The first new federal gun control legislation since 1994

[mdh]

Scary stuff, the NRA is giving in to this stupidity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901080.html?hpid=topnews

Write your congresscritter and stuff!

[Quantumystic]

I read the article, and on the surface it looks ok.

It sounds like the bill actually improves the ability of people to "audit" their status if they're on the list, and focuses mainly on the idea of the mentally impaired being kept from guns.

What are we missing that's "dangerous"? Why would Dr. Paul have a position against this?

[RonPaul4President]

If a mentally ill person does not have the right to defend themselves, who's responsible for their defense?

[ThePieSwindler]

Eh this is the one form of gun control i'm ok with, unfortunately, if this is passed, they'll certainly try to go further. Background checks ARE important to prevent former felons or the criminally insane, etc, from strutting into WalMart to buy a handgun. However, any benchmark beyond that is really contrived and unnecessary. I'm not sure if i'd like to see this passed, but I won't decry it as the end of the second amendment if it does.

[angelatc]

I don't trust the government to define "mental illness."

The founders used the word "infringe" for a good reason.

[DrStrabismus]

Gun Owners of America has a writeup on it:

http://www.gunowners.org/a061207.htm

*edit: by the way, GOA loves Paul

[specsaregood]

I don't trust the government to define "mental illness."

The founders used the word "infringe" for a good reason.

That is exactly the problem with it. The gov't can decide anybody has a mental illness and restrict their rights.

[ThePieSwindler]

I don't trust the government to define "mental illness."

The founders used the word "infringe" for a good reason.

Oh well didn't read into it that much. Thats a good point - the government can just say anyone is "mentally ill" and not issue a firearm, or take it away. Same with big pharma and ADD medication.

For the record, the NRA is a poor lobbyist group these days, GOA is much better. NRA has sold out, it seems, to the neocons.

[mdh]

What are we missing that's "dangerous"? Why would Dr. Paul have a position against this?

It, and all other gun control measures of any sort, regardless how they may be presented, are direct affronts to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Besides, who decides who is mentally incompetent to own a gun? I'll bet people who hang around the internet spouting about "second-tier candidates" aren't far from whatever criteria there may be for this. :p

[wwycher]

They are just making sure the list of registered gun owners is up to date, so they can collect them in case of an emergency. This is par for the course if we are to be part of the global system. Just one more nail in the Republic's coffin.
The court will deem who is mentally ill. Yeah, I want this group of crooks telling us who can have a gun or not.
You know they need to disarm us for this whole thing to work. Vermont is giving me hope for the Republic by not participating. I wonder when the Feds are gonna go and try to take over Vermont for their willfull disobedience?

[Gee]

I don't trust the government to define "mental illness."

The founders used the word "infringe" for a good reason.
Me either, but I trust them more than I trust mentally ill people with guns. Granted, this should be a state law...

[mdh]

Me either, but I trust them more than I trust mentally ill people with guns. Granted, this should be a state law...

How about mentally ill people with bricks? Does being bludgeoned with a brick seem more appealing than being shot? Maybe we should declaw/detooth them as well, since teeth and nails can be used as weapons. Or if these people are really so dangerous that they cannot have guns legally... well, lots of people buy guns illegally. I know that gangstahs with records a mile long aren't passing these background checks. Why not just imprison them indefinitly? That way they can't get a gun or a brick illegally either and are no threat. Where DOES this slippery slope end?

[angrydragon]

GOA > NRA

NRA compromised some things.

[specsaregood]

Gun Owners of America has a writeup on it:

http://www.gunowners.org/a061207.htm

*edit: by the way, GOA loves Paul

I thought that deserved a digg.
http://digg.com/politics/Compromisers_On_Capitol_Hill_Reviving_Brady_Expans ion_Again

[Texan4Life]

While I think that felons have taken their own right away to own firearms, I'm not so sure about the mentally ill thingy. I mean what makes a person "mentally ill"? If I go to a shrink and get prescribed some anti-depressants, am I now mentally ill?

I would have to say "mentally ill" is too vague.

[joenaab]

It is in using the phrase "mentally ill" that gets their foot in the door. Even when loosely applied within reason, anyone who's taking anti-depressants is suffering from mental illness. Some reports have indicated this to be over 50% of adults.

