Gun Confiscation Now Beginning in California

[Linden]

The licensing and registration of guns shouldn't even be up for debate. The whole issue of gun regulation (not gun confiscation) in this country comes back to an issue of power.

I do not believe NRA is an organization that is whole heartedly concerend with gun safety in this country like it claims, but with being the guiding force behind gun laws as they see fit.

The issue of guns in our country is a cultural one, and will only get better when our culture shifts from the obsession. The fact remains, more guns are used maliciously in this country than are employed for self-defense purposes.

The odds of a person having to use a gun for self-defense in his or her life time is so minimal as to make the whole argument over this die-hard need for the average person to carry a gun seem rather silly.

I myself am not for the banning of any weapon. I don't believe banning weapons, drugs, prostitution or anything in such widespread demand has cured, or will ever cure any problem. It begins with education, and regulation.

I believe in the licensing and registration of gun owners. I believe in background checks. they will not solve every case, but they will protect some from their senseless use.

So, some of these laws are already on the books. Great, then enforce them!

But I do find it interesting that those who keep bringing up the "cars kill people, so should we ban cars?" argument, are the very ones that seem to be oppossed to stout regulations, when these "very dangerous" vehicles themselves require licensing and registration.

Even though I am personally against the banning of any reasonable weapon, I do think that this constant comparison of guns to cars, bats, knives and etc. is a rather weak and obvious one.

Cars, bats, knives, and so on, are not products produced for the sole use of self defense or killing, and you may argue that they are used as sport weapons also, but then if that is the case, regulation of these weapons should be mandatory and enforced, if it is indeed for such a trivial use.

If it were really an issue of self-defense and guns, then I think the whole argument for strict regualtions would be a rather peaceful one. Instead I believe that gun obsessives, and gun hobbiest are the ones that feel the greatest threat when there is any talk of serious gun regulation.

I just feel that our society as whole needs to shift away from this fetish for guns, vilence, war and what have you, for they are all interlinked in some way.

If you want a gun for self-defense then fine, go through the proper procedures that would take up merely a fraction of your day, and purchase one.

My concern is that when it gets to the point of some obsessive stock piling weapons, it then becomes a mtter of national safety, and as an American citizen, I feel that I have the right to ask the government to not allow a person, or persons to do that, just as much as anyone else who purchases a gun for self-defense.

If you want to fight in an army, join the U.S. military.

The point is, is that if we are to live in a civilized society where capitalism, and all the sorts remain stable and functioning, then regualtion of many different things form business to health care to other aspects that help the development of people with different skills, and different desire is needed if we are to maintain it.

We have to have regulations in order for a soceity to remain free and peaceful, otherwise, interest wil become monopolized.

That is why I vote, and you vote, because we live in a democracy where we choose the leaders who beleive what we do.

So if anyone here wnats to vote for a person who is honest, trust worthy, non-power consumed, has never lied or mislead the American people, and who as passed more laws for the concern of the average citizen, then vote Ralph Nader.

Otherwise, you may vote for the gyu whose eyes constantly blink like a stop light, or the guys who speaks to you as if he is reciting a bed time stroy.

[Tony10]

And there you have it.

[Edited by Tony10 on 10-16-2000 at 05:13 PM]

[StrongerThanDeath]

f**kin aye!! ralph's getting my vote!!

btw, Joe Manco that "felatio" comment made me violently sick....

[John Bennett]

Oh MY GoD. Linden you are so misinformed about defensive gun use and the relationship of American liberty to an armed populace I wouldn't know where to start.

NADER?!?!

Oh sweet Lord.

Nevermind.

Enjoy your stay out there floating around on rainbows in Happy Happy Sugar Plum Land.

[Linden]

Well John, the guiding forces of sugar plum land have done much more for the interests of the American people, than your current date to the status quo.

For a man who seems so outspoken on the preservation of freedom in this country, you seem rather eager to hold the hand of sepcial interest, and have your principles sold to the highest bidder.

Learn the real issues that are present in our society John, and who and what control the freedom of the American people, and maybe, just maybe, you will have a change of heart.

The air is mighty clean here in sugar plum land. I wish I could say the same for Texas.

[Linden]

John, as a token of good will I would like to suggest a book for you that might enlighten you a bit on the history of guns in our society, it's called: The Arming of America, The origins of a national gun culture.

