The purpose of gun control?


PDA






gundam007
September 19, 2004, 09:12 PM
I was just sitting, thinking, as I often do. Then I began to wonder, why can most gun restrictions can be circumvented by getting expensive licenses?Without sounding like an arrogant commie (not my purpose), is it so that the rich elite can have superior firepower? Their body guards all have full automatic submachine guns and assault rifles. Why can't the common man? They are too expensive to be throw-away weapons from murders, so their only purpose is self defense against a large force. If people in gang territory could have these, gang violence would be almost nonexistant! So is gun control's only purpose to keep the masses held down?

If you enjoyed reading about "The purpose of gun control?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TarpleyG
September 19, 2004, 09:19 PM
I think you are correct. In '34 the government still had enough fear of the populace and knew that an outright ban on autos would not go over--at all. So, they took the stance that applying an expensive tax would seriously curb the pourchase of automatic weapons. Little did they know, the only affect that had was to stop the law-abiding people from buying becaus they could not afford the $200 tax.

The regulate ot now not by the tax but by how much of a PITA they have made it to buy an auto.

Greg

dukeofurl
September 19, 2004, 09:22 PM
Gun control isnt about guns. Its about control.

I ran $200 in 1934 money through an inflation calculator. Lets not go there.

Standing Wolf
September 19, 2004, 09:22 PM
Why can't the common man?

Self-appointed aristocrats always fear and despise commoners.

grislyatoms
September 19, 2004, 09:23 PM
From yours truly:

It's all about CONTROL
The more I think about this, the more it rings true.

If you plug the gun grabber's agenda into a formula with their stated goals (reducing crime), their actions make no sense. They know it makes no sense, that's why they have to lie and twist the facts.

However, If you plug their agenda into a formula with their unstated goal (gun confiscation and eventual total control) their actions make perfect sense. Each little piece fits nicely into the puzzle.

They (the gun grabbers) are going after "assault weapons", I think, because the "assault weapons" owners are considered a "fringe group" by most, even by some of their gun owning brethren.

The next "fringe" group? Handguns. Again, handgun owner's are considered by most of the populace, and even by some of their gun owning brethren, to be a "fringe group".

The next group? The "hunting only" shotgun and rifle guys.

Once the guns are gone, it's all over. The United States of America will be no longer. We will all wear yokes, and see the rest of our rights taken by a corrupt, power mad, out of control, mutated excuse for govt.

There is an anecdote, don't know who created it but recently I saw it illustrated in a political cartoon:

They banned gays, but I didn't care because it wouldn't affect me. They banned Bible thumpers and again, I didn't care because it didn't affect me. They oppressed minorities and I didn't care, it didn't affect me. They went to ban what I am, and I stood up to fight. The problem was, there was no one left to stand with me.

<< Gets on soapbox>>
All of us, as gun owners, need to stand together. Now. We need to fight every single piece of legislation that might affect ANY gun owner. We must put the brakes on further infringement of our rights NOW. Any little concession is one we will probably never get back, so there must be no concessions.
<< Gets off soapbox>>

boofus
September 19, 2004, 09:37 PM
The original 1934 NFA had all handguns included as regulated weapons. But they took it out of the bill because they figured another revolution would start if they did that.

Too bad antigunners have nothing to fear these days, otherwise they'd think twice about pushing for their precious bans.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
September 19, 2004, 09:39 PM
Modern day gun control laws have their origins in the Jim Crow laws passed in the South during Reconstruction, designed to keep Blacks from owning weapons.

Oleg Volk
September 19, 2004, 10:00 PM
Too bad antigunners have nothing to fear these days, otherwise they'd think twice about pushing for their precious bans.

They have to worry only about two things:

- being un-elected if they aren't successful

OR

- being killed if they are successful

Gun control is a political equivalent of trying to bind and gag someone in preparation for a violent rape and murder, and people who try that won't live long past any meaningful successes (even AWB wasn't a success because it pushed literally millions into getting guns, bigger guns and training).

Mr. Kook
September 19, 2004, 10:46 PM
Oleg, I like your line about gun control being the equivalent of binding and gaging a person.

Do you care if I use it in other forums and in anything I write?

Oleg Volk
September 19, 2004, 10:54 PM
Go right ahead. "Self-defense is a human right" has taken on a life of its own, so why not this one.

El Tejon
September 19, 2004, 10:59 PM
gundam, from time immemorial the purpose of weapon control has been to disarm the rulees to empower the rulers. "There were no blacksmiths in Israel because the Philistines were determined to keep the Hebrews from making swords and spears." 1 Samuel 13:19-22 (Good News) (FYI, the "Good News" in the citation references the version of the Bible [Good News is popular in the Methodist church], and is proper Blue Book citation form).