However, there are FBI handbooks and other government documents that are beginning to expand the definition of mental illness to include, of all things, making repeated reference to the "constitution" or having "constitutional rights". "Nationalism" is being defined as a social disease (i.e. people who refuse to accept the new global government).

Keep in mind that they employ a technique called "gradualism". The federal income tax was introduced as "harmless" because it was only 1% or so. It got as high as 70%! Give them an inch...

[joenaab]

Me either, but I trust them more than I trust mentally ill people with guns. Granted, this should be a state law...

Do you trust a mentally ill government with guns? ;)

[austin356]

I will agree with everyone else. My problem is with the definition of "mentally ill".

Who defines it? Is there a simple appeal process?

Nobody has mentioned the appeal process and that is quite possibly the most important part of the legislation.

[Quantumystic]

They are just making sure the list of registered gun owners is up to date, so they can collect them in case of an emergency. This is par for the course if we are to be part of the global system. Just one more nail in the Republic's coffin.
The court will deem who is mentally ill. Yeah, I want this group of crooks telling us who can have a gun or not.
You know they need to disarm us for this whole thing to work. Vermont is giving me hope for the Republic by not participating. I wonder when the Feds are gonna go and try to take over Vermont for their willfull disobedience?

The Feds don't have the manpower. They would need the military. Which is mostly overseas. I did a breakdown on this at another forum.

Even with 250,000 troops, focused just on the 10 major cities w/ populations over 1 MILLION, and the 23 major cities over 500,000... that's 7,000 troops for each of the 33 cities.

Even a geographically small city like San Francisco (47 sq.mi.), population ~750,000... works out to something like 75 troops per square mile, while the civillians are about 16,000 per square mile.

Los Angeles... 470 sq. mi., population 3.9 million, works out to something like 7 troops per square mile against 8,300 civillians.

[ThePieSwindler]

The Feds don't have the manpower. They would need the military. Which is mostly overseas. I did a breakdown on this at another forum.

Even with 250,000 troops, focused just on the 10 major cities w/ populations over 1 MILLION, and the 23 major cities over 500,000... that's 7,000 troops for each of the 33 cities.

Even a geographically small city like San Francisco (47 sq.mi.), population ~750,000... works out to something like 75 troops per square mile, while the civillians are about 16,000 per square mile.

Los Angeles... 470 sq. mi., population 3.9 million, works out to something like 7 troops per square mile against 8,300 civillians.

Add in the fact that a large portion of those soldiers would probably JOIN the civilians in defiance of orders to ATTACK THEIR OWN POPULATION. I think in a situation like this, the soldiers would realize that there is more to life than just following orders, and would NOT attack civilians but rather defend them - the vast majority of those inthe army are good Americans and would not kill their own civilians (which might be why the army wants to recruit illegals...)

[RonPaul4President]

NRA has sold out, it seems, to the neocons.

BINGO!!! I could elaborate but I've already said my piece about the NRA here.

[mdh]

All this talk of military *men and women*... real human beings? Has no one else seen the rapid advances in autonomous/remotely controlled un-manned air and land vehicles being deployed by the DoD all around the world? Who needs humans.

[Carbine556]

It is in using the phrase "mentally ill" that gets their foot in the door. Even when loosely applied within reason, anyone who's taking anti-depressants is suffering from mental illness. Some reports have indicated this to be over 50% of adults.

However, there are FBI handbooks and other government documents that are beginning to expand the definition of mental illness to include, of all things, making repeated reference to the "constitution" or having "constitutional rights". "Nationalism" is being defined as a social disease (i.e. people who refuse to accept the new global government).

Keep in mind that they employ a technique called "gradualism". The federal income tax was introduced as "harmless" because it was only 1% or so. It got as high as 70%! Give them an inch...

Precisely. I think that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is a fine gun law.

[Therion]

This law wouldn't have stopped the VT gunman anyway, so what's the point? This is nothing but feel-good infringement.

[qednick]

Slippery Slope indeed. That's exactly how the Brits lost their right to bear arms - one "reasonable" law after another.

[hambone1982]

Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.

This bill is another expansion of Federal Authority over the States. Gun-Control is a State issue, period. The Federal government has no authority to dictate to the States who they allow to have guns and the process which people go through to purchase those guns.

