Gun Control

[DKA]

History of "Gun Control"

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13
million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up
and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated
------------------------------
Gu atemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items: Austra lia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break- ins and assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety
has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.


You won't see this data on the US even ing news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

[dudley]

I agree with gun control to an extent i do not believe that some one should be able to simply walk into a store and buy a gun no questions asked, i think it's important to know who owns guns we have a gun registry in canada and true ALOT of money was wasted but i think its important to have records of who owns what, though some of our laws on restricted (hand guns with a barrel over 4" and certain assault rifle the m16 for example) are a bit too strict but what can you do overall it's not a bad system.

[ezzy333]

Gun registry is the first step of outlawing them and coming to your door to get them. No one needs to know if you own a gun or not in a free society. I dont suppose you saw the chart that was going around last week about how many more people are killed by doctor error than by careless gun ownership and use. The number is very smallwhen you look at the population figures.

But God back in the home and schools, let the teachers dicipline students when they misbehave, and make the family resposible for raising their children and we might solve some of our problems.

Ezzy

[gar-dog]

I do not believe that some one should be able to simply walk into a store and buy a gun no questions asked

Well, no one can legally buy a firearm at a store without a background check.

i think it's important to know who owns guns

Yuk! Registration historically precedes confiscation. Why does the government need to know how many and what guns I own? What does that do?

[phermes1]

What's amazing to me is how much vitality still exists in the gun control movement even though it has yet to produce any real evidence that attests to its effectiveness in reducing crime and violence.

[ezzy333]

It's more of a control thing than anything else. That plus the uninformed and the people who have been taught that guns are the cause of most deaths instead of looking at the real cause. They have no understanding of any positive reason to own a gun.

Ezzy

[romeo212000]

In a truly free country no one needs to know how many guns I have or what kind. Gun control will not take away guns from bad people. They will not turn them over because they are BAD PEOPLE. The only people who abide by gun control (as the Australian statistics show) are the good people and that only takes away their ability to defend themselves from the bad people who do not abide by the law anyway. Registration is the first step towards confiscation. Keep your eyes peeled Canada. It's on its way. As for me, you will have to pry every gun from my cold dead hands to get them from me. Including my AR's. I have a right to own those too.

[BigShooter]

What percentage of the population that own, enjoy and legally operate firearms each year espouse gun control? What percentage of the directors, producers, actors, etc. in Hollywood support gun control while profiting from the use of firearms and other weapons in movies? How many felons in Canada failed to register their firearms? Excuse me if I'm a little vague on Canadian history but what Revolutionary War did their pop. have to live through and bear arms in to gain their independence?


Hey, Let's start gun control in the movie industry. No more movies with guns, or at least no handguns, machine guns, semi-automatics, sawed-off shotguns, etc.!

[ezzy333]

And no more for the security people that the gun control people hire for protection.

Ezzy

[gar-dog]

What's amazing to me is how much vitality still exists in the gun control movement even though it has yet to produce any real evidence that attests to its effectiveness in reducing crime and violence.

It is the will of the liberal-elite utopian types that want to tell others how to live. Since the average joe won't buy that, they spew out misinformation instead.

[phermes1]

And no more for the security people that the gun control people hire for protection.

Ezzy

Oh you can't do that!!! They need them to protect themselves against us crazy, gun-toting, war-mongering, bloodlusting, NRA maniacs!!!!

[dog dr]

Gun registry is the first step of outlawing them and coming to your door to get them. No one needs to know if you own a gun or not in a free society. I dont suppose you saw the chart that was going around last week about how many more people are killed by doctor error than by careless gun ownership and use. The number is very smallwhen you look at the population figures.

But God back in the home and schools, let the teachers dicipline students when they misbehave, and make the family resposible for raising their children and we might solve some of our problems.

Ezzy

well said, Ezzy. I couldnt agree more.

[gar-dog]

I keep a close eye on my guns, and so far they haven't killed anyone yet. They mostly just sit there. I have a Springfield XD-45 that appears a little depressed though, and he isn't getting along with the S&W .357 next to him. We'll see and I'll keep you posted. I checked the safe this morning and it looks like no movement...again...