You see the exact same lessons in every historical period and culture--the American War for Independence, Chinese, Japanese, Fillipino, English, German, antebellum South, the South during Reconstruction, the Sullivan Law, Chicago's handgun freeze, D.C.'s gun ban, Ronnie Raygun's California laws, today, inter alia.

The answer to your question is a very decisive "yes."

Mad Man
September 19, 2004, 11:00 PM
why can most gun restrictions can be circumvented by getting expensive licenses?Without sounding like an arrogant commie (not my purpose), is it so that the rich elite can have superior firepower?

If you can find a copy of the September 1996 (http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/issues/55issue.html) issue of Liberty, read "Guns and the Power Elite" by William Tonso.

If anyone knows where a copy of this is online, that would be great too (since I threw out my print edition years ago).

they could not afford the $200 tax.

As Tonso pointed out in his article, $200 in 1934 was about $2,000 in 1996.

Just to check for myself, using the inflation calculator at http://www.westegg.com/inflation/


What cost $200 in 1934 would cost $2,351.95 in 1996.

What cost $200 in 1934 would cost $2,717.31 in 2003.

El Tejon
September 19, 2004, 11:12 PM
Prof. William Tonso (Sociology, University of Evansville) is also the editor of The Gun Culture and its Enemies (1989). I highly recommend it as well.

ARperson
September 19, 2004, 11:25 PM
Let it also be known that at one point the special "permit" needed for what was then recently out-laws firearms was non-existent. You couldn't possess the "illegal" firearm without possession of the permit, but you had to present your firearm when making application for the permit. Consequently you were an immediate felon. Oh, did I forget to mention that the permits never existed either.

I don't have all the details, but I think this is from the '34 Act. Saw a documentary on it. Turns out that the fellow pushing this law did it for a couple of reasons, none of which was to thwart crime and all of which were for control and/or his own agenda (read: power play).

444
September 19, 2004, 11:27 PM
"Then I began to wonder, why can most gun restrictions can be circumvented by getting expensive licenses?"

To own a full auto, select fire, suppressed, or short barreled rifle/shotgun, you don't need any kind of license (Federal Law). You simply fill out some paperwork and pay a transfer tax of $200. As was mentioned, the original purpose of the tax was probably to prevent the average Joe and Jane from being able to afford the tax, however in more modern times, $200 isn't an obstacle to many people. So another barrier had to be constructed to takes it's place. This was achieved by passing another law preventing any new machine guns (suppressors and SBRs are not effected) from being manufactured and sold to the common man. You can still buy the guns that were already registered as NFA weapons, but not new ones. Therefore the law of supply and demand takes over. The supply is finite, the demand stays the same. Therefore the price of the weapons themselves skyrocketed. Now what prevents people from buying machine guns is the price of the gun itself. With the price of even the cheapest machine gun being several thousand dollars, the $200 transfer tax is chump change.

Note that in most of this legislation, "they" don't ban the guns outright. They go in through the back door. They ban new guns (as in this example or in the recent AWB), but let you keep the old ones to pacify the people who arn't thinking about it. In this way, they can play both sides of the fence. They can tell the antis they are banning this stuff, yet at the same time they tell the gun owner that he can keep what he has, but can't get any new ones. Again, the law of supply and demand takes effect.

Mad Man
September 19, 2004, 11:39 PM
Note that in most of this legislation, "they" don't ban the guns outright. They go in through the back door.

Between the end of the Civil War and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it wasn't illegal for blacks to vote.

But for some reason, literacy tests and poll taxes produced nearly the same result.

For 100 years, the 15th Amendment was as widely ignored and unenforced as the 2nd Amendment is today.

Ky Larry
September 19, 2004, 11:41 PM
People like Rosie O'Donuts are indifferent about us, the "Great Unwashed." Our lives are unimportant to the rich elite. However, she wants armed guards to protect her and her "family." You don't have to be a mental heavyweight to figure that out.

Denver
September 19, 2004, 11:41 PM
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has quite a bit on the racist origins of gun control.

http://www.jpfo.org/gpjack4.htm

Oleg Volk
September 20, 2004, 12:14 AM
http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/albums/arms/mentality.sized.jpg

Tharg
September 20, 2004, 05:27 AM
OMG that girl is ...

very pretty

hehe

agree'd tho... it seems the either do it for political agenda, personal mis-information, personal emotions, or just cause of a pre-planned agenda... I don't know how someone accepts office and DOESN"T think - ok this is a right - that some people don't want to be a right - but its a RIGHT... as a gurantee form 200+ years ago ... a right that stands to this day just as do the other rights ... why should THIS right be declined as unimportant...

sigh

J/Tharg!

