🚀 go-pugleaf

On 12 Jan 1999 02:28:47 -0700, mackys@dim.com (Ben Cantrick) wrote:

>>With no Second Amendment, there's nothing to stop them from slowly
>>deleting the rest.
>
>  Pah. If that's truly the case, then put your money where your mouth is
>and lead an armed revolution now. You're crossing into gun nut territory
>here saying that guns are the first, last and only recourse to any problem.
>Ever hear of "soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box - use in that order"?
>Seems like a lot of gun nuts want to use the ammo box first. As often as
>they quote the founders, they seem to forget that the founders put not
>only the second amendment in the constitution but also a bunch of stuff
>about due process and redress of grievances. Stuff that seems to work
>pretty well, most of the time. We're a young nation yet, but I predict
>that if we last a good long time, it's going to be because we managed
>to form a system of government that encourages non-violent ways to
>solve problems.

Non sequitur. Nobody said it's necessary to resort to arms yet.

The statement was that the gradual erosion of the RKBA, resulting in
an emasculated right exercised only under the strict scrutiny of the
government, which then has the information and tools to confiscate
firearms poses a grave danger of removing the ultimate tool of
government control.   The Framers knew that a disarmed populace would
be *incapable* of putting a leash on government, so it stringently
protected the right of the people to always have sufficient arms
available to put down a tyrant.

Nobody has even mentioned that it's time to resort to the ammo box,
and what we are doing in this thread is precisely what you suggest, we
are banding together to sway political opinion to secure our RKBA.
Stating that the elimination of the RKBA is dangerous to *all*
liberties is absolutely true, but says nothing about armed
intervention.

>
>>>  I really can't agree that it's only apathy and authoritarianism that's
>>>driving gun control. Some gun control, maybe, but probably not all of it.
>>>I think people have good reasons to want gun control. If nothing else,
>>>simply to protect their own life and liberty.
>>
>>Ah but it doesn't. The sheeple have been purely propagandized into believing
>>it does, just like they believe the millenium ends this year. 
>>
>>[...]
>
>  No, you give other people too little credit, as usual. We may not agree
>with your opinions, but there are people out there who have thought well
>through their beliefs and believe them for rational rather than dogmatic
>reasons. And I don't care when some religious nuts claim the ultimate savior
>of mankind (ha!) was born - I'll just take any excuse to go party that I can.

No decision to ban firearms for "life and liberty" reasons can
possibly be rational, because history has proven time and time again
that when governments collect the guns, tyranny is not far behind.
Such decisions to ban firearms are usually made out of irrational
*fear* of firearms and a short-sighted, self-indulgent and ignorant
agenda which denies the greater harms which inevitably result from the
confiscation of private arms.


>
>>>  Hm. Somehow, I doubt it. I suspect that if that happened, there'd be
>>>70 or more million non-gun owners arguing against it. (And I'd probably be
>>>one of them, come to think of it. The idea of repealing *all* gun control
>>>laws is simply not something I think would be good.)
>>
>>I know, you've been propagandized badly. It takes the recognition of the fact 
>>that gun ban and control laws only take liberty from the already law abiding. 
>>By definition, criminals don't obey laws. They don't care. They don't have to.
>
>  Har! Here we are again with the "You don't agree with me, so you must be
>stupid or brainwashed." I know criminals don't obey laws, but let me repeat
>my mantra: That doesn't mean laws prohibiting criminal behavior shouldn't
>be passed.

You miss the point.   Gun control laws have nothing to do with
prohibiting criminal behavior, they have only to do with prohibiting
law-abiding citizens from owning firearms.   Criminals by their nature
don't obey such laws, and thus the only guns which will be collected
will be the ones belonging to law-abiding citizens...not the
criminals.

Possessing a gun is *not* "criminal behavior", and you're trying to
conflate two issues.  Nobody is suggesting that laws which *regulate
firearms use* are not appropriate.....it's perfectly reasonable to
have a law saying that you can't target shoot on the Mall....but what
we are talking about when we say "gun control" is the "control of the
supply and possession of firearms by otherwise law abiding citizens.",
nothing more.

>
>>> Even if these classes you're talking were offered free, there
>>>will always be the people who claim they're too busy, or those whose
>>>ego makes them think they already know how to safely handle a gun despite
>>>evidence to the contrary. These "ignoramouses" and "cowboys" are exactly
>>>the ones who need training to educate them. So unfortunately we have to
>>>dictate that everyone take classes just to catch the idiots. It's stupid,
>>>but I can't think of any better way.
>>
>>Most authoritarians can't. :)
>
>  Well, I'm open to suggestions. If you think you have a better way, do tell.

It's quite simple, we do with them as we do with all people in all
activities, we dictate the boundaries of proper behavior and we punish
those who contravene those rules.    

>
>  Just as an example, let's consider the following situation... Why don't
>we have my little brother live at your house for a year. We'll give him a
>Glock, something in double-action with a 15 round magazine. He'll keep it
>under his pillow. You and anyone else won't be allowed to train him in the
>proper use, storage, or even the most elementary safety precautions
>related to firearms. What do you think of that scenario? Sound a little
>dangerous?

How old is your little brother?   If he's of legal age to possess a
Glock, then he has a *Constitutional right* to do so which may not be
infringed just because YOU don't believe he's responsible enough to
exercise it.   That's the nature of rights, we don't exercise prior
restraint, we *presume* that a person of proper age is "qualified" to
exercise those rights.  We *do not* condition his exercise of those
fundamental rights on the passing of some test.  The reason we do not
do so is because such a system denies the existence of rights, and it
poses a grave danger of improper infringement of those rights by a
government which sets the standards under which one can pass the test.

In the case of guns, if we establish a test one must pass before
owning a gun, we acknowledge the authority of the government to
dictate the *conditions* of that test, and we subordinate the right to
the whim and caprice of the government, which can decide that the
standard will be an impossibly high one which no person can meet, thus
denying the exercise of the right entirely.  Or, the government can
make the taking of the test so inconvienent as to create a defacto
denial of the right, which is *precisely* the case in Chicago and New
York City, where in the former case, to apply for a permit to own
*any* handgun, you must use a particular city form, no substitutions
allowed, which they *refuse to print and provide to applicants*, thus
denying the RKBA by bureaucratic fiat.   In NYC, they'll give you the
form, but you have to take a class, that's offered once a year, to a
maximum of 35 people or so in each class.

We're not paranoid, we have *reams* of such evidence of the deliberate
misuse of government authority to deny and seize guns from law-abiding
citizens.   In New Jersey, an "assault weapons" registration law was
passed on the solemn promise that the registration files would *never*
be used to confiscate the registered arms, but barely 3 years later,
the law was changed to an outright ban and the State Police went door
to door with their registration list and collected them.

With the oft-proven agenda of governments to abuse their powers in
mind, it's perfectly reasonable of us to desire to simply *deny*
government the authority to intervene *at all* in the lawful
possession of firearms.

And if your brother *misuses* his right, then he will pay the very,
very harsh penalties for doing so, which is the way it's supposed to
work.

>
>  So how come you advocate people who have the same gun safety knowledge
>as my little brother being able to carry a gun, concealed, on the street?

Because we don't presume to know what the knowledge of another is when
it comes to gun safety, and we *do* presume that they will carry and
use them safely, because that's what the law requires.  If they fail
in that duty, then we will punish them.

>To quote South Park... "This... is Chewbacca! This... does not make sense!"
>
>  If there's any logic at all to your position besides repetition of the
>statement "people should be able to do whatever they want even if it
>endangers others," please tell me what it is. Even free speech is not
>allowed if it unduly endangers other people.

Correct, but you make the mistaken presumption that the mere
possession of a firearm by someone not "certified safe" by the
government is "unduly dangerous."   This is not the case, as is
demonstrated by history.   There are 70 million guns in private
ownership in the US, and only a small fraction of those are *ever*
used improperly, with the vast majority of those improper uses being
done by *criminals*, and an even smaller number (which grows smaller
every year thanks to the NRA) are used improperly by non-criminal
citizens (ie: accidents or negligent conduct).

This conflation of the "possession" of firearms being equal to "public
endangerment" is one of HCI's BIG LIES, and the facts simply don't
bear it out.   The vast majority of gun owners handle their guns in
perfect safety their whole lives, and thus there is no legitimate
basis for a presumption of danger when it comes to lawful firearms
possession.

More people misuse their *bathtubs* every year than misuse firearms.

More people misuse their *trampolines* every year than misuse
firearms.

More people misuse their *smoke detectors* every year than misuse
firearms.

This list goes on and on.

And yet I don't see you calling for "training classes" and "licenses"
for bathtubs, trampolines and smoke detectors.   Why is that?

The specious argument that people need to be "tested" before they can
safely exercise their RKBA is based in an unrealistic and utterly
irrational fear of firearms, which is fostered and created by the
liberal media and anti-gun zealots such as HCI, and the argument has
NO BASIS IN FACT.   None whatsoever.


Regards,

Scott Weiser

******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/

Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser

By the act of transmitting any commercial 
e-mail or advertisment to this address, you are expressly 
contracting with me in my professional capacity for a 
consultation on the ad's effectiveness and you expressly 
agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such 
consultation within 10 days of my report to the original 
sending address.  You further expressly agree that all 
actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely 
to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have 
sole jurisdiction.