Ok, you guys got me into this....... Now help me get out!

S

sumabich

Moderator
I need advice tonight. Several weeks ago someone posted an article written by Eunice Davis from Cox News Service. I read the article and did a search, found the news web page and her e-mail address. Before writing I checked out several of her articles that were posted and gun related. They appeared neither pro or anti but seemed to be an attempt to stay neutral. I then wrote thanking her for at least trying to present both sides in her article (if I remember it was on Concealed Carry) and made a few corrections added a take on the difference between Rational thought, emotions and connections of the MMM to the Clinton Administration. I then asked her if she was brave enough to continue to shed light on the subject. Tonight before I left work I decided to check my e-mail. She had written and stated that she was writing another article and wanted MY OPINION as a gunowner on licensing and registration and what we as gunowners think. This is too important for me to screw up! That's why I write to you. I am jelling some ideas for this one but want your input tonight! Ladies and Gentlemen this is a big chance for us to get some major points across on this subject. So give me your thoughts. I plan to start with personal experience and why my wife and I went for CCP's, the training we've given our children and why, then go into the registration issue. I plan to bring up the unfairness to those who can't afford it,(economic racism),that in other countries it has lead to higher and higher costs, that it leads to confiscation, that at this time in the history of our country when our government leaders are free to lie about the facts (Ms. Reno two days ago quoting 29,000 dead from gun violence in 1998 when FBI figures state 14,000)we as free citizens don't trust what they say. When the government refuses to enforce gun violence laws yet makes it tougher for honest citizens to exercise their God given rights to defend themselves, I refuse to register. Now help me be eloquent (as I've often said here "I have such big concepts but such little words"! :eek:
 
The Reno figure likely includes suicides for purposes of statistical inflation. Why should your rights be restricted because of the actions of a few thousand loonies intent on killing themselves? The studies have shown that suicide is tool-independent. The only one that comes close to what the antis want is one which showed that after a waiting period was instituted, gun-related suicides went down but the total suicides remained the same. They simply used a different tool such as a rope, or drugs, or carbon monoxide.

Japan has a suicide rate 60% higher than the united states with most years showing no gun-related suicides.

I grow tired of the melding of the word "gun" and "violence" which the antis are pushing on us. It is as if they can't say one word without the other. Soon it will be "guviolence" as the begin to slure their speach.

On to the registration issue: there is no criminological study that shows that registration and licensing reduces crime. England's low murder rate was even lower before the gun control laws. No cause and effect. You will of course point her to the rising crime rates of England and Australia.

You will then pose a question to her. If registration and licensing has no criminological benefit, why are they pushing it? They often say, "We don't want to confiscate your guns, we just want to know who has them."

Of course, you would then point to New York City which in the late 60s (1967 I think) required the registration of semi-auto rifles -- I think Lindsey was the mayor then. Then in 1991 under Mayor David Dinkens they passed an ordinance outlawing them and used registration lists to go door to door to confiscate them.

Same with California. Essentially the same with D.C. And look at its crime rate.

You'll have a field day, and you haven't even gotten to Germany (1938), Rwanda (1994), or Cambodia (1975) yet.

Rick
 
Well, here's my take:

Gun ownership is a civil right, guaranteed by the same Bill of Rights as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so forth. You don't need the government's permission to exercise a right. And that's all a license is, government permission to do something. Tell her that you'll agree to get a license to own a gun right after she agrees to get a license to write her columns. And not one second before.

Constitutionally, a gun equals a printing press. No difference. They can both be abused, used to commit crimes, but they are both the agency by which constitutional rights are exercised, and as such their peaceful ownership and use are beyond the legitimate regulation of the government.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
As to registration..... Clayton Cramer wrote an excellent article that explains it all...

see http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/cramer.haynes.html

To answer her question as to why we are against registration, this is all that is needed....

Thanks for being in there for us.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Sumabich,

First, thanks for taking the time to write! :)

You'll find quite a bit of good info, in a very small package at a couple places:

1) CPHV

2)SAF's "Emerson" Page

Just to name a few.

As for my opinion, ask her to borrow a copy of the second edition of "More Guns Less Crime" and read the newer data, ask her to read how Lott defends his research against our enemies.

Ask her what she thinks of the vast ammount of insulting negative press that gun owners take, and point out to her that gun owners tend to be amoung the most law abiding of all citizens.



