dksuddeth

I'm confused, whats not rational or excessive about dunedans arguments? Of course you're not suggesting that you send out death squads to collect the handguns of gun owners, but when they resist, what do you think is going to happen? Here is your scenario:

1: pass laws banning handguns
2: provide 30-60 day grace period for all handguns to be turned in voluntarily
3: realize that with only 2,000 handguns turned in to the authorities, you'll have to go round them up.
4: send out the local police in each community to knock on doors, demand said handguns, rinse and repeat at next house.
5: Police call for backup after they meet resistance and get shot/shot at by homeowner(s) who refuse to give up handguns claiming constitutional rights.
6: Call S.W.A.T. team to invade home because homeowner(s) opened fire with their collection of semi-automatic assault rifles.
6a: for those homes that have legally registered and taxed automatic weapons, you send BATFE squad of 45 body armoured men with automatic weapons, storm house, shoot anyone who resists, then gather weapons including the ones you weren't intending to collect anyway because all adults inside are dead.
7: Call in National guard units to surround large neighborhoods because news reports showing armed incursions by law enforcement authorities prompted said gun owners to band together in large buildings with all of their guns and ammunition and are firing upon any law enforcement agents attempting to approach.

You see the eventual outcome?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ubertuber

Dksuddeth,

It's the part that gets from step 4 to 5 that seems extreme - escalating from resistance to violence. As roachboy points out, it kind of makes gun owners seem more pathological than I ever thought they were. Particularly the part about 850,000 dead. I'm not really commenting much on that - I'm more watching and absorbing at this point, but I'm willing to bet that is the part where Jess is taken aback. It certainly threw me for a loop...

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

dksuddeth

say that, instead of 'taking our guns', it was the government invading and arresting people for protesting, or talking bad about the government. Maybe it could be that the government was confiscating all of the radios and tv's and the only newspaper to be distributed was called 'the republic of americas daily government news'. It could be ANY assault against those rights and freedoms supposed to be guaranteed by the bill of rights, but no longer are. would you still feel the same? What if the 13th and 14th amendments were repealed?

And by 'sane', should I assume you mean that to be 'law abiding enough to just hand over all handguns. after all, we're not asking for rifles and shotguns, right? But could they not be next on the list?

what is sociopathic about upholding your constitutional rights? and indiscriminate is an incorrect word. IF gun grabbing were to occur, we would not be going house to house shooting people at random. We WOULD be stopping those that came after us though, and then we'd go after the ones that ordered it.

In other words, you would recommend that people should just let the authorities take our guns, right? we should not violently respond, only peacefully protest.

If people have guns, are they not 'free' to live in the relative safety they are capable of providing themselves?

Why should the 14th amendment apply to everything except guns?

Minority, so it would be easier to enact what you think would make us all safer and more free?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

Let me ask you, do you think that everyone is going to comply? As we stated, there are around 85 million gun owners in this country, they are not all little sheeple. A good many of them fully believe in the freedoms guaranteed by god/the US constitution. There are 22 million people in Texas, probably 7 million own guns, if not more. A majority of texans are firm believers in the second and most of those would have no trouble deciding to resist.


That number, 850,000 dead, is conservative. Thats about how many gun owners you would have to kill, because they will not give up their guns.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

stevo

To the advocates of gun grabbing: Would you take a 72 year old woman's hand gun away from her? A 72 year old woman who lives by herself, in the house she's lived in for 42 years. A woman who has legally owned and operated a gun for the last 42 years. A gun that she knows how to use. A woman who (when her family was living in that house) had dozens of guns (loaded and ready) and never once in 42 years was their an accident. Never once was there a "stray bullet" or someone shot. Now all she has for protection is her gun. which she sleeps with, as she, her husband, sons, did and do. Becasue if you advocate taking her gun away, I can assure you she will be one of the 850,000 you would have to kill. Its my grandmother. I asked her. She said if the police came to take her guns away they would have to take them from her dead hands.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Charlatan

As I've said elsewhere, and roachboy points out, one of the the real disconnects here is between the Urban and the Rural.

As I have said, the genie is out the bottle. Gun control isn't going to happen anytime soon. No politician in the US is going to risk it. Interestingly, three of the four major parties running in the last Canadian election supported a complete ban on handguns. I think this is a direct refelction of the fact that the majority of the Canadian population is an Urban one.