TK73
September 20, 2004, 09:36 AM
Allright, I have found this great quote about gun control either here at THR or on another firearms discussion forum. It sum it up perfectly:

'Gun Control' is not designed to protect citizens from criminals.

It is designed to protect politicians from citizens!

Many thanks to the guy who came up with this unbelievable logical statement.

I can't hear the antis stupid and surreal "arguments" any longer :banghead:

hayseed
September 20, 2004, 09:41 AM
I agree strongly with the sentiments here about "gun control" being all about control. As far as certain gun owners being labeled "fringe", yes I have seen/experienced that at least to a small degree. I work with a fella that's a member of the "shotguns are acceptable, but you don't need an AK to hunt deer, the NRA wants to give away guns at schools" cabal. Not only should we keep working on the anti's, but maybe we sometimes overlook the "hunting only" type of gun owner. At least they don't have an inexplicable fear of firearms. What a political juggernaut the gun owning populace would be if (let's think positive: when) we get these folks to see the big picture. (grasps chin between thumb and forefinger and gazes ceilingward, pondering said juggernautness).

Another interesting twist of the knife is when one is forced to obtain permission from local LE to carry or even purchase a handgun. Thoughts on this also?

By the way Oleg, I have always wanted to tell you how profound and inspiring I find your website to be!

Chairman Meow
September 20, 2004, 12:36 PM
Democrats and Republicans are entirely motivated by power and money. The religious rhetoric and "do it for the children" flag waving BS is just a public cover for the real financial motivations behind everything they do. We've seen the BS, so where's the power and money behind it? There is a lot of money in protecting gun ownership (I submit the spending habits of myself and my fellow THR members as evidence :D) but where is the money in opposing it? What do Democrats have to gain by pushing gun control? It seems there are way more pro-gun one-issue voters than there are anti-gun one-issue voters, so I seriously doubt that gun control is helping the Democrats win elections. This whole "control of the masses" argument has some merit, but I think it fails to identify the true incentive. I think somebody is getting rich off this, and I want to know who it is.

444
September 20, 2004, 01:05 PM
"you don't need an AK to hunt deer"

This is another example of the smoke and mirrors. The statement is true, you don't need an AK to hunt deer, so it is palatable by the masses and sounds good if you don't know any better. However it has nothing to do with the second amendment or the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms: The second amendment has nothing to do with deer hunting.

I am sure that there is a term for this type of argument, but I am one of the uneducated members of society. I am referring to an argument where the statement you make is true, but has nothing to do with the subject being argued.

hayseed
September 20, 2004, 01:47 PM
444,

I'm not sure what you were getting at in your response about the AK/deer thing. Please correct me if I misunderstood:

I wholeheartedly agree that the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with an idividual right to keep and bear arms, period. I was just pointing out (as you probably already know) that there are gun owners out there who see hunting/skeet shooting as the only legitimate purpose for firearms, and the only thing protected by the 2nd amendment, and that I work with such a person. I was also trying to say that these folks could be staunch allies in preserving and regaining the freedoms of all gun owners, not just hunters, if they could be convinced of the deeper meaning of gun ownership, as an antidote to tyranny, that is.

(BTW, as a new member, I'm thrilled when I get responses, or if someone considers what I've said. Thanks!!
:)

ralphie98
September 20, 2004, 06:15 PM
A good friend of mine pulled out the "don't need an AK to hunt deer" argument just last night. after reminding him that the 2nd isn't about hunting, he went on to explain his literalist view of the constitution which basically said that the 2nd was put there so people would have guns when the british came with theirs, and the guns they were thinking about when they wrote it were muskets, so by all means, we should all have a musket. That way, if we miss, it will take 15 minutes to reload. :banghead: I kinda diverted the conversation after that because I know it's a battle I cannot win. In college he had a minor in political science and he is one of the best debaters I know.

I can see no reasoning behind his feelings. I can only assume it's fear. He hasn't shown much interest in going to the range with me but after this, I think I'll need to put more energy into making sure he at least tries it out.

Foreign Devil
September 20, 2004, 06:30 PM
Gun control is an elitist institution.

The 34 NFA contained provisions allowing corporations to more easily buy the restricted guns so that strike busting company thugs could be better armed than their union victims.

The racist aspect of gun control is well known.

