A Call to Arms

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

I have no problem with cops breaking down my door, even in error. They're highly trained, I'm not doing anything wrong. No harm, no foul.

You've got to be effing kidding me. What if you don't know who it is, you pull a gun and they kill you? Oh that's right, only police and military can have weapons. TRUST US - WE'RE FROM THE GOVERNMENT!! Good hell, man, statist politicians all around the world just attitudes like yours.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I'm now a proud member of both organizations.

Nice. Me too.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

If it's easy & there is no paper trail, why not? The US is the main supplier of weapons in the drug wars that currently plague Mexico. It's much easier to get weaponry in the US than it is in most 3rd world nations. You don't even need to buy from a car trunk. Just go to a gun store or gun show.

I'm not saying that registration will prevent people from getting guns. We have far too much metal out there for that. But if you nail criminals who don't have registered guns, it's a start toward driving down violence.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but the point of registration is to create a paper trail, no? Why would any criminal bother to go through the legal process to get a gun? I'm guessing the majority of the most violent criminals already do buy their guns from a car trunk.

I know that having to register isn't going to prevent me from getting a gun, but the restrictive gun control laws won't stop criminals from getting a gun.

That's the point I was trying to make with my question.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Perhaps I'm wrong, but the point of registration is to create a paper trail, no? Why would any criminal bother to go through the legal process to get a gun? I'm guessing the majority of the most violent criminals already do buy their guns from a car trunk.

I know that having to register isn't going to prevent me from getting a gun, but the restrictive gun control laws won't stop criminals from getting a gun.

That's the point I was trying to make with my question.

Implement a mandatory 5 years for having a weapon that isn't registered and even a sizable number of criminals won't risk packing unregistered heat. It's not going to deter all criminals - obviously - but if it becomes widespread knowledge that getting nailed carrying an unregistered weapon will land you (non-negotiable) 5 years in the can, you'll see fewer criminals (and common idiots) carrying around handguns.

Hell, Plaxico Burress might not have shot himself in the leg.

I'd rather have you guys carrying registered weapons than the idiots that carry, even if its only a modest reduction in the number of non-registered weapons being carried.

Again, it won't deter all fools or criminals. No way. Understood. But who here can deny it would save some lives? And keep the good guys armed. It's the same concept as registering conceal carry and nailing those who carry who aren't registered. It doesn't deter them all, but it will deter some.

[Ma'ake]

Here's a study that buttresses my (general) position:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120500767.html

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Implement a mandatory 5 years for having a weapon that isn't registered and even a sizable number of criminals won't risk packing unregistered heat. It's not going to deter all criminals - obviously - but if it becomes widespread knowledge that getting nailed carrying an unregistered weapon will land you (non-negotiable) 5 years in the can, you'll see fewer criminals (and common idiots) carrying around handguns.

Hell, Plaxico Burress might not have shot himself in the leg.

I'd rather have you guys carrying registered weapons than the idiots that carry, even if its only a modest reduction in the number of non-registered weapons being carried.

Again, it won't deter all fools or criminals. No way. Understood. But who here can deny it would save some lives? And keep the good guys armed. It's the same concept as registering conceal carry and nailing those who carry who aren't registered. It doesn't deter them all, but it will deter some.

I guess you mean you support mandatory minimum sentencing like Project Exile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile

[MikeWaters]

Has Maake trotted out the "when are you going to get your own tank" argument yet?

This from NRA today:

What's the difference between a pistol and a surface-to-air missile? None, at least if you're a member of the mainstream media. CNN's Jeffrey Toobin was recently on PBS, and made the ludicrous claim that the Heller decision somehow has something to do with tanks and SAMs. Toobin went on to say that gun control wasn't an issue for voters this year, because "swing voters don't care about it".



As the Media Research Center's Tim Graham points out, maybe it had less to do with the feelings of the electorate and more to do with the feelings of reporters. After all, we know they never bothered to ask Barack Obama and John McCain about the Second Amendment, and not one question about the Second Amendment or the Heller decision was asked during any of the presidential (or vice presidential) debates.



As the increase in gun sales demonstrates, there are millions of Americans who care about their firearm freedom, even if the talking heads at CNN and PBS ignore the issue.

[Ma'ake]

Don't know where the NRA falls on the continuum of 2nd Amendment thinking, but I read a pro-gun argument making the rounds in western (ie, conservative) Canada that gun owners should absolutely *not* back down from a theoretical position advocating that a homeless man with a shopping cart should be able to own a nuclear weapon... as any retreat from that (absurd) position would lead to the proverbial slippery slope & would ultimately result in the defeat of gun rights. Period. "Freedom is pure. Never compromise"

I'm not making this up.

While the NRA mocks liberals for (ostensibly) overstating "what Heller means", other gun folks are arguing positions *far* outside the NRA's. Hell, *within_this_thread* are references to a more strident gun rights group. The NRA is just a political spin group, really.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Don't know where the NRA falls on the continuum of 2nd Amendment thinking, but I read a pro-gun argument making the rounds in western (ie, conservative) Canada that gun owners should absolutely *not* back down from a theoretical position advocating that a homeless man with a shopping cart should be able to own a nuclear weapon... as any retreat from that (absurd) position would lead to the proverbial slippery slope & would ultimately result in the defeat of gun rights. Period. "Freedom is pure. Never compromise"

I'm not making this up.

While the NRA mocks liberals for (ostensibly) overstating "what Heller means", other gun folks are arguing positions *far* outside the NRA's. Hell, *within_this_thread* are references to a more strident gun rights group. The NRA is just a political spin group, really.

Yes, I knew it would only be a matter of time before you brought up the "buy your own tank and missile" argument.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Yes, I knew it would only be a matter of time before you brought up the "buy your own tank and missile" argument.

LOL

Simple question: is the notion of armed citizens being empowered to topple a tyrannical government now passe? If you agree the concept is no longer applicable - and the other 2nd Amendment advocates agree - then I'll readily admit being in error.