Waco (Texas) Tribune-Herald: Register All Guns


PDA






Sawdust
September 20, 2004, 01:31 PM
'Arms' have come a long way since the Founding Fathers

By Rowland Nethaway
September 20, 2004

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

For some gun owners, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution means no gun control laws. No infringement means just that -- no laws that restrict the right of citizens to own and equip themselves with armaments of their choosing.

For many gun control advocates, the key to understanding the Second Amendment lies in the part that about a well-regulated militia being necessary to defend the nation. The amendment emphasizes citizens using arms in a regulated military application. There wasn't much controversy over this issue back when the nation's founders included it in the Bill of Rights, promulgated in 1791 to provide guarantees of individual liberties to citizens who had many of these rights abridged by British colonial authorities.

The need for citizens to be able to grab a musket from over the fireplace and join neighbors in a militia in defense of their homeland made sense after the American Revolution.

The nation's founders thought in terms of citizen soldiers. To them, the term "arms" meant muzzle-loading guns, swords, knives, pistols and cannon.

The word "arms" is not limited to rifles, shotguns and pistols. Arms mean weapons used in fighting, especially in warfare. It is the root of armaments, armies and armadas.

Today, arms include Cruise missiles, land mines, shoulder-fired missiles, stealth bombers and all manner of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs.

Not only did the nation's founders lack standing national armies and navies, they also could never have imagined that the word "arms" could include today's weaponry. Like it or not, the right of the private citizens to keep and bear arms has already been infringed by outlawing the ownership of all sorts of weapons now relegated for use by the nation's well-regulated military.

Today's heated disputes over gun-control laws swirl around how to best regulate what is left, shotguns and relatively small- caliber rifles and handguns.

There was a time when any American with $200 could buy a new Thompson fully automatic .45-caliber machine gun. These weapons became popular with gangsters who used them to mow down police officers and innocent bystanders.

To protect society, Second Amendment or not, Congress soon passed a popular gun control law that outlawed the manufacture and sale of new fully automatic weapons to private citizens. Like most regulations, there are exceptions and loopholes in the machine gun law. By getting the right sort of license, which in the past has been easy, citizens can still own fully automatic machine guns.

The 10-year 1994 "assault weapons ban" that Congress recently refused to renew was a case study in exceptions and loopholes.

Although the 1994 ban outlawed the manufacture of 19 semiautomatic weapons and features such as bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, collapsing stocks, certain grips and grenade launchers, gun manufacturers easily outmaneuvered the law with a few minor changes and a new name for the same weapons.

Besides, all the millions of old weapons with the newly outlawed features, including large ammunition clips, were still legal and easily obtained.

My proposal is to regulate guns the same way we regulate cars, planes and other motor vehicles. We should register all guns, old and new, and license the owners. No exceptions. No loopholes. Then we should crack down hard on gun crimes.

As a lifelong gun owner, my rights would not be infringed, but the licensing and registration would better protect society in the same way it does with motor vehicles.

-- Rowland Nethaway is senior editor of the Waco (Texas) Tribune-Herald.
----------------------------------------------------

Sigh. Never thought I'd hear this from a Texan. :scrutiny:

Sawdust

If you enjoyed reading about "Waco (Texas) Tribune-Herald: Register All Guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zrex
September 20, 2004, 01:46 PM
It's times like this that I wish stupidity was painful.

El Tejon
September 20, 2004, 01:53 PM
I propose that we register newspapers? Would that be O.K.?:rolleyes:

Tamara
September 20, 2004, 01:56 PM
Not only did the nation's founders lack standing national armies and navies, they also could never have imagined that the word "arms" could include today's weaponry.

They also had no way to forsee that "the press" would include vapid bubble-heads nattering away on a world-wide electronic network about topics that they grasp about as well as a trilobyte grasps quantum mechanics.

Got a license for that keyboard, Rowland?