RobW
September 20, 2004, 08:44 PM
You don't need the internet or talk radio to indulge in your 1st amendment "rights". We, the caring Liberals can provide anything you need in regard to your "freedom of speech" (as long as you ape our views).


:evil:

Smythe77
September 20, 2004, 09:36 PM
Our h/guns in Canada (Cdn) have been registered since '34. Still in goes Bill C-68 & sold to the Members of Parliment & Senators that it will only cost 85 million dollars, yet when challenged by a member of the oppositon of what would happen if it reached 150 million only told this was not so.

Right now it is around 2 Billion dollars & steadly climbing. A maze of red tape, which gets cival servants continual jobs. Obviously it does not effect the criminal for no one is going to fork out several hundred dollars to take a Cdn Firearms Safety Course, that must be passed at 82% or higher both written & physically, let alone apply for the Possession & Acquisition (PAL in short) which asks questions like "have your ever" or "Durin the past 5 yrs" (many being on a clean record with the police to drugs, to drinking, house hold problems, have you attempted suicide, treated for depression, emotional problems, been treated for alcohol, drug substances, under treatment or taking medication for either, your violence matters, fights, to the doozer at the last being :

"DURING THE PAST TWO YEARS:"
p) have your experienced a:
I) divorce,separationor breadown of asignificant relationship?
II) major failure in school, loss of a job or bankrupticy?

Put an check on the YES, rather then a NO & it will be some yrs along with maze or red tape to possibly(?) obtain the PAL.

If you only went through all the delays & frustration we did for some years you will shake your heads in dismay.

Said PAL is for purchasing any for of f/arm, ammo, gun powder, primers & even more.

Upon each transaction of a f/arm it is usually another $25.00 each time only was dropped during Fed election just a month ago & will probably come back into effect. For they need to keep those Govt employees working & taking in monthly cheques.

Also once every five yrs said PAL has to be renewed & you must point out how you did in the Cdn Firearms Safety Course, again, AND again must answer a pile of red tape questions.

Said PAL is a "must" as one must carry it like they would a Drivers License as Police or Conservation Officers or lord know who can demand it.

Of interest the PAL knows more about us then anything else YET it is NOT accepted as a means of ID over a drivers license BASICALLY because less the 25% of the Cdn adults would have one or be able to pass all to have one!!!!

Yes every h/gun had to be registered & all long bbl guns had to be registered so any Cdn citizen that has an old .22 rife or possilby shotgun in some dusty corner & probabably not used it mast 20 to 40 yrs 'automatically becomes a criminal' if said gun(s) is located in their home & them not haveing a PAL or proper registeration.

If you only knew all the red tape along with frustration with mixed up civil servants in obtaining a PAL & then the registeration of said fireams you would be shaking your head in dismay.

Waitone
September 20, 2004, 10:18 PM
. . . he went on to explain his literalist view of the constitution which basically said that the 2nd was put there so people would have guns when the british came with theirs, and the guns they were thinking about when they wrote it were muskets, so by all means, we should all have a musket. That way, if we miss, it will take 15 minutes to reload. Muskets is half of the story. When the second amendment was written the peasantry was in possession of the most dangerous firearm known to man . . . .the Kentucky Long Rifle. It could kill at 300 yards compared to 50 yards with a musket if you could aim it properly.

Rawlings
September 20, 2004, 10:21 PM
Someone remind me which Amendment goes like,

A well-regulated deer population, being necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of the people to shoot and kill deer, shall not be infringed.

:rolleyes:

entropy
September 21, 2004, 09:57 AM
Great Poster, Oleg!:D Kit really is an excellent model for them.
I have often debated 'hunters' who are anti-gun; I ask them what model rifle/shotgun or :eek: pistol, they use for hunting, and they usually will wax on poetically about 'Ol bessy, their main huntin' iron, and unless it's a Ruger Model 1 or a Browning M1885, I will mention that their O'l bessy would be banned by the esteemed Satanors...er....Senators from the People's Soviet Republic of Taxachussetts...er Massachussetts if they could do it. Usually outright denial or stunned disbelief is the response, "OH. no they just want to ban Evil Black Rifles, nobody deer hunts with them", to which I reply "I have, and will again" (if I ever hunt in a rifle zone again.) I usually mention my hunting shotgun, which is an 870 with a SpeedFeed III stock (pistolgripped) , and looks EBR (EBS?) as all get out, and say "So how is my 870 more evil than yours? (Or your BPS, 11-87, etc.) And I usually use the paraphrase of Dietrich Bonhoeffer that Oleg made a poster of a while back, "First, they banned the "assault weapons", ...." Most usually still don't believe that that is the avowed goal of most Dems., and unfortunately, some Republicans, too.:( And they will be in denial until the door kicking starts with some regularity, that is until some of their doors start getting kicked.....:banghead:

Foreign Devil
September 21, 2004, 10:09 AM
The poster is good, but the second phrase is a sentence fragment, therefore the period should be removed. I'm sorry for being a grammar Nazi but if the poster is to be used in a public venue it ought to be totally correct.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
September 21, 2004, 02:19 PM
For 100 years, the 15th Amendment was as widely ignored and unenforced as the 2nd Amendment is today

Almost none of the Law School texts on Constitutional Law give more than the briefest treatment of the 2nd Amendment.