------------------

~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
Someone else said this about licencing and registration. And I believe it was on this board.

O.K. you have my name, address, know all the firearms I have and I now have a picture I.D. Just exactly what crime can you Prevent with this information.

And also haven't there been some landmark cases on registration? Criminal's don't have to register their weapons because of the 5th Amendment (no self-incrimination).

Good Luck and please keep us informed.

Sgt.K
 
Inherent dangers in licensing, disregarding, for argumental purposes, the fact that the Supreme Court says you cannot license a right (sorry, no docket number) --

This thread deals with Massachusetts reneging on a "once in a lifetime" license.http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27322

This one deals with the "confiscation by taxation" route in Nassau, NY http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27599

Ask her if she would accept a $25 to $200 increase on her drivers license because the state said it "needed the money".

You don't have to be anti-gun to get rid of them in this manner, just greedy.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brett Bellmore:
Tell her that you'll agree to get a license to own a gun right after she agrees to get a license to write her columns. And not one second before.

[/quote]

I might make this connection a tad bit more direct; You'll get a license to exercise your Second Amendment rights when she gets a license to exercise her rights under the First. This might be a good place to note that the "pen is mightier than the sword."

(And somebody else noted: )
And also haven't there been some landmark cases on registration? Criminal's don't have to register their weapons because of the 5th Amendment (no self-incrimination).

This was Haynes v. U.S. (USSC). The law cannot make a criminal register his weapon, but it's going to make the law-abiding citizen do it? This is absurd.

You've probably got more to work with here than she'll be able to use... I'd highlight the arbitrariness and capriciousness of the license fees (the driver's license is a good analogy, because everyone can relate); the disparate treatment of the First and Second Amendments; and fundamentally, the "inalienable right to life" and the concommitant right to protect it.

[This message has been edited by SAGewehr (edited July 12, 2000).]
 
1) REGISTRATION: Hawaii and D.C. already have registration. How many crimes has it helped them solve? Zero. Since we have no reason to believe that it will help solve ANY crimes, why should we go to the trouble and expense. We've done the experiment (for at least 8 years) and it has failed. It gun registration were a drug, the FDA would never approve it.

2) LICENSING: The big fear is that licensing will lead to an outright ban. It has done so in every country where it has been implimented. The question is: what can we hope to accomplish by licensing the law-abiding? The only argument I have heard is that it would assure that gun owners are properly trained on their safe and effective use. A driver's license obviously doesn't assure that someone will safely operate a vehicle. I can't imagine the number of times speeding laws are violated. Provide a pamphlet of safe gun handling with each weapon... fine. It's cheap, it's effective for those who care, and those who don't would ignore it even if they took classes.

The problem isn't accidents. The statistics for accidental shootings bear that out. The problem is criminal INTENT. No driver's license will convince a smuggler not to bring drugs into Canada in his trunk, or cigarettes back, or prevent him from running down his ex-wife. These are all deliberate actions, and education does not deter deliberate actions. You have to alter a person's sense of right and wrong to do that, and no 8 hour course will convince Julio that he shouldn't pop a cap in Hector's asp for trying to move in on his turf.
 
Greetings,

Here are some thoughts on your position, in no particular order.

Try not to come off as a fanatic.
Equate the second amendment with the first, so she can relate to its importance.

As pointed out, the acts committed by criminals are already against the law. Those laws didn't stop the crime and neither will more gun laws; they will only disarm those of us who need to protect our families. They also have a panacea effect: they make some people think somthing is being done about crime when in fact there is nothing being done except passing more ineffetive laws. Project Exile is a better concept.
Enforcement of existing laws hasn't even been tried; the feds have half a million felons who committed perjury trying to buy firearms and no prosecutions.

Good luck. Hope you get some help here.

Ledbetter
 
I think the single most powerful condemnation of gun control and registration can be found here:
http://www.detroitnews.com/EDITPAGE/9903/04/sweet/sweet.htm

This documents the origin of the Michigan "licensing system" for lawful self defense - in order to prevent repeats of a black family being able to shoot at a charging lynch mob, the KKK instituted a gun control system still being used in eight states including California and New York, the two most populous.

How anybody could think a system supported by the KKK had anything to do with "public safety" is beyond me. When us lawful gun owners see HCI supporting this same program as Michigan still uses, we get the heebee jeebees and start wondering about actual motives for disarmament.