My litmus test for any federal legislation is as follows:

1. Is it Constitutional?
2. Does it promote individual liberty or hinder it?
3. Does it expand the Federal Government or shrink it?
4. Does it violate State's Rights?
5. Does it cost tax payers more money?
6. Is the bill absolutely necessary?

If I come up with an answer that I don't like on any of those questions, I do not support the bill. I do not support this gun-control bill. I'll be writing my Congressman and Senators to encourage them to vote down this bill.

[angrydragon]

With the Second Amendment, the states can't have gun control laws can they? Whatever is left out of the Constitution, is left up to the states and individuals.

[mdh]

With the Second Amendment, the states can't have gun control laws can they? Whatever is left out of the Constitution, is left up to the states and individuals.

Correct. The bill of rights are the enumerated rights of all citizens of the union, and may not be abridged or violated by any federal, state, or local government.

[Bossobass]

Add in the fact that a large portion of those soldiers would probably JOIN the civilians in defiance of orders to ATTACK THEIR OWN POPULATION.

This is why they'll use UN forces, once we've become the NAU.

I think that Bush would declare all RP supporters to be mentally ill. The FBI handbook on terrorists encourages to suspect anyone who recites the US Constitution as a possible terrorist, and aren't those terrorists ALL mentally ill?;)

I have grown to despise this government. I just finished my first read of the Patriot Act and I see most of it as Rockefeller protecting his precious Fed, as well as allowing for shut down of the internet. Here's a peach that caught my interest:


SEC. 364. UNIFORM PROTECTION AUTHORITY FOR FEDERAL RESERVE FACILITIES.

Section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(q) UNIFORM PROTECTION AUTHORITY FOR FEDERAL RESERVE FACILITIES-

`(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to authorize personnel to act as law enforcement officers to protect and safeguard the premises, grounds, property, personnel, including members of the Board, of the Board, or any Federal reserve bank, and operations conducted by or on behalf of the Board or a reserve bank.
`(2) The Board may, subject to the regulations prescribed under paragraph (5), delegate authority to a Federal reserve bank to authorize personnel to act as law enforcement officers to protect and safeguard the bank's premises, grounds, property, personnel, and operations conducted by or on behalf of the bank.
`(3) Law enforcement officers designated or authorized by the Board or a reserve bank under paragraph (1) or (2) are authorized while on duty to carry firearms and make arrests without warrants for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States committed or being committed within the buildings and grounds of the Board or a reserve bank if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony. Such officers shall have access to law enforcement information that may be necessary for the protection of the property or personnel of the Board or a reserve bank.
`(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `law enforcement officers' means personnel who have successfully completed law enforcement training and are authorized to carry firearms and make arrests pursuant to this subsection.
`(5) The law enforcement authorities provided for in this subsection may be exercised only pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Board and approved by the Attorney General.'.

Bosso

[hambone1982]

With the Second Amendment, the states can't have gun control laws can they? Whatever is left out of the Constitution, is left up to the states and individuals.

Correct, the 10th Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

My point is that if it is possible to legislate gun-control without violating the 2nd Amendment, then that legislation should take place at the State or even Local level.

My understanding is that the 2nd Amendment applies to "Arms" which implies weapons that can be carried by a single individual, thus States or Local municipality (the people) would have the right to legislate the ability of an individual to purchase and own weapons larger than small arms (i.e. - Tanks, Howitzers, Bombs, etc.).

[beerista]

I read the article, and on the surface it looks ok.
It sounds like the bill actually improves the ability of people to "audit" their status if they're on the list, and focuses mainly on the idea of the mentally impaired being kept from guns. What are we missing that's "dangerous"?
Why would Dr. Paul have a position against this?

