Duckman on gun control

[Syco21]

You took a picture of yourself holding a gun in front of one of my posts? Wow, there's some good subtext.

Best not make any assumptions, you have a proven track record of being horribly incorrect. :rolleyes:

He is incorrect because he disagrees with you a lot. Okay.

Yeah, clearly he was correct in stating that I was claiming my right to own guns as a free white man. Cause, ya know, as a Hispanic man, I'm totally white. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.png

[Marxist ßastard]

You took a picture of yourself holding a gun in front of one of my posts? Wow, there's some good subtext.

Best not make any assumptions, you have a proven track record of being horribly incorrect.

You know, i was thinking about the same thing.

Well? Post a picture of yourself holding a gun too. Then I'll be twice as intimidated.

 

Better yet, print out my avatar and use it as target practice.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Marxist ßastard

[Syco21]

You took a picture of yourself holding a gun in front of one of my posts? Wow, there's some good subtext.

Best not make any assumptions, you have a proven track record of being horribly incorrect.

You know, i was thinking about the same thing.

Well? Post a picture of yourself holding a gun too. Then I'll be twice as intimidated.

 

Better yet, print out my avatar and use it as target practice.

Because bullets can travel through the intertubes! :laugh:

[Nintii]

Gun control, Racism and Economics are inexticably linked to one another in the US as history has recorded it.

 

"Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat "any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane." If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to "shoot to kill."

 

On the few occasions that "people of colour" were allowed to carry arms was when white peoples lives were in danger from the Indians and pirates etc.

 

 

"The 1798 Kentucky Comprehensive Act allowed slaves and free blacks on frontier plantations "to keep and use guns, powder, shot, and weapons, offensive and defensive." Unlike whites, however, a license was required for free blacks or slaves to carry weapons. "

 

"The need for blacks to carry arms for self-defense included not only the problem of Indian attack, and the normal criminal attacks that anyone might worry about, but he additional hazard that free blacks were in danger of being kidnapped and sold into slavery.

A number of states, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, passed laws specifically to prohibit kidnapping of free blacks, out of concern that the federal Fugitive Slave Laws would be used as cover for re-enslavement. "

 

And again I quote ...

 

"The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws; the various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or Bowie knives; these are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in the efforts of the Republicans to get the Fourteenth Amendment ratified, because it was difficult for night riders to generate the correct level of terror in a victim who was returning fire. [

It does appear, however, that the requirement to treat blacks and whites equally before the law led to the adoption of restrictive firearms laws in the South that were equal in the letter of the law, but unequally enforced. It is clear that the vagrancy statutes adopted at roughly the same time, in 1866, were intended to be used against blacks, even though the language was race-neutral."

 

 

Moving along to the 20th century we discover the same ridiculous gun control laws but with the added twist of a Justice speaking as if the ruling of the court was speaking to the common man in the street and the gun control not being a racist issue ... and I quote ...

 

 

"In 1920, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Mexican for concealed carry of a handgun--while asleep in his own bed. Justice Wanamaker's scathing dissent criticized the precedents cited by the majority in defense of this absurdity:

 

I desire to give some special attention to some of the authorities cited, supreme court decisions from Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and one or two inferior court decisions from New York, which are given in support of the doctrines upheld by this court. The southern states have very largely furnished the precedents. It is only necessary to observe that the race issue there has extremely intensified a decisive purpose to entirely disarm the negro, and this policy is evident upon reading the opinions.

While not relevant to the issue of racism, Justice Wanamaker's closing paragraphs capture well the biting wit and intelligence of this jurist, who was unfortunately, outnumbered on the bench:

 

I hold that the laws of the state of Ohio should be so applied and so interpreted as to favor the law-abiding rather than the law-violating people. If this decision shall stand as the law of Ohio, a very large percentage of the good people of Ohio to-day are criminals, because they are daily committing criminal acts by having these weapons in their own homes for their own defense. The only safe course for them to pursue, instead of having the weapon concealed on or about their person, or under their pillow at night, is to hang the revolver on the wall and put below it a large placard with these words inscribed:

"The Ohio supreme court having decided that it is a crime to carry a concealed weapon on one's person in one's home, even in one's bed or bunk, this weapon is hung upon the wall that you may see it, and before you commit any burglary or assault, please, Mr. Burglar, hand me my gun."