The one I used, by Cohen & Varat, practically ignored the 2nd completely.

Sergeant Sabre
September 21, 2004, 06:48 PM
and the guns they were thinking about when they wrote it were muskets, so by all means, we should all have a musket.

The Founders weren't thinking of cell phones, fax machines, computers, the internet, television, or the printing press, either. So, since those items are used to commit bank fraud, credit card fraud, computer fraud, coordinate illegal and terrorist activities, distrubute child pornagraphy, communicate dangerous, extremist ideologies, and conduct a wide range of other negative activities that cost the government, the national economy, and private citizens billions of dollars each year, access to them must be restricted. This is not a First Amendment issue, mind you, since the Founders didn't have any idea that these devices would someday exist, and could not have predicted the havoc that would come of them. You are still free to posess your pens and parchment paper, and use them as you please, just as the Founders intended.

What does your friend say to that?

Sawdust
September 21, 2004, 07:21 PM
Ooooooooh, score one (no...checking rule book)...score *five* for the Sarge.

And the crowd goes wild.

Good one. :)

Sawdust

mcooper
September 21, 2004, 07:46 PM
(stammering irationally: ) BU...But they didn't mean that.

I have used that arguement quite effectively against pro-musket anti-gunners. They get real mad

jimbo
September 22, 2004, 12:32 AM
If you subsidise somthing, you get more of it. If you tax something, you get less of it. They are taxing guns. Those who would ban guns out of existence will have a fight on their hands and ultimately fail.

Those who would tax gun out of existence will ultimately succeed, as the ever-increasing water temperature boils the frog.

They desire the same end - ban all guns. The taxers know they will achieve taxing all guns out of existence if they patiently keep raising the costs of purchasing and owning guns. It is a brilliant plan.

Rawlings
September 22, 2004, 02:28 AM
The Founders weren't thinking of cell phones, fax machines, computers, the internet, television, or the printing press, either. So, since those items are used to commit bank fraud, credit card fraud, computer fraud, coordinate illegal and terrorist activities, distrubute child pornagraphy, communicate dangerous, extremist ideologies, and conduct a wide range of other negative activities that cost the government, the national economy, and private citizens billions of dollars each year, access to them must be restricted. This is not a First Amendment issue, mind you, since the Founders didn't have any idea that these devices would someday exist, and could not have predicted the havoc that would come of them. You are still free to posess your pens and parchment paper, and use them as you please, just as the Founders intended.

::SWISH::

Crowd goes wild.

joe sixpack
September 22, 2004, 04:26 AM
They desire the same end - ban all guns. The taxers know they will achieve taxing all guns out of existence if they patiently keep raising the costs of purchasing and owning guns. It is a brilliant plan.

Way to go people, some great points made including the above.
Thanks for helping to illuminate the vermin.

cheers, ab

ps: I do like that poster Oleg, it is these kinds of visually based
messages disseminated that will win it for all of us
(even the antis who do not yet understand that they will benefit from an intact 2nd amendment).

Tharg
September 22, 2004, 04:50 AM
MAN i love that 1st amendment argument - i've used the 1st amendment to defend the 2nd before.... but not NEARLY as effective as that... i def not as smart as i think i am <grin>

SOOOO bowing to the greater minds...

what is the argument that ok - so we get the most powerful personal fireamrs of our time.... but shouldn't they be in "well regulated" militias?

I know to me - every person was a militia man... should we be called. And should have our own weapons... in order to serve a militia that is unable due to funding or what not to supply us w/ such....

whats the argument? its a usuall footstep for anti's, and its hard for me to argue the fact that in the sentense it seem's very tied to a militia, even tho at the time in my mind - it meant everyone - since anyone could be called to form a militia, could have a firearm in order to be able to man such militia.