Hawkmoon
September 20, 2004, 01:59 PM
Not only did the nation's founders lack standing national armies and navies, they also could never have imagined that the word "arms" could include today's weaponry. Like it or not, the right of the private citizens to keep and bear arms has already been infringed by outlawing the ownership of all sorts of weapons now relegated for use by the nation's well-regulated military.
Makes me ashamed that I was born in the same state.

He doesn't get it. Doesn't matter what "arms" the founders contemplated. The reason they "lacked" standing armies and navies is for the very well documented reason that they didn't trust the critters and didn't want any part of them.

And, no, I don't like the fact that our right to keep and bear arms has already been infringed one little bit.

Smoke
September 20, 2004, 01:59 PM
The Waco Tribune Herald is one of the most Liberal minded pieces of left wing garbage printed today. Total waste of a tree.

I am not surprised by anything printed there. This is so typical.

Roland Nethaway is not a Texan...he just happens to live here. He is the Michael Moore of Waco.

You can read more of his mindless drivel and respond to his "Opinions" Here (http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/content/news/opinion/nethaway.html)

Smoke

ballistic gelatin
September 20, 2004, 02:03 PM
Obviously not a Native Texan...

deanf
September 20, 2004, 02:04 PM
My proposal is to regulate guns the same way we regulate cars, planes and other motor vehicles. We should register all guns, old and new, and license the owners.

So under this scheme, I assume all states would honor gun licenses from other states, and I could take and use my gun in any state or jurisdiction, just like I can with my car now?

EricOKC
September 20, 2004, 02:38 PM
My proposal is to regulate guns the same way we regulate cars, planes and other motor vehicles. We should register all guns, old and new, and license the owners.

The thing these simpletons seem to not think about with this scenario, is if a car is never taken on a public road, it need not be registered. There are also no restrictions on the power or capacity of a car, or on the ages of who may purchase one or use one on private property.

I'd LOVE to have that level of flexibility compared to what we have now.

Delmar
September 20, 2004, 02:46 PM
if a car is never taken on a public road, it need not be registered

Cool-that means I get to operate all my registered firearms on LBJ Freeway?:D

joab
September 20, 2004, 03:10 PM
I e-mailed him, for what it's worth.
The argument is borrowed from an editorial in G&A

I just read your article entitled "From muskets to missiles"
And I have to applaud your understanding of the AWB for what it was, and not a machine gun ban as so many others proclaim. However one comment in particular that struck a chord in me as I was reading was your proposal to treat guns the same as cars.Personally I think this could be a good way to address the gun and gun law situation.

For instance, my drivers license allows me to drive a passenger vehicle anywhere in the country with only minor differences in traffic laws. A more advanced license can be obtained by taking a simple test allowing me to upgrade the type of vehicle i wish to drive.
I assume the gun license you propose will allow similar considerations in regards to guns.

I can buy and own as many cars as I would like and drive as much as I like with no age restrictions or registration as long as I only drive while on my own land. The gun registration applies the same, yes?

Will the gun license and registration fees go towards public firearm education and public ranges the way automobile fees go toward maintaining public roadways and drivers awareness programs

I will also assume that just as there is no restrictions on the fuel and passenger capacity or the acessories I add to my vehicle are not restricted, unless they make the car unfit for the job which it was designed to do, that the magazine capacity and cosmetic features would no longer be of issue

All in all I like it maybe you could throw your support towards the National Concealed Carry movement that is going on today.

deanf
September 20, 2004, 03:38 PM
The thing these simpletons seem to not think about with this scenario, is if a car is never taken on a public road, it need not be registered.

I've recently learned this may not be true. Apperently in CA (of course) if you don't keep a vehicle insured and registered the health department can come onto your property, or into your locked garage, and take it.

SAG0282
September 20, 2004, 03:41 PM
No thanks Mr. Nethaway.

Yowza
September 20, 2004, 03:44 PM
if you don't keep a vehicle insured and registered the health department can come onto your property, or into your locked garage, and take it. I assume that if this is the case, the Health Department officials in question are probably armed? How ironic.