While I don't think that Jefferson's words are the strongest case when arguing original intent, he does have my favorite quote on the right to keep and bear arms: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Now, obviously such a defense is rendered meaningless if the government gets to decide who is a “criminal” and who is “insane” and thus may not have firearms. As to the first, the argument of efficacy is probably enough; a criminal, by definition does not obey the law. Again, Jefferson (quoting Cesare Beccaria):
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime.”
If all else fails, I guess we could read all 27 words (and that includes articles) of the Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nope, nothing in there about “except for crazy people and criminals.” As with the whole Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is a restriction on federal government power. An absolute restriction. “Shall not be infringed,” the phrase which establishes the restriction, is pretty unambiguous.
We should also probably not forget that the document in question was written by people who recently had taken up arms against those who claimed to be their rulers. It's hard to imagine a group of people who would be considered more “criminal” than that.
The counter productivity of gun restriction in preventing gun crime, as it has the net effect of only disarming the victims, is not a point I feel I have to belabor on a forum full of conservatives and libertarians (but if this is unfamiliar, let me know and I'll be happy to direct you to some good material).
As to the second group, those judged by government to be “insane,” has it escaped anyone's attention the number and variety of fairly normal behaviors deemed to be mental illnesses over the last several decades? In totalitarian states, disagreement with the government (or its basic premises) is enough to declare mental unfitness. But I'm not worried; handing the government small amounts of unconstitutional power always ends well and never in abuse or expansion of that power. ;^)
Don't get me wrong, I don't relish the idea of truly insane people having guns. But I advocate strongly against the obvious conflict of interest of having the institution which has the most to gain from a disarmed populace being the same that decides who may bear arms.
Jefferson's admonition regarding the reasons to retain the right to keep and bear arms, combined with the wording of the Second Amendment, along with the none-too-subtle fact that those with a vested interest in maintaining a population unarmed against tyranny are the same as they who will decide who is a “criminal” and who is “insane,” is reason enough for me to be against ANY federal gun control legislation. Personally, I'd be against any gun control legislation at any level of government for similar reasons, but that is a somewhat harder Constitutional argument to make, so you can just leave it at that. Since the law in question is a federal law, we don't have to decide the issue of states and counties exercising gun control powers.
Personally, the Second Amendment is not the way I would choose to argue this point, but the question was why should Dr. Paul (“Defender of the Constitution”) be against such a law. There are also strong arguments to be made against this law from the “Forgotten Amendments” of the Bill of Rights (i.e., IX and X) but I wanted to keep this brief. ;^)
Hope this doesn't come across as directed at you, Quantumystic. I quote you because you're the one who first brought up the very relevant question of Dr. Paul's potential position. Hell, maybe he's for it. What do I know?
-
-
P.S. Nothing above should be construed as advocacy of armed conflict. I am entirely peaceful by nature. :)

[ThePieSwindler]

Lets remember that this legislation would be a twofold violation of rights - it restricts the rights of many to bear arms, but also violates their privacy by putting them in an FBI database which is not obligated to clear out names on a regular basis (what the previous data collecters under the Brady Act were obligated to do), so essentially its private info that the FBI has on you, in the name of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, or WAR VETERANS!!!!! with post-tramatic stress. And its being considered "reasonable"? Hah...

[CurtisLow]

Governments definition of mental illness: When a citizen does not agree with the U.S. Government.

[SeanEdwards]

The notion that insane people have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms is insane. The founders recognized this fact, but didn't bother to enumerate it in the wording of the second amendment because it is self-evident. No community can tolerate lunatics running around with deadly weapons.

The question becomes, who is a lunatic? I think it's reasonable to entrust that decision to an impartial jury. Let the court present a case for why an individual should lose their second amendment rights, and a jury can decide.

As an aside, I'm not convinced that blind people should have second amendment rights either. The second amendment's primary purpose is to support the notion of militia. Since blind people are completely unsuitable as members of a militia, it follows that they don't have a constitutionally protected right to firearms.

[mdh]

The notion that insane people have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms is insane. The founders recognized this fact, but didn't bother to enumerate it in the wording of the second amendment because it is self-evident. No community can tolerate lunatics running around with deadly weapons.

The notion that people who oppose the current administration have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms is insane. The founders recognized this fact, but didn't bother to enumerate it in the wording of the second amendment because it is self-evident. No community can tolerate people who oppose the current administration running around with deadly weapons.

[hambone1982]

I'm an Iraq War Veteran with minor Post Traumatic Stress symptoms. The VA could identify me as being mentally ill or unstable and they could deny me my 2nd Amendment Rights to keep and bear arms. That is just absurd.

[mdh]

The notion that insane people have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms is insane. The founders recognized this fact, but didn't bother to enumerate it in the wording of the second amendment because it is self-evident. No community can tolerate lunatics running around with deadly weapons.