Course - they are all drawing lines - the line in 34' says i can't go to wally world and buy a auto weapon... cause the criminals might get thier hands on em - as they DID during prohibition... never mind that they are still getting them during todays times - but seemingly in much lower numbers. (its not often we see a *crazy guy* sprays crowd w/ fully auto weapon... course - the extent of my knowledge of prohibition crime is "movies" so i'll take it on the chin for not knowing the "relative levels" of violence commited w/ those fullauto weapons "back in the day")

J/Tharg!

Mad Man
September 22, 2004, 08:34 AM
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_quills.jpg (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/mediabias.html)

Photo by Oleg Volk (http://thehighroad.org/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=1), www.a-human-right.com (http://www.a-human-right.com/)

Daniel964
September 22, 2004, 08:41 AM
Very nice pic. Where did you get it?

Mad Man
September 22, 2004, 08:42 AM
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3642/1/


.comment: The Digital Millennium Rape Act
What to Expect

Dennis E. Powell (dennispowell@earthlink.net)
Monday, July 23, 2001 02:23:15 AM

WASHINGTON -- Federal law enforcement officials today began rounding up men for alleged violation of the new Digital Millennium Rape Act.

The law, which went into effect June 30, bans "possession of any item or device that makes it possible to commit the crime of rape." It was approved last month by a narrow margin in both the House of Representatives and the Senate following intense negotiations during which a provision was added which excempts government employees, including senators and representatives, from the new law. The legislation was necessary to bring the U.S. into compliance with a treaty negotiated in Japan two years ago by the Clinton administration, but thusfar unsigned by any country. International pressure on the U.S. to sign the accord was intense, however, coming especially from the European Union and many non-European third-world nations. The treaty specifies actions that the United States must take, making no mention of other nations.

"This landmark legislation serves notice on all would-be rapists: If you've got the equipment, we'll lock you up," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California), immediately after its passage.

Critics of the bill argued at the time that mere ability to commit a crime should not itself be a crime, but were overwhelmed by an intense public relations campaign mounted by proponents. Among the existing laws cited in defense of the bill were federal gun regulations and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which make possession of firearms and software, respectively, illegal.

"If you can do the crime, you will do the time," said Boxer. " This is a crime prevention measure -- by the time someone has actually committed an offense, it's too late."


Silly, Isn't It

The above is not real -- if you thought it was, get help at once. But it's a demonstration of the direction in which things are headed, and unless this trend is seen as a whole, there's not a chance of stopping it, if indeed a chance of stopping it still exists at all.

Monday's arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov for violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has outraged many in the hacker community. Skylarov, who it is now reported also sold password-cracking software to the FBI, is accused of making it possible to circumvent certain technology owned by Adobe Systems Inc. Note that he is not accused of having employed this software to circumvent that technology but merely of having demonstrated that it can be done.

As readers of this column cannot have escaped noticing, there is no one louder in defense of copyright protections than I am. But there is a difference between the ability to violate copyright and actually doing so.

The community is enraged, but the rest of the world doesn't give much of a toot, one way or the other. Sound familiar?

That is how totalitarianism is achieved. You pick a fairly small, even fringe, community, and you use them to create the underpinnings for what could result in far broader controls. There's no broad outcry, because people figure it doesn't effect them, and they're too busy worrying about the truly important stuff, such as how the Yankees are doing.

You may think that what follows is some kind of right-wing rant from out in the fever swamps, but hear me out.

In the early 1930s, organized mobs were shooting each other to pieces. Something, it was agreed, needed to be done. Thus, a law was passed banning things like fully automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns. No one shopped to think that shooting people was already illegal, so the chances were few that mobsters would say, "Oh, my! It's illegal to have this tommygun. I guess we'll have to stop bumping people off." Mob rubouts continued, though only really well organized, successful outfits could afford good weapons; making them illegal drove up the price. Everybody else had to use knives, piano wire, and bombs under the driver's seat.

In the 1960s, a president was shot and killed, apparently with a cheap Italian 6.5mm military rifle purchased through the mail. In his infinite wisdom Sen. Thomas Dodd (who later left the Senate under a cloud of scandal) decided that the problem here was the means whereby Lee Harvey Oswald had gotten the weapon. The nation, which has never paid all that much attention, said, "Fine, go ahead," and a law was passed which banned such sales. All this did was drive the price of firearms up. The murder rate -- and at some point we must consider that this was the problem supposedly being addressed -- went up, too.

The country never stopped to consider that the problem is the intent to commit a crime, and the carrying out of that intent, rather than the ability to do so. More important, nobody ever stopped to note that absolutely everyone is capable of committing crimes, and no amount of legislation will ever change that. If you have decided to kill someone, you will kill that person and there's no stopping you. Besides, killing someone is already illegal -- how much attention are you going to pay to lesser offenses?

