tim...FERDINAND E. MARCOS, FORMER PRESIDENT/DICTATOR OF THE PHILIPPINES

President Marcos declared Martial Law by virtue of Proclamation No.1081 on Sept.21, 1972 and on the following day issued General Order No. 6 declaring that no person shall keep, possess or carry any firearms with penalties ranging up to death. The Philippines was under his dictatorship for the next 14 years.

ADOLF HITLER

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”

gunfacts.info

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.In 1970, Uganda embraced gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed.In all, over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century.*523523 (Most of the genocide statistics were reported in “Death by ‘Gun Control’: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament,” Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens, 2001.

It seems to me that you are indulging in the age-old correlation = causation fallacy.Dictators like to restrict gun ownership. That does not, however, mean that this is the key to imposing a dictatorship, nor does it mean that a lack of gun control is the key to avoiding dictatorship.Using your logic, I could say that a common trait of dictatorships is food shortages. Therefore, it is imperative that we expand the welfare state and enormous farm subsidies in order to ensure that no American goes hungry. No hunger = no dictators! Is that fair? Or am I maybe confusing correlation with causation? Wouldn't you want me to show some sort of actual causal connection between food supply and preventing dictatorships before taking action?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Why is it unnerving to believe this? We can point to a list of tyrannical governments that exist TODAY. It's not like we've having to believe in something that hasn't happened in 600 years.

Actually it's exactly like that, except it's not 600 years, it's forever. Two points:1. There has never been an instance in human history where private ownership of guns was the key to resistance against a dictatorship.

2. There has never been an instance in human history where the seizure of private ownership of guns was the key to imposing a dictatorship.

You mean like in 1774 and 1775 when the British were removing arms from the states? The British Parliament banned the export of muskets and ammo to the colonies. This was all before the Revolutionary War and one of the causes of it. State militias were hiding their cannons and #### out in the woods so they wouldn't be confiscated.Acts like this are one of the primary reasons George Mason argued for the inclusion of right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. They didn't want standing federal armies during peacetime that could enforce the government's will like English kings used to do. There were always political struggles involving Kings, Legislatures and Churches and gun control laws and standing armies were used to weaken enemies.

There is so much wrong with what you wrote here that I'm not sure where to start but:1. Although some of the colonists brought their own privately owned guns to militias, more were given guns BY the militia, and these guns were not owned but were the shared property of the militia.

2. Many of the weapons we used to defeat the British were given to us by France. We also received from France training and direct military aid, and these facts are the key to our success in the American Revolution, not the presence of privately owned guns.

3. The spiritual descendents of our early militia movement is not today's private gun owner, but our military forces and the national guard.

This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.

The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.

Modern “smokeless” gunpowder is stable under most conditions. The “black powder” of the 18th Century was far more volatile. Accordingly, large quantities of black powder were often stored in a town’s “powder house,” typically a reinforced brick building. The powder house would hold merchants’ reserves, large quantities stored by individuals, as well as powder for use by the local militia. Although colonial laws generally required militiamen (and sometimes all householders, too) to have their own firearm and a minimum quantity of powder, not everyone could afford it. Consequently, the government sometimes supplied “public arms” and powder to individual militiamen. Policies varied on whether militiamen who had been given public arms would keep them at home. Public arms would often be stored in a special armory, which might also be the powder house.

Before dawn on September 1, 1774, 260 of Gage’s Redcoats sailed up the Mystic River and seized hundreds of barrels of powder from the Charlestown powder house.

The “Powder Alarm,” as it became known, was a serious provocation. By the end of the day, 20,000 militiamen had mobilized and started marching towards Boston. In Connecticut and Western Massachusetts, rumors quickly spread that the Powder Alarm had actually involved fighting in the streets of Boston. More accurate reports reached the militia companies before that militia reached Boston, and so the war did not begin in September. The message, though, was unmistakable: If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that violent seizure as an act of war, and would fight. And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.

Five days after the Powder Alarm, on September 6, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled on the Worcester Common. Backed by the formidable array, the Worcester Convention took over the reins of government, and ordered the resignations of all militia officers, who had received their commissions from the Royal Governor. The officers promptly resigned and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention.

That same day, the people of Suffolk County (which includes Boston) assembled and adopted the Suffolk Resolves. The 19-point Resolves complained about the Powder Alarm, and then took control of the local militia away from the Royal Governor (by replacing the Governor’s appointed officers with officers elected by the militia) and resolved to engage in group practice with arms at least weekly.

The First Continental Congress, which had just assembled in Philadelphia, unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves and urged all the other colonies to send supplies to help the Bostonians.

Governor Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general, warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage’s offenses, “what most irritated the People” was “seizing their Arms and Ammunition.”

When the Massachusetts Assembly convened, General Gage declared it illegal, so the representatives reassembled as the “Provincial Congress.” On October 26, 1774, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress adopted a resolution condemning military rule, and criticizing Gage for “unlawfully seizing and retaining large quantities of ammunition in the arsenal at Boston.” The Provincial Congress urged all militia companies to organize and elect their own officers. At least a quarter of the militia (the famous Minute Men) were directed to “equip and hold themselves in readiness to march at the shortest notice.” The Provincial Congress further declared that everyone who did not already have a gun should get one, and start practicing with it diligently.

In flagrant defiance of royal authority, the Provincial Congress appointed a Committee of Safety and vested it with the power to call forth the militia. The militia of Massachusetts was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts.

Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State for America, sent Gage a letter on October 17, 1774, urging him to disarm New England. Gage replied that he would like to do so, but it was impossible without the use of force. After Gage’s letter was made public by a reading in the British House of Commons, it was publicized in America as proof of Britain’s malign intentions.

Two days after Lord Dartmouth dispatched his disarmament recommendation, King George III and his ministers blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America. Read literally, the order merely required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America. In practice, no permits were granted.

Meanwhile, Benjamin Franklin was masterminding the surreptitious import of arms and ammunition from the Netherlands, France, and Spain.

The patriotic Boston Committee of Correspondence learned of the arms embargo and promptly dispatched Paul Revere to New Hampshire, with the warning that two British ships were headed to Fort William and Mary, near Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to seize firearms, cannons, and gunpowder. On December 14, 1774, 400 New Hampshire patriots preemptively captured all the material at the fort. A New Hampshire newspaper argued that the capture was prudent and proper, reminding readers that the ancient Carthaginians had consented to “deliver up all their Arms to the Romans” and were decimated by the Romans soon after.

In Parliament, a moderate minority favored conciliation with America. Among the moderates was the Duke of Manchester, who warned that America now had three million people, and most of them were trained to use arms. He was certain they could produce a stronger army than Great Britain.

The Massachusetts Provincial Congress offered to purchase as many arms and bayonets as could be delivered to the next session of the Congress. Massachusetts also urged American gunsmiths “diligently to apply themselves” to making guns for everyone who did not already have a gun. A few weeks earlier, the Congress had resolved: “That it be strongly recommended, to all the inhabitants of this colony, to be diligently attentive to learning the use of arms . . . .”

Derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke, the ideology underlying all forms of American resistance was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights; from the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant.

The British government was not, in a purely formal sense, attempting to abolish the Americans’ common law right of self-defense. Yet in practice, that was precisely what the British were attempting. First, by disarming the Americans, the British were attempting to make the practical exercise of the right of personal self-defense much more difficult. Second, and more fundamentally, the Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government. To the Americans, and to their British Whig ancestors, the right of self-defense necessarily implied the right of armed self-defense against tyranny.