This is an exhaustively researched book, and it brings to light many interesting facts about how guns became a part of our national fabric that I doubt any of us here were ever really aware of.

Here is a review if you like.

**How and when did Americans develop their obsession with guns? Is gun-related violence so deeply embedded in American historical experience as to be immutable? The accepted answers to these questions are "mythology," says Michael A. Bellesiles.

Basing his arguments on sound and prodigious research, Bellesiles makes it clear that gun ownership was the exception—even on the frontier—until the age of industrialization. In Colonial America the average citizen had virtually no access to or training in the use of firearms, and the few guns that did exist were kept under strict control. No guns were made in America until after the Revolution, and there were few gunsmiths to keep them in repair.

Bellesiles shows that the U.S. government, almost from its inception, worked to arm its citizens, but it met only public indifference and resistance until the 1850s, when technological advances—such as repeating revolvers with self-contained bullets—contributed to a surge in gun manufacturing. Finally, we see how the soaring gun production engendered by the Civil War, and the decision to allow soldiers to keep their weapons at the end of the conflict, transformed the gun from a seldom-needed tool to a perceived necessity—opposing ideas that are still at the center of the fight for and against gun control today.**

[John Bennett]

You're grasping at straws Linden. That book is regarded by all honest historians as a complete joke.

Bellesiles examined probate records from New England and Pennsylvania for the years 1763 and 1790. He discovered that only 14 percent of the wills mentioned firearms going to the heirs.

So from this "exhaustive research" he concludes that only 14 percent of Americans owned guns. PULEASE!

Joe Stalin himself never made a more ludicrous attempt at historical revision.

If we found that only 14 percet of the people in this country were registered members of a church, be your reasoning, the other 76% of the people in this country are obviously atheists.

---

Some oberservations from the period...

Philip Gosse, an English naturalist visiting Alabama in the 1830s "The long rifle is familiar to every hand: skill in the use of it is the highest accomplishment which a southern gentleman glories in; even the children acquire an astonishing expertness in handling this deadly weapon at a very early age."

Gosse goes on to note that marksmanship skills were so "universally high" that young men had to resort to "curious tests" to prove their skill, such as driving a stout nail halfway into a post, whereupon the young men "stand at an immense distance and fire at the nail: the object is to hit the nail so truly on the head with the ball as to drive it home."

Yep. I guess those southern boys had pretty much never seen a rifle before.

Touring the young nation in 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville reported that in Tennessee, "There is not a farmer but passes some of his time hunting and owns a good gun."

In 1839, Englishman Charles Augustus Murray wrote for his British readership of visiting a farmhouse in rural Virginia: "Nearly every man has a rifle, and spends part of his time in the chase."

Nor was this merely a rural phenomenon. In Charles H. Haswell's "Reminiscences of New York by an Octogenarian" (1896), he recalls that in February of 1836 a mob gathered to burn "Saint Patrick's Church in Mott Street." The effort came to naught, however, because, "The Catholics ... not only filled the church with armed men," but put so many armed men on the walls that Haswell describes the roof-line as appearing "crenellated" with them.

[Eazy-E]

Linden,

I think that you have hit on a key issue underlying the gun control debate: an issue of cultural change.

The demographics of guns owner and NRA members are overwhelmingly middle age and older white males. In this group some think their place in society has been eroding in the last several decades. It seems likely that some of them have seized on the gun issue to indirectly fight this 'cultural' war, of sorts.

Not to denigrate many peoples' genuine love of firearms, but I also think this cultural war has much, if not more, to do with this issue.

On the good side for gun control advocates, these demographics guarantee, almost surely, that this issue will die out in the next 10-20 years as the majority of gun owners and rabid NRA owners die out. The gun control advocates will win - its a foregone conclusion. The NRA types are basically dinosaurs that dont realize that the ice age is already well upon them! (to be dramatic)

So I would suggest that gun control advocates keep this in mind and be patient as you pursue your goals. DEMOGRAPHICS are OVERWHELMINGLY on your side. Unless the NRA can find some way to appeal to younger and non male and non white members, they are TOAST.

Maybe PD should be producing dozens of his own whelp to keep the NRA cause alive in the coming decades.

NRA types: all rhetoric aside, can you think of anyway your cause will be able to transcend its narrow and generally older demographic? I am surprised that the NRA doesnt worry more about this.