[romeo212000]

So is what you are saying then is that the guns themselves do not really have it out to kill and hurt people then? I am so confused. I thought guns were evil things that suddenly made people evil when they touched them.

[ezzy333]

Have you noticed since the drive by media has to report all of the liberal viewpoint that people driving SUV's dont have accidents any more. It's always reported that a SUV ran a stop sign or hit someone. If it's a smaller car they tell you who was driving.

Joe Blow had an accident----you know it was a small vehicle.

SUV had an accident--- you haveto look well down in the report to evenfind a name.

Ezzy

[utahmomof4]

Gun registry is the first step of outlawing them and coming to your door to get them. No one needs to know if you own a gun or not in a free society. I dont suppose you saw the chart that was going around last week about how many more people are killed by doctor error than by careless gun ownership and use. The number is very smallwhen you look at the population figures.

But God back in the home and schools, let the teachers dicipline students when they misbehave, and make the family resposible for raising their children and we might solve some of our problems.

Ezzy

Very well said. Agree completely. This debate will go on until the end of time because there will always be people who a) refuse to educate themselves with the truth, and/or b) hunger for power and control and refuse to give it up at any cost. Education is power... ignorance kills.

I am thankful every day that we have chosen to educate our children at home where God is welcome, discipline is appropriate and consistent, and the family is the center of our universe.

[gar-dog]

Have you noticed since the drive by media has to report all of the liberal viewpoint that people driving SUV's dont have accidents any more. It's always reported that a SUV ran a stop sign or hit someone. If it's a smaller car they tell you who was driving.

Joe Blow had an accident----you know it was a small vehicle.

SUV had an accident--- you haveto look well down in the report to evenfind a name.

Ezzy

Like when someone dies in a fire, "fire investigators believe the victim was (pause) smoking in bed." They fail to mention the fifth of vodka the guy was passed out on. Cigarettes are bad, alcohol is acceptable.

okay, but cigarettes ARE bad I know.

[utahmomof4]

Oh, I forgot to say that I'm also glad that my kids can draw pictures of guns without being expelled.

[Vizsla Vince]

What's really sickening is that gun grabbers like the "honorable" Mayor Daley will use the headstones of the NIU victims as their soapboxes to further their agenda!!

[dudley]

i never said there was anything wrong with owning guns, i just think it can be helpful to know who owns what. And yes i know registering them will not stop the criminals as they are not about to register their illegal guns and its not the law abiding father who's out hunting with his son that is commiting the drive byes. But i just think that it should be harder to own certain weapons than others, for example automatic weapons they have no role, they can't be used for hunting or any meaningfull purpose.

[romeo212000]

Thats not necessarily true. And once again it is my right to own any dang gun I want, including an AR if I should choose. By the way, I do know people who use Assault Rifles for hunting coyotes. Who is the government or anyone for that matter to tell me what guns I should and should not be allowed to own. And absolutely no one but me needs to know what I own and how many I own. Im telling you man. You are well on your way to losing your guns in Canada. Keep your eyes peeled.

[gar-dog]

they can't be used for hunting or any meaningfull purpose.

Here in the United States, our right to own firearms "ain't" about hunting my friend. It is about fighting tyrrany, it is about self defense. I consider these d_mn meaningful purposes. An armed populous is made up of "citizens," a disarmed one of "subjects."

Among other things for instance, I have a 14-round capacity Springfield XD-45 for these purposes. It sure isn't for hunting.

G

[romeo212000]

well stated gar-dog. There is a huge difference between subjects and citizens. This is a country by the people. Not by the government. Registration of guns is the first step towards confiscation. Like gar-dog said. Our RIGHT to own any weapon we choose is not related to hunting nor is it contingent upon it. I am allowed to own any firearm I choose because it is my right and no one will take that right away from me. I will defend it with my life.

[ezzy333]

The founders stated very clearly that the people should be armed to protect them from the government and not each other. It is evident today they knew what they were talking about.

