[gun-fucious]

This page was originally web published, at this same Internet address, in summer 1994 as Guns and the Second_ Amendment._ At that time advocates of gun control were still ignorant about the safety of the internet and afraid to become identified and located by angry gun enthusiasts, and so there was no World Wide Web page advocating gun control. An original version of this page was published in essay format in newsprint by a Knight-Ridder paper in spring 1993.


Unlike most gun control advocates I’ll spell out my position clearly; I want to see a national grace period of 2-3 years for buy backs, at reasonable value, of all firearms belonging to any citizen who is not directly involved in law enforcement or enrolled in the armed forces. After that grace period I want to see a heavy fine, of at least $10,000 penalized on anyone who is caught violating these new prerequisites for gun ownership._ I want to see that the only manufacturing of firearms is done under strict government control, in one guarded location, for sale only to one government agency, which distributes these firearms, in a highly controlled manner to law enforcement and military agencies._ I want a federal law, which criminalizes the exportation of firearms to any other nation, either by congress, the pentagon, or covert intelligence agencies.

http://www.guns-in-america.org/

[voilsb]

you'd see an awful lot of people joining the reserve police forces and the national guard and reserve militaries, I think.

and a lot of people who would out-right revolt.

and finally, a lot of people who would BOHICA.

[Devonai]

Anybody see an e-mail address on this web site? I didn't. I'd guess if there ever was one, the author got absolutely swamped by those of us who deal in truth. Looks like he's not interested in any discussion. What a coward.

[John G]

There's a link near the bottom of the page called "Harass author here." (rfmcaptain@hotmail.com)

It links to a hotmail address, who knows if it gets checked?

[Devonai]

Duh, me look good with eyeballs...

Here's a copy of the e-mail I sent him:

Dear Sir,

Firearms will never be outlawed in the United States as long as the 2nd amendment remains in place. Popular opinion and supreme court rulings support an individualist reading of this amendment, meaning that unless it is overturned by a subsequent amendment, private citizens will always retain their right to own firearms. If the focus of your efforts is the adoption of an amendment overturning the 2nd, then I say more power to you, it is your right to support this kind of legislative action.

However, know that any attempt to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens will be a disaster of unprecedented proportions. You must be willing to face the consequences of your crusade, which will be brother once again turned against brother on our own soil. If you can live with that, you are either a sadist or a madman. I, for one, cannot abide by the thought of such a future for this great country.

Respectfully,

David Kantrowitz

[SemperFi83]

I want, I want, I want...

Crap in one hand and want in the other...see which fills up first.

[Devonai]

My message bounced back: "No such address."

What a shock.

[Nightfall]

Americans have proven themselves irresponsible with firearms.

Here I thought condemning an entire race/nation based on individual actions was wrong. I suppose since African-Americans have a higher crime rate, they have proven themselves criminals and should be treated accordingly? Bigotry is bigotry, no matter the reasoning behind it.

That most guns are not used irresponsibly, because they are kept away in homes, is no excuse for the hundreds of thousands of violent events...

The logic of this statement admittedly stumps me. This person says the majority of firearms are safely kept and not used in crimes... but we should take them anyway? Apparently since person A does something bad with an object, Person B, C, D, E, F, G, etc. will be punished for it. Nice.

Warlords purchase our semi-automatic military style weapons.

I see no source for this bit of information, oddly enough. Anybody have statistics on how many shipments of Bushmasters or Colt Match Targets went out to foreign warlords? I guess they finally realized they could pay high prices for traceable, semi-auto, handicapped weapons that don't even have a bayonet lug and come with 10 round magazines, instead of wasting $150 or so on a full-auto AK-47 with some 30 rounders, that the Feds won't have anywhere to trace it to. Good logic.

It was eighteen years ago I was in high school myself. I was known to be violent... A mean spirited and aggressive teenager who carried a bowie knife strapped on his leg, and engaged in fights on an almost weekly basis. I was so bad, I was once expelled from an entire school system for 'life' in a major metropolitan area, at age 10. I'm glad now, reflecting back, for those who knew me and myself, that no firearms where accessible to me...

