A repost of a repost

J

jimpeel

New member
I wrote this on 05-19-2004 back when TFL refired the boilers after the hiatus. The thread was entitled "A kick in the pants to kick start TFL"

I hope that everyone finds some value in it.

Someone reminded me of this post that I had posted a long time ago. I thought I'd repost it here to remind everyone, newbie and oldie alike, why we're here; and why we can never compromise and what the compromises of the past, and the laws those compromises created, have wrought against us.

Posting boards are fun and informative but we must never forget our primary mission.

What did we gain when they demanded that our magazines be limited in size?
What did we gain when they demanded that our firearms of military pattern (speciously called "assault weapons") be registered?
What did we gain when they demanded that some of those firearms should be turned in as illegal after we registered them pursuant to the law?
What did we gain when they demanded that certain firearms be banned as "Saturday Night Specials" (a racist term)?
What did we gain when they demanded that we have to pay to get FOID cards in some states?
What did we gain when they demanded that we have to pay for fingerprinting and mug shots to get an FOID in some states?
What did we gain when they demanded that we strip off the cosmetic features from our firearms of military pattern?
What did we gain when they demanded that we undergo background checks that we have to pay for?
What did we gain when they demanded that certain firearms should not be imported?
What did we gain when they demanded that we should have to wait to a certain period of time before possessing property we had already paid for?
What did we gain when they demanded background checks at gun shows even for personally held firearms being sold by non-dealers?
What did we gain when they demanded that we pay a $200 tax to own certain firearms?

We gained nothing! We have compromised and compromised and compromised until we are tired of being the ones who always give something up.

They always speak of the "Good first step". The Brady Act was a "Good first step". The Assault Weapon ban was a "Good first step". The magazine ban was a "Good first step". The ban on imports was a "Good first step". THERE IS NEVER A SECOND STEP FOR THESE PEOPLE AS THE LAST STEP IS THE GOAL; AND THAT GOAL IS THE UNILATERAL BANNING OF ALL FIREARMS OF ALL TYPES.

So, what will we gain when they:
Demand that we register our firearms and have to pay for that "privilege"?
Demand that we register ourselves and have to pay for that "privilege"?
Demand that we have to have a permit to move our own property from place to place and we have to pay for the "privilege"?
Demand that we pay outrageous taxes on firearms and ammunition?
Demand that we have to keep our firearms locked in expensive "approved" safes or at expensive gun clubs?
Demand that we have to buy an "arsenal permit" when the number of firearms we own exceeds a certain number?
Demand that we have to buy an "arsenal permit" when the number of rounds of ammunition, or components thereof, exceeds a certain number?
Demand that we have to keep special insurance policies if we own a firearm?
Demand that we only be able to buy one firearm in any given period of time -- month, year, lifetime?

If any of you think that what I have posted is untrue, it is not. All of these have been proposed by various state and federal legislators. The anti-firearms faction NEVER gives up ANYTHING! They just keep demanding that we compromise away our rights, our liberties, and our property; and that we should accept this as "common sense". In the same breath they tell us that they are not anti-firearm and that they don't want to disarm law abiding citizens.

The same people who say that "Saturday Night Specials" should be banned because they have no militia purpose are the same ones who say that "assault weapons" should be banned because they are "weapons of war".

So tell me about "compromise" and "common sense" and how they don't really want to disarm us. Then ask yourself this one simple question:

If it is, as the Founders stated, that firearms in the hands of the citizenry are the last bastion against government tyranny; why is that same government so anxious to disarm that citizenry -- especially those firearms of military utility?

It's not about safety. It's not about common sense. It's not about "the children". It's about POWER; raw, unbridled power. Make no mistake about that. The power to regulate is the power to deny.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Amen brother.

I'm okay with a few reasonable compromises. Like the (instant) background check. And FFL licences. But that's about as far as I'll go.

The one thing that has always bothered me is the very large number of arms that are stolen from law-abiding gunowners every year. Being an idiot about the storage of your gun should be a punishble offense - although I can't figure out a way to make it enforceable or non-infringing on smart gunowners.

To add further proof to your final claims, we can't forget that the likes of Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have CCW permits. From California, no less.
 
The one thing that has always bothered me is the very large number of arms that are stolen from law-abiding gunowners every year. Being an idiot about the storage of your gun should be a punishble offense - although I can't figure out a way to make it enforceable or non-infringing on smart gunowners.
Click to expand...

