Gun Controll question.

[Zeb_Carter]

For one thing, you need a license and insurance to own a car.

That depends on the State laws, in Illinois there is no law that says I have to have a license to own a car, only to drive one. Same on the insurance.

 

[Weird Harold]

Even granting you this much probably bends the analogy, since your granddaughter isn't likely to run someone down in your driveway. However the gun fellow may shoot whomever knocks on his door after dark.

No, Actually what bends the car ownership analogy apart is that unlike my granddaughter's car, she cannot legally own, inherit, or use without direct adult supervision, a firearm and I cannot own a handgun without (the sale of it) it being registered.

Have you any objection to gun owners being required to have training (like the drivers of automobiles) or at least pass a test?

I have no problem with the principle that gun owners should be trained and competent. I do have a problem with making it a requirement for gun ownership.

The problem is the question of who determines what the training requirements are and who designs/administers the test.

Jim Crow used a similar justification to insure that the South had a "Literate Electorate" -- Just how well did that work out for the blacks?

Persoanlly, I think the solution to untrained gun owners is to bring back the annual two week Hunter Safety segment of Freshman Health -- i.e. train EVERY high-school freshman to handle and use guns safely. If they choose to touch another gun, that's cool, but every citizen will be trained in at least minimal firearms safety.

 

[Huckleman2000]

That depends on the State laws, in Illinois there is no law that says I have to have a license to own a car, only to drive one. Same on the insurance.

Well, don't you need title on the vehicle to own it? I doubt if anyone is going to sell you a car without transferring the title.

 

[Huckleman2000]

You really doubt that a police state could be slowly established by an elected government who fooled the voters into thinking that they were voting for more safety, not tyranny? Just look around you. It's happening right now.

That's exactly my point. And you make the connection in your next post.

Governments don't become tyrannical out of the clear sky - they assume power through existing channels and institutions. Has there been a modern tyranny that assumed power without controlling the police and army?

Guns are useless against the government. You can no more defend yourself from tyranny with a gun in your house than you can fly to the moon in your washing machine.

As you say in your next post, the weapons of overthrowing governments are gas and bombs, not guns.

So why are guns sacrosanct? The idea that they protect against an out-of-control government is silly.

 

[Liar]

I have no problem with the principle that gun owners should be trained and competent. I do have a problem with making it a requirement for gun ownership.

The problem is the question of who determines what the training requirements are and who designs/administers the test.

If we change it from gun ownership to gun usership, does that make you happier? (And no, that doesn't only mean when you pull the trigger, a gun's most common use is as a tool for threat.)

Or do you oppose driver's licenses on those grounds too?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Well, don't you need title on the vehicle to own it? I doubt if anyone is going to sell you a car without transferring the title.

What's that got to do with having a license? But, for you information, in Georgia any car that is older than 10 - 15 years does not need a title in order to be sold.

 

[yevkassem72]

That's exactly my point. And you make the connection in your next post.

Governments don't become tyrannical out of the clear sky - they assume power through existing channels and institutions. Has there been a modern tyranny that assumed power without controlling the police and army?

Guns are useless against the government. You can no more defend yourself from tyranny with a gun in your house than you can fly to the moon in your washing machine.

As you say in your next post, the weapons of overthrowing governments are gas and bombs, not guns.

So why are guns sacrosanct? The idea that they protect against an out-of-control government is silly.

The weapons of murderous terrorists are bombs and gas. Those can't help overthrow governments, however. Guerilla warfare can, however. In guerilla warfare, tyrants can be overthrown by men with a few guns due to sheer ambush, assassination, and raids. It's an entirely different strategy. If you want to shock and terrorize people, bombs and gas work splendidly. If you want to disrupt the State and tie down its armies, then men in the woods and tall buildings with sniper rifles and commandos with SMGs are your ticket. Just my experience from witnessing a civil war first hand.

One hopes that if a tyrant seizes power, enough police and soldiers will defect to help as well. Especially citizen-soldiers.

 

[Pure]

One hopes that if a tyrant seizes power, enough police and soldiers will defect to help as well. Especially citizen-soldiers.