You were a violent person in school, and would like to see everybody banned from owning a firearm because you feel you wouldn't have been able to control your temper. Naturally, if you were violent and had a lack of self-control, everyone else must be violent and lack self-control as well. Handicap hundreds of millions of law-abiding, responsible people so that angry, out of control thugs won't hurt other people with this particular tool as easily. Good plan. Way to go for the root of the problem.

I engaged in hundreds of hours of debate with gun owners on computer bulletin boards. My experience is that these gun owners are the most selfish people in our nation, and that they will say anything, use any numbers, and contribute millions of dollars to protect their beloved hobby.

You engaged in hundreds of hours of debate with people like me, and all you came away with is that we're selfish and say anything? Did you pay attention to these people or did you just roll your eyes at their silly ‘facts' and ‘statistics' and concepts of ‘individual rights'? I find it hard to believe that you debated with people ‘for hundreds of hours' such as we have here on The High Road and came away with nothing.

http://www.guns-in-america.org/images/gunstwopple.jpg

If you squint real close at the bottom left of this...notice the FBI UCR/VPC source. Hmmm... who wants to bet that FBI UCR is the first statistic, and the second half is from VPC? Good to know this person looks to unbiased sources for their information. I trust the VPC because they don't have an agenda, unlike the NRA! Really I do! :rolleyes:

cont...

[Nightfall]

I would recommend to any persons reading this who want to involve your self in the Gun Control movement: don't even start conversing with the gun owner, you don't need to because Gun Control will happen without their input on the conversation - mark my word, they basically have a crappy argument, and mainstream America won't buy it!

That's right. Tell everybody not to listen to the gun owners and to run away as fast as they can! They might get exposed to say, another side of the issue, or maybe hear facts you don't want them to hear. I love your argument here: Don't listen to them, trust me! Take my word! No need to look at other sources of info or other sides of debate!

It's safe enough in America to not need a gun so removing them can only allow us to be safer.

Wait... after reading your rant on how crime is horrible and we need to get rid of guns to affect it... you're telling me we're safe and don't need guns so we can be even SAFER? I'm confused. :confused:

Generally gun owners would disagree that the public world is actually a pretty safe place. That's why they are gun owners, they have insecurity, fear, an amount of paranoia that initiates a perfectly normal, and American, reaction that is - private gun ownership.

Again, I'm confused. If the world is so safe... why are you wishing that all guns are banned? If we're safe, what does it matter? Hmm... oh wait, I'm just being paranoid. Glad we have such a moderate, unafraid voice such as yours to guide us.

Our constitution, and particularly our Bill of Rights, is supposed to be interpreted (by the Supreme Court) to reflect modern day realities. It is the constitutional duty of the Supreme Court Justices to interpret legal issues pertaining to constitutional argument/s as those issues pertain to modern life. The Bill of Rights is not static, it is an evolving document.

So... The Bill of Rights is open to any interpretation, so long as it comes from the Supreme Court? They can say, "it's not abridging free speech to let the police shoot citizens for saying the USA is bad, since they can still talk when shot"? So if this is true... there really is no such thing as true rights. Do I even HAVE any rights in this case? Or am I just the Supreme Court's toy?

The gun lobby has successfully implanted into them this ideal of a fundamental right.

Damn the gun lobby for warping the minds of our forefathers when they said all those things about individual rights and gun ownership! Wait a minute...

The second amendment is as antique and as useless as the third amendment to the constitution, which says our government can't burst your door down without permission, take your male occupants and enroll them forcefully in the army; it has to be done "in a manner prescribed by law."

The 3rd Amendment is useless? The concept of the gov't busting your door down and forcing males into service is antique? Tell that to the Iraqi's. You act as if it hasn't happened in thousands of years. It's happening right this second. You just don't see it everyday, having it directly affecting YOU every single day, therefore it can't happen, right?

http://www.guns-in-america.org/images/thnksnra.jpg

To quote his caption, "A photo of three ‘law abiding citizens,' living in the Los Angeles area"... once again, I'm glad stereotyping and bigotry is gone from your opinions. I'd almost assumed you meant these people were likely to be criminals because they are Hispanic/African-American and have firearms. I'm sure such an enlightened individual would do no such thing. I know of at least one LEO firearm owner who looks almost exactly like that man... maybe he's secretly a criminal gang member! :rolleyes:

cont...