The troubles in New England inflamed the other colonies. Patrick Henry’s great speech to the Virginia legislature on March 23, 1775, argued that the British plainly meant to subjugate America by force. Because every attempt by the Americans at peaceful reconciliation had been rebuffed, the only remaining alternatives for the Americans were to accept slavery or to take up arms. If the Americans did not act soon, the British would soon disarm them, and all hope would be lost. “The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us,” he promised.

The Convention formed a committee—including Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson—“to prepare a plan for the embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient” to defend the commonwealth. The Convention urged “that every Man be provided with a good Rifle” and “that every Horseman be provided . . . with Pistols and Holsters, a Carbine, or other Firelock.” When the Virginia militiamen assembled a few weeks later, many wore canvas hunting shirts adorned with the motto “Liberty or Death.”

In South Carolina, patriots established a government, headed by the “General Committee.” The Committee described the British arms embargo as a plot to disarm the Americans in order to enslave them. Thus, the Committee recommended that “all persons” should “immediately” provide themselves with a large quantity of ammunition.

Without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors. In Virginia, George Washington and George Mason organized the Fairfax Independent Militia Company. The Fairfax militiamen pledged that “we will, each of us, constantly keep by us” a firelock, six pounds of gunpowder, and twenty pounds of lead. Other independent militia embodied in Virginia along the same model. Independent militia also formed in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maryland, and South Carolina, choosing their own officers.

John Adams praised the newly constituted Massachusetts militia, “commanded through the province, not by men who procured their commissions from a governor as a reward for making themselves pimps to his tools.”

The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18.

At dawn, the British confronted about 200 militiamen at Lexington. “Disperse you Rebels—Damn you, throw down your Arms and disperse!” ordered Major Pitcairn. The Americans were quickly routed.

With a “huzzah” of victory, the Redcoats marched on to Concord, where one of Gage’s spies had told him that the largest Patriot reserve of gunpowder was stored. At Concord’s North Bridge, the town militia met with some of the British force, and after a battle of two or three minutes, drove off the British.

Notwithstanding the setback at the bridge, the Redcoats had sufficient force to search the town for arms and ammunition. But the main powder stores at Concord had been hauled to safety before the Redcoats arrived.

When the British began to withdraw back to Boston, things got much worse for them. Armed Americans were swarming in from nearby towns. They would soon outnumber the British 2:1. Although some of the Americans cohered in militia units, a great many fought on their own, taking sniper positions wherever opportunity presented itself. Only British reinforcements dispatched from Boston saved the British expedition from annihilation—and the fact that the Americans started running out of ammunition and gun powder.

One British officer reported: “These fellows were generally good marksmen, and many of them used long guns made for Duck-Shooting.” On a per-shot basis, the Americans inflicted higher casualties than had the British regulars.

That night, the American militiamen began laying siege to Boston, where General Gage’s standing army was located. At dawn, Boston had been the base from which the King’s army could project force into New England. Now, it was trapped in the city, surrounded by people in arms.

Two days later in Virginia, royal authorities confiscated 20 barrels of gunpowder from the public magazine in Williamsburg and destroyed the public firearms there by removing their firing mechanisms. In response to complaints, manifested most visibly by the mustering of a large independent militia led by Patrick Henry, Governor Dunmore delivered a legal note promising to pay restitution.

At Lexington and Concord, forcible disarmament had not worked out for the British. So back in Boston, Gage set out to disarm the Bostonians a different way.

On April 23, 1775, Gage offered the Bostonians the opportunity to leave town if they surrendered their arms. The Boston Selectmen voted to accept the offer, and within days, 2,674 guns were deposited, one gun for every two adult male Bostonians.

Gage thought that many Bostonians still had guns, and he refused to allow the Bostonians to leave. Indeed, a large proportion of the surrendered guns were “training arms”—large muskets with bayonets, that would be difficult to hide. After several months, food shortages in Boston convinced Gage to allow easier emigration from the city.

Gage’s disarmament program incited other Americans to take up arms. Benjamin Franklin, returning to Philadelphia after an unsuccessful diplomatic trip to London, “was highly pleased to find the Americans arming and preparing for the worst events.”

The government in London dispatched more troops and three more generals to America: William Howe, Henry Clinton, and John Burgoyne. The generals arrived on May 25, 1775, with orders from Lord Dartmouth to seize all arms in public armories, or which had been “secretly collected together for the purpose of aiding Rebellions.”

The war underway, the Americans captured Fort Ticonderoga in upstate New York. At the June 17 Battle of Bunker Hill, the militia held its ground against the British regulars and inflicted heavy casualties, until they ran out of gunpowder and were finally driven back. (Had Gage not confiscated the gunpowder from the Charleston Powder House the previous September, the Battle of Bunker Hill probably would have resulted in an outright defeat of the British.)

On June 19, Gage renewed his demand that the Bostonians surrender their arms, and he declared that anyone found in possession of arms would be deemed guilty of treason.

Meanwhile, the Continental Congress had voted to send ten companies of riflemen from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia to aid the Massachusetts militia.

On July 6, 1775, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, written by Thomas Jefferson and the great Pennsylvania lawyer John Dickinson. Among the grievances were General Gage’s efforts to disarm the people of Lexington, Concord, and Boston.

Two days later, the Continental Congress sent an open letter to the people of Great Britain warning that “men trained to arms from their Infancy, and animated by the Love of Liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.”

The Swiss immigrant John Zubly, who was serving as a Georgia delegate to the Continental Congress, wrote a pamphlet entitled Great Britain’s Right to Tax . . . By a Swiss, which was published in London and Philadelphia. He warned that “in a strong sense of liberty, and the use of fire-arms almost from the cradle, the Americans have vastly the advantage over men of their rank almost every where else.” Indeed, children were “shouldering the resemblance of a gun before they are well able to walk.” “The Americans will fight like men, who have everything at stake,” and their motto was “DEATH OR FREEDOM.” The town of Gorham, Massachusetts (now part of the State of Maine), sent the British government a warning that even “many of our Women have been used to handle the Cartridge and load the Musquet.”

It was feared that the Massachusetts gun confiscation was the prototype for the rest of America. For example, a newspaper article published in three colonies reported that when the new British generals arrived, they would order everyone in America “to deliver up their arms by a certain stipulated day.”

The events of April 19 convinced many more Americans to arm themselves and to embody independent militia. A report from New York City observed that “the inhabitants there are arming themselves . . . forming companies, and taking every method to defend our rights. The like spirit prevails in the province of New Jersey, where a large and well disciplined militia are now fit for action.”

In Virginia, Lord Dunmore observed: “Every County is now Arming a Company of men whom they call an independent Company for the avowed purpose of protecting their Committee, and to be employed against Government if occasion require.” North Carolina’s Royal Governor Josiah Martin issued a proclamation outlawing independent militia, but it had little effect.

A Virginia gentleman wrote a letter to a Scottish friend explaining in America:

We are all in arms, exercising and training old and young to the use of the gun. No person goes abroad without his sword, or gun, or pistols. . . . Every plain is full of armed men, who all wear a hunting shirt, on the left breast of which are sewed, in very legible letters, “Liberty or Death.”

The British escalated the war. Royal Admiral Samuel Graves ordered that all seaports north of Boston be burned.

When the British navy showed up at what was then known as Falmouth, Massachusetts (today’s Portland, Maine), the town attempted to negotiate. The townspeople gave up eight muskets, which was hardly sufficient, and so Falmouth was destroyed by naval bombardment.

The next year, the 13 Colonies would adopt the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration listed the tyrannical acts of King George III, including his methods for carrying out gun control: “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our people.”

As the war went on, the British always remembered that without gun control, they could never control America. In 1777, with British victory seeming likely, Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan entitled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” To ensure that there would be no future rebellions, “[t]he Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, & the Arms of all the People should be taken away, . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . . .”