Ezzy

[romeo212000]

Those who do not learn their past are doomed to repeat it.

[utahmomof4]

they can't be used for hunting or any meaningfull purpose.

Here in the United States, our right to own firearms "ain't" about hunting my friend. It is about fighting tyrrany, it is about self defense. I consider these d_mn meaningful purposes. An armed populous is made up of "citizens," a disarmed one of "subjects."

G

Amen to that. It's unfortunate how many people really understand that anymore. Ignorance has gotten the best of us, and it will be up to the few who still "get it" to salvage as much of our rights as possible. While I'm not terribly optimistic about what the outcome will be, I'm not ready to give up the fight, either. Gun control is one of the big issues that has me scared to death about the next president, no matter who wins.

[phermes1]

What's that saying I heard once - 'The 2nd Amendment exists in case the other 9 are ignored."

[Firstarrow]

For gang control I would love one of those 100 rd semi auto grenade launching 12 guages, the military has been testing.

[dudley]

I agree with people having the right to own guns but there should be limits, for example there is no good reason for owning a 50. cal machine gun there just isn't.

[phermes1]

For gang control I would love one of those 100 rd semi auto grenade launching 12 guages, the military has been testing.

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c

Just one word - DAYUM!!!!!

[ezzy333]

There is no good reason for owning any gun according to many people. And then there are those that say no good reason for an assault rifle even though they don't know what one is. And you say no good reason for 50 cal machine gun. Is it ok if I have a 49 cal machine gun?

You make the point beautifully when you state which gun you don't think someone should own as there are many many people who don't think you should own a shotgun as there is no need for it. When you start drawing a line that you will accept, can we be sure everyone agrees where that line is? I don't think it works that way.

Ezzy

[romeo212000]

You are exactly correct sir. You may have no good reason to own a .50 cal machine gun but who are you or anyone else to tell me what I should and should not be allowed to own. I don't expect you to understand this as you are not from the United States but the 2nd ammendment was put in place to protect the citizens from the government. Not to protect hunter's rights. Now I assume that you feel that no one needs a .50 cal machine gun because quite frankly the only thing they are used for is warfare. But if the citizens of this country ever need to protect themselves (God forbid) from the government what will the privately owned firearms be used for? The plain and simple truth is that it is my right to posess and bear arms. And no person or entity will tell me what or how many I can own.

[dudley]

When will you people ever stop going to the 2nd amendament the consittution was wrtitten 100's of years ago and must be interpreted from a point of view that considers the the conditions at the time. At the time they were at war and so the right to bear arms made sense sonsidering they were a newly formed nation that was conserned with maintaing it's freedom not the wolrds foremost super power. And the 50.cal idea how about this i was not simply talking in terms of coliber but ALL automatic weapons, there is NO place for them in a modern society. So you are all so hypped up about the right to bear arms and how the government has no right to limit what u may posses, then how do you feel about people owning nukes after all you can't limit someones rith to bear arms its in ur consitution, how would you feel if ur neighbor cam homw with a 4 kilo tone H-bomb?

[utahmomof4]

When will you people ever stop going to the 2nd amendament

Never. Neither will I ever stop going to the 1st or the 4th or the 5th or the 10th or any other. The Bill of Rights (First 10 Amendments) was added to the Constitution because the Framers of the Constitution felt it imperative to spell out the rights of the people to prevent the government in any future time from infringing upon these very basic rights. They knew that, whenever man is given a little power, they will soon desire and work to use that power to control other people. The Constitution clearly defines the role and scope of the U.S. government, and the Bill of Rights clearly defines rights that are guaranteed to the people. Throwing out either one leaves us vulnerable to a tyrannical government, which may be in the form of monarchy, socialism, or communism. The Constitution was created and intended to avoid this, and that purpose doesn't expire until the people choose to give it up. Unfortunately, we've been doing that far too long.