[Nightfall]

If you are a person making a public statement where you will speak on an aspect of gun laws, you'll receive far less criticism if you use the phrase " . . a right to bear arms," then you would if you said " . . the privilege of legally owning firearms." Ninety nine percent of the shouting critics will be men. Threatening to take away a mans' firearm is tantamount to to the threat of castration, it is his manly- hood. His cowardice is concealed behind the gun's existence, even if it's safely tucked away in the bedroom dresser drawer. There is a new helplessness being experienced by men of today that runs contrary to anything our genetic behavioral make-up is ready for. Men are effeminized in today's heavily regulated and restricted society, where his woman can sue him and divorce him, where a man is only as good as his college degree, his sensitivity, his political correctness, his ability to communicate, to change a diaper, to shop wisely, to show compassion where he may not ever have, in a more manly world of the past 50,000 years of homo-sapiens upright travel, hunting and gathering.

With all the female shooters I've seen, and the women of this board... if all these people are only 1% of the shooters... we must have billions upon billions of fellow responsible gun owners out there! Woo hoo! :p At any rate, thanks for letting me know I'm a coward because I own a firearm and I'm a male. My opinion of any man who owns a firearm in defense of himself or his loved ones has changed. He's just a coward! With a small penis! To be honest though, not sure what to think of all you female shooters... I guess it's okay if YOU own guns... I'm not totally sure, the website didn't tell me what to think of you! :confused:

Does your town, your county, your city experience hundreds of acts of firearm related self defense annually? No. Not "hundreds," not even fifty. If it did your police departments would have record of it - they do not, not even half the numbers.

Luckily every single self-defense use of a firearm is reported, ranging from the mere sight scaring off an attacker to shots fired. Otherwise, I might wonder at that. Oh, and since there aren't hundreds of defensive firearm uses each year in each town to justify our gun ownership... why do the police need firearms then? There aren't exactly hundreds of shootings with police weapons in my little town. Hell, I don't think there are more than a single digit number, IF that. What is THEIR justification? Hmm, doesn't add up. By the way, last UCR I checked (2001) the difference of (specific cases here folks) a felon being stopped in the act of a felony by armed citizens vs police with firearms was only about 190 total across the nation. This doesn't include unreported incidents by civilians. Hmm... both numbers were in the hundreds, just this specific section of incidents too. Hmm...

http://www.guns-in-america.org/images/outlawscop_car.jpg

Nice, Photoshopping on a bumper stick to imply LE support. Classy.

Here is an interesting search query performed on Yahoo / Google on 3/7/2002 that brought a criminal to this web page:

query-p=I+need+winning+gun+case+atf+pick+my+case+
from+the+state+because+of+my+old+felony+back+ground+
can+I+win+my+case?&hc

He's looking for a way around the felony background checks so he can buy a gun. With all the gun shows and kitchen table and car trunk FFL dealers out there, he'll likely find one soon enough. Thanks NRA.

Nice, strong case there. Could have been an anti-gunner testing the waters and seeing what they'd come up with. Hell, could have been you doing the search and clicking your own link. Could have been somebody convicted of something totally non-violent and nothing more than paper work misdeeds... and you accuse him of looking to get around background checks, and buy a gun illegally? Judging by the search it just looks to me as if he wants to get some legal advice and read old trial results. But ya know, we should just assume he's violent and dangerous with little to no proof. It's okay.

For a city or county to have strict gun control laws in this nation of gun dealers, gun shows, mail order gun sales, three hundred plus gun makers, the NRA and a constitutionally protected right to travel unhindered from one state to another, is tantamount to a no water zone in the middle of a lake.