As Huck said, it's pretty much a fantasy that the citizen topple the tyrant with guns.

Would Hitler have been toppled if the Social Dems had guns?

Lenin was certainly not toppled by mensheviks or "whites" with guns.

GWB now has the power to jail you forever, no charges, no trial. How is that gun in your house helping?

When a tyrant is in power in the cities, the guerrillas can take to the countryside, as Castro did to Batista, or Ho did to the French in Vietnam.

The rules about gun ownership become irrelevant: the guerillas arm themselves, regardless, by various means, including capturing weapons.

Similarly for an urban situation, like Hezbollah's control of certain neighborhoods in Lebanon. Rules from the central gov about 'gun ownership' would be a laugh.

In short, insurrectionists have not needed or benefitted from laws allowing gun ownership. Putting it a little differently: when a tyrant becomes unstable in his hold on power, his attempts to ban guns for possible insurrectionists are likely to be futile.
--
NOTE: As you point out, the insurrectionists are likely to include soldier and police, so they can hardly be disarmed on a preventive basis.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

One hopes that if a tyrant seizes power, enough police and soldiers will defect to help as well. Especially citizen-soldiers.


As Huck said, it's pretty much a fantasy that the citizen topple the tyrant with guns.

Would Hitler have been toppled if the Social Dems had guns?

Lenin was certainly not toppled by mensheviks or "whites" with guns.

GWB now has the power to jail you forever, no charges, no trial. How is that gun in your house helping?

When a tyrant is in power in the cities, the guerrillas can take to the countryside, as Castro did to Batista, or Ho did to the French in Vietnam.

The rules about gun ownership become irrelevant: the guerillas arm themselves, regardless, by various means, including capturing weapons.

Similarly for an urban situation, like Hezbollah's control of certain neighborhoods in Lebanon. Rules from the central gov about 'gun ownership' would be a laugh.

In short, insurrectionists have not needed or benefitted from laws allowing gun ownership. Putting it a little differently: when a tyrant becomes unstable in his hold on power, his attempts to ban guns for possible insurrectionists are likely to be futile.
--
NOTE: As you point out, the insurrectionists are likely to include soldier and police, so they can hardly be disarmed on a preventive basis.

The thing is, friend, that it's easier for the rebels if they already have guns on hand. More guns can be captured, but the initial arsenal always helps. Take it from me- there are plenty of times that I could have used a bloody gun to deal with Mr. Mugabe's thugs- who were agents of a tyrant. Mind you, I was still a child at the time, but that doesn't meant that I was incompetent.

I just hope that there is no police state. Not just because of the loss of freedoms, but also because those agents trying to collect guns are likely to get killed in a lot stand-offs. Oh, they'd win most firefights at first, but they'd lose the war. Public opinion would turn heavily against them and the backlash from seeing dead citizens killed by their own government would be phenomenal. Opposition and resistance would crystallise and the tyrant would be ousted in the USA within weeks. All the more reason to have armed citizens. They'd cause incidents that would cripple a tyrant's ability to govern.

Now, a clever tyrant makes taking guns his last objective. That way, it's harder to organise resistance that way. That's probably why Bush is not touching guns and claiming that he doesn't oppose them. That doesn't mean that he won't come after them if he could, if he truly, consciously had Orwellian plans. Of course, once he did, no amount of censorship or propaganda could spin that many deaths of civilian dissidents. And the process of revolution would be slower, but still as certain.

Mind you, he's running out of time to do that and he'd now have to disband Congress to get his way. That would probably result in a revolution of the sort that would end his tenure a lot faster. With or without guns.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

Incidentally, I note that no one is addressing the knifing epidemic in the UK. It's getting worse than guns. And if you ask the average bobby, he'd probably tell you that he's more afraid of being knifed than of being shot. I don't blame them. Bullets are awful, but knives do more damage per capita.

 

[pcremington]

Only free men own guns without asking permission.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

Only free men own guns without asking permission.

Oh, for such freedom, eh, mate?

 

[FatDino]

Only free men own guns without asking permission.

That leads to lots of serious questions. The first one comes to mind is, "how free?"