To the Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era, the theory of some late-20th Century courts that the Second Amendment is a “collective right” and not an “individual right” might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, nor their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began. The Americans used their individual arms and their collective arms to fight against the confiscation of any arms. Americans fought to provide themselves a government that would never perpetrate the abuses that had provoked the Revolution.

What are modern versions of such abuses? The reaction against the 1774 import ban for firearms and gunpowder (via a discretionary licensing law) indicates that import restrictions are unconstitutional if their purpose is to make it more difficult for Americans to possess guns. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the import of any firearm that is not deemed “sporting” by federal regulators. That import ban seems difficult to justify based on the historical record of 1774-76.

Laws disarming people who have proven themselves to be a particular threat to public safety are not implicated by the 1774-76 experience. In contrast, laws that aim to disarm the public at large are precisely what turned a political argument into the American Revolution.

The most important lesson for today from the Revolution is about militaristic or violent search and seizure in the name of disarmament. As Hurricane Katrina bore down on Louisiana, police officers in St. Charles Parish confiscated firearms from people who were attempting to flee. After the hurricane passed, officers went house to house in New Orleans, breaking into homes and confiscating firearms at gunpoint. The firearms seizures were flagrantly illegal under existing state law. A federal district judge soon issued an order against the confiscation, ordering the return of the seized guns.

When there is genuine evidence of potential danger—such as evidence that guns are in the possession of a violent gang—then the Fourth Amendment properly allows no-knock raids, flash-bang grenades, and similar violent tactics to carry out a search. Conversely, if there is no real evidence of danger—for example, if it is believed that a person who has no record of violence owns guns but has not registered them properly—then militaristically violent enforcement of a search warrant should never be allowed. Gun ownership simpliciter ought never to be a pretext for government violence. The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree.

by David Kopel

 

[5 digit know nothing]

In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time of at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.

 

[timschochet]

Hey, Tim...FERDINAND E. MARCOS, FORMER PRESIDENT/DICTATOR OF THE PHILIPPINES

President Marcos declared Martial Law by virtue of Proclamation No.1081 on Sept.21, 1972 and on the following day issued General Order No. 6 declaring that no person shall keep, possess or carry any firearms with penalties ranging up to death. The Philippines was under his dictatorship for the next 14 years.

ADOLF HITLER

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

gunfacts.info

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.In 1970, Uganda embraced gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed.In all, over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century.*523523 (Most of the genocide statistics were reported in "Death by 'Gun Control': The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament," Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens, 2001.

Sigh. Well, you brought it up. So let's go over these one by one:1. Ferdinand Marcos became President in 1965. He declared martial law in 1972, with the vast support of the Filipino people. When they tired of him in 1986, he was overthrown. Somehow the Filipinos managed to do that without any privately owned guns. 2. Despite Hitler's statement which is often quoted by NRA advocates, the Nazis did not spend time seizing guns out of private citizens in most of the countries they conquered. To the contrary, they actually armed Hungarians, Czechoslovakians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, and Ukrainians, in order to help them maintain order and to aid them fighting the Russians. It did not trouble the Nazis that they were arming these people, because with their tanks and planes they had little to fear from privately owned rifles. 3. The Armenians were not armed prior to "gun control" in Turkey. The Armenians were traditionally protected by Tsarist Russia, which like them were Orthodox Christian. When Russia's armies fell apart and that country went into chaos at the outbreak of the 1st World War, Turkey took the opportunity to slaughter the Armenians. Private gun ownership made no difference to this one way or the other; it was the threat of the Russian army that had prevented this from happening for several centuries.4. Russian citizens continued to possess firearms after 1929 by the millions. There was no general seizure of weapons outside of the Ukraine and the Kulaks (private farmers). In those cases, the Red Army disarmed them, not before but AFTER rebellions to collectivization which were doomed even with private arms. The Soviet Purges of 1936-1939 ocurred within a population that was well-armed; it made no difference whatsoever.5. Actually, the Weimar Government of Germany established stringent gun control in the early 1920s, well beyond anything that the Nazis did. This did not prevent the rise of the Storm Troopers. The Nazis actually increased private gun ownership, specifically to the "People's Army." in the later stages of the war. The 13 million victims whom you speak of were mostly not citizens of Germany and German gun laws had no effect on them. 6. The Chinese govenment of 1935, governed (nominally) by Chiang Kai-Shek, had no bearing to the Chinese communist government established by Mao Tse Tung in 1948. Even so, I'm really rather skeptical that Chiang would have ever imposed gun control at a time when he was resisting invasion from the Japanese and having a civil war against the Communists at the same time. 7. You state that Cambodia established gun control in 1956? That's interesting, since during the Vietnam War Cambodia was the main source for the Viet Cong to get arms from villages via North Vietnam and China. In any case, the massacres that occured in Cambodia were largely the result of Americans leaving the region and allowing Pol Pot to run crazy over there. No evidence that private gun ownership played any role.Hopefully this answers all of your points.

 

[Blue-Kun]

oh ffs, stop with the stupidity about Germany & Gun Control, it would take you five seconds on Google.

Restrictions imposed by the treaty of Versailles

In 1919 and 1920, to stabilize the country and in part to comply with the Treaty of Versailles, the German Weimar government passed very strict gun ownership restrictions. Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles stated, "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."[1]

In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."[2] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

On August 7, 1920, the German government enacted a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.

In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.

Stephen Halbrook writes about the German gun restriction laws in the 1919-1928 period, "Within a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law.

Then the 1938 German Weapons Act actually relaxed the laws on gun ownership. Later in 1938 they passed the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. also may as well leave this here for good reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

feel free to go back to the guns circlejerk now.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Hey, Tim...

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, FORMER PRESIDENT/DICTATOR OF THE PHILIPPINES

President Marcos declared Martial Law by virtue of Proclamation No.1081 on Sept.21, 1972 and on the following day issued General Order No. 6 declaring that no person shall keep, possess or carry any firearms with penalties ranging up to death. The Philippines was under his dictatorship for the next 14 years.

ADOLF HITLER

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”

gunfacts.info

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.

In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.

In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.

In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.

In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.

In 1970, Uganda embraced gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed.

In all, over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century.*523

523 (Most of the genocide statistics were reported in “Death by ‘Gun Control’: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament,” Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens, 2001.

It seems to me that you are indulging in the age-old correlation = causation fallacy.Dictators like to restrict gun ownership. That does not, however, mean that this is the key to imposing a dictatorship, nor does it mean that a lack of gun control is the key to avoiding dictatorship.

Using your logic, I could say that a common trait of dictatorships is food shortages. Therefore, it is imperative that we expand the welfare state and enormous farm subsidies in order to ensure that no American goes hungry. No hunger = no dictators!

Is that fair? Or am I maybe confusing correlation with causation? Wouldn't you want me to show some sort of actual causal connection between food supply and preventing dictatorships before taking action?

So, it is fallacy to believe an oppressive government or a dictator would want to control their subjects? One of the 1st steps in the book Dictatorship for Dummies is to control your subjects essential needs, ie food, shelter, defense, medicine... The more dependent people are on their leaders, the more pliable they become. Taking away their right to defense not only makes them dependent on you for defense, but you can now rule without confrontation. You have all the power, they have none. With all the power, you can take wealth. They now become dependent on you to provide food and shelter. Eh, screw 'em. = food shortage. It is all steps to the same place.The problem we gun rights advocates have with further restrictions is that they have already imposed their will on us with no significant results. Now they want more. Our government has already gotten too fat off our labors. It has it's hands into too many things as it is, and doesn't (IMO) do a good enough job. Our rule of law should be more in the hands of our states where it is much easier to move to and from. If I don't like it in California (and I don't), I can move to Arizona (and I will). The federal government was never supposed to get this big, nor this powerful. Government is not going to recede on its own account. It wants to keep growing and becoming more powerful despite what we want. It no longer cares what we want, it cares about getting reelected by making people scared, and then making them smile because they made new laws about it, but not about fixing anything.