 

 

 

Having read this and a number of other cases it is pretty clear that gun control and racism have pretty much walked hand in hand.

The racist laws concerning gun control is now a thing of the past ... nevertheless, the gun control advocates are still alive and kicking ...

 

 

"In the last century, while never openly admitted, one of the goals of disarming blacks was to make them more willing to accept various forms of economic oppression, including the sharecropping system, in which free blacks were reduced to an economic state not dramatically superior to the conditions of slavery.

 

In the seventeenth century, the aristocratic power structure of colonial Virginia found itself confronting a similar challenge from lower class whites. These poor whites resented how the men who controlled the government used that power to concentrate wealth into a small number of hands. These wealthy feeders at the government trough would have disarmed poor whites if they could, but the threat of both Indian and pirate attack made this impractical; for all white men "were armed and had to be armed..." Instead, blacks, who had occupied a poorly defined status between indentured servant and slave, were reduced to hereditary chattel slavery, so that poor whites could be economically advantaged, without the upper class having to give up its privileges.

 

Today, the forces that push for gun control seem to be heavily (though not exclusively) allied with political factions that are committed to dramatic increases in taxation on the middle class.

While it would be hyperbole to compare higher taxes on the middle class to the suffering and deprivation of sharecropping or slavery, the analogy of disarming those whom you wish to economically disadvantage, has a certain worrisome validity to it."

 

 

Gun control is people control and people control is economic control ... it might not seem a threat now, because we live in the "enlightened 21st century" but believe me people are doomed to make the same mistakes ... check history ... it repeats itself ... there is nothing new under the sun.

 

An unarmed society is easy prey ... go ask the Jews in Hitler's day when they were disarmed, or the Russians when Stalin decided to murder millions or the innocent in Rwanda before they were disarmed and murdered in their millions, the list goes on ...

 

Sure there will be those who abuse their right to carry a firearm and hurt the innocent ... nobody applauds or agrees with that and we cannot feel the pain of the loss of those loved ones lost but to have an unarmed society is a lot more steps closer to authoritarian rule and the loss of freedom ... an armed society is the balance to check the State on the scale of freedom.

 

All excerpts are from ...

 

For The Defense of Themselves And The State: The Original Intent & Judicial Interpretation of the Right To Keep And Bear Arms... published by Greenwood/Praeger Press in 1994.

 

What does all this have to do with the OP you might ask ? ............. Well, it's a historical perspective of the struggle of liberation and continued freedom for ALL the peoples in the USA to the right to one of the most fundamental basic rights ... self protection.

The arguements of Jason Alexander and other gun control advocates becomes meaningless in the face of freedom ... I just wish we here had the same opportunities you have ... but we were disarmed.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Nintii

[mizdarby]

As a non-american, I can agree with the fundamental human right for self-protection, and so for a society, where the majority of criminals are liable to be bearing guns, that the intended victims of criminal acts, should have the right to bear guns also.

However, when an individual (without being too specific), purchases several thousand rounds, it is extremely unlikely that individual is buying rounds purely for self-protection reasons. So although I can understand the need to bear weapons, I believe the outlets which supply guns/ammunition should be more tightly regulated, and monitored.

I consider myself very fortunate, to live in a virtually gun free city (of about 250,000 people), where the official homicide figure, for 2011/2012 is precisely 0. Not 1 murder of any kind.

[Ghogiel]

Wow, would you look at that? Right to carry is enacted, and the murder rate plummets! Amazing. And Texas:

 

Wow, imagine that! Same trend.......

How are the first 2 graphs following the national trend and Florida and Texas aren't doing that very thing?

 

Alone those graphs would show quite convincingly that banning carry or allowing weapon carry does next to nothing in each of those places> each individual city/state shown pretty much just follows the national trend in homicides. I'm not seeing any case being made that either one does much, considering each implementation of those rights are staggered on about an average of 7 years from each other and thus individually can't be suggesting that would directly affect the national trend. If the graph was doing something that was inverse to the national trend, or all state no/carry laws were brought in on a single year, perhaps then some sort of conclusion could be drawn.