Rick

Sawdust
September 20, 2004, 03:45 PM
I've recently learned this may not be true. Apperently in CA (of course) if you don't keep a vehicle insured and registered the health department can come onto your property, or into your locked garage, and take it.

No...not true. It doesn't have to be registered if it is not "driven, towed, stored, parked on public roads or highways or parked in an off-street public parking facility at any time during the registration period."


You just have to file a "Certificate of Planned Non-operation". Of course, you have to pay to file the certificate...

Sawdust

deanf
September 20, 2004, 03:56 PM
You just have to file a "Certificate of Planned Non-operation". Of course, you have to pay to file the certificate...

So in other words it's registered.

Sawdust
September 20, 2004, 04:04 PM
Whatever, dean. :rolleyes:

The point is, the health department doesn't come to your house nor bust into your locked garage to take the vehicle.

</thread hijack...my own, no less>


Sawdust

EricOKC
September 20, 2004, 04:24 PM
I've recently learned this may not be true. Apperently in CA (of course) if you don't keep a vehicle insured and registered the health department can come onto your property, or into your locked garage, and take it.

Thats California. They arent really part of the US anymore anyway are they?

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

joab
September 20, 2004, 04:27 PM
I've recently learned this may not be true. Apperently in CA (of course) if you don't keep a vehicle insured and registered the health department can come onto your property, or into your locked garage, and take it. I hate to say this and I don't mean to insult anybody, but California is a lost cause on many levels

SAG0282
September 20, 2004, 04:34 PM
I hate to say this and I don't mean to insult anybody, but California is a lost cause on many levels

I don't know about that........Amanda Bynes does live there.:)

EricOKC
September 20, 2004, 04:50 PM
I don't know about that........Amanda Bynes does live there.

Gonna have to do better than that...

Some of us dont like the brainless 18 year old twit look...

Wildalaska
September 20, 2004, 05:05 PM
They also had no way to forsee that "the press" would include vapid bubble-heads nattering away on a world-wide electronic network about topics that they grasp about as well as a trilobyte grasps quantum mechanics.

:D :D :D

Gaw dang, ifin I was 20 years younger, 20 pounds lighter and single I'd be sendin roses that that there gal that wrote that!

WildswoonAlaska

Sam Adams
September 20, 2004, 06:13 PM
There was a time when any American with $200 could buy a new Thompson fully automatic .45-caliber machine gun. These weapons became popular with gangsters who used them to mow down police officers and innocent bystanders.

First of all, I'd like to know how many innocent bystanders were "mowed down" by gangsters wielding Tommy guns. The number is vanishingly small - unless you get all of your facts from the movies.

Second, I'd like to have some of the same rights as my grandparents did. The crime rate was a lot lower per 100,000 people back then, despite the lack of limits on what you could own. Sheesh, I'd like to have the right to order via the mails the way my parents could have, pre-1968,

My proposal is to regulate guns the same way we regulate cars, planes and other motor vehicles. We should register all guns, old and new, and license the owners. No exceptions. No loopholes. Then we should crack down hard on gun crimes.

Only if part of that statute is that anyone who even proposes to limit guns in any way at all will be immediately stripped of elected office and jailed for no less than 20 years or, if not an elected official, then just the jail would be fine with me. However, since the point of registration is confiscation, I ain't buying. However, they can register my bullets if they'd like - I'll even send them in via "air mail."

spacemanspiff
September 20, 2004, 06:18 PM
who says she wouldnt appreciate getting flowers from a cantankerous old coot?
:neener:

Nightfall
September 20, 2004, 06:36 PM
So much misinformation, so little time...
The amendment emphasizes citizens using arms in a regulated military application.
Looks like another idiot who can't wrap its brain around "well-regulated" having a different meaning 200 years ago. :rolleyes:

confinedbythecurtain
September 20, 2004, 06:56 PM
No offense taken at all Joab, Californias laws and policy are so high and mighty.... Its getting very difficult to live here.