In the end, the only practical soloutions that I can see for the US are:
1) greater control over who gets to legally carry handguns, nationwide
2) stronger punishments for those who use and guns in crimes
3) stronger fines and/or punishments for those who misuse their weapons

More than this and it would be political suicide at the Federal Level. On the local or state level, you will see some attempts at gun bans (like D.C. and San Francisco) but in the end they will matter very little. Their borders are pourous and the ability to enforce the ban nearly impossible to enforce.

As I said before the only way to truly make a hand gun ban work would be to:

1) make it nationwide
2) halt the manufacture of handgun, except for police and military
3) make the laws strong and with harsh penalties
4) enforce those laws

In the end, this would never jive with America's "we are a free nation" ethos (not to mention the whole constitution isssue). In the end, as I said above, it is easier to keep the death rate at around 10,000 per year than it is do something about it.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

stevo

My grandmother doesn't live in a rural area - at all. I think the disconncet comes from people who think they know what is best for everyone else and people who think they know whats best for themselves, but leave everyone else out of it.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

roachboy

charlatan made most of the arguments that i was going to better than i had said them, so you get this non-post and a referral to his, above.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

stevo

I would think in DC guns circulate in a more unrestrictive manner than they do in Miami. Any civillian in DC with a gun is breaking the law and the guns that flow from one civ to another are unrestricted. At least in miami the majority of guns are restricted (such that they are licensed and registered).

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

roachboy

sorry about vaporizing the post i had up stevo---i saw yours and charlatan's after i scrawled it and thought mine redundant.

i am unclear--are we actually agreeing on this or not?
i cant tell because the post is so short...

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

stevo

I suppose that depends on what you mean by unrestrictive circulation. To me banning guns=more unrestrictive, while not banning, but having a legal registry=more restrictive.

Kind of like booze during prohibition. All booze was unrestricted. Once prohibition was lifted booze became restriced again.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

roachboy

ok--thanks---are you opposed to cities taking action on their own to implment different levels of restrictions (i am going to mess this up terminologically, i just know it...) or not?

personally, i do--and i would think that the logic of local control would prevent any such measure from necessarily become a unified national policy one way or another. i would think this a viable compromise between the various factions on the question of gun control--what do you think?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

Kansas senate and house override the governer veto of concealed carry.

47 down, 3 to go.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

Roach, the huge underlying issue that everyone will face with municipality controlled restriction is that instead of having 50 laws to know (meaning one for each state), you will have a hodge podge circus of thousands of laws to know. Will you be breaking a local law by driving through willow grove IL to get to the mall? It would create a nitemare of hoops to wonder whether you had to go under, over, or through them just to remain law abiding.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ubertuber

No, I don't think that everyone would comply. However, to me there's a pretty big gap between non-compliance and lethal violence. That's where my surprise comes from - that number [850,000 dead] emphasizes to me that there's a disconnect between me and others that is incredibly deep, and I didn't even realize it was there. And I'm NOT a proponent of gun controls like we're talking about. Don't feel like you have to reply to me unless you're really moved to - the issue over lethal violence and body counts is sort of besides the point. The other issues of level of jurisdiction and types of controls are much more topical.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

dksuddeth

maybe i'm not understanding what you mean by 'disconnect'. I'm also not understanding how you see a big gap between 'non-compliance' and 'lethal violence'. I think its pretty logical when you get down to it. when the authorities confront a gun owner to turn in his handguns and said gun owner does not comply, whats going to happen? Will the police say 'ok, we'll be on our way then'? Not likely. Once force is instituted, it will quickly escalate way out of control.

anyway, you are right and its not really on the topic of what methods of gun control can be used. Just trying to point out where that type of gun ban/control is going to lead.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

joshbaumgartner

Gun owners in San Francisco are fighting the ban there, at least through the courts. However, when their legal options expire (I should say if, sorry), do you expect the legal gun owners of that city (soon to become the illegal gunowners, according to the ban) to resist the law with violence? I am well familiar with the 'cold, dead fingers' sentiment, living in Texas, but this would seem to be a good situation to watch, to see if it is all just bluster, or if the attempt to take guns from responsible owners will in fact lead to a gun-fight. Some people might write it off as just fruity San Fran, but there are hundreds of thousands of folks who are anything but liberal who live there. SF is a big place with a lot of owners, so it isn't just like some small suburb or town that runs like a commune or something has passed this law. I suspect there are possibly as many as a quarter to a half a million gun owners who will be affected, either because they live there, work there, or routinely travel through the city. It's no Sebastopol--a very progressive small town in the Sonoma Valley which is an island of far left experimentation.