[gar-dog]

Dud, that's the beauty of it. The constitution was written over 200 years ago and is AS APPLICABLE now as it was then. It is an amazing thing. I was just at Monticello last week, where Thomas Jefferson lived. These guys had such foresight. Jefferson was not only concerned with tyranny but that the body of citizens be armed (like in Switzerland) in case of a foreign invasion. (I wonder why Hitler went AROUND Switzerland and never occupied it? You should read some of the quotes from his generals about this strategy).

In just a few years I have seen the World Trade Center come down with my own eyes, I have seen a US city underwater and ravaged, major companies like Enron vanished into thin air. I believe ANYTHING can happen. ANYTHING.

As for the "modern" era, should we restrict free speech on the internet? After all, the founding fathers didn't know about electricity and computers, and that you could email SO MANY people SO QUICKLY.

As to nukes.... If you are ever inclined to read what is referred to as the Federalist Papers, which were in effect "sales documents" of the Bill of Rights which were promised and came soon after the constitution was ratified, you will see that what was discussed and contemplated as arms consisted of firearms that could be fired from the arm or shoulder.

So many of you that don't enjoy the same rights as Americans just don't get it, and that is okay. Like it or not we are the most free people on the planet. This freedom gives rise to a feeling we "wear" everyday. It is embedded deep in my spine - always there, like the autonomous nervous system. Dare tamper with it and a beast rages within me.

Cheers,
Gary

[dudley]

"consisted of firearms that could be fired from the arm or shoulder."

so what your saying is a guy should be able to own a RPG if he so wishes?

[gar-dog]

Historically, the courts are allowed to apply "reasonable restrictions" to constitutional rights - i.e. felons may not own firearms. I am not sure about RPGs, as hardcore as I know I may appear. I think "small arms" including fully-automatics is acceptable. I am not to concerned with caliber. Maybe grenades are okay, heck why not?

I am comfortable with most existing gun laws except as applies to restricting fully-automatics and restrictions on right to carry.

More later,,,, sneaking off for a drink with the wife.

G

[romeo212000]

Excellent posts. I guess we will have to come to terms with the fact that people who do not enjoy the same freedoms as we do as CITIZENS of this country will not understand them and why we are so intent on defending them. By the way dudley. I answered your statement before you stated it in my previous post. Yes they consitution was written toprotect from intrusion from both outside forces and the government. Just as we need the right to protect ourselves today. As previously stated, those ammendments are just as applicable now as they were when they were written. If you do away with one Ammendment and right, what's to stop all of the from being done away with? I consider my right to freedom of speech every bit as important as my right to bear arms. Im sure when the First ammendment was written the founding fathers did not have in mind the idea of protecting some lunatic child's right to get up and swear and cuss at his teacher, but that very child is being protected today and receiving no reprocutions for their actions. I guess things are getting soo a$$ backwards now people think they can pick and choose which part of the constitution they want to accept or refute. News flash, it doesnt work that way. These are my rights as an American CITIZEN (not a subject) and I absolutely will not give them up to anyone or any government.

[Vizsla Vince]

When will you people ever stop going to the 2nd amendament the consittution was wrtitten 100's of years ago and must be interpreted from a point of view that considers the the conditions at the time.

Seems I've heard this argument regarding the Bible. Usually, it comes from someone who doesn't like being held to a higher moral standard.

[gar-dog]

I don't want to run Dudley off. Also, I admit I have never met a Canadian that I didn't like. And I am a HUGE, and I mean HUGE hockey fanatic! But unless you have felt it and had it, you don't get it.

One of the worst days and feelings of my life was when I was in a Cabela's in PA (relatively new to NJ at the time - from texas originally) trying to buy an 870 Express Youth Model for my boys from "Santa." I went to buy it and pulled out my NJ license and was told I could not buy the gun because I didn't have a NJ FID card. I was like, what is an FID card???? Pennsylvanians had their rights... all around me people young and old, men and women, black and white, were at the gun counter making purchases. It was a crowded Saturday, and you had to take a number to get service. But I, an American citizen, couldn't buy a fricken 20 gauge. It was a feeling I had never felt before... denied... of something that I felt was a basic constitutional right. It really really affected me.

Well, within a week or two I was a card-carrying, lapel pin wearing member of the NRA, and I haven't stopped since.

Cheers,
Gary

[phermes1]

Dudley - what 'limits' would you propose? I don't think anyone hear truly believes that the right to bear arms applies to weapons of mass destruction - but I'm curious as to what limits YOU would find appropriate?

Me? I'm fine with background checks. I'm fine with felons not being allowed to own a gun, just as I'm fine with them not being able to vote.
I don't think I should have to jump through hoops to buy a shotgun or a rifle or a handgun, nor should any other law-abiding citizen. I have a really hard time with any law that starts making distinctions; this gun is OK, but this one isn't, yada yada. Who draws that line between OK/not OK?
And as I said before, gun control laws are NOT EFFECTIVE. DC has some of the tightest gun laws in the nation - it's also got one of, if not the, highest crime rates in the nation. I'm curious how their crime rate compares to Florida or Texas, who have fairly loose gun laws - I'm guessing Florida or Texas are safer places to live.

[romeo212000]

Australia tells the story perfectly. look at how their crime rates have increased sinc they did away with guns.

[ezzy333]

Every state that has allowed "Concealed Carry" in the past few years have had the crime rate go down immediately.

I don't think we should be too hard on Dudley, because he in basing his opinion on what the dreive by media publishes and you can not make a rational decision based on their liberal agenda.

Thats the main problem even here in this country.

Ezzy

[romeo212000]

Yes but the difference is the effort to become informed rather than relying on what the liberal media spews out.

[romeo212000]

Exactly. As previously stated. If you start placing limits where does everyone agree to draw the line. Dudley says no .50 cal machine guns. Another guys says not Autos at all. The next guy says semi-autos are not acceptable and now we have lost our right to posess a ruger 10/22 semi auto .22. Then the next guy says you know its just not sporting to have a semi-auto shotgun. The next guy says well some people can shoot a pump as fast as some semi-autos. So now they are not sporting and some agree that there is no problem with doing away with them. Till ultimately we are let with nothing but single shots and double barrels (which I love) and the posession of which is so controlled that its nearly impossible to posess even one. That my friend is called escalation.

[dudley]

shout out to gar-dog hockey for life and to who ever it was who mentioned the freedom of speech they have imposed limits on that to prevent salnder and character assasination yet it has not done away with the right completely. As for what limits i would put on fire arms possesion I would make a comprimise between what we have in canada(because some things here are messed up i can buy a M-14 with a normal license but an FN FAL which is also a semi 308. is illegal???) and what you all have in america. For example NO automatics of any kind, and a seperate license for hand guns and rifles under a certain lenght though again with out alot of the crap we have here, and i would do away with the right to carry a gun unless a sufficient need could be proven.

[phermes1]

i would do away with the right to carry a gun unless a sufficient need could be proven.

WOW.

Let's just say I'm glad you're not in charge.

[romeo212000]

You are exactly correct VZ. No concealed carry huh dudley. Do the facts posed to you concerning australia not mean anything to you? Do the stastics concerning the fact that states that have allowed CCW have seen immediate drop in crime rates not catch your attention at all. This is the classic attempt of the unimformed, media manipulated mindset to completely ignore the facts and reality and instead substitute their own. So do not complain to me when you are not allowed to own weapons at all in Canada because you have comprimised on this issue. And when that does happen please do not come down to the United States because we do not need anymore anti-gun votes. I have the right to own a fully automatic weapon to protect myself and my family from anyone or anything. I am truly sorry you do not enjoy that right in Canada, and even more sorry that you do not have a reasonable understanding as to why such a right is necessary. It truly makes me sad to see someone stick their head in the sand on such a blatant issue.

[rkalgren]

Any law abiding citizen can provide "sufficient" reason for a carry permit. Just tell the issueing agent to watch the news and see how many robberies, murders,rapes,child molestations and any of the thousands of violent crimes are being commited.
I will keep my guns and I thank the founding fathers for their wisdom in creating the second amendment. I also thank the NRA for standing up for my rights, someone has to stand with me.

[dudley]

This will be a never ending debate so lets agree to disagree.