Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Because someone is not handy in a town they can go cowboy.

That's just how it is, on a farm: You do what needs doing. I suspect -having been raised in the city myself- that there's no way to convince a townie of the value of self-reliance except teaching him how to be self-reliant…
I don't say It can't be done! I know it can. But he needs to be willing to -I was going to say learn, but the better term would be: Work.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cQNkIrg-Tk[/video]

Gun-rights advocates aren't the only people who believe that individuals should be free to own guns. Even gun-control advocates usually specify that they aren't trying to ban all guns.

But most activists on both sides of the gun issue say there must be limits on gun ownership.

Why?

So that guns don't fall into the "wrong" hands.

But if a law could keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be virtually no violent crime at all. Just pass a law specifying that bad people can't own guns and the problem of gun violence is solved.

Unfortunately, things don't work out that way in the real world.

The truth is that no gun-control law works because "bad" people who want guns can always get them. Either they'll buy them in the underworld or they'll simply steal them from good folks like you and me.

But shouldn't there be some limits on gun ownership?

No. Such limits don't reduce crime. They either render innocent people defenseless, give the police more power than they should have, or they are simply stupid, unenforceable laws.

Ex-Cons & Guns

Take, for example, the laws that prevent ex-convicts from acquiring guns.

Makes sense, doesn't it, that someone with a criminal record shouldn't be able to acquire a gun?

No, it doesn't.

If a convicted criminal pays his debt to society, he should have the same rights that every other citizen has — the right of free speech, the right to an attorney, the right to vote, the right to practice his religion, the right of habeas corpus, the right to keep and bear arms.

If he doesn't have the full protection of the Bill of Rights . . .

    •   He will be vulnerable to any zealous prosecutor who wants to railroad him in order to pad a conviction record.

    •   He won’t be able to speak freely to others.

    •   He might not be able to attend church.

    •   He will be helpless to defend himself from thugs who will have no trouble acquiring guns in the underworld.

Dangerous Weapons

But what about assault weapons? Surely, no innocent person has any need for an assault weapon.

Actually, very few people can define what an assault weapon is. More than anything else, it's a bogeyman designed to scare people into thinking that laws are necessary to stop some folks from running around with weapons that could kill large numbers of people.

But, yes, there are innocent people who have good reason to own assault weapons. During most riots, the police are outnumbered and intentionally stay clear of gangs that are looting and vandalizing. Suppose your life savings are invested in a store the gangs are about to loot. And suppose you have little or no insurance because your store is in a dangerous section of town. How will you defend the store against the looters? With a knife? With a handgun against a dozen attackers? Or with an assault weapon?

If you prevent innocent citizens from acquiring assault weapons, criminal gangs will still acquire them — even if they have to smuggle them into America from thousands of miles away. So why pass laws that disarm only the innocent?

Mad Scientists

But shouldn't there be some limits. Would you want your next-door neighbor building a nuclear bomb in his basement?

If someone is building a bomb next door, he isn't likely to tell you — or anyone else — about it. So what good does it do to pass a law prohibiting it?

Such a law would simply give the police one more excuse to invade and inspect your home (not just that of your neighbor).

Backyard Battalion

Okay, let's make it something out in the open. Would you want your neighbor to have a tank in his backyard?

What business is it of mine what my neighbor wants to keep in his yard? It's his yard, not mine.

If he runs his tank into my yard, he's trespassing and should be prosecuted. But he would be trespassing if he ran his car into my yard, or entered my home without permission, or burnt garbage that stunk up my home. My only concern is that he stay on his side of the boundary — not what he keeps on his side of the boundary.

Gun Laws Don't Work

You might be able to imagine the perfect law that allows just the right people to own just the right types of guns, while prohibiting other citizens from owning inappropriate firearms.

But remember, you're only imagining such a law; it will never be a reality. Once the issue is turned over to the politicians, it will be decided by whoever has the most political influence — and that will never be you or I.

Like most laws, every gun law quickly turns into a tool to reward the friends of the politically powerful and to harm their enemies. But it doesn't make America safer.

The only valid policy is to have no laws regulating the ownership of guns, but to hold every citizen responsible for whatever harm he initiates against others — with or without a gun.

People should never be prosecuted for what they own, for what they think, for what they eat, drink, or smoke, or for what they believe. They should be prosecuted only for the physical harm they do to others.

And people who do harm others should be prosecuted — whether or not a gun is involved, and whether or not there is hate in one's heart or liquor on one's breath.

I don't completely agree with his views on some of his policies & positions, but that said he does make a lot of sense on most issues.

If a convicted criminal pays his debt to society, he should have the same rights that every other citizen has — the right of free speech, the right to an attorney, the right to vote, the right to practice his religion, the right of habeas corpus, the right to keep and bear arms.

During most riots, the police are outnumbered and intentionally stay clear of gangs that are looting and vandalizing. Suppose your life savings are invested in a store the gangs are about to loot. And suppose you have little or no insurance because your store is in a dangerous section of town. How will you defend the store against the looters? With a knife? With a handgun against a dozen attackers? Or with an assault weapon?

If he runs his tank into my yard, he's trespassing and should be prosecuted. But he would be trespassing if he ran his car into my yard, or entered my home without permission, or burnt garbage that stunk up my home. My only concern is that he stay on his side of the boundary — not what he keeps on his side of the boundary.

There are laws that keep me from owning an Abrams battle-tank for good reasons. Not least of which is that such a tank is furiously expensive to buy, maintain and operate.

Not very mature. Just as well we haven't got a consitution for kids minds to play with.

Just as well we haven't got a consitution for kids minds to play with.

Why this ludicrous affinity with guns and using a long gone early establishment as an excuse in 2015 as if it was still 1775 or the early 1800's? Not very mature. Just as well we haven't got a consitution for kids minds to play with.

The British gun control program precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.

The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

An 86-year-old Illinois man with a concealed carry permit fired his weapon at an armed robbery suspect fleeing police last month, stopping the man in his tracks and allowing the police to make an arrest.

Law enforcement authorities described the man as “a model citizen” who “helped others avoid being victims” at an AT&T store outside Chicago where he witnessed the holdup. The man, whose identity was withheld from the press, prevented others from entering the store during the theft.

Police said the robber harassed customers and pistol-whipped one.

Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits this year, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, [glow=blue,2,300]the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low. [/glow]

“It isn’t any coincidence crime rates started to go down when concealed carry was permitted. Just the idea that the criminals don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t has a deterrence effect,” said Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. “The police department hasn’t changed a single tactic — they haven’t announced a shift in policy or of course — and yet you have these incredible numbers.”.........continued

Just the idea that the criminals don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t has a deterrence effect,” said Richard Pearson

Quote from: rjhowie on 2015-04-28, 19:41:07

Why this ludicrous affinity with guns and using a long gone early establishment as an excuse in 2015 as if it was still 1775 or the early 1800's? Not very mature. Just as well we haven't got a consitution for kids minds to play with.

I for one don't trust the lot of you.

Quote

The British gun control program precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.

The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.