 

[timschochet]

Hey, Tim...

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, FORMER PRESIDENT/DICTATOR OF THE PHILIPPINES

President Marcos declared Martial Law by virtue of Proclamation No.1081 on Sept.21, 1972 and on the following day issued General Order No. 6 declaring that no person shall keep, possess or carry any firearms with penalties ranging up to death. The Philippines was under his dictatorship for the next 14 years.

ADOLF HITLER

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

gunfacts.info

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.

In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.

In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.

In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.

In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.

In 1970, Uganda embraced gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed.

In all, over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century.*523

523 (Most of the genocide statistics were reported in "Death by 'Gun Control': The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament," Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens, 2001.

It seems to me that you are indulging in the age-old correlation = causation fallacy.Dictators like to restrict gun ownership. That does not, however, mean that this is the key to imposing a dictatorship, nor does it mean that a lack of gun control is the key to avoiding dictatorship.

Using your logic, I could say that a common trait of dictatorships is food shortages. Therefore, it is imperative that we expand the welfare state and enormous farm subsidies in order to ensure that no American goes hungry. No hunger = no dictators!

Is that fair? Or am I maybe confusing correlation with causation? Wouldn't you want me to show some sort of actual causal connection between food supply and preventing dictatorships before taking action?

So, it is fallacy to believe an oppressive government or a dictator would want to control their subjects? One of the 1st steps in the book Dictatorship for Dummies is to control your subjects essential needs, ie food, shelter, defense, medicine... The more dependent people are on their leaders, the more pliable they become. Taking away their right to defense not only makes them dependent on you for defense, but you can now rule without confrontation. You have all the power, they have none. With all the power, you can take wealth. They now become dependent on you to provide food and shelter. Eh, screw 'em. = food shortage. It is all steps to the same place.The problem we gun rights advocates have with further restrictions is that they have already imposed their will on us with no significant results. Now they want more. Our government has already gotten too fat off our labors. It has it's hands into too many things as it is, and doesn't (IMO) do a good enough job. Our rule of law should be more in the hands of our states where it is much easier to move to and from. If I don't like it in California (and I don't), I can move to Arizona (and I will). The federal government was never supposed to get this big, nor this powerful. Government is not going to recede on its own account. It wants to keep growing and becoming more powerful despite what we want. It no longer cares what we want, it cares about getting reelected by making people scared, and then making them smile because they made new laws about it, but not about fixing anything.

Cookiemonster, you are one of the most intelligent people who have posted in this thread and I really enjoy discussing this issue with you, even though we fundamentally disagree on so much of it. If you want to convince me and others on my side of the rightness of your position- stick to what I just bolded. It is by far your strongest arguments. You and others convinced me that a ban on assault weapons does not make any sense and you did so with simple logic and reason. And your arguments about the impracticality and uselessness of the other gun control ideas, even though I take issue with you, are relatively strong points as well and I would be a liar if I didn't admit they cause me to question my own position on these issues.But where you and so many others on your side lose all credibility is when you start arguing about slippery slopes, about a tyrannical government, about seizure of guns, about dictatorships, etc. That's when normal people shake their heads and think: these guys are ####### crazy. These sorts of arguments are not helping your position whatsoever. They make you look wacko.

 

[jamny]

I love the idea in this thread about having a database held by the manufacturers. A question I have about it is comparing it to maybe something like the phone companies. Is it still a tough thing for the government to subpoena phone records or is it just easy access for them?

 

[Jackstraw]

Can I reiterate that NO ONE is talking about taking all the guns. NO......ONE. Well except people who seem to be having a collective freak out.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Hey, Tim...

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, FORMER PRESIDENT/DICTATOR OF THE PHILIPPINES

President Marcos declared Martial Law by virtue of Proclamation No.1081 on Sept.21, 1972 and on the following day issued General Order No. 6 declaring that no person shall keep, possess or carry any firearms with penalties ranging up to death. The Philippines was under his dictatorship for the next 14 years.

ADOLF HITLER

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

gunfacts.info

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.

In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.

In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.

In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.

In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.

In 1970, Uganda embraced gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed.

In all, over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century.*523

523 (Most of the genocide statistics were reported in "Death by 'Gun Control': The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament," Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens, 2001.

It seems to me that you are indulging in the age-old correlation = causation fallacy.Dictators like to restrict gun ownership. That does not, however, mean that this is the key to imposing a dictatorship, nor does it mean that a lack of gun control is the key to avoiding dictatorship.

Using your logic, I could say that a common trait of dictatorships is food shortages. Therefore, it is imperative that we expand the welfare state and enormous farm subsidies in order to ensure that no American goes hungry. No hunger = no dictators!

Is that fair? Or am I maybe confusing correlation with causation? Wouldn't you want me to show some sort of actual causal connection between food supply and preventing dictatorships before taking action?

So, it is fallacy to believe an oppressive government or a dictator would want to control their subjects? One of the 1st steps in the book Dictatorship for Dummies is to control your subjects essential needs, ie food, shelter, defense, medicine... The more dependent people are on their leaders, the more pliable they become. Taking away their right to defense not only makes them dependent on you for defense, but you can now rule without confrontation. You have all the power, they have none. With all the power, you can take wealth. They now become dependent on you to provide food and shelter. Eh, screw 'em. = food shortage. It is all steps to the same place.The problem we gun rights advocates have with further restrictions is that they have already imposed their will on us with no significant results. Now they want more. Our government has already gotten too fat off our labors. It has it's hands into too many things as it is, and doesn't (IMO) do a good enough job. Our rule of law should be more in the hands of our states where it is much easier to move to and from. If I don't like it in California (and I don't), I can move to Arizona (and I will). The federal government was never supposed to get this big, nor this powerful. Government is not going to recede on its own account. It wants to keep growing and becoming more powerful despite what we want. It no longer cares what we want, it cares about getting reelected by making people scared, and then making them smile because they made new laws about it, but not about fixing anything.

Cookiemonster, you are one of the most intelligent people who have posted in this thread and I really enjoy discussing this issue with you, even though we fundamentally disagree on so much of it. If you want to convince me and others on my side of the rightness of your position- stick to what I just bolded. It is by far your strongest arguments. You and others convinced me that a ban on assault weapons does not make any sense and you did so with simple logic and reason. And your arguments about the impracticality and uselessness of the other gun control ideas, even though I take issue with you, are relatively strong points as well and I would be a liar if I didn't admit they cause me to question my own position on these issues.But where you and so many others on your side lose all credibility is when you start arguing about slippery slopes, about a tyrannical government, about seizure of guns, about dictatorships, etc. That's when normal people shake their heads and think: these guys are ####### crazy. These sorts of arguments are not helping your position whatsoever. They make you look wacko.

THE COALITION TO STOP GUN VIOLENCE“It is our aim to ban the manufacture and sale of handguns to private individuals.”451

“We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons.”

SARAH BRADY, CHAIRPERSON FOR HANDGUN CONTROL, INC. (NOW THE BRADY CAMPAIGN)

“I don't believe gun owners have rights.”457

ELLIOT CORBETT, SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR A RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS POLICY

“Handguns should be outlawed.”

