Gun licensing
- Thread starter Anna G.
- Start date
- Status
Hkmp5sd
Member
Bling Bling
Anna,
I am late to the conversation, but I would like to respond to one point.
The people who want licensing/registration and the people who want guns banned completely aren’t necessarily the same people. Hitler didn't write the law to register and control firearms - that was done before he came to power. He just used the registration records to confiscate the guns. He knew who had them, how many of them they had, and where they kept them. This would not have been possible without registration/licensing. This pattern has been repeated worldwide.
Because the people who want to ban guns know that it is not possible without licensing/registration, they support that. Most of them don't admit that banning guns is their ultimate goal. They prefer slow, incremental changes so that any single one of the changes isn't enough to make people resist, but the end goal of banning guns is still reached. Like the boiling frog scenario: If you attempt to cook a frog by putting him into a pot of boiling water, he will just jump out. But, if you put him in cool water and slowly turn up the heat he will sit there while the water gets hotter and hotter until it is too late and he’s cooked. This may seem a bit paranoid but some of the gun control people even admit it.
I am not saying that all people who want registration/licensing also want to ban guns or that every one that wants to ban guns wants to do so in order to facilitate a future dictatorship. But those who are not willing to go that far now are easily replaced with those who are - and their jobs are made all that much easier by those that came before them.
There are people who honestly hold their positions and think they are doing the right thing. Those people, for the most part, respond well to facts and logic. It’s the people who know the facts but who ignore them and go ahead anyway that have to have their motives questioned.
As for criminals getting guns I would say that criminals will get guns no matter what laws are passed. Heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and other drugs are illegal and completely banned in the US, but no one who really wants those drugs has any trouble finding some. The same will happen with guns if they are banned. Criminals, by definition, don’t follow the laws. In fact, most criminals would like gun control; it would mean that those people who don’t want to break the law will be completely defenseless and easy prey.
I know of no one who would sell a gun to someone who they had reason to believe was mentally ill, even if it were completely legal to do so. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t people who would. But those people probably aren’t very likely to follow any laws that made such an act illegal.
Assuring that someone is not mentally ill at the time he purchases a gun does not mean that he won’t become mentally ill later. Some mentally ill people are capable of controlling the effects of their illness on their own for short periods of time or with medication long enough to fool some overworked doctor. And if they couldn’t cover up their illness, they can always use the same methods that criminals use to obtain their firearms.
I hope that made sense.
Mr Goodwrench
Member
Hi all,
I used to post on TFL once in a while but am new to THR.
While reading this thread I was struck by the fact that no one responded to Anna's apparent belief that it would make for a safe and peaceful society if no one had firearms! Anyone with any knowledge of history knows that before the invention of firearms society tended to be brutal and ugly with the strong and unprincipelled (spelling?) preying at will on everyone else.
I used to post on TFL once in a while but am new to THR.
While reading this thread I was struck by the fact that no one responded to Anna's apparent belief that it would make for a safe and peaceful society if no one had firearms! Anyone with any knowledge of history knows that before the invention of firearms society tended to be brutal and ugly with the strong and unprincipelled (spelling?) preying at will on everyone else.
jimbo
Member
Anna G.
I would quote your request but I don't know how to do it, even though you do, even though you are brand new here and I have been here for months...
So here is your evidence that gun licensing leads to genocide historically:
Link: http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm
Summary:
In 1911, Ottoman Turkey imposed gun licensing. Between 1915 and 1917 the Turkish government murdured over 1 million Armenian men, women, and children in cold blood.
In 1918, the USSR imposed gun licensing. Between 1929 and 1945 the Soviet government murdered 20 million men, women, and children in cold blood.
In 1928, the Germany imposed gun licensing. Between 1933 and 1945 the Nazi government of Germany murdered 20 million men, women, and children in cold blood. I use the term loosely as many were gassed and baked. Among them were Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, the handicapped, and homosexuals. Please note that the Weimar goverment had no control over the law which they passed and which the subsequent Nazi government imposed.
Anna, this is my greatest fear. That a current government imposes something now that a future government may abuse.
In 1914, the Chinese government imposed gun licensing. Between 1927 and 1949 the Chinese Nationalist government murdered 10 million men, women, and children in cold blood.
This was followed by the murder of an additional 20 million men, women, and children murdered in cold blood by the Communist Chinese goverment which followed.
Had enough yet? But wait! There's more!
In 1932, the Guatemalan government imposed gun licensing. Between 1960 and 1981 the Guatemalan government murdered at least 100,000 innocent men, women, and children in cold blood, mostly Mayan Indians and other tribes.
Say, that's pretty recent. But it keeps coming, Anna.
In 1955, the Ugandan government imposed gun licensing. Between 1971 and 1979 the Ugandan government murdered 300,000 disarmed men, women, and children in cold blood for no other reason than practicing the Christian religion.
In 1938, the Cambodian government imposed gun licensing. Between 1975 and 1979 the Cambodian government murdered 2,000,000 disarmed men, women, and children in cold blood. Most of the adults were murdered because they were too educated. "Sorry, Doc."
