I have a .20 guauge shotgun my brother gave me. It has a real long barrel. I haven't shot it since leaving NC five years ago, but I have in the past enjoyed shooting it, and other guns. I keep it somewhat nearby, the shotgun, unloaded but close to three hollow point slugs. A .20 gauge is mostly a small bird hunting gun but loaded with hollow point slugs it becomes something else entirely. And I sometimes think about buying a registered handgun. Here in Louisiana we can carry concealed weapons, with some exceptions. The reason I keep hollow point slugs and the reason I think about concealed weapons is because there are times here when the violence gets so prevalent, and close, that I feel it may be necessary to defend myself by killing another human being. And with the uttering of those words what have I become? And no, obviously most of the murders I'm talking about are not being carried out with registered handguns, but the beauty of a buy back program is that by offering 20,40,or 60 dollars for any gun, no questions asked, a community can get rid of a few of its antiquated killing devices, and at the same time stimulate the local crack economy. The antiquated weaponry could then be replaced with new fangled weaponry that perhaps could be made less effective when finding its way into the wrong hands. Or maybe such a thing is just impossible, can't be done. I don't question your stance with the Constitution, and I'm not suggesting we give up our right to arm bears, but the idea that any number of us in armed combat against this government could amount to anything but a bloody fiasco is unrealistic. Sure our FBI looks ineffectual and goofy sometimes, implying by their deadly fuckups that they could be overrun by a well run militia, but that just ain't so. And the FBI would be the least of the problems a revolutionary or defensive front would have to deal with. It is a scary group of agencies at the disposal of our government, and that's not even including our military, which doped up or not, those guys can kick some ass. And so in that sense we John Q Americans really don't even need our guns. We are licked before we start, militarily speaking. There will be no jackbooted ass kicking of the American public because there is no need for it, and nothing to gain. So let's get rid of our guns. No, you go first...no, really, you go, and then I'll go, seriously.
hmm, threads all over the place awaiting responses. ahh, the good ol second amendment. certainly the intentions of the founders was to empower the populace against possible tyranny from the government. as they had just fought a bloody war against an entrenched power, they understood that power is corrupting and only a vast array of checks and balances could maintain a degree of equanimity. so then the question should turn to what can be done to limit the use of guns?
i too have been of the opinion that the right to bear arms is essentially useless in our present day situation with the weapons at the disposal of the government. but as we have seen in vietnam and even kosovo or chechnya or ireland, its one thing to bomb a country back into the stone ages and quite another to occupy a country on the ground.
so we have the right to bear arms, just what arms do we have the right to bear? can i own a nuclear bomb? how about a jet fighter or a tank? does the constitution say you can bear arms within reason?
ok, im losing coherency, but lets just say philosophically, if thats the right word, we accept the need for the second amendment, how do we practically respond to its abuse without treading on our initial prerogatives? one would think that the threat of the death penalty or life in prison would be enough to dissuade most people from using weapons for malevolent purposes and for the most part this is true but obviously not universal. so lets look at who is misusing guns and see what can be done to mitigate their use. obviously education is the most powerful motivating force along with an opportunity. most gun related crimes, i would argue, stem from a class that feels alienated from the culture at large. they must feel that nothing is worth living for. how else can we look at instances like our recent murders at the wendys in queens? so little to gain, so much to lose, unless you already feel there is nothing to live for.
blah blah blah blah blah. back and forth in my mind. i might also add that the drug war and prohibition added to the problem by creating black markets that were outside the law. so when one is not protected by the law one must protect oneself (although any real protection we have is seemingly illusory). heres some source materials 1 2 3 4. #4 comes straight outta militiaville. #1 is sort of useless but interesting nonetheless.
Buy back programs seem like the perfect solution. Who could argue? No coersion; if you want to have/keep a gun you can. But still lots of incentive to turn them in. Seems like the best of both worlds. Now all we have to do is get the cash payments up. What if it was $100 a gun? $500? $1000? Could you hit a price point where you would get almost all the guns? (Obviously there is a point, for example, $50,000 a gun would surely get almost every gun out there, although that may no be a reasonable number.) Even if it cost a few billion dollars, wouldn't it be worth it? Rather than passing laws, I think people should pony up the dough into a central fund to be used for a nation wide, no questions asked, buy back program.
|
- jimlouis 5-29-2000 3:57 am
hmm, threads all over the place awaiting responses. ahh, the good ol second amendment. certainly the intentions of the founders was to empower the populace against possible tyranny from the government. as they had just fought a bloody war against an entrenched power, they understood that power is corrupting and only a vast array of checks and balances could maintain a degree of equanimity. so then the question should turn to what can be done to limit the use of guns?
i too have been of the opinion that the right to bear arms is essentially useless in our present day situation with the weapons at the disposal of the government. but as we have seen in vietnam and even kosovo or chechnya or ireland, its one thing to bomb a country back into the stone ages and quite another to occupy a country on the ground.
so we have the right to bear arms, just what arms do we have the right to bear? can i own a nuclear bomb? how about a jet fighter or a tank? does the constitution say you can bear arms within reason?
ok, im losing coherency, but lets just say philosophically, if thats the right word, we accept the need for the second amendment, how do we practically respond to its abuse without treading on our initial prerogatives? one would think that the threat of the death penalty or life in prison would be enough to dissuade most people from using weapons for malevolent purposes and for the most part this is true but obviously not universal. so lets look at who is misusing guns and see what can be done to mitigate their use.
obviously education is the most powerful motivating force along with an opportunity. most gun related crimes, i would argue, stem from a class that feels alienated from the culture at large. they must feel that nothing is worth living for. how else can we look at instances like our recent murders at the wendys in queens? so little to gain, so much to lose, unless you already feel there is nothing to live for.
blah blah blah blah blah. back and forth in my mind. i might also add that the drug war and prohibition added to the problem by creating black markets that were outside the law. so when one is not protected by the law one must protect oneself (although any real protection we have is seemingly illusory).
heres some source materials
1 2 3 4. #4 comes straight outta militiaville. #1 is sort of useless but interesting nonetheless.
- dave 5-29-2000 10:53 pm [add a comment]
Buy back programs seem like the perfect solution. Who could argue? No coersion; if you want to have/keep a gun you can. But still lots of incentive to turn them in. Seems like the best of both worlds. Now all we have to do is get the cash payments up. What if it was $100 a gun? $500? $1000? Could you hit a price point where you would get almost all the guns? (Obviously there is a point, for example, $50,000 a gun would surely get almost every gun out there, although that may no be a reasonable number.) Even if it cost a few billion dollars, wouldn't it be worth it? Rather than passing laws, I think people should pony up the dough into a central fund to be used for a nation wide, no questions asked, buy back program.
- jim 5-30-2000 11:20 pm [3 comments]