dksuddeth

Do I expect a violent resistance? Not in San Fran. What I expect to see, IF the courts rule for the ban, is that very few will actually turn them in. Some people will up and sell getting the hell out of S.F. Most others will just find ways to hide them. As in the steps that I put down up above, unless there is an armed incursion by the authorities, very little violence will happen. Some will comply, some will leave, most will just hide them.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

joshbaumgartner

I generally agree with you in that. The thing is I really think this is what would happen elsewhere in the country too given the same scenario. But compliance is going to happen even if you don't turn in your gun. You might no longer carry it in your car because a traffic stop could result in a gun felony. Even in your home you may have your gun more hidden than normal, reducing your access to it in an emergency. You might feel compelled to move, but this also would be a form of compliance, removing your gun from the city.

I know it is easy to say, well that's SF, and we all know they are just a bunch of lefties, but there are some real conservative folks there too. Why wouldn't they act the same as a Texas conservative (I've been both places, and in fact Cali right-wingers can be a lot more reactionary than Texas righties at times). I mean to contemplate the passage of a national law, one would have to assume that it could only be done in a political climate similar to the one that led to SF's ban, but on a national scale. If the fact that they are surrounded by a liberal majority cows the actions of SF conservatives, wouldn't the same thing apply nationally, if that were the political climate (we are obviously talking hypothetical)?

Personally, I don't think that the ban will have a significant effect on violent crime in the city. The rate may go up or down, and the appropriate side will claim that as evidence they were right. I do believe a society free of guns is safer from violence within the community than one with lots of guns. I also believe that a society in which a significant number of responsible, proficient gun owners and carriers exist is safer from violence within the community as well. Both sides are right as far as crime goes. It is what we have in the middle, where we have a society in which guns are numerous, yet we do very little to ensure that the operators are responsible and proficient, that is the worst of both worlds.

I respect a city's right to govern itself and take the steps necessary to fulfil the citizens' desires for safety. If that means banning arms within the city limits, that is their perogative, whether I agree or not. If that means requiring gun ownership, as has been done in some towns, then again, whether I agree or not it is their perogative. If Pflugerville, Texas attempts to adopt either approach, I have my vote and will use it accordingly.

However, all of this only addresses the crime-related aspects of gun existance. There is another, very important side to this matter that I personally have underrated in the past, and that is the importance of retaining the citizen's capacity to retain their freedom from their own government, should it cease to be 'theirs' and become an agent against their rights as naturally and constitionally guaranteed.

While I think both sides are right on the crime issue, and that both approaches can work, I have personally concluded that the danger to people from crime and other threats within our communities are probably a price worth paying to ensure that we have the ability to keep our government working for us and not against us. It is also why I am adamant about needing to ensure as much as possible that those who do own guns are responsible and proficient owners. Unregulated gun propagation is very hazardous, and we see the results on our streets. If we want to have guns, and I think they are a way to retain the ability of revolt that I speak of, we have to be responsible with them.

dksuddeth

on a local scale, if SF bans guns, like I said, you will not see a violent resistance mainly because there are still places that the gunowner, who refuses, can go to. The violent opposition we'll see is if it goes national. With no place left to go to, those that have had enough, will say 'enough'. Now, with that said, those localities will have to decide whether the loss of a tax base (depending on how many move out) was worth it, the rise in crime was worth it, or if it even worked at all. Local gun bans will not stop crime, violent or property, as evidenced in places like morton grove, evanston, and especially chicago IL. All it will do is allow the spread of rhetoric from gun grabbers saying that its easy weapons from (put any other location here) allowing crime to continue here, and the pressure will continue.

Now, not that i'm advocating a mass exodus for pro-gunners, I'm almost of the mindset that I think California, Illinois, and New Jersey should just outright ban guns, all of them. Let those who want to move out go to any other state, and see how the bans work out. Maybe that would show the anti's, once and for all, that gun bans don't work, but i'm afraid that it would just end up the same. They would start the rhetoric that only a national ban would work and we'd be at the same place we are now.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

flstf

I agree that this is the most important reason for citizens to maintain the right to bear arms. It has been speculated in other posts that if the writers of the constitution were around today that they would not have given us this right. I disagree and think they would have allowed ownership of even full auto firearms but would have probably drawn the line at WMDs. I think they would have wanted to allow us to have the personal firearms necessary to overthrow the government that they knew would probably become necessary some day.

kutulu

Isn't that what we have tasers for?

