A Gun A Monthgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Sunday night, 12/20, I sat switching the channels on telvision and came across a news magazine on ABC, CBS, or NBC. I just got a few moments of the piece but thought I would pass it along to see if anyone had heard about the proposal.
Someone, I assume a spokeperson for the government, was being interviewed about guns. He said they would like to limit the number of guns being purchased to one a month per person. He sited Pheldelphia as the model of an area where legally bought guns are being sold to criminals. By limiting the number of guns bought legally to one per month, this would reduce crime.
The NRA is very upset and Charlenton Heston is the middle man. This is what I got out of the story.
If it is true, I wonder if this is a way to start limiting purchasing guns for Y2k or am I being paranoid. Comments?
-- Linda A. (email@example.com), December 21, 1998
Absolutely Linda. Look for a complete ban of private ownership in areas where trouble is anticipated. I've read speculations that rescind the second ammendment by June. It's been a steady drumbeat for the last several years, the cries for gun bans is reaching fever pitch. When the Y2K bomb is dropped on an unaware public, the cries for bans for public security will be deafening.
If some think this idea is paranoid, crazy and will never happen, I have one thing to that will prove this will happen: Tobacco Smokers.
The precedent has been set. ANYTHING the gov't decides it doesn't like or wants to pilfer financially, they can now destroy by litigation and propaganda.
-- INVAR (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 21, 1998.
I have been hoping someone would post something where this would fit. :^) A community down my way (Jackson, MS I think) had a bad problem with guns being used by criminals. Carjacking, mugging, police officer being shot - major problem. Now they don't. Local DA made one simple change in policy that got the criminals to quit carrying guns. ALL persons involved in ANY crime who are carrying a gun there, will be charged with Federal firearms violations. Instead of a 'slap on the wrist' fine or a month in the city lockup they would get under State laws - the Federal laws hit them with 2 to 5 years in the Federal pen minimum. Police were literally finding guns thrown away in some neighborhoods - the crooks are scared of getting caught with one. And not one single legal weapon has had to be confiscated to achieve this result! After a few months of this policy - guns confiscated from criminals are down by over 70% - and still dropping. How's that for results?
Criminals using guns are the excuse for gun control laws. Cut down on criminal guns and the excuse evaporates. If you don't like gun controls for honest citizens - start putting pressure on your DA and elected judges to charge criminals with FEDERAL firearms violations. It really does work.
-- Paul Davis (email@example.com), December 21, 1998.
There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for "Federal" gun laws.
What part of "Congress shall make no laws..." and "... shall not be infringed", etc. don't you understand?
-- a (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 21, 1998.
The on-going war to try to disarm the American people has been going on for so long, especially during the Clinton years, but also during the Bush administration, that I frankly would not really attach any Y2K significance to it. Even if guns were completely outlawed today, there is so little time left before TSHTF, that I question what good it would do in terms of Y2K -- there is no way to bring them in, since the vast majority are not registered. (For those who live in places where they are registered, of course, its a different story -- the only purpose of registration has always been to serve as the means to achieve confiscation.) I think that these anti-gun tactics are mainly being pushed by Y2K un-aware people.
-- Jack (email@example.com), December 21, 1998.
While I do not support heavy handed gun registration laws, what on earth is wrong with a limit of purchasing one firearm per month?
That seems to be far more than a law abiding citizen would ever use anyway?
-- Craig (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 21, 1998.
You're right and wrong. Yes, few can use more than 1 gun a month.
But, have you ever heard the old phrase about the camel getting it's nose under the edge of the tent? Next goes the tent. And so it is with government.
Most of us recognize that loss of freedom begins with only small and insignificant pieces being chipped away. Enough chips, and you've reduced a mountain to nothing ----- and freedom to a joke.
-- rocky (email@example.com), December 21, 1998.
If the Government can say "Only One", they will soon say "None." Once the precedent has been set, there will be no way to rescind the action.
Case-in-point: Temporary tax increases that ALWAYS become permanent and expanded.
-- INVAR (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 21, 1998.
What part of, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." do you not understand?
The Second Amendment is not one of the most straightfoward and clearly articulated strictures ever written. Knee-jerk simplistic pronouncements, frequently stated as, "What part of 'Congress shall make no laws...' and '... shall not be infringed', etc. don't you understand?" are taken and too often discussed out of context.
The entire Second Amendment states: "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."
And that, my friends, is open to interpretation.
"What we need to understand may only be expressible in a language that we do not know."---Tony Judge
-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), December 21, 1998.
I live in a "one gun per month" state...and the has no appreciable effect on anything. It is merely another way for the hoplophobes to attempt to control objects (i.e. firearms) because they are unwilling to attempt to control criminals.
as long as you understand the concept of the militia of the whole - that is the whole body of the people armed - the 2nd ammendment is very straightforward. It basicly means that everyone within the militia of the whole (originally every able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 - though that should be expanded to both genders, IMHO) was to be armed without interference. "Well regulated" in this context means well trained, or experienced...while there are other, more recent attempts to misinterpret the 2A they are all based on modern English and not on common usage at the time the Bill of Rights was written.
Additionally, and as importantly - all of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are, and are intended to be, *individual* rights. There is NO historical evidence to the contrary. Again, ALL other interpretations are based on smoke and vapors, NOT historical fact or precedent.
-- Arlin H. Adams (email@example.com), December 21, 1998.
1 gun per month
1 gun every 2 months
1 gun every 6 months
1 gun per year
1 gun per person
no guns per person
-- Dieter (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 21, 1998.
What if the government started putting limits on our other freedoms? For example: you can only go to a church up to four times a week (who would want to go more?); you can only publish a newspaper up to 2 times a day (surely reasonable); you cannot file more than 100 lawsuits a year (surely no one would suffer more than 100 injustices during the course of a year); etc. You get the point: once you set the precedent of placing limits on freedom, then the principles of the freedoms are largely lost, and it then becomes more of a bureaucratic excercise to move the numbers down to zero (e.g., # times you can go to a church in a week = 0).
-- Jack (email@example.com), December 21, 1998.
"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."
Our founding Fathers TRIED to make sure they wrote the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in plain and understandable language. They went to great lengths to achieve this end. If you look at the 2nd admendment, it consist of "2" ideas, or "2" statements: "A well regulated Militia" and "the right of the people". The U.S Supreme Court has ruled this to be true and stating that the term "the people", since it appears throughout the entire body of the Bill of Rights and Constitution is in fact the "people" of this beloved country. Thats rights folks, that you and me, all of us. Every mother's son and daughter who is not legally restricted due to mental problems or has been dishonorably discharged or convicted of a crime, can own, use or purchase a firearm. After all.......why do you think our founding Fathers, in thier great wisdom, made it our 2nd admendment in our Bill of Rights, our GOD given, inalienable rights?
-- Will (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 22, 1998.
It also says militias are to be regulated - which is why they form up in Western states that have never done their plain duty by the Constitution . Few militias in Ky - they don't seem to like being inspected for gun safety and being made to follow rules of conduct. Odd, I thought they were supposed to be great supporters of the Constitution ? Kind of seems like they don't support the entire 2nd amendment.
-- Paul Davis (email@example.com), December 22, 1998.
Didn't this have to do with a big sting operation around Chicago? My memory is as usual, fuzzy, but I think they found that something like 40% of guns recovered from criminals had been purchased legally, recently and in volume by folks with a federal firearms license.
Gun running, sort of. Haven't time to search for a URL right now. I'll try later.
Anyone else remember this story?
-- Lewis (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 29, 1998.