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU)

“We urge passage of federal legislation ... to prohibit ... the private ownership and possession of handguns.”464

MICHAEL GARDNER, PRESIDENT OF NBC NEWS

“There is no reason for anyone in this country ... to buy, to own, to have, to use a

handgun. ...The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.” 470

“In fact, only police, soldiers -- and, maybe, licensed target ranges -- should have handguns. No one else needs one.” 471

GEORGE NAPPER, ATLANTA PUBLIC-SAFETY COMMISSIONER

“If I had my druthers, the only people who would have guns would be those who enforce the law.”476

JANET RENO, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

“The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.” 477

Judge Garwood: [to federal lawyer] "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja: [federal lawyer] "Yes" Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National

Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?" Meteja: Exactly.

Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.

Garwood: Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed? Meteja: The weapon in question must be used in the National Guard.

VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER

“[Gun] licensing systems are very expensive to administer ... licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence.”

“[We are] the largest national gun control advocacy group seeking a ban on handgun production.”467

PATRICK V. MURPHY, FORMER NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER

“We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people.”463

NELSON T. “PETE” SHIELDS, CHAIRMAN EMERITUS, HANDGUN CONTROL, INC.453

“The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal.”454

“Yes, I'm for an outright ban [on handguns].”455

“We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.”456

HOWARD METZENBAUM, FORMER U.S. SENATOR

“No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.”

JOSEPH BIDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE

“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”

JOHN CHAFEE, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND

“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!”444

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS

“I believe.....this is my final word......I believe that I'm supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun....”445

How can you seriously hear things like this and not believe that a good deal of politicians have a "slippery slope" agenda?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Can I reiterate that NO ONE is talking about taking all the guns. NO......ONE. Well except people who seem to be having a collective freak out.

Ooops.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I love the idea in this thread about having a database held by the manufacturers. A question I have about it is comparing it to maybe something like the phone companies. Is it still a tough thing for the government to subpoena phone records or is it just easy access for them?

The purpose of that was in the manufacturers' best interest of maintaining that privacy for fear of a devastating loss of their consumer base for violating it. It would, of course, have to have strong restrictions on government usage. Like I mentioned, subpoena by law enforcement who have said gun in hand, and reference to a case number to validate the investigation, and only on a case by case basis. No blanket inquiries by ANY organization. Not public record, and not published (like a phone book).

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Broken record...they need an inventory (gun registration/national database) of all firearms in the U.S. before they can systematically ban ALL firearms. Just because this will not happen tomorrow, there are people in politics as CM has done a great job of pointing out that would like nothing better but to ban ALL firearms. We must all be psychotic and paranoid to believe this.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Tim, regardless of whether you think it will happen or not, do you think that a national database of all gun owners and guns would make it feasible for "any" government to come in and take away all guns?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Can I reiterate that NO ONE is talking about taking all the guns. NO......ONE. Well except people who seem to be having a collective freak out.

You are an idiot, if you believe that.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I don't see a national database as being necessary to ban all guns. A lot, if not all would voluntarily turn them in to avoid prosecution, especially if there were a few high profile cases. And there's enough uber liberals like jackstraw that would be dropping dimes on neighbors left and right so he could see them hauled away by police.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, regardless of whether you think it will happen or not, do you think that a national database of all gun owners and guns would make it feasible for "any" government to come in and take away all guns?

No.

 

[timschochet]

Hey, Tim...

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, FORMER PRESIDENT/DICTATOR OF THE PHILIPPINES

President Marcos declared Martial Law by virtue of Proclamation No.1081 on Sept.21, 1972 and on the following day issued General Order No. 6 declaring that no person shall keep, possess or carry any firearms with penalties ranging up to death. The Philippines was under his dictatorship for the next 14 years.

ADOLF HITLER

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

gunfacts.info

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.

In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.

In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.

In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.

In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.

In 1970, Uganda embraced gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed.

In all, over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century.*523

523 (Most of the genocide statistics were reported in "Death by 'Gun Control': The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament," Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens, 2001.

It seems to me that you are indulging in the age-old correlation = causation fallacy.Dictators like to restrict gun ownership. That does not, however, mean that this is the key to imposing a dictatorship, nor does it mean that a lack of gun control is the key to avoiding dictatorship.

Using your logic, I could say that a common trait of dictatorships is food shortages. Therefore, it is imperative that we expand the welfare state and enormous farm subsidies in order to ensure that no American goes hungry. No hunger = no dictators!

Is that fair? Or am I maybe confusing correlation with causation? Wouldn't you want me to show some sort of actual causal connection between food supply and preventing dictatorships before taking action?

So, it is fallacy to believe an oppressive government or a dictator would want to control their subjects? One of the 1st steps in the book Dictatorship for Dummies is to control your subjects essential needs, ie food, shelter, defense, medicine... The more dependent people are on their leaders, the more pliable they become. Taking away their right to defense not only makes them dependent on you for defense, but you can now rule without confrontation. You have all the power, they have none. With all the power, you can take wealth. They now become dependent on you to provide food and shelter. Eh, screw 'em. = food shortage. It is all steps to the same place.The problem we gun rights advocates have with further restrictions is that they have already imposed their will on us with no significant results. Now they want more. Our government has already gotten too fat off our labors. It has it's hands into too many things as it is, and doesn't (IMO) do a good enough job. Our rule of law should be more in the hands of our states where it is much easier to move to and from. If I don't like it in California (and I don't), I can move to Arizona (and I will). The federal government was never supposed to get this big, nor this powerful. Government is not going to recede on its own account. It wants to keep growing and becoming more powerful despite what we want. It no longer cares what we want, it cares about getting reelected by making people scared, and then making them smile because they made new laws about it, but not about fixing anything.

Cookiemonster, you are one of the most intelligent people who have posted in this thread and I really enjoy discussing this issue with you, even though we fundamentally disagree on so much of it. If you want to convince me and others on my side of the rightness of your position- stick to what I just bolded. It is by far your strongest arguments. You and others convinced me that a ban on assault weapons does not make any sense and you did so with simple logic and reason. And your arguments about the impracticality and uselessness of the other gun control ideas, even though I take issue with you, are relatively strong points as well and I would be a liar if I didn't admit they cause me to question my own position on these issues.But where you and so many others on your side lose all credibility is when you start arguing about slippery slopes, about a tyrannical government, about seizure of guns, about dictatorships, etc. That's when normal people shake their heads and think: these guys are ####### crazy. These sorts of arguments are not helping your position whatsoever. They make you look wacko.

THE COALITION TO STOP GUN VIOLENCE"It is our aim to ban the manufacture and sale of handguns to private individuals."451

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

SARAH BRADY, CHAIRPERSON FOR HANDGUN CONTROL, INC. (NOW THE BRADY CAMPAIGN)

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."457

ELLIOT CORBETT, SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR A RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS POLICY

"Handguns should be outlawed."

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU)

"We urge passage of federal legislation ... to prohibit ... the private ownership and possession of handguns."464

MICHAEL GARDNER, PRESIDENT OF NBC NEWS

"There is no reason for anyone in this country ... to buy, to own, to have, to use a

handgun. ...The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns." 470

"In fact, only police, soldiers -- and, maybe, licensed target ranges -- should have handguns. No one else needs one." 471

GEORGE NAPPER, ATLANTA PUBLIC-SAFETY COMMISSIONER

"If I had my druthers, the only people who would have guns would be those who enforce the law."476

JANET RENO, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

"The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace." 477

Judge Garwood: [to federal lawyer] "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja: [federal lawyer] "Yes" Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National

Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?" Meteja: Exactly.

Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.

Garwood: Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed? Meteja: The weapon in question must be used in the National Guard.

VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER

"[Gun] licensing systems are very expensive to administer ... licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence."

