Home | Community | Message Board


Original Seeds Store - Cannabis Seeds
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
The Limits of Gun Ownership
    #3244081 - 10/11/04 07:00 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

link

The Limits of Gun Ownership

by Harry Browne

October 23, 2003

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.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: The Limits of Gun Ownership [Re: silversoul7]
    #3244158 - 10/11/04 07:20 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

SS7, I've got a question, but not really on guns:

Is the Libertarian position basically that the public should be able to posess whatever weapons the goverment posesses?

Badnarik's site says a lot about gun ownership (all of which I agree with), but I didn't see anything on explosives, chemical, nuclear weapons, etc.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 2 months, 9 days
Re: The Limits of Gun Ownership [Re: Gijith]
    #3244160 - 10/11/04 07:21 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

I dont think anyone would need nuclear or explosive devices for self protection.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: The Limits of Gun Ownership [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #3244198 - 10/11/04 07:30 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

The_Red_Crayon said:
I dont think anyone would need nuclear or explosive devices for self protection.




I don't think saddam hussein would agree with you. :wink:


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: The Limits of Gun Ownership [Re: silversoul7]
    #3244203 - 10/11/04 07:32 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

that article had more holes than my cheese grater :tongue:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: The Limits of Gun Ownership [Re: Gijith]
    #3244228 - 10/11/04 07:40 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Gijith said:
SS7, I've got a question, but not really on guns:

Is the Libertarian position basically that the public should be able to posess whatever weapons the goverment posesses?



Not quite. They mostly believe that people should be able to possess any guns or small arms, but not necessarily bombs or chemical/nuclear weapons. This was written by Harry Browne, who ran as the Libertarian presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000. He seems to be on the more extreme side of the Libertarian Party on this issue, but rest assured there are plenty of libertarians with more moderate stances than this.

Quote:

Badnarik's site says a lot about gun ownership (all of which I agree with), but I didn't see anything on explosives, chemical, nuclear weapons, etc.



I'm not so certain Badnarik would agree entirely with this article. Neither do I, for that matter. I just posted it to get a discussion going.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: The Limits of Gun Ownership [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #3244248 - 10/11/04 07:44 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

The_Red_Crayon said:
I dont think anyone would need nuclear or explosive devices for self protection.



I don't think so either, unless we're talking about protection from the government. In any case, I think the point this article is making is that if people buy explosives legally instead of on the underground market, then it makes it more out in the open so that if they're used in a crime, the police could track down recent explosives purchases and find the perpetrator more easily.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: The Limits of Gun Ownership [Re: silversoul7]
    #3244276 - 10/11/04 07:51 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Quote:

The_Red_Crayon said:
I dont think anyone would need nuclear or explosive devices for self protection.



I don't think so either, unless we're talking about protection from the government. In any case, I think the point this article is making is that if people buy explosives legally instead of on the underground market, then it makes it more out in the open so that if they're used in a crime, the police could track down recent explosives purchases and find the perpetrator more easily.




My opinion on gun laws is that the illegal use of guns to commit crimes is a symptom of other systemic social problems and as such before we can safely repeal the existing gun laws we need to deal with those problems. Those include class disparity, poverty, an increasingly balls up educational system, racial tension*, and retarded drug laws among other things.

Solve those issues and there wouldn't be nearly as many gun related crimes. Maybe throw in a mandatory 2 year military service later on as well, depending on the political-social climate. Anyway, until such a time I think we're putting the cart before the horse by repealing the gun laws now.

*racial tensions are unfortunate and deplorable, but also I think steadily decreasing each generation.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: The Limits of Gun Ownership [Re: unbeliever]
    #3244318 - 10/11/04 08:02 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

My opinion on gun laws is that the illegal use of guns to commit crimes is a symptom of other systemic social problems and as such before we can safely repeal the existing gun laws we need to deal with those problems.

i would think that the ability to defend oneself would be more important when there are higher levels of crime. it's not as though banning guns actually reduces crime.

could you explain how each of the factors (class disparity, poverty...) you listed acts to increase the level of crime?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: The Limits of Gun Ownership [Re: ]
    #3244354 - 10/11/04 08:10 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
My opinion on gun laws is that the illegal use of guns to commit crimes is a symptom of other systemic social problems and as such before we can safely repeal the existing gun laws we need to deal with those problems.

i would think that the ability to defend oneself would be more important when there are higher levels of crime. it's not as though banning guns actually reduces crime.

could you explain how each of the factors (class disparity, poverty...) you listed acts to increase the level of crime?




The social problems I listed create an environment wherein violence and crime can appear as the only means to survive, or fit in, or get by or however you want to slice it. Gangs who center around drugs for example, they have to defend their "trade" with violence. Guns are the most expedient tool for that. Poverty and social inequality enforce both the reality and perception of a complete lack of hope. Disallusioned youth turn to violence as a way of expression, a way of showing their strength and surviving in the violent world they live in, and sadly they serve only to perpetuate it.

Also I think that legalizing prostitution and at least decriminalizing certain drugs would go a long way to cutting down on violence in certain areas. There is a TON of associated violence with those two things that simply does not need to be occurring.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: The Limits of Gun Ownership [Re: silversoul7]
    #3244947 - 10/11/04 10:32 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

I can own a tank in my backyard?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: The Limits of Gun Ownership [Re: retread]
    #3244971 - 10/11/04 10:38 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

retread said:
I can own a tank in my backyard?



As long as it stays there and doesn't harm anyone, that's fine by me.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR DENOUNCES ANTI-GUN-OWNERSHIP MOVEMENT MagicalMystery 1,197 14 09/07/05 12:50 PM
by MagicalMystery
* Thank god for gun ownership...
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Xlea321 4,111 86 10/22/02 02:47 AM
by Boglyn
* Alito Dissenting Opinion U.S. v Rybar (Machine Gun Ownership) lonestar2004 610 8 11/01/05 03:06 PM
by afoaf
* For You Gun Haters
( 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 all )
Sinistar 10,026 211 02/09/03 07:18 AM
by Evolving
* The False Promise of Gun Control
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 2,252 23 04/16/03 07:53 PM
by pattern
* The Swiss and their Guns.
( 1 2 all )
lonestar2004 2,043 21 08/25/05 12:23 PM
by Alex213
* A cause for concern, My essay on guns.
punkhardcore92
1,035 14 03/18/08 05:24 PM
by punkhardcore92
* Someone stated gun registry didn't lead to arbitrary confiscation. nakors_junk_bag 529 5 12/12/05 05:09 PM
by nakors_junk_bag

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
720 topic views. 2 members, 0 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Shroom Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.061 seconds spending 0.001 seconds on 14 queries.