Problem is that the WORLD is the lake, and we are just the middle of the lake to all the rest. When the rest of the world ceases to exist, and America is the only manufacturer of weapons, I'll consider this. Explain away where British and Australian criminals get their guns too, if you please.

Nationalized gun control is not a utopian ideal, its not a myth, its not a theory, its a proven public safety doctrine in 17 other industrialized nations. Those nations experience a minuscule fraction (per capita population) of the frequency and numbers of deaths and wounding that we suffer in the United States as a result of criminal actions, including suicide. Those nations have more in common with our culture than have differences, they are largely Democracies, they are complex and they are growing at an equal or faster rate than the United States and you can travel there and know you won't suffer a gunshot wound, during a violent crime.

Could I get this wondrous list of 17 other nations that are just as much a mixing pot as the USA, that are ‘largely' Democracies, have similar economic and political situations, with similar mind sets, and have instituted gun bans with long term, positive effects? Thanks.

A small gift of appreciation to you for stopping by. For adult gun owners: an erotic picture of a naked woman pointing a handgun, which should stimulate the sex and violence areas of your brains simultaneously (scientists have discovered that these two intensely emotional areas of our brains are in extremely close physical and chemical proximity to each other). Men: you are genetically predisposed to excrete more neuro-chemical towards these areas of the brain - please pay attention to how you feel the moment you view this photo. Those feelings are very much related to the reasons sex and violence are so often entwined in criminal behavior. [b]It is the reason some gun owners insist on cleaning their guns unnecessarily often, its sexually arousing behavior that becomes habitual. Its also the reason the gun owning amateur photographer chooses to ask his lover to pose with his gun. These photos are offered frequently from computer savvy American ex-boyfriends and ex-husbands who have lost respect for their lovers: alt.sex.guns alt.binaries.pictures.guns

And now . . the real pornography: A photographic reminder for gun enthusiasts only: A gruesome image that is not a dissimilar representation of what is the most likely cause of death for any black male under 25 years old in the United States. If your brains' voice says "oooh cool," upon viewing this picture, destroy the gun and make an appointment with a psychologist, please.

Ah, gun ownership and immoral sexual behavior are one and the same. Not only letting people know that since I enjoy cleaning firearms I'm probably sexually aroused by it (am I the only one to whom firearms/military/LE are an immediate turn-off that says ‘time to be serious, this is all business'?), but comparing average gun owners to people who distribute private sexual photos of their lovers without their consent. I see the correlation, don't you all? :rolleyes:

What a horrid web site. I'm so glad I'm on this side of this issue. *content sigh*

[cuchulainn]

At the risk of an ad hominem attack on the owner of that site, I really got the feeling I was looking at John Nash's (Russell Crowe) office wall in A Beautiful Mind.

[dustind]

I read the first paragraph posted and realised that the author is paranoid, and does not know what he is talking about when it comes to computers and the internet. By reading the second paragraph you can tell the author does not know anything about what he is talking about. I am not refering to his stance, just the way he would go about it implementing his adjenda, and what he said about production. He has not done any research and is not a real threat to our rights.

[WonderNine]

You were a violent person in school, and would like to see everybody banned from owning a firearm because you feel you wouldn't have been able to control your temper. Naturally, if you were violent and had a lack of self-control, everyone else must be violent and lack self-control as well. Handicap hundreds of millions of law-abiding, responsible people so that angry, out of control thugs won't hurt other people with this particular tool as easily. Good plan. Way to go for the root of the problem.

This is what Psychologists refer to as "projection". Or; projecting your own hang-ups on others.

[bountyhunter]

This page was originally web published, at this same Internet address, in summer 1994 as Guns and the Second_ Amendment._ At that time advocates of gun control were still ignorant about the safety of the internet and afraid to become identified and located by angry gun enthusiasts, and so there was no World Wide Web page advocating gun control. An original version of this page was published in essay format in newsprint by a Knight-Ridder paper in spring 1993.