 

The fact that the laws changed, yet the locations still followed the national trend, should tell you that whether you ban them or not, makes no difference.

Oh ok. We are on the same page then. :thumbsup:

I thought you were suggesting something else, like those graphs showed relaxed carry laws actually did something to the murder rate, ie it plummeted.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Ghogiel

[HeyYou]

As a non-american, I can agree with the fundamental human right for self-protection, and so for a society, where the majority of criminals are liable to be bearing guns, that the intended victims of criminal acts, should have the right to bear guns also.

However, when an individual (without being too specific), purchases several thousand rounds, it is extremely unlikely that individual is buying rounds purely for self-protection reasons. So although I can understand the need to bear weapons, I believe the outlets which supply guns/ammunition should be more tightly regulated, and monitored.

I consider myself very fortunate, to live in a virtually gun free city (of about 250,000 people), where the official homicide figure, for 2011/2012 is precisely 0. Not 1 murder of any kind.

 

Erm........ :ninja:

 

At one time, I had over 4000 rounds of 7.62X39 for my pair of SKS Assault Weapons..... and almost 1000 rounds for my .45.... (an ATK Hardballer, long slide, based on the colt 1911. Very nice weapon, easy to handle, weighed enough that recoil wouldn't thump you in the head....) I haven't gone on any shooting rampages..... and I have put a serious dent in my 7.62 supply, just going out to the range and plinking. (having six 30 round magazines makes it easy to burn thru a bunch of ammo fairly quickly.) I ended up selling the .45 though... needed the money more than I needed the gun.

[Syco21]

Gun control, Racism and Economics are inexticably linked to one another in the US as history has recorded it.

What very few people realize is that the part of many state constitutions which allows the government to regulate carrying of weapons are actually a part of Jim Crow laws. They were added during the reconstruction period specifically to enable the states to make it illegal for colored men to carry weapons. A lot of the bans on carry were enacted to keep colored men from carrying, while bringing the laws into line with civil rights. Funny statement, that. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.png

 

As a non-american, I can agree with the fundamental human right for self-protection, and so for a society, where the majority of criminals are liable to be bearing guns, that the intended victims of criminal acts, should have the right to bear guns also.

However, when an individual (without being too specific), purchases several thousand rounds, it is extremely unlikely that individual is buying rounds purely for self-protection reasons. So although I can understand the need to bear weapons, I believe the outlets which supply guns/ammunition should be more tightly regulated, and monitored.

I consider myself very fortunate, to live in a virtually gun free city (of about 250,000 people), where the official homicide figure, for 2011/2012 is precisely 0. Not 1 murder of any kind.

"Several thousand rounds" sounds like an average range day for me. Do you have any idea how quickly you can burn through a thousand rounds while just practicing? Nevermind plinking, which is more about just wasting ammo for fun rather than actually practicing your marksmanship.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Syco21

[Moveing]

mizdarby

However, when an individual (without being too specific), purchases several thousand rounds, it is extremely unlikely that individual is buying rounds purely for self-protection reasons.

Here we go again, the "you don't need this" Nanny Mindset.

This selfdefence right also includes other actors than just burglars and rapists, it includes the most dangerous criminal organisation of all. Governments and their Military and police force.

 

I believe the outlets which supply guns/ammunition should be more tightly regulated, and monitored.

This doesn't work, it will never work and just bugs the law-abiding mayority of the people. Say good bye to the illusion big government could protect you.

 

 

Operation fast and furious

 

 

Nintii

The arguements of Jason Alexander and other gun control advocates becomes meaningless in the face of freedom ...

 

BOOOOOM BABY!!!

[Vagrant0]

Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent.

I think you're missing something here... Nobody in their right mind is thinking that banning these sorts of weapons will reduce crime, or impact criminals who are already neck deep in the business.

 

What it might do something about is the ability for some whack job who had a bad day to walk into a mall and just start opening fire on people just because those people are there. These sorts of people typically are not criminals before the event, nor are they likely to approach their local scumbag gun smuggler because your local scumbag gun smuggler isn't listed in the yellow pages and might just be tempted to report you to the police as soon as you walk away.