Right to keep/own and bear arms. (Page 3)

CandyRivers: sticks and stones may break your bones -
but guns will shoot your face off.

Oh man no way - help I have become a poet - someone shoot me please lol

LoStInSpAcE: I always love the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people (with guns)

CandyRivers: guns dont kill people - Rappers do!

StuckInTheSixties: Anytime I'm subjected to rap I wish someone would shoot me ...

CandyRivers:

LoStInSpAcE:

CandyRivers:
if Rap makes you violent - does chill out make you lazy?

LiptonCambell: Still Sixties, one wonders- how effective are registries in preventing crime? I'm not convinced that crime will go down if legally owned guns are tracked, and its made a crime to not register a weapon. It simply reduces the ability for the law-abiding citizen to successfully defend themselves.

Again, I'm conflicted on this issue. I feel that some levels of restrictions are a good thing- that there are dangerous and psychotic people out there, and simple restrictions and registries may prevent them from getting firearms. But even then, I doubt it. If a murderer wanted a gun, they could find one being sold illegally, or steal one- and, at the end of the day, even if that is impossible, they could simply use other weapons. My problem is the concept that preventing people from access to guns will prevent them from acting out in violent tenancies. And I don't see how that could happen. Look at some of the biggest massacres in recent history- Columbine, Virginia Tech, and various Postal shootings- all of these places had gun restrictions- "Gun Free Zones" they're called.

Furthermore, I don't believe in "New World Order" or any of that nonsense- but I don't follow the belief that my country or any other is immune to the sways of tyrants. A well armed community is a great protection for our rights- and a gun registry makes it so the Government can(slowly, as each city, county, state/province, and country passes laws) find the people armed and disarm them.

Gun registries seem to be a feel good easy answer, that doesn't seem to solve anything, but gives the lawmakers the allure of looking like they're doing good, while the unintended consequences of their laws does great evil instead.

StuckInTheSixties: I don't thing registry would significantly reduce a law-abiding citizen's ability to own weapons. They could legally purchase a firearm, with the registry of it at the time of purchase, and they'd have their gun.

Registry wouldn't eliminate gun violence, only reduce it. It would certainly eliminate the purposeful manufacture and distribution of firearms for criminal use. As it is now, if you live in places with gun restrictions, you can simply go to places where there isn't purchase any number of firearms you want, and return to sell them illegally. Registry would put an end to that. And as you say, would sharply reduce ownership by those legally deemed "dangerous," such as those convicted of armed robbery and other violent crimes, etc.

Of course, a black market would still exist with guns already in circulation. But new guns entering the black market would be reduced to a fraction of what it is now.

You're right that a violent person is a violent person, but registry will make it more difficult for people that have shown those tendencies in the past to obtain weaponry.

The "gun free zones" you refer to are in the midst of communities and states with few restrictions. Of course it's going to be easy to walk into a gun shop, or an unlicensed "gun show," make your unrestricted purchase, and then walk into that "gun free zone" and start spraying bullets. And registry won't prevent that. Only reduce it. Virginia, in particular, which ironically you use as an example, has wide-open gun purchase policies. Thus criminals come in, purchase large amounts of weapons, then return to dump them onto the black market.

I agree the USA isn't immune to the sway of tyrants. But I do believe the USA would be essentially immune to country-wide "gun sweeps," etc. that gun nuts warn about. As I said, there's simply too many guns. The minions of the hypothetical tyrant would practically have to go door to door. Insurrection would ensue. It would be impossible. Tyrants will have to be tyrants with their subject owning guns. If they did it city by city, first, they'd have to find minions willing to do the dirty work. If they could find them, they would already be of such a number that they would be a part of a movement, political or otherwise, that supported the tyrant, thus the tyrant would want to keep his supporters armed, wouldn't s/he?

Registry won't "solve" gun violence, only reduce it. Just the same as registering autos reduces the amount of harm autos can cause.

davidk14: However...If the government goes ultra-radical, they wont come and take your car, DVD player, or your Wii. There are more guns in the hands of citizens than the military and police combined. So, it is possible that a ultra-radical government could try to eliminate these weapons so as to control the population. If push came to shove, I dont think the military will fire on citizens armed to the teeth. I also never thought that a President of the United States would surround himself with advisors and government officials that are admitted radicals from the 60's, admitted socialists and admitted communists. So anything is possible.