The notion that people who oppose the current administration have a constitutionally protected right to free speech is insane. The founders recognized this fact, but didn't bother to enumerate it in the wording of the first amendment because it is self-evident. No community can tolerate people who oppose the current administration running around speaking out against its policies.

[IRO-bot]

Bravo MDH. Slam dunk.

[mdh]

The notion that insane people have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms is insane. The founders recognized this fact, but didn't bother to enumerate it in the wording of the second amendment because it is self-evident. No community can tolerate lunatics running around with deadly weapons.

The notion that US citizens who are suspected of terrorism have a constitutionally protected right to a speedy trial is insane. The founders recognized this fact, but didn't bother to enumerate it in the wording of the sixth amendment because it is self-evident. No community can tolerate US citizens who are arrested on terrorism charges not being held indefinitly at Gitmo.

[mdh]

I could keep going for hours... :D

When we start interpretting the constitution, we stop adhering to its' most basic principles. - Me, just now.

[Gee]

How about mentally ill people with bricks? Does being bludgeoned with a brick seem more appealing than being shot? Maybe we should declaw/detooth them as well, since teeth and nails can be used as weapons. Or if these people are really so dangerous that they cannot have guns legally... well, lots of people buy guns illegally. I know that gangstahs with records a mile long aren't passing these background checks. Why not just imprison them indefinitly? That way they can't get a gun or a brick illegally either and are no threat. Where DOES this slippery slope end?
We don't allow drunks to drive, why should we allow mentally ill people to own guns? Guns and cars are two things which kill a large number of americans. Granted, I'm not saying mental health may really be enforceable (even if it is, he could still make a bomb, etc), and it should be done on a state level, but the concept is sound. Everyone has a right to defend themselves, and a weapon in the hand of someone as crazy as the VT shooter is an imminent threat.

[mdh]

We don't allow drunks to drive, why should we allow mentally ill people to own guns? Guns and cars are two things which kill a large number of americans. Granted, I'm not saying mental health may really be enforceable (even if it is, he could still make a bomb, etc), and it should be done on a state level, but the concept is sound. Everyone has a right to defend themselves, and a weapon in the hand of someone as crazy as the VT shooter is an imminent threat.

The drunk driving argument ignores a couple of facts. First off, the second amendment enumerates the right to bear arms. Not the right of people who modern shrinks find sane to bear arms. (Note: 100 years ago, homosexuality was considered a form of insanity by the head shrinker community). Second off, the reasoning for the second amendment cannot be applied to driving cars. We all know what I'm referring to here.

[SeanEdwards]

I could keep going for hours... :D

When we start interpretting the constitution, we stop adhering to its' most basic principles. - Me, just now.

You can keep making strawman arguments for hours? Good for you.

[Gee]

The drunk driving argument ignores a couple of facts. First off, the second amendment enumerates the right to bear arms. Not the right of people who modern shrinks find sane to bear arms. (Note: 100 years ago, homosexuality was considered a form of insanity by the head shrinker community). Second off, the reasoning for the second amendment cannot be applied to driving cars. We all know what I'm referring to here.
I agree with that. While I think, ideally, any constitution should only require responsible adults be armed, I don't think restricting gun ownership would really help. Then we'd just have people like the VT shooter making bombs, or driving trucks into crowds. The bombings in Iraq are far more blood-soaked than ours, and they usually don't involve firearms.

[SeanEdwards]

I'm an Iraq War Veteran with minor Post Traumatic Stress symptoms. The VA could identify me as being mentally ill or unstable and they could deny me my 2nd Amendment Rights to keep and bear arms. That is just absurd.

If a jury of 12 of your peers unanimously believes you to be dangerously insane due to PTSD, then yeah, your second amendment rights should be restricted. Sorry. I don't want deranged people driving in my neighborhood either, so hand over your car keys too if you're nuts.

[qednick]

If a jury of 12 peers finds someone to be "dangerously insane" they should be in an institution receiving help. The problem is that "dangerously insane" people are not getting the help (VA Tech shooter - case in point) and are out in society where they can buy guns either legally or illegally.

I'm not sure blind people should not be allowed to bear arms because "arms" does not necessarily just mean handguns. If you were a blind lady and about to be raped by a thug then I think you might appreciate being able to [legally] fight back using any means necessary.