E

[Hawk]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
Linden, What in the world are you talking about. First, there is no debate about gun regulation. Its been going on for awhile. Gun owners are registered when they buy a weapon
and have been for a long time. You can sell or give a gun away, but it will always come back to you. A vehicle is the same way. There isn't a whole lot of difference and that's not what anyone is complaining about. They are complaining about confiscation of guns and not being able to buy certain
types of rifles. Obviously you know very little about guns if you feel they are only used to kill. As to banning of cars, knives, and bats being weak as opposed to guns and it being obvious shows a real ignorance on your part of the risks, especially with knives, that these things run when used in an offensive manner. In fact a car doesn't have to be used in an offensive manner because of its size and power. My obsession isn't with guns, but with freedoms. Mainly, that's what this country is all about. The bottom line is this. If someone intends to kill someone else, they are going to do it. If they intend to kill a lot of people, they can do that too, without the use of a gun. That has been proven time and again. If you took away all the guns, then people that wanted to kill would knock a cop in the head & get his, get one on the blackmarket, or use something else. "Stout regulations" aren't going to stop anyone from killing.
Hawk

[Ronin]

Yes Hawk, but fewer guns might. Less for the black market.

As for my stance on assualt rifles/submachine guns...I know a TEC-9 isn't an assualt rifle, my point was that I don't think guns which allow extremely rapid firing should be allowed to the general populace.

If I had to face a maniac, I'd rather he only be able to fire one shot at a time.

[Hawk]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, Ronin, stick with me and I'll have you knowing the difference between sub-machine guns, machine guns, and machine pistols.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
Most maniacs usually don't use guns to begin with and when they do its something small and concealable. Of course that's depending on your definition of a maniac. Believe me Ronin, as somebody that has been there and done that, you very well may not want someone coming at you with only one shot as opposed to more.
Hawk

[Ronin]

Hawk:

You wanna run that one by me again?

Are you talking about recoil or something else?

I'd rather be shot once than repeatedly.

[Hawk]

Sorry Ronin,
I'm used to talking to folks that know weapons. Most people
that know what they are doing will shoot once or at most do a double tap. For awhile, because a bad guy might have a vest, it was two to the chest and one to the head, however most do the one-one now, if the guy is still standing after the first hit. The phrase "spray and pray" came around because of amateurs that would cut loose full-auto. The "pray" is pray you hit some thing. The old gangster movies are BS because if you cut loose full-auto with a Thompson you'll be firing straight up after the third shot.
Watch "Quigley, Down Under" sometimes and watch him hold 2 or 3 shells between his fingers and take out 2 or 3 guys. This technique is easy to learn and someone prolific at it is a lot faster then Tom Selleck was in the movie. A personal example, I used to hunt with a Winchester High-Wall
my Grandaddy gave me. It was chambered for 38-55, which kicks about like a 30-30 and much less then the 45-120 Selleck was using. My Grandaddy had shown me the technique used by Selleck and quite frankly all the old plainsman that
used a Winchester High-Wall or Low-Wall, a Remington Rolling
Block, or a Sharps (as Selleck had)used this technique. Anyway, back in the season of '91 I was moving along a dry wash and walked up on three does eating white oak acorns. I have two cousins that can't eat beef and have to eat venison or elk, so I intended to get all three. They were about 30 yards away and unaware of me. I pulled a couple shells out of my belt and held them between my fingers, cocked the hammer, and cut loose, recocked, ejected, and reloaded before the other two figured out what happen, My next shot dropped the second one next to the first and the third turned and ran. I went throught the same procedure and the third one stopped about 20 yards away from where she ran and looked back as I was raising the rifle to my shoulder. I dropped her just before she started to run again. Back then I was a little above average with that technique. Many are quicker then me.
That's what I mean.
Hawk

[Tony10]

Able to get off three shots with a bolt-action within seconds, hitting your target...

Hey... wait a minute....

[Mickey Finn]

So are we saying that Oswald could have fired all those shots with a bolt action rifle on a moving target?

I used to know a guy that had worked for the Government in a number of capacities. We got to talking about gunfights and high capacity handguns. He told me the most dangerous man he ever saw with a handgun carried a Charter Arms .44. For the uninitiated that is a five shot snub nose, big bore revolver. He told me if you put that man up against a gang of Uzi wielding Crips, he’d lay money on the man with the 5 shot hand cannon. The guy apparently had a knack for standing in there when things where thick and heavy and laying one big .44 slug down the middle.