To the extent that this fact was raised, the response was weak, but enough: Well, nobody really needs these weapons. And the laws are to protect us, right?

True. But there are a lot of things that nobody really needs, but that can be used for evil purposes. Computers, for instance.


Why This Is Pertinent (p. 2 (http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3642/2/))

There is no doubt that some readers are incensed by the example I've employed. They've bought into the control argument without giving any thought to its logical conclusions. Those conclusions involve the fact that it's impossible to favor control of one item because of what might happen unless you're prepared to accept that argument for all items because of what might happen.

The "community" gets its undies in a twist whenever it's suggested that legislation is necessary to protect children from the unsavory influences of the Internet or of AOL chatrooms. Anyone who favors controls can point to incidents at least as inflamatory as those employed in gaining acquiescence to laws limiting gun ownership. Children have been lured from virtual chatrooms to real rooms in tawdry motels by predatory perverts. Children who read the -1 comments on Slashdot will be exposed to things that are unfit even for adults. Children can find lots of things on the Internet that no one could favor their finding. All it will take is one really high profile case to put computers in the same class of infernal device to which guns have already been consigned.

(Additionally, the established news media, whose influence has been diluted by the emergence of alternative news sources over the Internet, will be willing promoters of that kind of legislation, believing as they do that the First Amendment is theirs and theirs alone.)

Consider the reports that an Islamic terror master, Osama Bin Laden, was distributing instructions over the Internet and via CD. There was a lot of coverage, and in the back of the minds of many was registered the notion that something ought to be done. The precedent having been set -- that we don't deal with criminals directly, but instead fart in their general direction -- the idea of a system like Carnivore didn't rouse much public outcry. After all, it's there to protect us, right?

Do you suppose there would be much objection to a law offering imprisonment to, and seizure of the computer equipment of, anyone who deliberately tries to confound Carnivore by, say, appending a list of trigger words to the end of email messages?

The cliche is "slippery slope," and it means that once the first, seemingly harmless, little step is taken, the long downhill slide begins, with ever increasing speed, until the bottom is hit. The first step was taken a long time ago.

It's impossible to favor gun regulations and oppose computer regulations and remain philosophically consistent. In both cases, the governing factor is not actual misuse but potential misuse.

Which brings us back to poor Dmitry. (And, paradoxically, to Adobe -- what a month they've had, huh? First the KIllustrator flap, and now this. A German lawyer goes after KDE in Germany, citing potential violation of a U.S. trademark owned by a U.S. company. Then the U.S. arrests a Russian programmer visiting the U.S. for alleged violation of the DMCA with reference to Adobe while in Russia. As I've mentioned before, the application of law on an international scale is a lot thornier than its proponents would have us think.)

What is he charged with? Not actually doing anything wrong, but instead with producing the means whereby people can do wrong. Might as well round up the employees of the brick plant or the rock quarry, because they produce stuff that can be ill-used, too.

It is interesting and ominous to hear, now, that Dmitry helped the FBI come up with ways of cracking passwords. This will pass largely unnoticed, because most people probably think that it's a good thing for the FBI to be able to get past passwords -- after all, it's to protect us, right? The downhill slide picks up speed.

Violation of copyright is a bad thing, but just as anyone who wants to can commit a murder, anyone who wants to can violate a copyright. If a gun is not available, use a knife. If a knife is not available, use a rope. If a rope is not available, use a rock. And if a computer is not available, use a copier. If a copier is not available, use a typewriter. If a typewriter is not available, use pen and paper. If those things are not available, scratch someone else's manuscript into the mud with a stick or your finger.

There are those who think that outlawing computers, copiers, typewriters, and mud would be the appropriate respective responses, because they haven't quite figured out what to do with you, yourself, and your desire to copy something someone else owns. Dmitry gets nicked because that's easier than tracking down actual wrongdoers.

Government is very adept at isolating little communities within the populace and taking away the freedoms important to them, because the rest of the populace just doesn't care. Then, government moves on to the next little group, and does the same thing there. That which cannot be done at once can be done incrementally -- the slippery slope. Pick a group, make it the enemy of everyone else, and you'll get support for whatever you do. History shows us a whole lot of truly reprehensible actions achieved in this way.

But, hey, something needs to be done, right?

Because then we'll all be protected.

We're picking up speed. Enjoy the ride.

Mad Man
September 22, 2004, 08:51 AM
Since we're discussing First Amendment analogies on this thread, I'll repeat something I posted on another thread (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=102115) about the subject that I hope some of you might find interesting:


September 18th, 2004 03:54 PM

he just told me this evening that he wishes we were like England

He wants television sets to be licensed and registered?