Clayton Cramer's "Racist Roots of Gun Control" covers similar ground in a more scholarly, complete fashion but the Sweet family incident as reported by the Detroit News link above is harder-hitting, faster. It's a better "starting point", while Clayton's work is for those already "opened up to possibilities and looking for more details".

Clayton's website: http://www.ggnra.org/cramer

Something else...Cramer is a published historian; in my opinion his most important work may be:
"Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic: Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform"

Read the first chapter on his site. This work examines the root causes of possibly the most violent culture in US history, that of the Mississippi river valley circa 1815 - 1845ish. In an effort to quell the insanity they tried all kinds of solutions, including weapons control laws, limits on drink, etc. Nothing worked until a cultural change happened with the rise of evangelic Christianity, turning the whole zone into what we now call the "Bible Belt". Only a mass societal change of that magnatude helped; bans on concealed weapons didn't do squat.

Jim
 
I suspect I feel about the same way about licensing gun owners and registering guns as a reporter would feel about licensing of journalists and registration (pre-approval by a bureaucrat) of each article they write.

Bentley

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, the Jefferson Papers
 
Sumabich,

I notice I am too late with my $0.02, but I do have a slant for your future use.

We gun owners and RKBA supporter don't believe the proponents of "reasonable" gun control measures because they are allied with those who propose outright draconian laws, to include complete banning of ownership. We believe that the "reasonable" law proposers are the camel's-nose-under-the-tent brigade of the gun banners.

We don't believe them because of their association with those who have a radical agenda. How can we tell the difference between the "reasonable ones and the radical ones? We can't. How can we make them understand that our position is one of principle and that makes it difficult to compromise? So we don't.

Lastly, comparison with the First Amendment is the best approach, IMHO. Why is the 1st Amendment so safe? How much compromise is she willing to make on that issue? Is her defense of the 1st Amendment based on the Constitutional guarantee? Then why is the guarantee for the 2nd so negotiable?

FWIW.



[This message has been edited by sensop (edited July 13, 2000).]
 
A wandering thought: that argument about licensing and registering guns like automobiles. I don't know why other peoples cars are registered, but mine is licensed and registered so that they can TAX when I buy it, TAX it for using it and then TAXING it again when it's sold. They said nothing about licensing it for SAFETY or SAFE USE(some states do inspect, some don't), and it's definitely not registered to PREVENT it from being stolen and used in a violent crime.
 
To all: Please read my other follow up on this titled "You got me into this... continued" Save your comments for now. I think Eunice will join us shortly and pose the question to all of you for your comments. It was refreshing to actually speak with a reporter who seemed to be trying her best not to impose bias in her article. She has been in contact with folks in Texas and I sent her a bunch of links I had and ones you sent last night. Thanks for the effort. Ken
 
The RKBA is an inalienable right. The constitution says, "Shall not be infringed." I can't see why one should have to get a license to exercise the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Registration will only harm the law abiding citizen. The criminal is not going to register. Many are felons and can't legally register. The way to reduce crime is to take the approach taken by Israel and that is license any citizen that is competent to use a firearm. Those who cite crime and murder in other countries fail to mention the difference between the rights of citizens in this country and others.

I think we should stress education. Those citizens who grow up around firearms and are familiar with their use have never been the source of crime problems. One must distinquish between accidental deaths and murder and not lump the two together.

The question I would like to pose is: How many murder victims would be alive today had they or someone nearby been armed with a firearm?

I would like to see more gun ranges. Too bad they are not as numerous as golf courses. Of course I know there are more golfers but if we encouraged the safe use of firearms there would be less accidents. By the same token if more law abiding citizens were armed we would have less Luby's, McDonalds, and Wendy incidents. The law abiding citizen has never been a threat to the safety of anyone except a criminal.

The bottom line is registration has historically always led to confiscation. Look at California today.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brett Bellmore:
Well, here's my take:

Gun ownership is a civil right, guaranteed by the same Bill of Rights as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so forth. You don't need the government's permission to exercise a right. And that's all a license is, government permission to do something.
[/quote]

I can't remember who said it, but I think the statement is right on the money. "A right regulated is a right denied."

I'm sick of hearing people say that since we test and license people to drive, we should do the same for firearms. They just don't understand that the difference between the two is driving is a PRIVILEGE, while keeping and bearing arms is a RIGHT.




------------------
"There are roads that must not be followed, and battles that must not be fought.." --Sun Tzu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top