I found out yesterday that my 23 year old cousin was raped by two thugs in Britain last year (my mother only just decided to tell me). She was born deaf and dumb. Tony Blair's glorious socialist government there decided that people do not have any right to carry any form of "arm" for self-defense (contrary to the 1689 Bill of Rights) and so even carrying pepper spray will get you arrested for carrying an offensive weapon. This is in a country that gave the world the concept of "Hue and Cry" and gave the US the concept of the right to bear arms in the first place. This is a country where, just 100 years ago, it was common for anybody (children and mental patients included) to openly or concealed carry firearms.
Strangely, back then, the crime rates had never been lower. Now crime is totally out of control yet people can't defend themselves with pepper spray, firearms, stun guns or even rolled up newspapers because apparently it's the governments job to defend you and against the law to do so yourself - even if you're blind, mentally ill, deaf and dumb and being raped.

[Quantumystic]

All this talk of military *men and women*... real human beings? Has no one else seen the rapid advances in autonomous/remotely controlled un-manned air and land vehicles being deployed by the DoD all around the world? Who needs humans.

I'm not terribly concerned about those. I did a wee bit of R&D during the Reagan 2nd term, and much of what's out there is surprisingly easy to defeat. Besides, I hate the idea of having our own troops used against us... but I don't know anyone who wouldn't fry a piece of Robo-Tech.

[angelatc]

Me either, but I trust them more than I trust mentally ill people with guns. Granted, this should be a state law...

Actually, the Constitution clearly does not give that right to the States.

I'm not a gun person. ACtually, I'd buy one now only if I was connected enough to get one on the black market. I don't want mine to be a matter of public record.

If people think that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, that's fair enough. BUt that means they need to change it, not ignore it.

[Duckman]

The main thing I don't like about this new legislation is the fact that it has the aura of being passed through quickly in order to make the public feel good that congress had "done something about VT," even though it's questionable whether or not this new law would have actually prevented VT.

In general, I think it's a step backwards when a tragedy occurs and someone decides "wow, if there had only been a law to prevent that." Laws have unintended side-effects, and and in my opinion their passage should be kept to a minimum.

That all being said, the issue of the rights of the mentally ill is a tough one for liberty minded people to agree on. Most would (hopefully) agree that liberty should apply to everyone, equally. However, an arbitrary decision has been made in society that the mentally ill do not always deserve the same liberties as others. This is made more problematic when it is the job of the government to define the group in question (the "mentally ill").

This is why, in general, I prefer treating people as individuals and denying their rights ONLY if they have proven their rights need to be denied because of a lack of personal responsibility in a specific case. If someone has a history of violent outbursts which have been complained about by others, in my mind such a person perhaps should legitimately be denied the right to bear arms. But I would much prefer this being determined on a case-by-case basis rather than by a "one size fits all" fiat.

I think the idea that you would pre-emptively strip someone of their rights based on the suspicion that they could not be trusted with it is the moral equivalent of going to war pre-emptively, when you suspect the nation in question might be dangerous but it hasn't actually attacked you yet. Think about it.

[Quantumystic]

Depending upon your circumstances and needs, you might wanna look into some of the following:

recurve or crossbow
throwing knives
a BIG dog (or 3!)
an "asp"
taser
squirtgun filled with bleach (a lighter goes well w/ this, if it comes to that)
ladies... can of hairspray (also w/ lighter)
and my personal favorite... swords

I've even see people make their own "fill" for paintball guns, some of which can fire at 17 rounds per second.

ALL of these, to the best of my knowledge, are still available w/ NO registration.

[wwycher]

The comments on this article were mostly pro-gun control.
This former police officer I thought summed it up pretty well.

infoasked wrote:
As a former police officer, I will tell all citizens that the police cannot protect you. There job is to "enforce the law," thus they act only when a law is broken.

Further, YOU must understand that an armed populace is the single greatest defense against a despotic government; and our govern- ment has been eroding the rights of its citizenry for many of the past 50 years under the guise of protection from whatever the lastest (real or imaginary) threat may be.

Folks, you are no safer now than at anytime in the past . . . unless you own and are trained in the use of a firearm. The bull you go through to board an airplane makes you no safer from any determined hijacker and the only thing that this "anti-gun" legislation does is help the criminal when choosing a victim.