"[We are] the largest national gun control advocacy group seeking a ban on handgun production."467

PATRICK V. MURPHY, FORMER NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER

"We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people."463

NELSON T. "PETE" SHIELDS, CHAIRMAN EMERITUS, HANDGUN CONTROL, INC.453

"The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."454

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban [on handguns]."455

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."456

HOWARD METZENBAUM, FORMER U.S. SENATOR

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns."

JOSEPH BIDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

JOHN CHAFEE, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"444

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS

"I believe.....this is my final word......I believe that I'm supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun...."445

How can you seriously hear things like this and not believe that a good deal of politicians have a "slippery slope" agenda?

There's no slippery slope. I'm in favor of universal background checks. I am not in favor of banning handguns. I have no fear that one will lead to the other. I regret very much that you fear it. I honestly believe it weakens your ability to be able to discuss these issues rationally. And that's too bad for both of us.

 

[jamny]

I love the idea in this thread about having a database held by the manufacturers. A question I have about it is comparing it to maybe something like the phone companies. Is it still a tough thing for the government to subpoena phone records or is it just easy access for them?

The purpose of that was in the manufacturers' best interest of maintaining that privacy for fear of a devastating loss of their consumer base for violating it. It would, of course, have to have strong restrictions on government usage. Like I mentioned, subpoena by law enforcement who have said gun in hand, and reference to a case number to validate the investigation, and only on a case by case basis. No blanket inquiries by ANY organization. Not public record, and not published (like a phone book).

I understand that and I like the idea but I am just trying to make a comparison to the phone companies to see what the government reach is there. We could say that there would be restrictions on the government on the records but how limited would it be? Is it tough to get phone records for the government? What's to say they wouldn't pass this for the manufacturers and it really wouldn't matter since the gov does what it wants anyway and these records would be readily available.

 

[Cookiemonster]

There's no slippery slope. I'm in favor of universal background checks. I am not in favor of banning handguns. I have no fear that one will lead to the other. I regret very much that you fear it. I honestly believe it weakens your ability to be able to discuss these issues rationally. And that's too bad for both of us.

There is potential for a slippery slope and that is the agenda of some in power. I am in favor of universal background checks. I am not in favor of banning any guns. I have no fear of a government that answers to its people. I regret very much that you fear us. I honestly believe it weakens your ability to be able to discuss these issues rationally. And that's too bad for both of us.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I love the idea in this thread about having a database held by the manufacturers. A question I have about it is comparing it to maybe something like the phone companies. Is it still a tough thing for the government to subpoena phone records or is it just easy access for them?

The purpose of that was in the manufacturers' best interest of maintaining that privacy for fear of a devastating loss of their consumer base for violating it. It would, of course, have to have strong restrictions on government usage. Like I mentioned, subpoena by law enforcement who have said gun in hand, and reference to a case number to validate the investigation, and only on a case by case basis. No blanket inquiries by ANY organization. Not public record, and not published (like a phone book).

I understand that and I like the idea but I am just trying to make a comparison to the phone companies to see what the government reach is there. We could say that there would be restrictions on the government on the records but how limited would it be? Is it tough to get phone records for the government? What's to say they wouldn't pass this for the manufacturers and it really wouldn't matter since the gov does what it wants anyway and these records would be readily available.

Ah. So I could see where backdoor deals by the government and under the table payoffs could be a problem. We need to close the private sale to government loophole too then, eh? It sucks when they have to play by the same rules as us.

 

[Glass Joe]

I don't see a national database as being necessary to ban all guns. A lot, if not all would voluntarily turn them in to avoid prosecution, especially if there were a few high profile cases. And there's enough uber liberals like jackstraw that would be dropping dimes on neighbors left and right so he could see them hauled away by police.

Oh #### yeah, I'd do that. GREAT idea. Thanks!

 

[tom22406]

Anybody see the Piers Morgan interview with Ben Shapiro last night?Entertaining if nothing else.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

Morgan gets This pretty much sums it up.The right: interprets the 2nd Amendment as the right to bear arms for the purpose of the citizens being able to defend themselves against a potential tyrannical government.The left: calls the the right idiots and

Best part is at 11:25 Morgan: You come in and you brandish your little book...Shapiro: That's not a little book thats the constituion.Morgan: I know what it is!Shapiro: Do you?Piers is such a turd.

I honestly think Piers thought he was bringing another radical screamer to push around and boy did that backfire(pun intended)in his face.Shapiro brought the goods and stood right up to his tactics.He never did answer the kids in Chicago question either but I didn't expect him to.

 

[jamny]

I love the idea in this thread about having a database held by the manufacturers. A question I have about it is comparing it to maybe something like the phone companies. Is it still a tough thing for the government to subpoena phone records or is it just easy access for them?

The purpose of that was in the manufacturers' best interest of maintaining that privacy for fear of a devastating loss of their consumer base for violating it. It would, of course, have to have strong restrictions on government usage. Like I mentioned, subpoena by law enforcement who have said gun in hand, and reference to a case number to validate the investigation, and only on a case by case basis. No blanket inquiries by ANY organization. Not public record, and not published (like a phone book).

I understand that and I like the idea but I am just trying to make a comparison to the phone companies to see what the government reach is there. We could say that there would be restrictions on the government on the records but how limited would it be? Is it tough to get phone records for the government? What's to say they wouldn't pass this for the manufacturers and it really wouldn't matter since the gov does what it wants anyway and these records would be readily available.

Ah. So I could see where backdoor deals by the government and under the table payoffs could be a problem. We need to close the private sale to government loophole too then, eh? It sucks when they have to play by the same rules as us.

Yeah, I wanted to like the idea and thought it might be a good answer but think it'll just become a gov database in the long run anyway. I'm still not seeing a compelling argument in favor of a database and what good it would do.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Anybody see the Piers Morgan interview with Ben Shapiro last night?Entertaining if nothing else.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

Morgan gets This pretty much sums it up.The right: interprets the 2nd Amendment as the right to bear arms for the purpose of the citizens being able to defend themselves against a potential tyrannical government.The left: calls the the right idiots and

Best part is at 11:25 Morgan: You come in and you brandish your little book...Shapiro: That's not a little book thats the constituion.Morgan: I know what it is!Shapiro: Do you?Piers is such a turd.

I honestly think Piers thought he was bringing another radical screamer to push around and boy did that backfire(pun intended)in his face.Shapiro brought the goods and stood right up to his tactics.He never did answer the kids in Chicago question either but I didn't expect him to.

It's only a tragedy if white people are killed.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Tim, regardless of whether you think it will happen or not, do you think that a national database of all gun owners and guns would make it feasible for "any" government to come in and take away all guns?

No.

Seriously? and you call us wackos, I guess there is nothing that will convince you what the intentions of the 2nd amendment were. I will say this, I am not a wacko, I do not own an "assault rifle" but will protect my family and make sure my family can protect themselves. How can you not see the value of protecting yourself and your family, this just astounds me. I don't want to kill anyone, I don't want to shoot anyone but if the need arises I feel much more confident that should something happen, I at least have the opportunity to protect myself, my property and my family. If someone breaks into my house while my wife is home alone I fully expect her to either use the shotgun or the 19 round 9mm and empty all rounds into the intruder.You survived a car jacking, you were lucky. You or your wife and family may not be so lucky next time. I find it amazing that you are okay with that. That is one hell of a burden to have to live with for the rest of your life.You need to find a friend and go out to shoot once or twice. You are afraid of what you know nothing about. You are your and your families own worst enemies. As difficult as you find it to believe in what I believe, I find it as difficult and far more dangerous to leave myself and my family defenseless as you would leave yours.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I will say this, I am not a wacko, I do not own an "assault rifle" but will protect my family and make sure my family can protect themselves. How can you not see the value of protecting yourself and your family, this just astounds me. I don't want to kill anyone, I don't want to shoot anyone but if the need arises I feel much more confident that should something happen, I at least have the opportunity to protect myself, my property and my family. If someone breaks into my house while my wife is home alone I fully expect her to either use the shotgun or the 19 round 9mm and empty all rounds into the intruder.