StuckInTheSixties: Are you John with a different profile?

(laughs)

I prefaced my thoughts with this:

"I'm sure this opinion will prompt gun rights fundamentalists to preach about government intrusion, the New World Order, ad absurdum."

David provides the "ad absurdum."

David, name one "admitted communist," and provide the documentation of when such admission was made. Go ahead. Name the Obama administration official that has said, "I am a communist." And documentation, please.

davidk14: Challenge accepted.

LiptonCambell: >>>Registry wouldn't eliminate gun violence, only reduce it.

How would a mere registry reduce violence? If all you're suggesting is a registry, then violent and clinically dangerous people will still have access to firearms- they simply need to register. Or are you implying restrictions along with registries?

And if there are restrictions? Of course it would reduce a law-abbiding citizens ability to protect themselves

>>>It would certainly eliminate the purposeful manufacture and distribution of firearms for criminal use.

I sincerely doubt there are companies out there that make guns with the intent of their weapons to be used for breaking the law, just as McDonalds doesn't sell burgers with the intent of making people fat. They simply offer a product that, in the wrong hands, could have negative consquences. This is true of nearly anything- just because a product can be used for negative ends, doesn't mean its manufactured or sold with those negative ends in mind.

>>>And as you say, would sharply reduce ownership by those legally deemed "dangerous," such as those convicted of armed robbery and other violent crimes, etc.

So then yes- by saying "registry", you actually mean the combined system of registry and restriction

Isn't that a contradiction? If we are actively preventing people from gainning access to guns, how can you then say that anyone who wishes access to a gun may access one? How do you determine "dangerous"?

What if a man was formerly involved in a gang- KKK or Crips or Hells Angels or what have you- and this man decides that being so violent is a bad thing- they are legitmately reabliated- wouldn't this person want a weapon to protect themselves? After all, gangs are noritorious for attacking, assualting, and even killing people who defect from their clubs. But many people who define a former gang member as dangerous. This person would be forced to make the unfair decision between being law-abbiding, but having themselves and their family at risk, or breaking the law simply to protect them and their own.

I'm not convinced things are as black and white as you suppose.

>>>But new guns entering the black market would be reduced to a fraction of what it is now.

Hardly- people will simply steal guns and scratch off the registry. Does license plates prevent grand theft auto?

>>>Thus criminals come in, purchase large amounts of weapons, then return to dump them onto the black market.

But that wasn't what happened at all in Virgina Tech.

>>>The minions of the hypothetical tyrant would practically have to go door to door. Insurrection would ensue. I

I disagree. I can see it happening that, slowly, over the course of 20-50 years, people will enact registries- and after that, slowly, over another course of 20-50 years, people will enact gun bans. I don't believe Washington will tomorrow pass a law banning guns- but New York might. A few years later, Boston may. Then Austin. and so forth. The restriction of your rights doesn't happen in a day- people will slowly whittle them away.

Then all it takes is the right charsmatic leader to make that final push, with little resistance.

>>>If they did it city by city, first, they'd have to find minions willing to do the dirty work.

As I'm certain they could right now, yes.

I'm not proposing that people will collect guns for the good of the tyranny. I'm proposing these people will collect guns for what they feel is a perceived good.

franklin1950: federal and state have legislation concerning gun ownership ; use ; carry ; registration ; storage ; etc.
in some places the legally owned gun must have a trigger lock and be locked in a secure gun safe .
the ammunition must be stored in a separate secure location .
i think that if a home invasion is in progress time would be a valuable commodity .
too many restrictions might hinder the good guy more than the bad.

legal owner for what ever reason finds himself on the dark side . perhaps the locks and assembly will give him time to reflect and alter coarse .... or not .

several years ago in bc a female broke into an " old " mans' appartment . he grabed his gun and proceeded to beat the intruder into submition to be held for police . praised for his restraint in the use of a deadly wepon he said he just didn't have any bullets. .... lucky girl.

also a few years ago , also bc . an american family enters canada traveling in a camper . his legaly owned american gun is not declared nor discovered . during the coarse of the visit deadly force was used to protect his family with the now illegal in canada gun . no charges laid . justifiable homacide.
lucky campers .

the regulation and restrictions on gun owners . are they at times too restrictive ?

bad guys ..... the non law abiding ..... the illegal gun owner ...... ????