The goal of the U.N. is to disarm the law-abiding people of the earth to enhance its socialist agenda and allow the abitious despots of the world to control all. Many of our legislators are buying into this in order to enhance there positions in the New World Order. Our Founding Fathers knew this was possible, hence the 2nd Ammendment.

Please read more and listen to less retoric from those who would disarm others. If you fear guns, learn about them and have a qualified instructor teach you the use of a firearm. Once you've done this, should you decide it is not for you, so be it. Just don't decide for others who would protect themselves and their freedom.

Be watchful of YOUR governing bodies and NEVER surrender any of your rights willingly.
6/13/2007 9:46:28 AM

[qednick]

The comments on this article were mostly pro-gun control.
This former police officer I thought summed it up pretty well.

infoasked wrote:
As a former police officer, I will tell all citizens that the police cannot protect you. There job is to "enforce the law," thus they act only when a law is broken.

Further, YOU must understand that an armed populace is the single greatest defense against a despotic government; and our govern- ment has been eroding the rights of its citizenry for many of the past 50 years under the guise of protection from whatever the lastest (real or imaginary) threat may be.

Folks, you are no safer now than at anytime in the past . . . unless you own and are trained in the use of a firearm. The bull you go through to board an airplane makes you no safer from any determined hijacker and the only thing that this "anti-gun" legislation does is help the criminal when choosing a victim.

The goal of the U.N. is to disarm the law-abiding people of the earth to enhance its socialist agenda and allow the abitious despots of the world to control all. Many of our legislators are buying into this in order to enhance there positions in the New World Order. Our Founding Fathers knew this was possible, hence the 2nd Ammendment.

Please read more and listen to less retoric from those who would disarm others. If you fear guns, learn about them and have a qualified instructor teach you the use of a firearm. Once you've done this, should you decide it is not for you, so be it. Just don't decide for others who would protect themselves and their freedom.

Be watchful of YOUR governing bodies and NEVER surrender any of your rights willingly.
6/13/2007 9:46:28 AM

Well said. The courts have already ruled several times that law enforcement are not obligated to protect citizens.

[Therion]

Well said. The courts have already ruled several times that law enforcement are not obligated to protect citizens.
In that case, what the hell is the point of government anyway?

[hambone1982]

If a jury of 12 of your peers unanimously believes you to be dangerously insane due to PTSD, then yeah, your second amendment rights should be restricted. Sorry. I don't want deranged people driving in my neighborhood either, so hand over your car keys too if you're nuts.

The way that the law is written is that I am guilty until proven innocent. The VA can claim that I'm mentally unstable and I have to go to court to prove otherwise. That is a violation of habeas corpus and my 2nd amendment rights. I don't know if you have any experience in with the VA, but they make mistakes all the time. They might even make a blanket classification that all sufferers of PTSD as mentally unstable or ill, thus violating the rights of 25% of all Iraq War Veterans who suffer from PTSD in one form or another.

Also, as I said before, if there can be any gun control legislation that does not violate the 2nd amendment, then according to the 10th amendment, this has to be done on the state or local level. The federal government has no authority to restrict gun ownership. Just as it has no authority to restrict land ownership.

[ThePieSwindler]

Wrote my congressman, but it is too late. Its already passed in the house.

[DrStrabismus]

Someone noticed in another post that the article that this thread start with has been edited to delete the mention of Ron Paul.

*edit: actually the article mentioned in the other thread is an AP story. This thread starts with a Washington Post story, so I guess both have been edited since

[tnvoter]

They are just making sure the list of registered gun owners is up to date, so they can collect them in case of an emergency. This is par for the course if we are to be part of the global system. Just one more nail in the Republic's coffin.
The court will deem who is mentally ill. Yeah, I want this group of crooks telling us who can have a gun or not.
You know they need to disarm us for this whole thing to work. Vermont is giving me hope for the Republic by not participating. I wonder when the Feds are gonna go and try to take over Vermont for their willfull disobedience?

Well said. People never look to the future in the sense- what if a REAL bad guy gets in office, and the next "disaster" happens... all it takes is to use laws that already exist now to disarm the people and declare martial law.

This is seriously rediculous, and something out of a scary movie.