The Anti's at it again --- in the Philippines

Status
Not open for further replies.

Redtail

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
67
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20080520-137614/Monsters-with-guns

Editorial
Monsters with guns


Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:09:00 05/20/2008

MANILA, Philippines—The robbery-massacre at the Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. branch in Cabuyao, Laguna last Friday has once again prompted Nandy Pacheco, proponent of the Gunless Society, to call for stricter gun control.

Pacheco urged President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to ask Congress to increase the penalty for illegal possession of firearms to reclusion temporal (from 12 to 20 years imprisonment), without possibility of pardon or parole, and to order a total gun ban in public places except for uniformed police officers who are on duty.

The killing of 10 people (the initial death toll of nine increased to 10 when one wounded victim died two days later in the hospital) is truly a heinous crime committed by men who are less than human. If it was only the money that they were after, they could have gotten it without having to kill so many people. If the robbers feared identification, they could have worn bonnets or masks. Or they could have ordered everyone to lie face down, tied them up, blindfolded them and gone about their business of robbing the bank. But no, these were monsters—ruthless, remorseless killers. The police should exert extra effort to arrest them before they kill other people.

The robbers were able to kill the victims because they had easy access to guns. Anyone who has the money can buy guns—even from soldiers and policemen who are supposed to protect the people from criminals and other lawless elements.

Something has to be done to close down this “official” source of guns used in crimes.

The first step in dealing with the problem would be, as suggested by Pacheco, to enforce a total gun ban on everybody in public places except for uniformed police officers who are on duty. This can be done, as our experience in the 2004 and 2007 elections has shown. In the 2004 and 2007 elections, the election gun ban helped restrict the movement of criminals and resulted in the arrest of hundreds of people illegally carrying firearms.

The police will have to conduct an extensive campaign to collect illegal firearms during the enforcement of the gun ban. All persons carrying firearms outside their houses and who cannot show valid mission orders or permits to carry would have to be challenged and forced to surrender their guns. The government was able to rid the country of loose firearms during the Marcos dictatorship. There is no reason why, with the exercise of political will, it cannot do the same now.

The worldwide trend has been to strengthen domestic controls on guns. The United Kingdom, for one, has long had strict controls on firearms. Most of its policemen (“bobbies”) usually do not carry guns and do so only to deal with sieges, armed robberies, terrorist attacks or to protect diplomats. The gunless police are backed up when needed by units intensively trained not only in marksmanship but in discriminating among dangerous criminals, deranged people and lads out on a lark with air pistols.

After the March 1996 killings of 16 primary school children and their teacher by a gun club member in Dunblane, Scotland, a law was passed banning 95 percent of handguns and requiring that the remainder (.22 cal. pistols) be stored at gun clubs.

New Zealand amended its gun laws in 1992 following the shooting of 13 people in Aramoana by a young man who was licensed to carry a gun under the regulations existing at that time.

In Australia, the National Committee on Violence recommended the national registration of all firearms in 1990 and in May 1995 the former federal justice minister advocated a national system of gun registration as part of crime prevention strategy.

Japan has a level of community safety that is unmatched by most of the world and this is reinforced by strong cultural norms. In 1993, some 93 percent of guns seized in Japan were from organized crime. This decreased to 74 percent in 1995.

Like most of these countries, the Philippines could pass stricter gun control laws and enforce them without exception. Right now, the Philippines cannot adopt the general British practice of having unarmed policemen. The presence of armed policemen on foot patrol or going around the community in patrol cars could greatly help bring down the crime rate.

In the meantime, a nationwide campaign has to be waged to smash armed gangs that have lately been committing robbery-killings, car thefts and kidnappings. Put pressure on the crime syndicates and deprive them of sources of guns and the opportunity to prey on people and very soon they will be out of business.
 
Let's hope that the Philipinos will unify and resist this garbage.

It's funny how the article goes back to "better" times under the previous dictator. Gun control is just about that, control.
 
What exacty are "loose firearms" that the Marcos dictatorship got rid of? Are they kind of like those "loose political opponents" they also got rid of?
 
Ok, can someone post the Philippine gun laws? It's time to back our friends over there up. Just how "easy" is it to get a gun over there?
 
"let's ban all guns, so that way, only the criminals will have them, since they will just buy them from cops and soldiers, just like we admit is happening already" :barf:

If cops and soldiers are selling thier guns to criminals, how is a ban on everyone but cops and soldiers having guns going to do anything? Am I the only one confused here? Do the auther just not realize her own contradiction in the article? Owwwwwww.....my brains hurt now.
 
You know how irrelevant it is when some European rolls his eyes at our liberal view of private gun ownership? Yeah, it works the opposite direction, as well. Hope the Filipinos sort out their issues. But at the end of the day, my say in the matter is meaningless. Can't have it both ways.

That said...Culturally, the Filipinos are not a terribly liberal society. Being subjugated and exploited for most of history does that to its peoples. The calls for gun restriction are not surprising. To the average Filipino, it's all irrelevant anyway: they're all either democratically powerless, or relatedly have the issues of representation and simple survival overshadowing things like civil rights. Which would be more important to you? Food, clothing, financial ability for emigration, endemic local (if not national) corruption? Gun rights are great...but culturally, revolutionary spirit has been bred out of most Filipinos.
 
The robbery-massacre at the Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. branch in Cabuyao, Laguna last Friday has once again prompted Nandy Pacheco, proponent of the Gunless Society, to call for stricter gun control.

Well, yeah, but leftist extremists call for so-called "gun control" when the price of eggs rises, falls, or stays the same.
 
I was under the impression that the Philippines already had rather strict gun control. :confused: There is - or was - a whole underground cottage industry in reverse-engineering and manufacturing copies of various guns.
 
My girlfriend was born in the Philippines and lived there until she was nine. Her family is from a very rural part of Ilocos Norte, a northern province of the country - they own a tobacco company or something like that. From what she's told me, I get the impression that if a gun ban were enacted, it wouldn't have much effect, and the laws there are loosely enforced especially in the rural areas of the country and the police are easily bribed. It's not like America where everything is litigated to death and controlled by bureaucracy and a nanny government.

spaceCADETzoom said:
That said...Culturally, the Filipinos are not a terribly liberal society. Being subjugated and exploited for most of history does that to its peoples. The calls for gun restriction are not surprising. To the average Filipino, it's all irrelevant anyway: they're all either democratically powerless, or relatedly have the issues of representation and simple survival overshadowing things like civil rights. Which would be more important to you? Food, clothing, financial ability for emigration, endemic local (if not national) corruption? Gun rights are great...but culturally, revolutionary spirit has been bred out of most Filipinos.

Three letters: J E W. The Jews have been kicked around by every nation on earth since the Romans, brutalized for thousands of years by every government in Europe, and for some insane reason, they still by-and-large support gun "control" in America. The list of anti-gun politicians reads like a Tel Aviv phone book. Sure there are groups like JPFO but they're the minority - most American Jews think guns are eeeeeevil and would never consider owning one or supporting the right to do so, despite being the group that historically would have benefited most from gun ownership. Why? The answer is because they've internalized the concept over the centuries that the Jews can rely on the protection of the government, even when this has been proven wrong time and time again. Every government in Europe eventually turned on the Jews and either expelled them or tried to exterminate them, but Jews still cling to the idea that their government will save them.

Supposedly there were Jews who, as they were being led to the gas chambers, shouted to the German guards, "Wait until Hitler finds out about what you're doing!" That's how deluded some of them can be.

(I'm Jewish.)
 
The first step in dealing with the problem would be, as suggested by Pacheco, to enforce a total gun ban on everybody in public places except for uniformed police officers who are on duty. This can be done, as our experience in the 2004 and 2007 elections has shown. In the 2004 and 2007 elections, the election gun ban helped restrict the movement of criminals and resulted in the arrest of hundreds of people illegally carrying firearms.

First off I am a Filipino who grew up during the Marcos era. I was born and raised in Metro Manila. A good portion of the crimes (if not a majority) are perpetrated by active or former members of the police force or military. So how do you expect the same scumbags to protect the people? Disarming the populace was exactly how the country got Marcos! It started with Marcos requiring registration. When he announced martial law, he knew where all the guns were and started to confiscate them. Once all the guns from law-abiding citizens were confiscated, Marcos was free to conduct his reign of terror. Thousands were "salvaged" (a local term for execution). This kind of idiot thinking is what drives the country to being the "sick man of Asia". I'm so glad to be here and not there.
 
The government was able to rid the country of loose firearms during the Marcos dictatorship. There is no reason why, with the exercise of political will, it cannot do the same now.

Wow.
 
The worldwide trend has been to strengthen domestic controls on guns. The United Kingdom, for one, has long had strict controls on firearms. Most of its policemen (“bobbies”) usually do not carry guns and do so only to deal with sieges, armed robberies, terrorist attacks or to protect diplomats.
... Brazilian electricians...
The gunless police are backed up when needed by units intensively trained not only in marksmanship but in discriminating among dangerous criminals, deranged people and lads out on a lark with air pistols.
... if they're lucky.
 
As somebody who was born and raise there, Philippines have very strict gun laws except if you're well connected or a politician or you're related to one. I don't know if the laws have change but when I was there you have to get license and you have to have a reason why. If you're a business owner you're chances of getting approve is higher. You need to go through a psychological test. For the permit to carry that's separate too and the fee for gun registration must be paid yearly.

Just like PinoyFl said, is very true. Most of this people in power are allowed to have all kind of firearms whenever and wherever and yet they deny the common citizen to have this right so that they can harass them.

Somebody need to right a letter to the editor, and counter-act this guy. There's a group there that called PRO-GUN (Peaceful Responsible Owners of Gun). I don't know if there still active or how politically involve they are.

The police and military falls under the authority of government civilian officials which make it more dangerous. They don't act independently like here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top