 

[pcremington]

It's a fact, ask some one is Australia, England, and other places where you have to jump through hoops to own a gun. What happened in Germany, Russia, and so many other place where people were eventually enslaved.
(BTW I assume you are from down under, have things improved so much since they took the guns away?)

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

It's a fact, ask some one is Australia, England, and other places where you have to jump through hoops to own a gun. What happened in Germany, Russia, and so many other place where people were eventually enslaved.
(BTW I assume you are from down under, have things improved so much since they took the guns away?)

Who, me or him? I'm from Rhodesia, by way of the UK.

 

[FatDino]

It's a fact, ask some one is Australia, England, and other places where you have to jump through hoops to own a gun. What happened in Germany, Russia, and so many other place where people were eventually enslaved.
(BTW I assume you are from down under, have things improved so much since they took the guns away?)

If you're talking to me, no, I'm not from "down under". I'm from "up above", a place called Canada, I think.

So you're saying that Americans have the right to bear arms because they are free?

I dare to ask my question again, how do you define freedom?

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

In defence of my Commonwealth neighbours and friends here, allow me to note that they are generally as free as any American. It's just that the last resort in the unlikely event of tyranny would be harder on them.

The first line of defence is still the ballot box....and in that, they are as free down under or up above as any Yank.

Actually, in fact, as low tech and expensive it is, Canada's paper ballot system is far less prone to voter fraud than the butterfly ballot and the punch ballot in Florida and other places. So, in that sense, freedom is actually safer on the first line of defence for the Canadians. It's very inefficient, but it works. You don't hear of tons of recounts and hanging chads in Canada.

 

[FatDino]

In defence of my Commonwealth neighbours and friends here, allow me to note that they are generally as free as any American. It's just that the last resort in the unlikely event of tyranny would be harder on them.

The first line of defence is still the ballot box....and in that, they are as free down under or up above as any Yank.

Yea, you don't need to have the right to bear arms to be considered a free man.

 

[pcremington]

While I will decline the opportunity to define "freedom" as it is much to big a job for me, I will say that if you are satisfied with the degree of freedom you have, don't endeavor to limit mine. I cherish the Constitution of the US, and by way of the Second Amendment empowers it citizens to "bear arms". They put it in there so we would always remain free from a government that overstepped it's authority.

If you think the ballot box is the first line of defense I agree, but the right to bear arms is the last!

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

While I will decline the opportunity to define "freedom" as it is much to big a job for me, I will say that if you are satisfied with the degree of freedom you have, don't endeavor to limit mine. I cherish the Constitution of the US, and by way of the Second Amendment empowers it citizens to "bear arms". They put it in there so we would always remain free from a government that overstepped it's authority.

If you think the ballot box is the first line of defense I agree, but the right to bear arms is the last!

On that, we agree. My point is that the ballot box is the first step. However, my family and others learned the hard way in Rhodesia that elected leaders can be tyrants. Mr. Mugabe certainly is one.

Mind you, Canada has a similar tradition as the USA, Australia, the UK, etc. One that Rhodesia lacked, a tradition of representative democracy and universal suffrage. We went from white, minority rule to a Marxist kleptocracy. Democracy was just a transitional phase for us, like the Provisional Government was for the Russians.

Canadians, Australians, Britons, etc. are every bit as free right now and in practice as any American, is all I am saying. In some ways, freer (same-sex marriage, for example).

 

[Weird Harold]

If we change it from gun ownership to gun usership, does that make you happier? (And no, that doesn't only mean when you pull the trigger, a gun's most common use is as a tool for threat.)

The various rules for getting a concealed carry permit around the US demonstrate why I am opposed to making a test or qualification course a requirement for "bearing" arms.

In some jurisdictions, being able to breath and having a local address is sufficient. In others, it requires something close to special forces qualifications and a personal reference from God.

What I object to is the use of "reasonable limitations" as a smoke screen for a set of qualifications that effectively ban all but the rich and/or exceptionally qualified from excercising their constitutional right to bear arms.

If you want gun control, especially federal gun control, be up front about it and start a campaign to repeal the seond ammendment.

