I'd vote, but you left out the selection that I would vote for. How about let's make it harder, or impossible for wackos to get guns or ammo. That seems to make the most sense.
Why not just ban wackos? Surely there is someone that would classify you as one. Can you be trusted with knives, chainsaws, gallon containers of gasoline, bleach, or the remote from the TV, either? I bet you are watching the wrong TV shows, and you don’t even have a bill of rights that says you can watch the programming of your choice. Which appointed government official are you going to trust to make an evaluation of you?
I’d like to know what you plan to do about wackos within the police force and military? Make it impossible for them to have guns, too?
What about illegal aliens in the country? Or, the people who haven’t been wackos for the last 30 years of their lives?
Who needs a gun RIGHT NOW? Why can't you wait for a reasonable and thorough background check.
1 - Because you are a woman in an abusive relationship whose husband has threatened to kill you for getting a restraining order, and is unlikely to wait for the “waiting period” to expire before fulfilling his threat? Actually, the same need applies if you reverse the gender assignment, too. If someone is willing to kill you, do you really think that the fact that using a gun to do it being illegal is going to stop them?
2 - Because, the earthquake, tornado, hurricane, flood, etc, has left the community without any law enforcement for the individual. And roving gangs are taking “liberties” with your survival desires.
3 - Because you neighbor just broke your arm, is out on bail and looking to eliminate you as a witness problem.
4 on up. There are many more scenarios for those that wish to do an objective investigation.
The second amendment was never written to protect the people from our own government.
Actually it was. Do you know who wrote the second amendment? The following must be pretty inconvenient quotes for you:
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
It was written in a time when the firearm was the most common and powerful weapon available. Sure, a cannon was pretty powerful, but limited in ease of use or transport. We had just seceded from England and created our own government, and wanted to protect ourselves from any invaders. We didn't have a large army, and our win into independence was made possible because of an army of citizens armed with rifles and pistols. And we wanted to protect their right to keep those very weapons.
The new government documents were penned by people that had just overthrown the government through force of arms. This was thought to be a good thing. And, they put in place a mechanism that would allow it to be repeated should the need arise again in the future. The prior oppressive government was intent on confiscating the very arms that allowed the revolution and government overthrow to succeed. They wanted those tools to be available should the need again present itself. They wanted the power to remain with the people where it rightly deserves to be in order for them to be self-governed, instead of enslaved by tyranny.
The Founding Fathers could have never imagined the technology we have today, as well as the sheer number of people we have today, and all the problems associated with a huge population.
True, they couldn’t have imagined today’s technology. They certainly >could< have imagined and were quite well aware of the nature of mankind. They knew that individuals have the capacity for good as well as evil, that there would be a certain percentage that would use tools for evil as well as good. Human nature hasn’t changed.
People did evil things back then, too, both with and without guns, explosives, disease, and words.
The principles of government are not technology based. They are based on the traits of humanity. What form of humanity denies tools that enable continued existence, the right to self defense? Isn’t that tyranny? Why do you favor a 230 lb criminal prevailing over the 98 lb grandmother in a battle of survival? Why do you favor criminals prevailing in a confrontation, simply because they are burlier then the victim? You actually favor survival of the fittest in you utopian society? Are you Aryan, perhaps?
Would you also ban any other tool that can be misused against other individuals. If so, then what about ordinary rocks? They can be used to kill and maim, as well. Surely, “wackos” can’t be allowed to acquire these either, and this makes just as equal “sense” as what you forward.
Are YOU willing to give up access and use of rocks and stones? Why can’t you be considered a future “wacko”? Have you a secure place within a tyrannical government?
That having been said, I would point out that the left has never said that they want to take away all the guns.
Is this intentional deception? Or, have you actually been blinded to outright statements by the left?
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,
picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,
"I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95
* * *
“In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”
Charles Krauthammer (columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996 (boldface added).
* * *
We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.
Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.) (boldface added, italics in original).
* * *
Rep. William L. Clay (D-St. Louis, Mo.), said the Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases," Clay said.
Robert L. Koenig, NRA-Backed Measure May Derail Brady Bill, St. Louis Post Dispatch, May 8, 1993, at 1A (boldface added).
* * *
[Peter] Jennings: And the effect of the assault rifle ban in Stockton? The price went up, gun stores sold out and police say that fewer than 20 were turned in. Still, some people in Stockton argue you cannot measure the effect that way. They believe there's value in making a statement that the implements of violence are unacceptable in our culture.
[Stockton, California] Mayor [Barbara] Fass: I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."
ABC News Special, Peter Jennings Reporting: Guns, April 11, 1991, available on LEXIS, NEWS database, SCRIPT file (boldface added).
* * *
"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation." Evan Osnos, Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999, at C3 (quoting Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.)).
* * *
Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran is proposing a wide-ranging package of laws that would make the state's gun control regulations among the strictest in the nation and says his ultimate goal is a ban on handguns.
Daniel LeDuc, Tough Laws For Guns Proposed In Maryland; Attorney General Says Goal Is Ban, Wash. Post, Oct. 20, 1999, at A01.
There’s far more, see:
http://www.gunscholar.org/gunban.htmThe right would have you believe that isn't so, and if you let them have power, your guns will be taken away. And it didn't happen the last time the left had total control either. They did have some legislation that made it a safer country, but nobody's guns were taken away.
I assume you refer to the so called “assault weapons ban” of the Clinton administration. How you can forward the outright lie that it had any effect on individual safety is beyond me. The law was allowed to sunset and die BECAUSE there was no real (or surreal) effect on safety before, during or after its existence. Government studies showed this conclusively.
I defy you to show ANY evidence that there was ANY effect on public safety. To forward your opinion as having any sort of factual basis, is disingenuous, at best. The only goal in a new “assault weapons ban” is to incrementally build a list of guns that the populace can’t be allowed to own, circumventing the second amendment, until only those in political favor may be able to afford having any gun of any kind. The new law, when introduced, will ban a list of guns, and allow the attorney general to add to the list any gun that he sees fit to add in the future, without any vote necessary by a future legislative body. It’s a perfect recipe for an eventual, total, effective ban on guns for US citizens.
Finally, the total ban didn’t happen “last time”, only because the voting public dumped many of the ban proponents then in office. The current regime will simply wait till economic conditions have made the people “fat, dumb, and happy” to take that next step toward their ultimate goal. The current regime made very careful public statements so as to evade gun bans in the political arena. It would have been political suicide, and they knew it. They didn’t and don’t want the public to know their plans. Better to have the fools find out after the deed is done, without being given a real choice in the matter.
Poll