SAG0282
September 20, 2004, 07:06 PM
Gonna have to do better than that...

*horrified look*

Amanda Bynes=brainless twit?

Nein!!!! How can such vile blasphemy escape thy lips?!?!??!

Daniel964
September 20, 2004, 07:14 PM
joab
Senior Member

Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Ocoee
Posts: 1024
I e-mailed him, for what it's worth.
The argument is borrowed from an editorial in G&A

I just read your article entitled "From muskets to missiles"
And I have to applaud your understanding of the AWB for what it was, and not a machine gun ban as so many others proclaim. However one comment in particular that struck a chord in me as I was reading was your proposal to treat guns the same as cars.Personally I think this could be a good way to address the gun and gun law situation.

For instance, my drivers license allows me to drive a passenger vehicle anywhere in the country with only minor differences in traffic laws. A more advanced license can be obtained by taking a simple test allowing me to upgrade the type of vehicle i wish to drive.
I assume the gun license you propose will allow similar considerations in regards to guns.

I can buy and own as many cars as I would like and drive as much as I like with no age restrictions or registration as long as I only drive while on my own land. The gun registration applies the same, yes?

Will the gun license and registration fees go towards public firearm education and public ranges the way automobile fees go toward maintaining public roadways and drivers awareness programs

I will also assume that just as there is no restrictions on the fuel and passenger capacity or the acessories I add to my vehicle are not restricted, unless they make the car unfit for the job which it was designed to do, that the magazine capacity and cosmetic features would no longer be of issue

All in all I like it maybe you could throw your support towards the National Concealed Carry movement that is going on today.



I think he may have just had a Stroke or Heart Attack
:D

Derby FALs
September 20, 2004, 10:15 PM
"You know, driving is a luxury, where firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to do anything if you don't use them on public property. If you DO want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property." ___John Ross

ReadyontheRight
September 20, 2004, 11:19 PM
The nation's founders thought in terms of citizen soldiers. To them, the term "arms" meant muzzle-loading guns, swords, knives, pistols and cannon.

I wonder if this genius thinks that being attacked by a muzzle loading gun, sword, knife, pistol or cannon is somehow less lethal than a Mini-14.

dustind
September 21, 2004, 05:10 AM
There where a few exotic automatic and semi auto weapons back in their day. They had revolvers with two layers of cartridges that held about 20 shots. Our founding fathers also used cannons as lawn ornaments, and ships where expected to have cannons to fight off pirates.

LAK
September 21, 2004, 06:49 AM
'Arms' have come a long way since the Founding Fathers

And human nature has not - and is not - going to change. It was not the size nor number of holes an "arm" could or could not make that was the underpinning of their ideology on this issue.

joab
September 21, 2004, 11:13 AM
Derby FALs
That's the article,I think, that I stole my argument from

Sam Adams
September 21, 2004, 11:16 AM
"I'm a felon 9 times over, so I no longer own any guns. However, Mrs. Liddy has a fine collection of firearms, some of which are on my side of the bed." --G. Gordon Liddy

I'd be willing to bet that G. Gordo has a slew of pre-1899 arms. Pursuant to the '68 GCA, these are "non-guns" that are virtually unregulated. One need only show or send the owner a copy of your license to prove that you are an adult. Most states follow the same rules. Oh, and Liddy is more than a little knowledgable when it comes to the law and self-protection.

Sam Adams
September 21, 2004, 11:25 AM
If guns were like cars: http://www.mcsm.org/guncars.html

niemand
September 21, 2004, 11:31 AM
"G. Gorden" is apparantly of legal issue; Constructive Possession unaware.

Essence of; Should One be "Legally Barred" (I would assert One may not be) Simply to Sporting Counter in "Walmart" go is federal violation.