On the other hand, if all you want is a society that is safe from mad gunmen, then start a grass-roots campaign to enforce the laws that are already on the books against irresponsible or criminal gun ownership or use.

The last thing almost any country, and the USA in particular, needs is more laws. In most cases, what is needed is the repeal of a good many laws.

Or do you oppose driver's licenses on those grounds too?

No, I don't object to drivers' licensing for three reasons:

1: Driving a vehicle on public roads is not a "right" guaranteed by the Constitution.

2: Untrained, Irresponsible, and/or Impaired drivers are a clear and present threat to public safety -- ten minutes spent watching the news will probably turn up at least one illustrative example.

3: Drivers' License qualifications are generally NOT designed or implemented to prevent the general populace from driving.

'Aha!' you say, 'an untrained carrying a gun in public is a clear and present threat to public safety!"

I say, no it's not. The difference is that a moving vehicle has to be constantly monitored and guided. Inaction or inattenion by a driver will cause an accident. A carried gun does nothing without a positive and overt action by its bearer; Inaction or inattention by its bearer presents no danger to anyone.

 

[pcremington]

Yes, Rhodesia is a sad story. A very promising and rich land squandered. I regret what happened there. A good friend, a South African, and I had many conversations regarding the problems existing in Africa. And by the way please make the distinction in what I said.

I said "Only free men own gun without asking permission" I did not say that one had to own guns to be free. Big difference.

I didn't mean to offend anyone or any one's nation. I just intend to defend my Second Amendment rights, (and the first, third, fourth etc)

Thanks I enjoyed the discussion.

 

[Liar]

No, I don't object to drivers' licensing for three reasons:

1: Driving a vehicle on public roads is not a "right" guaranteed by the Constitution.

Which, of course, is biblically infallible. I'm not asking about the constitution. I'm askling about your opinion. Unless, of course your opinion is 'my Constitution right or wrong'.

2: Untrained, Irresponsible, and/or Impaired drivers are a clear and present threat to public safety -- ten minutes spent watching the news will probably turn up at least one illustrative example.

'Aha!' I say... oh you know the rest.

3: Drivers' License qualifications are generally NOT designed or implemented to prevent the general populace from driving.

And niether should Gun Wielding License qualification be. Why do you assume there's a difference?

'Aha!' you say, 'an untrained carrying a gun in public is a clear and present threat to public safety!"

I say, no it's not. The difference is that a moving vehicle has to be constantly monitored and guided. Inaction or inattenion by a driver will cause an accident. A carried gun does nothing without a positive and overt action by its bearer; Inaction or inattention by its bearer presents no danger to anyone.

I say it's a different only in scale. It's easier to unintentionally injure and kill people with a car. (Or is it? See below.) It's certainly not risk free to take a loaded weapon out among people. I can only see that you draw that line in the sand where it's ideologically conveniant, not for pragmatic reasons.

Even if I was to use your definition, and call passive carrying-around of a loaded weapon a harmless thing, it's apples and oranges. You then "use" a gun for shorter periods of time than you use a car. But still, that use is very hazardous for you and the people around you, if you're untrained. Perhaps even more hazardous than driving a car.

 

[Liar]

While I will decline the opportunity to define "freedom" as it is much to big a job for me, I will say that if you are satisfied with the degree of freedom you have, don't endeavor to limit mine. I cherish the Constitution of the US, and by way of the Second Amendment empowers it citizens to "bear arms". They put it in there so we would always remain free from a government that overstepped it's authority.

If you think the ballot box is the first line of defense I agree, but the right to bear arms is the last!

Like I said earlier, it's a nice thought. But would it work?

Would you, if push came to shove in the worst of ways, have enough guns to fight your own army?

If not, then it's pretty words on parchment. A noble idea, but a paper tiger.

 

[cantdog]

Like I said earlier, it's a nice thought. But would it work?

Would you, if push came to shove in the worst of ways, have enough guns to fight your own army?

If not, then it's pretty words on parchment. A noble idea, but a paper tiger.

Well, it makes a difference when there are protests in the streets. American crowds are not machine-gunned.