When guns are outlawed....

Little-Acorn · 09-21-06, 08:08 PM

The old bumper sticker still says it best: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

I still smile tenderly at people who insist they only want the government to restrict guns a little. Or only ban certain "especially bad" ones. Or create just a few "gun free zones" around schools or churches or wherever. Or etc. History has shown over an over, that once you grant government the authority to put ANY restrictions on personal weapons, it tries over the ensuing years to put more and more, until private ownership or use is basically impossible. Except for those who disobey the law, of course. And every time, a new batch of do-gooders shows up, and insists that with them, it will be different.

Same goes for the ones who demand, "Why do you NEED such-and-such a gun?" These people don't seem to see any problem with a requirement to explain to some outside entity our reasons for wanting the ability to be armed, as a necessary condition to buy or own one.

Do these misnamed "gun buyback" programs actually reduce crime? Everyone has an opinion. But does anybody have any FACTS? Some study you can point to showing crime levels before and after a buyback program? Or anything similar?

And before you get huffy about the fact that the above "gun-buyback" program was voluntary, and not MANDATED by government, permit me to guide you back to the issue it illustrates: People without guns are vulnerable to predation by people who have them. The guy saw right away that the woman had money. But he didn't pull his gun on her until he was sure she didn't have hers any more.

Sure, she made her own choice to give up her gun. But when people have that choice taken away by government and are forced to do so, the lawbreakers can be even more sure their law-abiding victims are unarmed; and less inhibited about going after them.

Diogenes · 09-21-06, 08:24 PM

When I was but a wee lad, there were some Neandertals in the next cave over that made the same argument about atlatls that the Brady bunch makes about guns today. I haven't seen very many Neandertals around lately...

Caine · 09-21-06, 08:59 PM

Responsible Gun Ownership = Good

However,
Im not so much in support of the 2nd amendment that I believe in private ownership of nuclear weapons, or even grenades for that matter.

'nuff said.

ProudAmerican · 09-21-06, 09:03 PM

just a friendly reminder, and not a flame......

read the rules of this particular forum. you have to abide by them. you have to post a link and the title of the thread must be the same as the title of the article in the link.

certain people......apscoughaps.......have been known to have an absolute coniption fit when you dont follow these rules.

unless you are a liberal, then you will probably get a free pass on that....

Caine · 09-21-06, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican

certain people......apscoughaps.......have been known to have an absolute coniption fit when you dont follow these rules.

unless you are a liberal, then you will probably get a free pass on that....

Aps has what authority here????

Are you certain this post wasn't meant to flame?????
I would take that back if I were you.

Wouldn't want anyone to find you to be un-truthful, would you?

ProudAmerican · 09-21-06, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caine

Aps has what authority here????

Are you certain this post wasn't meant to flame?????
I would take that back if I were you.

Wouldn't want anyone to find you to be un-truthful, would you?

flame, nahh.....take a cheap shot......sure.

and you are correct, aps has no authority here, but you sure couldnt tell it when she railed me like no tomorrow on a thread where I mistakenly didnt follow the rules.

just gettin a little revenge is all.

surely im not the only one here to take an ocassional jab. as a matter of fact, I KNOW IM NOT the only one here to do that.

so, no.....I didnt intend to flame the person that started the thread.....but sure, I intended to take a harmless jab at someone else.

Caine · 09-21-06, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican

flame, nahh.....take a cheap shot......sure.

and you are correct, aps has no authority here, but you sure couldnt tell it when she railed me like no tomorrow on a thread where I mistakenly didnt follow the rules.

just gettin a little revenge is all.

surely im not the only one here to take an ocassional jab. as a matter of fact, I KNOW IM NOT the only one here to do that.

so, no.....I didnt intend to flame the person that started the thread.....but sure, I intended to take a harmless jab at someone else.

Okay..

Well, to me and you it is a harmless jab.
But some people and thier emotions, I'll tell you........

Stace · 09-21-06, 09:14 PM

Moderator's Warning:

Little-Acorn, you have been informed numerous times of the rules and guidelines for posting in *Breaking News*; at this point, you can no longer claim ignorance and therefore, from here on out, the mod team can only assume that you are blatantly disregarding the rules. Any subsequent violations WILL result in official warnings.

And sorry, ProudAmerican....no one gets a "free pass" on these rules, regardless of their political affiliation.

TurtleDude · 09-21-06, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caine

Responsible Gun Ownership = Good

However,
Im not so much in support of the 2nd amendment that I believe in private ownership of nuclear weapons, or even grenades for that matter.

'nuff said.

the amendment speaks of arms- arms were seen as distinct from "artillery" or "Ordnance". Nukes or grenades are clearly artillery or Ordnance. If the intent was that each citizen had the basic infantry weapon, then the grenade issue becomes more hazy. Stuff like flamethrowers, mortars and stinger missiles, while operated by one man are not issued to each individual soldier

If lines have to be drawn I would suggest that any weapon regularly issued to CIVILIAN Law enforcement officers (Handguns, "sniper rifles" automatic carbines") should clearly be allowed to other CIVILIANS. stuff like automatic grenade launchers, portable anti tank weapons (Like a LAW) are far more problematic.

I cannot logically fathom a City of state saying a certain weapon has no legitimate civilian use in that jurisdiction and then issuing the same weapon to its agents

Caine · 09-21-06, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

the amendment speaks of arms- arms were seen as distinct from "artillery" or "Ordnance". Nukes or grenades are clearly artillery or Ordnance. If the intent was that each citizen had the basic infantry weapon, then the grenade issue becomes more hazy. Stuff like flamethrowers, mortars and stinger missiles, while operated by one man are not issued to each individual soldier

If lines have to be drawn I would suggest that any weapon regularly issued to CIVILIAN Law enforcement officers (Handguns, "sniper rifles" automatic carbines") should clearly be allowed to other CIVILIANS. stuff like automatic grenade launchers, portable anti tank weapons (Like a LAW) are far more problematic.

I cannot logically fathom a City of state saying a certain weapon has no legitimate civilian use in that jurisdiction and then issuing the same weapon to its agents

Well, I added that bit in there because I have debated people on this very forum who stated they believe in private ownership in any weapon, including privately owned nuclear weapons and rockets and grenades.

But, I do believe that hi-power rifles/handguns/(certain) Assault Rifles/shotguns are all fine.

But, of course, when it comes to weapons not commonly used for hunting (handguns/assault rifles) I believe the government should have criminal screening requirements.

Basically, Im happy with the gun laws in my state (North Carolina).

I own 2 guns, and have a 3rd that I "borrow" from the City.