The antis put it this way: Every crime gun starts life as a legal gun. Law abiding gun owners are the major source of crime guns as that is where criminals get their supply. That is why they propose laws which:

Demand that we register our firearms and have to pay for that "privilege"?
Demand that we register ourselves and have to pay for that "privilege"?
Demand that we have to have a permit to move our own property from place to place and we have to pay for the "privilege"?
Demand that we pay outrageous taxes on firearms and ammunition?
Demand that we have to keep our firearms locked in expensive "approved" safes or at expensive gun clubs?
Demand that we have to buy an "arsenal permit" when the number of firearms we own exceeds a certain number?
Demand that we have to buy an "arsenal permit" when the number of rounds of ammunition, or components thereof, exceeds a certain number?
Demand that we have to keep special insurance policies if we own a firearm?
Demand that we only be able to buy one firearm in any given period of time -- month, year, lifetime?
Click to expand...
 
Background checks superficially seem logical until you consider its practical effects. Convicted felons are prohibited from possessing a firearm. If said felon went to a gun store with the intent to purchace a firearm, he has clearly demonstrated his contempt for the law regardless of background checks. Since this person is unwilling to abide by the law, he will inevitably procure a firearm by illegal means. If he is truly a dangerous career criminal, I expect he knows where or how to find a gun (e.g. stolen firearms).

I suppose there may be no real harm in background checks, but it is a good system to create a gun registry. Since background checks provide little if any benefit and have the potential for great harm, it may behoove us to at least critically analyze even the most seemingly benign forms of gun control.

I am still open to the possibility that background checks are beneficial, but I would like to be convinced that it actually does more good than potential harm. I concede that it effectively cuts off a direct and easy supply, but does it do anything to actually prevent the illegal possession of firearms?

Just askin' :)
 
The anti-firearms agendists state that it is the easy availability of firearms which make background checks necessary. Of course they have no answer to the fact that in 1955 one could drive into a gas station, fill 'er up, buy a firearm and ammunition therefor, and trundle on down the road. No paperwork, no background check, no waiting period.

Check out the stats for crime in 1955 and the stats on crime now.
 
Jimpeel, what is your proposal for solving the problem of irresponsible or stupid gunowners getting their guns stolen? I sure as hell ain't keeping the self-defense gun in a gun safe, with a gun lock, or an unloaded magazine, or even worse, disassembled. But I keep it safe. Stolen guns from buglaries is a problem without an easy solution.
 
I have no solution to stolen firearms any more than I have a solution to stolen couches. I believe that a firearm being stolen is no greater crime than a stolen couch.

The antis want you and me to believe that the stolen firearm is of more importance than the couch; but if you look at the crime instead of the device stolen you will find that they are of equal importance to the owner. The owner now has to do without them; and the owner now has to replace them. What the burglar does with the firearm or the couch is of no concern to the owner. The owner is the victim in this crime regardless of the item taken. The antis, however, want to make the owner the perpetrator.

The antis want you to keep your firearm locked away from those who would steal it. They also want you to have to pay a legal price for your firearm being stolen. In other words, they want you to be responsible for the criminal actions of another person.

Your firearm is the only item in your home that they want to be kept under a separate locking device. There is no other item in your home that this is so.

If, however, you make the firearm of more importance than the rest of your property then you legitimize the theft of the rest of your property. As far as the antis are concerned, you can lose everything you own as long as when the criminals have picked you clean you remain in possession of the one item they most want to wrest from your control.

Again, they want a secondary locking device on your firearms. Why is it that the locked front door of your home is not considered a lock on your firearm; unless you are willing to legitimize the breaking of that lock to take everything but the firearms?
 
Jimpeel, what is your proposal for solving the problem of irresponsible or stupid gunowners getting their guns stolen? I sure as hell ain't keeping the self-defense gun in a gun safe, with a gun lock, or an unloaded magazine, or even worse, disassembled. But I keep it safe. Stolen guns from buglaries is a problem without an easy solution.
Click to expand...
:confused:

What exactly makes a victim of burglary irresponsible or stupid? Maybe you could enlighten the rest of us as to how you "keep it safe" exactly.
 
stolen couches
Click to expand...

I don't hold guns to the same standard as my couches. My couch is not chambered for any caliber that I know of. My couch does not have the potential to defend myself, or kill someone else, not nearly the same level as my gun. No organizations or lobbies teach couch-safety courses. No cops shoot criminals with couches, and no criminals shoot cops with couches.

I would like to think that we, as gunowners, hold our arms to a higher standard than our furniture. We take great cautions to be safe and responsible with them. We take great cautions to educate ourselves and the people around us about the great benefits and great harm, and so many other capabilities that our guns as tools, possess.

A couch is something I park my butt down on, when I'm watching TV.

I use my gun to defend myself and defend everyone and everything I hold dear. And for sporting and recreation. I may love my couches, but I have a lot more respect for my arms. My arms are either with me, not too far away from me, or locked up or well, well hidden (but still accessible), when I'm not home. I keep the couch in the living room.
 
I sure as hell ain't keeping the self-defense gun in a gun safe, with a gun lock, or an unloaded magazine, or even worse, disassembled. But I keep it safe.
Click to expand...

It was specifically stated that a gun safe would not be used. Hence my question.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top