Unlike most gun control advocates I’ll spell out my position clearly; I want to see a national grace period of 2-3 years for buy backs, at reasonable value, of all firearms belonging to any citizen who is not directly involved in law enforcement or enrolled in the armed forces. After that grace period I want to see a heavy fine, of at least $10,000 penalized on anyone who is caught violating these new prerequisites for gun ownership._ I want to see that the only manufacturing of firearms is done under strict government control, in one guarded location, for sale only to one government agency, which distributes these firearms, in a highly controlled manner to law enforcement and military agencies._ I want a federal law, which criminalizes the exportation of firearms to any other nation, either by congress, the pentagon, or covert intelligence agencies.



I warned Arnold that they would dig up all of the old stuff on him if he ran for governor.

[Sindawe]

Here's what I get when I run the URL through one my my usual network tools.

Registrant ID:891727DE98C31EC8
Registrant Name:James Mason
Registrant Street1:21 Grey Fox Landing
Registrant City:Woodstock
Registrant Postal Code:06281
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Email:jmason@redshift.com

Using www.globexplorer.com to zoom in on the given address show a patch of forested terrain. May be houses there, but can't get enough detail to tell for sure. I've not probed the email address given to see if its working.

[jimpeel]

Can someone please explain that bumper sticker to me?

It's true
If ONLY outlaws had guns
less of us would die

[KC]

"It's true
If ONLY outlaws had guns
less of us would die"

Cops would be outlaws? wait, that doesn't make any sense.....

[Standing Wolf]

No shortage of wannabe tyrants, I guess.

[RVSinOK]

I'm SO glad I read that....I feel so enlightened! :rolleyes:

[Orthonym]

(Ahenobarbus was Nero's surname). I mean that WE ALL TEND TO THINK OF OTHERS AS BEING JUST LIKE OURSELVES.

Thought of it while reading "The Twelve Caesars" in Graves' translation. Seems that Nero in his capacity of Court of Final Appeal would always let you off if you claimed you'd committed a crime for a sordid, perverted reason. I think his reasoning was that people who said they were honest and decent were lying to impress others, as everyone else really was just like him, and got a real charge from murdering Mom, pulling wings from flies, etc.

[BHPshooter]

Yeah, I stumbled across this site about 3 years ago when I was in High School. I was determined to find some truth out there, rather than be brainwashed by the school run by Big Brother. So, I was looking for arguments on both sides of the fence. Now, I have always been into guns, so I was pretty diligent to find out if "gun control" was needed or not.

So I suppose I owe part of my heavy pro-gun, pro-liberty, TRUE AMERICAN stance to this ??????? moron.

Devonai, I just thought that I should add something: The Bill of Rights (in the 9th or 10th amendment, can't remember which) states that neither it, nor any of it's ten amendments, can be overturned. They're here to stay.

Now, if we could just teach the liberals and Supreme Court to read...

Wes

*edit: Okay, I just looked it up:
Amendment Nine:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This means that while making new laws, they cannot constitutionally [read: legally] deny or disparage rights retained by the people, whether they are mentioned in the Bill of Rights, or other rights (see Amendment Ten).

**Another edit:

Oh yeah, MOLON LABE.

[BHPshooter]

The second amendment is as antique and as useless as the third amendment to the constitution, which says our government can't burst your door down without permission, take your male occupants and enroll them forcefully in the army; it has to be done "in a manner prescribed by law."

And this shows that he know exactly: NOTHING about the Bill of Rights.

Here is the Third Amendment:
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This, in the vernacular, says that the Gov't cannot knock on your door and say, "This is Private Jones, you will give him a bed and you will feed him meals. Good day. We appreciate your taxes."

This is to prevent YOU from having to HOUSE and FEED SOLDIERS. This has NOTHING to do with forcing you to enroll in the army. And, just to rebuke his stupid argument about how a gov't can't force you to be in the military: What is a "draft," then?

How can you say that ANYTHING in the BoR is outdated?

This guy doesn't know ????, and I'd like to take a ???? cattleprod to his ????? hide. This is the kind of ignorance, stupidity, and downright lack of understanding that is dragging our nation, the Land of the formerly Free, down to the depths of Socialism.

:cuss:

Okay, breath deep... :fire:

Wes