Related Articles
An op-ed piece by Daniel Webster (no--not that Daniel Webster), of the anti-gun Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, argues that federal laws prohibiting felons, illicit drug users, the mentally ill, and people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence are not enough, and that even more categories of people need to be disarmed.
We also want to know what are the appropriate criteria for someone to purchase and possess a gun. In many cases, the standards are not strict enough. We often come across the notion that if you pass a background check, you are considered a law-abiding gun owner. But the fact of the matter is that you can be convicted of a whole host of crimes and still have access to a gun.
A number of things will suggest that it is not a good idea for you to have a firearm. For example, there is a large number of people who have been convicted of crimes involving violence, drugs, or alcohol abuse that are classified as misdemeanors -- yet they are still allowed to purchase, possess, and even carry a gun in public.
In other words, it would seem that Dr. Webster advocates adding a whole laundry list of misdemeanors to the already long list of crimes--littering in a cave is a felony in Texas; so is selling marital aids (presumably, even when not in a cave)--that can render a person disarmed for life.
Then, of course, there are the efforts to disarm "suspected terrorists"--without a conviction, without an indictment, without an arrest, without even the accusation being made known to the "suspect"--all that would be needed is a determination by the United States Attorney General (Eric Holder--doesn't that reasssure you?) that you're too "dangerous" to buy a gun.
I, on the other hand, propose a different approach--dispensing with "prohibted persons" lists. As National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea frequently says (be sure to read the series of articles linked to at the upper right):
It's been my long-standing contention that anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian. Simply put, if you have proven too dangerous to yourself and others to possess a gun, or box cutters, or fertilizer or matches, you're too dangerous to be allowed unrestricted access to the rest of us.
And if you're not dangerous, then what purpose does the gun prohibition serve?
I think I have an answer to David's question. The purpose of such prohibitions is to reduce the number of Americans who can legally own guns, and thus whittle away at the legal gun culture. The fewer legal gun owners, the less resistance there will be to the passage of ever more restrictive gun laws.
That, I submit, is the purpose.
Comments
After reading the following historical facts, read the part about Switzerland, twice.
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control... From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews, and others who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christia
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million!
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens
Take note, my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens.'
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your fr
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more
important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
What you read in my last three comments were quoted from someone else and sent to me by a trusted friend and lobbyist in Washignton D.C. I apologize for having to break it up into parts but I could not run it as one comment. But please check your history books for yourself and it will scare you what gun control has done in the past to innocent people.
I would rather live in a society where EVERYONE carries a gun, than in a society where gun possession (owning and carrying) is largely "illegal". The worst of the worst will be armed in both cases.
This is preaching to the choir, but the safest place to be is at a "hot" firing range. Who would dare to act violently and aberrantly in the presence of fully armed and trained marksmen (and markswomen)?
Sometimes it is good to run with the big dogs.
Darwin was right.
As long as lawmakers focus on grabbing guns, they can shift interest from real issues.
Let's make it real simple for these lib-tards. If you are on the "Prohibited Persons" list for buying a gun you are also on the prohibited persons list when it comes time to vote.
It should come as no surprise that I agree with you on this. I once got into a sidewalk debate outside the Colorado State capital with a well known gun hater. ( Who shall remain unnamed so as not to send hits to his website) He was seeking an expansion of the list of prohibited persons, and I was against it. Later, when questioned about this by a state Senator in committee I asked him "Don't we lock these people up long enough? If that is the case, then you need to re-write the laws, not restrict people's right to defend themselves and others from predators.
Tired of talking and tired of trying to convince other citizens.
Only thing worth saying is:
MOLON LABE!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!