Well, if licensing and registration doesn't violate the Second Amendment, I guess it wouldn't violate the First, either.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/


Do I Need A License?

If you use or install television receiving equipment to receive or record television programme services you are required by law to have a valid TV Licence.

The type of licence you'll need and how to go about getting one will depend upon your individual circumstances.

To find out more, please select from the options on the left or call us with any questions on 0870 241 6468.


Detection and Penalties

Using television receiving equipment to receive or record broadcast television programmes without the correct licence is a criminal offence.
You could therefore face prosecution and a hefty fine of up to £1,000.

You may be asking yourself 'how will they know if I'm using a TV without a licence?' The answer is through a number of different methods.

At the heart of our operation is the TV Licensing database. It has details of over 26 million UK addresses.

Our officers have access to this computer system and a fleet of detector vans and hand-held detectors to track down and prosecute people who use a television without a licence. To find out how effective our methods are click here (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/penalties/detection_tvvans.html).

Each year it becomes easier to find and prosecute people breaking the law in this way.

So please be aware:

* Using a television without an appropriate licence is a criminal offence.
* Every day we catch an average of 1,200 people using a TV without a licence.

There is no valid excuse for using a television and not having a TV Licence, but some people still try - sometimes with the most ridiculous stories ever heard. To read some of our favourites click here (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/penalties/detection_excuses.html).


TV Dealer Information

How TV Licensing affects Dealers
The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 (as amended) requires any dealer who sells or rents TV receiving equipment (whether the equipment is new or second-hand) to notify TV Licensing within 28 days of each transaction, giving full details of the buyer or renter.

Don't forget this also includes:

* Computers fitted with electronic broadcast cards (TV Cards).

* TV Cards themselves.

* Set-top boxes.

Failure to do so may mean a £1,000 fine per offence for you, or any store manager employed by your company.

August 2000 was the first time a major retailer was prosecuted under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967. One of its outlets was fined a total of £2,500 including costs for not passing on details of six customers who had purchased television sets. More recently in October 2000, a second major retailer was found guilty of five such offences and fined over £2,000 including costs.

If you have not registered with TV Licensing and you sell TV equipment then call 0870 240 1293 or fax us on 0870 240 1706 or simply click here (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/dealer/reg_form1.html), print and complete the form and post it back to us.

Personal information that you provide with your registration will only be used by the TV Licensing Authority (BBC and its service providers) to help administer the TV Licence system, including licence applications, fee collection and enforcement. Your personal information will not be provided to anyone else unless we are obliged by law to do so. If you wish to see our Privacy Policy, click here. (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/privacy/privacypopup.html)

TV Licensing, (Dealer Department)
Customer Service Centre
PO Box 88
Darwen
BB3 1YX

What your help means for us

Once you've notified our TV Licensing Dealer Centre of sales or rentals, the information is logged onto our database. We then compare this list of television owners against details of current licence holders. If they don't match up, then thanks to you, we're probably onto a TV Licence evader.

Three simple options for sending your notifications

1. Computer disk
For details call our TV Licensing Dealer Centre on 0870 240 1293
Fax: 0870 240 1706

2. e-mail - dealers.support@capita.co.uk

3. Manual forms - For forms phone on 0870 240 1293

WEPS
September 22, 2004, 10:06 AM
what about knife control? screw driver control? maybe bat control? people get killed everyday with cars, knifes ect. taking away guns won't stop that. i think poeple that fear guns fear them because they don't trust themselves with a gun. they are affraid of what they might do if they had one and therefore assume everybody else is the same way and shouldn't be trusted with a firearm.

GEM
September 22, 2004, 01:03 PM
The fundamental reason for gun control is class, race and ethic warfare. Basically a power structure wishes to remove the ability of its perceived enemies to be a threat to power structure and/or be able to resist the will of the power structure.

The history of genocide clearly makes that point as one example. The racist origin of many gun control laws is similar.

Kerry and Bush both equate guns with rich, spoiled brats shooting at skeet and birdies. While Bush did sign the TX CHL bill that was probably because Rove told him to. Lately, he says nothing about the RKBA as a right for the protection of self and defense against tyranny. His web site is just about sportsmen.

Kerry of course is even worse. However, neither of them are real friends of the RKBA.

Tinker
September 22, 2004, 04:51 PM
The only non-government folks who could afford a $200 tax in 1934 probably worked for Al Capone.

Kind of ironic. :)

If you enjoyed reading about "The purpose of gun control?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!