How? As Clerk has to Arms/Munitions access, and "Would be reasonable" to hand such to One should One enquire, One is now of "Constructive Possession" guilty. Not that One DID so enquire, but that One COULD so enquire.

Works in same manner "Drugs in Auto" or "Living-Room". "Belongs to Everyone".

artherd
September 22, 2004, 03:22 AM
The automobile comparison misses one crucial point. Namely, that cars are NOT an absolutely essential tool for secureing all freedoms eneumerated as inalienable by our constitution, wheras arms ARE!

Withought an armed civilization to back it up, the constitution, bill of rights, the revolution, our current government, etc. all means absolutely nothing.

An armed civilization is literally the only thing keeping us from standing in a pile of dust and bodies of our homes and fellow man.

artherd
September 22, 2004, 03:25 AM
Lastly, a Cannon was the WMD of the time, capable of killing a (relatively, the world was a smaller place then) huge number of people.

There were also powder kegs stacked attop each other filling rooms, the equivlent of "should my neighbor be allowed to own a 500lb bomb?" I say sure, if he can afford the $50k pricetag.

This ethical question has already been answered. Weigh a few tens of accidental deaths per year, to ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY MILLION PEOPLE murdered during peacetime by their own legitimate governments post fireamrs-confiscation, since 1900!

thatguy
September 22, 2004, 11:00 AM
When the Bill of Rights was written TV and radio didn't exist any more than did "assault weapons" yet the 1st Amendment still applies to these media.

I agree, this writer is a dolt.

jefnvk
September 22, 2004, 02:32 PM
To them, the term "arms" meant muzzle-loading guns, swords, knives, pistols and cannon

Cool. According to this person, I can buy cannons?

I still say lets register all journalists. We can even have different levels of registration, so a sports writer can't write about fall fashions. If you write or publically speak of a topic outside your licensing, you lose all rights, go straight to prison and never get to write again.

RobW
September 22, 2004, 03:56 PM
The lack of logic and even minimal knowledge of the topic the so-called "Journalists" are writing about always puzzles me.

Looks like the blind is leading the blind.

sawhitt
September 22, 2004, 05:16 PM
From Kalifornistan or New Jerzistan I'd expect this. But TEXAS? Say it ain't so.

Standing Wolf
September 22, 2004, 08:43 PM
We should register all guns, old and new, and license the owners. No exceptions. No loopholes. Then we should crack down hard on gun crimes.

Maybe we should try cracking down on criminals instead, although it would cost representatives of the Democratic (sic) party a few million votes.

Destructo6
September 23, 2004, 02:08 AM
My proposal is to regulate guns the same way we regulate cars, planes and other motor vehicles.
I'd love that, if it were truly done the same way: everything is legal on private property, very few limits otherwise, and the ability to use it just about anywhere.

For CA non-op registration, it's a flat $15 filing fee and they don't bother you until you decide to re-register it. The vehicle has to be off public property, though, which stands to reason, since "non-op" means "..on public property". I just re-registered my 67 Mustang after 5 years of non-op ($45).

Destructo6
September 23, 2004, 02:13 AM
Slow server double tap.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
September 23, 2004, 05:07 AM
Although the 1994 ban outlawed the manufacture of 19 semiautomatic weapons and features such as bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, collapsing stocks, certain grips and grenade launchers, gun manufacturers easily outmaneuvered the law with a few minor changes and a new name for the same weapons.

Evil me, I "easily outmanuver" the speed limit every day by not exceeding it.

Tomac
September 24, 2004, 08:42 AM
There's a fatal flaw in any "regulation" scheme requiring fees of any kind:
All the govt has to do is raise the "fee" high enough that it becomes unaffordable and voila, instant gun control ("we're sorry, but the fee has gone up to $10K per firearm...") .
Tomac

mercedesrules
September 24, 2004, 10:06 AM
We live in a great country where even retards can have jobs and earn a living.

If you enjoyed reading about "Waco (Texas) Tribune-Herald: Register All Guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!