LoStInSpAcE: Banning guns just put them into the hands of criminals.

davidk14: Sixties, as i was looking for information regarding your request, I found so much that I couldnt type enough here. But I do have a few for you to see. Go to YouTube.com and type in:

Andy Stern's New Job
He is the president of SEIU and an Obama advisor. There are dozens of utube files about this guy and his history of unionizing.

Andy Stern's New Gig
Another piece about the new world order

WBEZ Jim Wallace
He is Obama's new spiritual advisor and in this piece, he says, in his own voice, he is a communist. This interview took place 1-21-10

As I said, there are dozens and dozens of entries for these folks and others like Van Jones and Carol Browner and if you need some help in locating these or other of Obama's advisors, please let me know, I will be happy to help.

StuckInTheSixties: Ahh ... "advisors" ... that's the codeword for anyone Obama’s ever talked to in his life that has something in his/her history that right-wingers find objectionable for some reason.

If you’ll look back up, you’ll see that I said “Obama administration official.” I thought I’d made it clear that I was talking about someone working for the administration that is an avowed communist, that publically acknowledges themselves to be a “Communist,” not a union leader or someone desiring something that you’d consider “socialist” or whatever. I’m talking about a real, dyed to the wool Commie Communist, who, as I specified, will say, “I am a communist.” Van Jones is the closest you’ll find, and I’ll acknowledge he’s flirted with some Commie-leaning rhetoric at times.

And YouTube is such a great source of reliable information. I’ve seen a YouTube video that confirms Obama is actually Osama bin Laden. Really. And another that confirms he’s the anti-Christ. Really.

If you’re going to tag him with “advisors” like that, then you could tag anyone with almost anything. The picture you’re painting is that they’ve removed Washington’s painting on the White House wall and replaced it with Lenin. Sounds like Rush Hannity to me.

CandyRivers: Nyet comrade.

davidk14: Sixties, Tell me who you hang with, and I'll tell you who you are. When you write in your book that you prefer to hang with radicals, socialists and Marxists (professors), like he said in his book, well, you can only conclude he agrees and embrasses the retoric. Tell me who you hang with, and I'll tell you who you are.

Senators and Congressmen and members of his cabinet dont get the face time like his advisors do.

Tell me who you hang with, and I'll tell you who you are. Belonging to a revolutionary church for 20 years getting married by the pastor which has said numberous times anti-American comments like, "God bless America? No, God d*** America", when starting a political career in the home of Bill Ayers, a Weather Underground urban terrorist, when choosing a new spiritual advisor which is an committed communist, when the head of SEIU (a labor union supported by George Soros, a billionaire committed to a one world communist order), who has visited the White House more than any other, you can only conclude, tell me who you hang with, and I'll tell you who you are.

These are just a very few verifiable samples of this presidents "friends and advisors" and I havn't even started with his relationships with the radical left in the senate and congress.

If your kids hang with with drug dealers, they probably are drug dealers. Have you sixties hung out with terrorists, socialists, and communists? Have you these types of folks as your own advisors? These folks go against the very fabric of the American experience.

As the light of day shines on these people, the truth comes out. This morning polls have him at an all time low of any President in history at this time of his presidency. The truth shall set you free.

You sixties, have the absolute right to deny the truth even when you see, read and hear it from their own lips. You're just being manipulated in believing the truth is wrong.

Tell me who you hang with, and I'll tell you who you are.

StuckInTheSixties: Well David, one of my best friends, Phin, is a self-described communist. He actually wears a sickle and hammer necklace.

Terry, my best friend since the mid seventies or so, worships the memory of Ronald Reagan. ( He's not too fond of George W. )

The rest fall between those two, but in general, most (not all) kind of lean, to varying degrees, a little left of center.

So given that, who am I?

davidk14: Sixties, You are someone who may, when push comes to shove, might have a very difficult time taking sides. I also have very liberal friends and they respect me for my views. And if push comes to shove for me, they all will know what I would fight and die for. Hopefully, that line in the sand wont come.

StuckInTheSixties: Agreed.