In 1994... Yes, Anna, as recently as only 1994 there was another mass genocide of innocent men women in children who died for no other reason than being from the wrong African tribe. You see, it can and does happen right to this very day. Because in 1979, the Rwandan government imposed gun licensing. Then in 1994, the ruling power, the Hutus, using primarily machetes, hacked to death a total of 800,000 innocent Tutsi men, women, and children, often by hacking off their external limbs and working inward as a form of torture during the massacre.
I can't even begin to imagine the horror and revulsion a woman would experience seeing here son and husband staked to the ground on either side of here as Hutu exterminators began methodically chopping the hands, feet, arms, legs and finally head off her husband, her young son screaming in agony the entire time. Then moving on to him and finally to her.
I note the detail to inform you tha machetes and not guns were used to exterminte the 800,000 innocent Tutsis. It was the Hutus, and not their guns, which did the killing. Guns are merely tools. Killing can and does occur without them. But it is important to note had the Tutsis guns, they could likely defended themselves against the machete-weilding assailants.
This is the legacy of gun licensing. Of course Anna, those who would impose gun registration do it with the best of possible intentions.
I would quote your request but I don't know how to do it, even though you do, even though you are brand new here and I have been here for months...
So here is your evidence that gun licensing leads to genocide historically:
Link: http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm
Summary:
In 1911, Ottoman Turkey imposed gun licensing. Between 1915 and 1917 the Turkish government murdured over 1 million Armenian men, women, and children in cold blood.
In 1918, the USSR imposed gun licensing. Between 1929 and 1945 the Soviet government murdered 20 million men, women, and children in cold blood.
In 1928, the Germany imposed gun licensing. Between 1933 and 1945 the Nazi government of Germany murdered 20 million men, women, and children in cold blood. I use the term loosely as many were gassed and baked. Among them were Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, the handicapped, and homosexuals. Please note that the Weimar goverment had no control over the law which they passed and which the subsequent Nazi government imposed.
Anna, this is my greatest fear. That a current government imposes something now that a future government may abuse.
In 1914, the Chinese government imposed gun licensing. Between 1927 and 1949 the Chinese Nationalist government murdered 10 million men, women, and children in cold blood.
This was followed by the murder of an additional 20 million men, women, and children murdered in cold blood by the Communist Chinese goverment which followed.
Had enough yet? But wait! There's more!
In 1932, the Guatemalan government imposed gun licensing. Between 1960 and 1981 the Guatemalan government murdered at least 100,000 innocent men, women, and children in cold blood, mostly Mayan Indians and other tribes.
Say, that's pretty recent. But it keeps coming, Anna.
In 1955, the Ugandan government imposed gun licensing. Between 1971 and 1979 the Ugandan government murdered 300,000 disarmed men, women, and children in cold blood for no other reason than practicing the Christian religion.
In 1938, the Cambodian government imposed gun licensing. Between 1975 and 1979 the Cambodian government murdered 2,000,000 disarmed men, women, and children in cold blood. Most of the adults were murdered because they were too educated. "Sorry, Doc."
In 1994... Yes, Anna, as recently as only 1994 there was another mass genocide of innocent men women in children who died for no other reason than being from the wrong African tribe. You see, it can and does happen right to this very day. Because in 1979, the Rwandan government imposed gun licensing. Then in 1994, the ruling power, the Hutus, using primarily machetes, hacked to death a total of 800,000 innocent Tutsi men, women, and children, often by hacking off their external limbs and working inward as a form of torture during the massacre.
I can't even begin to imagine the horror and revulsion a woman would experience seeing here son and husband staked to the ground on either side of here as Hutu exterminators began methodically chopping the hands, feet, arms, legs and finally head off her husband, her young son screaming in agony the entire time. Then moving on to him and finally to her.
I note the detail to inform you tha machetes and not guns were used to exterminte the 800,000 innocent Tutsis. It was the Hutus, and not their guns, which did the killing. Guns are merely tools. Killing can and does occur without them. But it is important to note had the Tutsis guns, they could likely defended themselves against the machete-weilding assailants.
This is the legacy of gun licensing. Of course Anna, those who would impose gun registration do it with the best of possible intentions.
Omg! Please, dont get me wrong about the girly guns. I just meant that people who would like to misuse the weapon to show how tough and strong they are (who I meant with the term "idiots" with my post) wouldnt use a pink gun.
If one day I get to own a gun I'd like it to be colorful too.
Mr. Clark, I agree criminals would always find a way to get guns. It would be a little easier without control, but ok, I'll accept its a necessary evil. I also didnt mean the real mentally evil people, but those who have normal brains but dont have the habit to use them. For example the boyfriends of some of my classmates: "Oh, my girlfriend looked at that guy and I have a gun, what a great opportunity to use it and show how tough I am". But ok, again, I'll agree this is a necessary evil too.
Mr Goodwrench, thats true, if no one has a gun, then the stronger ones would have advantage. I accept the correction.
Jimbo, ok, I am convinced. If registration would lead to ban, thats it.
If one day I get to own a gun I'd like it to be colorful too.