[QUOTE='Luke 22:36]Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Cookiemonster]

I love the idea in this thread about having a database held by the manufacturers. A question I have about it is comparing it to maybe something like the phone companies. Is it still a tough thing for the government to subpoena phone records or is it just easy access for them?

The purpose of that was in the manufacturers' best interest of maintaining that privacy for fear of a devastating loss of their consumer base for violating it. It would, of course, have to have strong restrictions on government usage. Like I mentioned, subpoena by law enforcement who have said gun in hand, and reference to a case number to validate the investigation, and only on a case by case basis. No blanket inquiries by ANY organization. Not public record, and not published (like a phone book).

I understand that and I like the idea but I am just trying to make a comparison to the phone companies to see what the government reach is there. We could say that there would be restrictions on the government on the records but how limited would it be? Is it tough to get phone records for the government? What's to say they wouldn't pass this for the manufacturers and it really wouldn't matter since the gov does what it wants anyway and these records would be readily available.

Ah. So I could see where backdoor deals by the government and under the table payoffs could be a problem. We need to close the private sale to government loophole too then, eh? It sucks when they have to play by the same rules as us.

Yeah, I wanted to like the idea and thought it might be a good answer but think it'll just become a gov database in the long run anyway. I'm still not seeing a compelling argument in favor of a database and what good it would do.

It really is the only way to enforce a background check to prevent sales to unlawful owners. There is no recourse against the seller who would sell to a felon unless you could trace the gun back to them. I want to be able to prevent sale to violent criminals and mentally unstable, but there is no provision to do so.

 

[jamny]

I love the idea in this thread about having a database held by the manufacturers. A question I have about it is comparing it to maybe something like the phone companies. Is it still a tough thing for the government to subpoena phone records or is it just easy access for them?

The purpose of that was in the manufacturers' best interest of maintaining that privacy for fear of a devastating loss of their consumer base for violating it. It would, of course, have to have strong restrictions on government usage. Like I mentioned, subpoena by law enforcement who have said gun in hand, and reference to a case number to validate the investigation, and only on a case by case basis. No blanket inquiries by ANY organization. Not public record, and not published (like a phone book).

I understand that and I like the idea but I am just trying to make a comparison to the phone companies to see what the government reach is there. We could say that there would be restrictions on the government on the records but how limited would it be? Is it tough to get phone records for the government? What's to say they wouldn't pass this for the manufacturers and it really wouldn't matter since the gov does what it wants anyway and these records would be readily available.

Ah. So I could see where backdoor deals by the government and under the table payoffs could be a problem. We need to close the private sale to government loophole too then, eh? It sucks when they have to play by the same rules as us.

Yeah, I wanted to like the idea and thought it might be a good answer but think it'll just become a gov database in the long run anyway. I'm still not seeing a compelling argument in favor of a database and what good it would do.

It really is the only way to enforce a background check to prevent sales to unlawful owners. There is no recourse against the seller who would sell to a felon unless you could trace the gun back to them. I want to be able to prevent sale to violent criminals and mentally unstable, but there is no provision to do so.

yeah but wouldn't just closing the loophole do that for honest gun owners/sellers. Knowing that somehow the gun could be tracked back to you and you didn't do a background check? Of course people wouldn't do it, probably the same people that wouldn't submit to a database anyway.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, regardless of whether you think it will happen or not, do you think that a national database of all gun owners and guns would make it feasible for "any" government to come in and take away all guns?

No.

Seriously? and you call us wackos, I guess there is nothing that will convince you what the intentions of the 2nd amendment were. I will say this, I am not a wacko, I do not own an "assault rifle" but will protect my family and make sure my family can protect themselves. How can you not see the value of protecting yourself and your family, this just astounds me. I don't want to kill anyone, I don't want to shoot anyone but if the need arises I feel much more confident that should something happen, I at least have the opportunity to protect myself, my property and my family. If someone breaks into my house while my wife is home alone I fully expect her to either use the shotgun or the 19 round 9mm and empty all rounds into the intruder.You survived a car jacking, you were lucky. You or your wife and family may not be so lucky next time. I find it amazing that you are okay with that. That is one hell of a burden to have to live with for the rest of your life.You need to find a friend and go out to shoot once or twice. You are afraid of what you know nothing about. You are your and your families own worst enemies. As difficult as you find it to believe in what I believe, I find it as difficult and far more dangerous to leave myself and my family defenseless as you would leave yours.

Once again, you're arguing against something which, in my case, doesn't exist. Just because I don't own any guns personally doesn't mean Iwant to keep you from owning any. I think it's fine that you want to protect your family. (I also think that the fact that you are armed every time you answer the doorbell is a little weird, but that's beside the point.) Own all the guns you want! All I ask is that if you buy or sell them through private sales, there should be a background check. That will help with illegal sales. And I also don't think you or anyone else should be allowed to own a high capacity magazine, so that crazy people might be stopped before they kill too many innocents. And that's it. I have no problem with anything else you wrote.BTW, I have been to a shooting range and I enjoyed myself. Though I wouldn't personally own a gun (they scare me because I'm much too clumsy) I like them, and I enjoy the gun culture. Stephen Hunter is one of my favorite suspense writers, and he makes the gun culture extremely interesting, especially in the book, Pale Horse Coming, featuring Earl Swagger and several legendary gun heroes. I've been to a gun show and I enjoyed myself there, except for a few weirdos walking around in SS uniforms freaked me out a bit...

 

[tom22406]

Tim, regardless of whether you think it will happen or not, do you think that a national database of all gun owners and guns would make it feasible for "any" government to come in and take away all guns?

No.

Seriously? and you call us wackos, I guess there is nothing that will convince you what the intentions of the 2nd amendment were. I will say this, I am not a wacko, I do not own an "assault rifle" but will protect my family and make sure my family can protect themselves. How can you not see the value of protecting yourself and your family, this just astounds me. I don't want to kill anyone, I don't want to shoot anyone but if the need arises I feel much more confident that should something happen, I at least have the opportunity to protect myself, my property and my family. If someone breaks into my house while my wife is home alone I fully expect her to either use the shotgun or the 19 round 9mm and empty all rounds into the intruder.You survived a car jacking, you were lucky. You or your wife and family may not be so lucky next time. I find it amazing that you are okay with that. That is one hell of a burden to have to live with for the rest of your life.You need to find a friend and go out to shoot once or twice. You are afraid of what you know nothing about. You are your and your families own worst enemies. As difficult as you find it to believe in what I believe, I find it as difficult and far more dangerous to leave myself and my family defenseless as you would leave yours.

Once again, you're arguing against something which, in my case, doesn't exist. Just because I don't own any guns personally doesn't mean Iwant to keep you from owning any. I think it's fine that you want to protect your family. (I also think that the fact that you are armed every time you answer the doorbell is a little weird, but that's beside the point.) Own all the guns you want! All I ask is that if you buy or sell them through private sales, there should be a background check. That will help with illegal sales. And I also don't think you or anyone else should be allowed to own a high capacity magazine, so that crazy people might be stopped before they kill too many innocents. And that's it. I have no problem with anything else you wrote.BTW, I have been to a shooting range and I enjoyed myself. Though I wouldn't personally own a gun (they scare me because I'm much too clumsy) I like them, and I enjoy the gun culture. Stephen Hunter is one of my favorite suspense writers, and he makes the gun culture extremely interesting, especially in the book, Pale Horse Coming, featuring Earl Swagger and several legendary gun heroes. I've been to a gun show and I enjoyed myself there, except for a few weirdos walking around in SS uniforms freaked me out a bit...

Tim you have stated time and time again as long as you get those two things included in the bill you will be fine with some guns being banned.The problem I see(if Feinstein gets her way)is it will be a long list of guns she will be wanting illegal.This is directly from her site

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of: 120 specifically-named firearms; Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Would you still stand behind a bill like this if it included your two proposals?

 

[Cookiemonster]

And her buddy Boxer:

Dear Mr. Cooke:Thank you for contacting me to express your support for common-sense gun laws. I appreciate hearing from you, and I share your desire for sensible federal gun safety legislation.The massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School tragically stole the lives of 26 people, including 20 small children, and broke all of our hearts. We have failed our children, and we must take common-sense steps now to protect them. Since 1999 - the year of the massacre at Columbine High School - 258 students, teachers, and others have been killed in school shootings. Another 212 have been wounded due to gun violence at our schools.The slaughter of innocents must stop. We cannot prevent every attack by those who wish us harm, but we can and must take some common-sense steps. First, we must take weapons of war and high-capacity clips off our streets; second, we must ensure that local law enforcement is involved in reviewing conceal and carry permits; third, we must close the gun show loophole so background checks are conducted; fourth, we must keep all guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and get them the help they need; and fifth, we must keep our schools safe by utilizing all of the law enforcement tools at our disposal.In the days ahead, I will work for a comprehensive strategy, which includes sensible gun laws, a focus on mental health, and school safety. When there are an estimated 300 million firearms in the United States, nearly one gun per person, now is the right time. When more than 31,000 people die each year from gun violence in our nation - 87 people every day - now is the right time.Again, thank you for writing to me. Please feel free to contact me again about this or other issues of concern to you.Sincerely,Barbara BoxerUnited States Senator

I wrote my senators (her and Feinstein) about my opinions on "assault weapons" bans being asinine and poorly defined and magazine capacity restrictions being arbitrary and neither one preventing any crime and I get this crap back from her. "Weapons of war." Slanted stats about "31,000 people die each year from gun violence in our nation." Forget about the fact that 19,000 of those are suicides. I know I'm not getting anywhere with Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber, and I sympathize with those who get to write to Ms. "Shoulder thing that goes up," and the rest of the ignorant fear mongers. It's still something that should be done. Hey, by the way... anybody use the $25 NRA membership with the $25 gift card to Bass Pro?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Since I haven't been following this thread much, did that story about the Marine or whatever who stood guard outside of a school make it in here? I thought that a huge LOOK AT ME move on his part.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Since I haven't been following this thread much, did that story about the Marine or whatever who stood guard outside of a school make it in here? I thought that a huge LOOK AT ME move on his part.

Yeah. I know when we all stood barrels for Toys for Tots in the freezing cold we were just hoping to get accolades and our picture in the newspaper. Pretty sure it was more about a political statement than personal acclaim.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Since I haven't been following this thread much, did that story about the Marine or whatever who stood guard outside of a school make it in here? I thought that a huge LOOK AT ME move on his part.

Yeah. I know when we all stood barrels for Toys for Tots in the freezing cold we were just hoping to get accolades and our picture in the newspaper. Pretty sure it was more about a political statement than personal acclaim.

He had Toys for Tots?

 

[Cookiemonster]

Since I haven't been following this thread much, did that story about the Marine or whatever who stood guard outside of a school make it in here? I thought that a huge LOOK AT ME move on his part.

Yeah. I know when we all stood barrels for Toys for Tots in the freezing cold we were just hoping to get accolades and our picture in the newspaper. Pretty sure it was more about a political statement than personal acclaim.

He had Toys for Tots?

It's a Jarhead thing. What I meant to say is that the typical Marine is a type-A male, hard partying, curse-word spewing, busted knuckle jerk that also usually has a very compassionate side and is not usually the type that even wants to be a headliner. We tend to make headlines, but will avoid the spotlight if given the choice.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Since I haven't been following this thread much, did that story about the Marine or whatever who stood guard outside of a school make it in here? I thought that a huge LOOK AT ME move on his part.

Yeah. I know when we all stood barrels for Toys for Tots in the freezing cold we were just hoping to get accolades and our picture in the newspaper. Pretty sure it was more about a political statement than personal acclaim.

He had Toys for Tots?

It's a Jarhead thing.

So LOOK AT ME, then.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Since I haven't been following this thread much, did that story about the Marine or whatever who stood guard outside of a school make it in here? I thought that a huge LOOK AT ME move on his part.

Yeah. I know when we all stood barrels for Toys for Tots in the freezing cold we were just hoping to get accolades and our picture in the newspaper. Pretty sure it was more about a political statement than personal acclaim.

He had Toys for Tots?

It's a Jarhead thing.

So LOOK AT ME, then.

Whatever you say, bro.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

This is directly from her site

This site?

 

[timschochet]

Tim, regardless of whether you think it will happen or not, do you think that a national database of all gun owners and guns would make it feasible for "any" government to come in and take away all guns?

No.

Seriously? and you call us wackos, I guess there is nothing that will convince you what the intentions of the 2nd amendment were. I will say this, I am not a wacko, I do not own an "assault rifle" but will protect my family and make sure my family can protect themselves. How can you not see the value of protecting yourself and your family, this just astounds me. I don't want to kill anyone, I don't want to shoot anyone but if the need arises I feel much more confident that should something happen, I at least have the opportunity to protect myself, my property and my family. If someone breaks into my house while my wife is home alone I fully expect her to either use the shotgun or the 19 round 9mm and empty all rounds into the intruder.You survived a car jacking, you were lucky. You or your wife and family may not be so lucky next time. I find it amazing that you are okay with that. That is one hell of a burden to have to live with for the rest of your life.You need to find a friend and go out to shoot once or twice. You are afraid of what you know nothing about. You are your and your families own worst enemies. As difficult as you find it to believe in what I believe, I find it as difficult and far more dangerous to leave myself and my family defenseless as you would leave yours.

Once again, you're arguing against something which, in my case, doesn't exist. Just because I don't own any guns personally doesn't mean Iwant to keep you from owning any. I think it's fine that you want to protect your family. (I also think that the fact that you are armed every time you answer the doorbell is a little weird, but that's beside the point.) Own all the guns you want! All I ask is that if you buy or sell them through private sales, there should be a background check. That will help with illegal sales. And I also don't think you or anyone else should be allowed to own a high capacity magazine, so that crazy people might be stopped before they kill too many innocents. And that's it. I have no problem with anything else you wrote.BTW, I have been to a shooting range and I enjoyed myself. Though I wouldn't personally own a gun (they scare me because I'm much too clumsy) I like them, and I enjoy the gun culture. Stephen Hunter is one of my favorite suspense writers, and he makes the gun culture extremely interesting, especially in the book, Pale Horse Coming, featuring Earl Swagger and several legendary gun heroes. I've been to a gun show and I enjoyed myself there, except for a few weirdos walking around in SS uniforms freaked me out a bit...

Tim you have stated time and time again as long as you get those two things included in the bill you will be fine with some guns being banned.The problem I see(if Feinstein gets her way)is it will be a long list of guns she will be wanting illegal.This is directly from her site

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of: 120 specifically-named firearms; Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Would you still stand behind a bill like this if it included your two proposals?

Strongly doubt that bill would pass. I hope I'm not forced to answer your question. When an actual bill comes up for serious consideration after Obama endorses it, I'll let you know then.