Anyways, a complete nationwide ban on handguns isn't going to happen. What was it that was said on the abortion thread? if one state bans them there are 49 other states to move to?

joshbaumgartner

I understand, and you are probably right. Sun Tzu is careful to note in Art of War that you should not completely surround an enemy and give him no option to retreat, for he will have nothing to lose at that point and will fight most earnestly...the cornered cat concept. As long as you can move somewhere gun-tolerant without too much trouble, you aren't likely to put your life on the line--that is probably true.

I guess then the concern is that what if a national ban takes effect not as a sudden bill passed tomorrow, but as a creeping ban, as more and more cities, and then states, pass such bans. Is there a point at which the resistance will get critical mass, or will we be past the point of no return before we realize the problems. If each state truly had control over its national guard or some other form of community level organization could be employed to protect us from the next level up, that may substitute to some degree, but we don't have that, with the Feds having pretty completely consumed the N.G. structure into their own strategic thinking. Our only potential resistance exists within the arms that we as citizens have and possibly our police forces, which one would hope would have more loyalty to their municipalities than to the Federal Gov't.

I know I'm short on conclusions in this post, but I do think a lot of these are open items, at least as far as I am concerned personally. I'm apt to let S.F., Chicago, or even states do what they want right now either to ban guns, or to promote responsible gun ownership, as I don't have a ready answer and as stated, at least as far as crime goes, I can't say they won't work, or that they are wrong for trying. I can say that while I don't choose to arm myself today, I am willing to pick up arms if necessary in defense of the Constitution, as I swore long ago, against all enemies foreign and domestic.

dksuddeth

I'm not aware of any law enforcement agency thats going to use a taser to deal with someone whos just shot/killed one of their own. Deadly force will be met with deadly force.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

Actually, about 2/3rds of the states have a state guard that, by law, is not subject to federal draft or orders except in the most extreme of circumstances. In the nature of our discussion my guess is that, depending upon the governor, the state guard and armed civilians would be called upon to fight for the states.

Alot of that will play in to just how the second amendment is going to be finally judged. In 1982, the 97th congress concluded that the 2A is an individual right. In 2004, the Attorney General of the US has stated that the 2A is an individual right. All of the circuit courts have had mixed opinions, but to my knowledge, the 5th circuit is the only federal court to unequivocally state that the 2A is an individual right. The US Supreme court has made many decisions but have never come out with a solid answer on whether its an individual or collective. Until the day comes that the USSC makes the determination, it will always be an argument. Even now, the illinois state supreme court came down on the side of being an individual right, with extreme limitations, meaning that localities can ban certain types, but not all guns as that would violate the US constitution as well as the state constitution. The only reason that Mayor Daley has gotten away with banning most all guns in chicago is the 'grandfather' clause. since 98 he has not allowed any registration of new guns which is technically legal, but has also not been challenged yet.

The governments fear of the populace rebelling was never more evident than during clintons years with the demonizing of the 'militia movements'. They found the worst of the lot (meaning those vehemently anti-government) and used their media influence to make all militias sound anti government. Ruby Ridge and Waco were catalysts as well as road bumps in that process.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

Freedom isn't Free

By Geoff Metcalf on Jul 02, 2006

The rest of the article refers to the UN 'small arms' ban for those that might be interested.

Happy Birthday America (yes, I know it's a day early)

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

debaser

Then ask the Bosnians if they wish they had a few more guns...

People who advocate a total ban on firearms are too afraid to take responsibility for thier own safety, and are threatened by those who do.

Many more people are killed each year by automobiles, lets ban them as well. It would take a while to see the benefit, but one human life is worth the price, right?

For that matter, some nimrod killed his wife by dropping the toaster in the tub with her, so lets ban the private means to make toast, too.

We can all live in perfect safety under the watchful eye of the government, who never errs.

As for the unfortunate incident cited by the initial poster, consider it one of the unfortunate tremors in the bedrock of our liberty.

__________________