Mr. Clark, I agree criminals would always find a way to get guns. It would be a little easier without control, but ok, I'll accept its a necessary evil. I also didnt mean the real mentally evil people, but those who have normal brains but dont have the habit to use them. For example the boyfriends of some of my classmates: "Oh, my girlfriend looked at that guy and I have a gun, what a great opportunity to use it and show how tough I am". But ok, again, I'll agree this is a necessary evil too.
Mr Goodwrench, thats true, if no one has a gun, then the stronger ones would have advantage. I accept the correction.
Jimbo, ok, I am convinced.
If registration would lead to ban, thats it.Amish_Bill
Member
Anna - I really do own and shoot that rifle.
It may sound overly simplistic, but there are only two reasons why a government "needs" to know if you have something... either they plan to tax it or take it away. It's rare for either case to work out to the betterment of the individual.
Your point.... For example the boyfriends of some of my classmates: "Oh, my girlfriend looked at that guy and I have a gun, what a great opportunity to use it and show how tough I am".
This situation is self-limiting, and actually illustrates the opposite point of view... If arms are heavily restricted, but the idiot boyfriend has one, he can use it with little fear of the other guy's response. If arms are commonplace, then the idiot boyfriend with the gun should have a fair expectation that the other guy (or the other guy's friends) could be armed and might just take lethal offense to being threatened and/or shot at.
Of course, there are always the small percentage of idiot control freak boyfriends who will be driven to attack nomatter what the situation. Arms being commonplace is a REAL help in these times.. Even if he manages to hold it in until they get home... well... I saw a bumper sticker that sums it up nicely... "You Can't Beat a Girl Who Shoots!"
(I just love the double meaning - 'specially since both are true.)
It may sound overly simplistic, but there are only two reasons why a government "needs" to know if you have something... either they plan to tax it or take it away. It's rare for either case to work out to the betterment of the individual.
Your point.... For example the boyfriends of some of my classmates: "Oh, my girlfriend looked at that guy and I have a gun, what a great opportunity to use it and show how tough I am".
This situation is self-limiting, and actually illustrates the opposite point of view... If arms are heavily restricted, but the idiot boyfriend has one, he can use it with little fear of the other guy's response. If arms are commonplace, then the idiot boyfriend with the gun should have a fair expectation that the other guy (or the other guy's friends) could be armed and might just take lethal offense to being threatened and/or shot at.
Of course, there are always the small percentage of idiot control freak boyfriends who will be driven to attack nomatter what the situation. Arms being commonplace is a REAL help in these times.. Even if he manages to hold it in until they get home... well... I saw a bumper sticker that sums it up nicely... "You Can't Beat a Girl Who Shoots!"
(I just love the double meaning - 'specially since both are true.)
Amish_Bill
Member
I'm suddenly struck by the thought....
... this thread has shifted from her question about licensing to the similar topic of registration and confiscation.
Anna - to get back to your question, You are just talking about a minimum restriction to buy, not a license to poses or a registration of what you posess, right?
In that case, if anything, I'd say just proof of age, and if you're underage, authorization from your parent or guardian.
Sure - this will lead to the occasional mess, but the only way to keep a person from getting into a mess now & then is to wrap them in cotton, sedate them, and keep them from doing anything. Of course, being completely helpless, someone "more responsible" would have to take care of you... We keep going back to "Some animals are more equal than other animals," don't we?
... this thread has shifted from her question about licensing to the similar topic of registration and confiscation.
Anna - to get back to your question, You are just talking about a minimum restriction to buy, not a license to poses or a registration of what you posess, right?
In that case, if anything, I'd say just proof of age, and if you're underage, authorization from your parent or guardian.
Sure - this will lead to the occasional mess, but the only way to keep a person from getting into a mess now & then is to wrap them in cotton, sedate them, and keep them from doing anything. Of course, being completely helpless, someone "more responsible" would have to take care of you... We keep going back to "Some animals are more equal than other animals," don't we?
Do you wear clothes in fitting colors with it? Right now here are fashinable exactly the candy colors.
The registration and confiscation are important in this case because I didnt make a connection between them.
I was talking about a document which acknoledges that you know what guns are, how to use them and the responsability you take.
To add to what you said about the situation I described: I guess that in a world where everyone has a gun they wont be accepted as a show off factor anymore.
The registration and confiscation are important in this case because I didnt make a connection between them.
I was talking about a document which acknoledges that you know what guns are, how to use them and the responsability you take.
To add to what you said about the situation I described: I guess that in a world where everyone has a gun they wont be accepted as a show off factor anymore.
thumbody
Member
Anna , Glad you came here with an open mind and willing to listen to the knowledge ands opinion of a bunch of "gun nuts". Some come here with only criticism and insults,unwilling to even think with an open mind.
Highroaders;I'm always amazed at the courtesy shown by most members here. I lurked on many other sites before finding this one. This is the only one I was willing to join. The kindness and concern shown for others whether you've met in person or only online is impressive.
Well done all
Les
Highroaders;I'm always amazed at the courtesy shown by most members here. I lurked on many other sites before finding this one. This is the only one I was willing to join. The kindness and concern shown for others whether you've met in person or only online is impressive.
Well done all
Les
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked