Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The illusion of gun control

  1. #1
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-14-12
    Posts
    175

    The illusion of gun control

    The illusion of gun control.

    1 Gun control serves a useful purpose. Purpose always claimed as crime fighting or increased safety.
    2 Gun control has validity as an anti-crime or increased safety measure.
    3 Some gun control is necessary. No reason ever given.
    4 We can/must accept some gun controls but not others. Never defied.
    5 We must control the guns. Governments only objective. A fear of citizens. Lack of trust.


    Ever since man constructed weapons and used these for the aggressive gain of power and not hunting, defence or survival, those in power have sort to limit citizens from possessing arms, out of fear and the desire of control. People who cannot object or reject control are the desire of anyone who seeks power over them.

    Research will show the obvious truth, no gun control law has ever been proven to have reduced crime, the supply of arms to criminals or increased public safety. Gun control is unacceptable for a number of reasons.

    1 Your rights to safety and self defence are not divisible. Once divided or made conditional they are of no value to anyone.
    2 Once you accept gun control all you can now do is argue over how much.
    3 Acceptance is defeat, nobody fights what they accept.
    4 Silence is acceptance.


    For gun control to succeed all it takes is a belief some gun control is acceptable. From that point on it is just a matter of time and assimilation of each step to the final result.

    Anyone who doubts the validity and truth simply has to show a sustained decrease of gun control anywhere in the word obtained by accepting some gun control and not others.

    Acceptance of gun control is a fatal mistake.

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-10-05
    Location
    Kingsport Tennessee
    Posts
    5,672
    It is a mistake to allow the meme that if existing gun control fails, the solution is more of the same. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and I cannot understand why gun control advocates fail to see the parallel between the Noble Experiment of Prohibition (18th Amendment, Volstead Act, Roaring 20s 1919-1933) and the war on guns, which parallel has been obvious to me since the 1960s.

    The Centers for Disease Control in 2003 and the National Research Council in 2004 in reviews of academic rssearch on guns and crime, suicide and accidents, found no academic study that found empirical proof of benefit from gun control policies.

    Since anything you can do wrong with a gun is already against existing law on crime or public safety, it is hard for me to see most gun control, laws aimed at objects and owners of those objects, having a positive effect on bad behavior. Gun control is waste of public resources that should be re-directed to programs that work.

    Tough gun control, Mexican style: a warning and an example.

    Some of our control freaks have looked at Mexican gun control and like what they see, and want U.S. gun laws strengthened to match.
    o Bans on all military-caliber firearms: 9mm, .45, .357, 30-06, .308 Win/7.62 NATO, .223 Rem/5.56 NATO; that includes sporting guns in those calibers.
    o All civilian owned guns must be registered with the Army.
    o Permit required to purchase at the only legal gun store operated by the Army in Mexico City.

    The Gun Policy project at U Sydney Australia reports that officially there are 2,824,231 firearms registered to Mexican civilians.

    Mexican security consultant Georgina Sanchez (Collective for Security with Democracy and Human Rights) estimated in a report to a Mexican government agency that, in circulation in Mexico, there are up to 12 to 15 million unregistered military type firearms and up to 40 million unregistered civilian type firearms (hunting shotguns and rifles, non-military caliber handguns).

    American business men and tourists reporting from Mexico have noticed widespread contempt for gun control by all levels of Mexican society--business men, professionals, ranchers. Mexico has gun bazaars much like those reported in the mountains of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border; a vendor interviewed by a US tourist reported some of his wares were snuck out the backdoor of the warehouse where the Mexican Army stores guns confiscated from civilians. Mexican newspaper El Universal 4 May 2010 said some of the weapons sold in Tepito were new guns from the Ministry of Defense.

    Mexico also has rampant gun running from all corners of the globe, feeding a black market that caters to criminals for crime and to otherwise lawabiding citizens for self defense.

    Code:
    Sources of Weapons in the Mexican Drug War 
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War
    
    Weapon:                 Primary Source:
    
    AK rifle variants 
    semi-automatic:         United States
    select-fire:            Central America, South America, Middle East, Africa, 
                            Central Asia, South Asia, East Asia
    AR-15 rifle 
    semi-automatic:         United States
    M16 select-fire:        Vietnam
    
    Fragmentation grenades 
    M61/M67/MK2/K400 :      Central America, South Korea, Israel, Spain, 
                            Soviet bloc, Guatemala, Vietnam, Unknown
    Grenade launchers
    RPG-7/M72 LAW/M203:     Asia, Central America/Guatemala, North Korea
    
    Barrett M82 .50 cal:    United States
    
    M2 Carbine select fire: Vietnam
    Last edited by Carl N. Brown; December 1st, 2012 at 03:18 PM.
    Cogito me cogitare; ergo, cogito me esse.

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-30-08
    Location
    Blue River Wisconsin, in a little hut in the woods
    Posts
    3,530
    There is only one kind of gun control, firm grip, sight, trigger and hit your target. The other is people control and has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with bad politics by idiots.

    Dos centavos from a dinosaur
    1934 National Firearms Act, 1968 The Gun Control Act, 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, 1993 Brady Handguns Violence Act, 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, 1995 Gun Free School Zones Act, NO MORE COMPROMISING

  4. #4
    Member  
    Join Date
    08-23-07
    Posts
    7,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl N. Brown View Post

    Mexico also has rampant gun running from all corners of the globe, feeding a black market that caters to criminals for crime and to otherwise lawabiding citizens for self defense.
    Where there is a demand a supply will crop up to fill it. The Japanese proved it during their feudal age, the United States proved it with alcohol in the 30's then drugs. Oddly enough, it's the supply meeting a demand for drugs in the US fueling the demand for weapons in Mexico.

    Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
    Everybody knows that the captain lied
    Everybody got this broken feeling
    Like their father or their dog just died

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,405

    The illusion of gun control.

    The illusion of gun control is that it is about controlling the guns. It is really about controlling the people. If the laws on gun control was really about keeping certain types of weapons "off the street" because their very existence poses a threat to innocent people then the government would not be exempting themselves from these laws.

    I may not be recalling this correctly but I recall a then candidate for SCOTUS Sotomayor trying to defend her stance on upholding a law in New York City that banned nunchaku. She described these weapons as extremely dangerous and not something anyone should be allowed to own.

    Nunchaku are to wooden sticks attached to each other by a chain or rope. This is something that a teenager could produce from household junk, or $10 of stuff from just about any hardware store. If these things are so dangerous why don't I hear about people getting beaten with them. It's not like we have strict controls on wood and rope. If people are able to get firearms with such ease certainly people should not find it terribly difficult to acquire or produce nunchaku.

    This is the mindset of these people. They cannot allow people to have any weapons. Even wooden sticks attached by rope is a weapon too dangerous for someone to own.

    Where there is a demand a supply will crop up to fill it. The Japanese proved it during their feudal age, the United States proved it with alcohol in the 30's then drugs. Oddly enough, it's the supply meeting a demand for drugs in the US fueling the demand for weapons in Mexico.
    If we outlaw drugs then only the outlaws will have drugs. We have not learned from our history so we are all doomed to repeat it. I feel like I need to start a new thread to continue my thoughts on this.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-14-12
    Posts
    175

    Please do continue

    Quote Originally Posted by IA_farmboy View Post
    This is the mindset of these people. They cannot allow people to have any weapons. Even wooden sticks attached by rope is a weapon too dangerous for someone to own.

    If we outlaw drugs then only the outlaws will have drugs. We have not learned from our history so we are all doomed to repeat it. I feel like I need to start a new thread to continue my thoughts on this.
    What you say is absolutely correct but there is a grave danger to all of us that somehow we always end up arguing over what gun control measure to accept and even discuss the perceived "merits" of gun control. I know some are going to argue that point but right here on this forum we can find many otherwise normal firearm owners advocating some form of gun control.

    Good grief where do they get these ideas from becasue it is not from any reputable research.

    Once you accept gun control all you can do is argue over how much to accept. We see that in the disunity of firearm owners many of whom no longer protect their rights as long as they can own a firearm somehow they think these rights are still intact.

    25,000 laws not challenged or questioned ever and complied with is a good indicator of the value firearm owners place in their rights. Zero. What does 'shall not be infringed" mean to them and why was it put there?

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    08-05-07
    Location
    Injun Country - NM
    Posts
    701
    " What does 'shall not be infringed" mean to them and why was it put there?"
    What it means to "them" is a question to ask "them". I ask others "What if the First Amendment had the endless and active suppression and regulation that the Second Amendment has?" Would the public and/or the press stand for that? The "Why it was put there" is just what it says in plain English "DON'T TOUCH"! The Founders knew very well that suppressing "Keep and Bear Arms" would eventually be a prime goal of any aggressive/progressive leader; to control an armed citizenry is a dicey proposition - witness all of the totalitarian dictators early-on actions first to register arms, then confiscate. I am baffled by all of the LAWYERS involved with both sides apparently ignoring the key requirement stated in the Second Amendment. The old saw about being "a little bit pregnant" = a little gun control. As stated elsewhere, the purpose of the 2-A is to have fighting men serve with their personal weapons - ergo - a direct intent for owning infantry weapons. So simple, yet so rejected by so many!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •