Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Gun control Reality vs. Gun Control Myth
[Read the article: White House and guns: Stay the course]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]RDisdier,
Everything you posted that should be in Gun Control laws is in fact in Gun Control laws.
"Now, that car or SUV was registered, it had a title, it had proof of ownership and a paper trail. Granted, someone could steal a car and go on a killing rampage."
Firearms are registered with unique serial numbers and records have to be kept concerning ownership.
"However, why do Americans find it perfectly acceptable that the law says we have to register cars, but when it comes to guns, the system is fast and loose?"
What's fast and loose, I have to wait 15 days to purchase a retail firearm, despite holding a Class III Federal firearm license where I am allowed to purchase interstate firearms and have them delivered to my home. BTW, the seller has to keep a copy of both my Firearm license and my driver's license.
"Gun control means guns should be TIGHTLY CONTROLLED. So that when stolen, there's a paper trail with a corresponding ID number."
That already exists and has for years.
"So that when bought, they're not bought by some nut. We don't yet have these controls in place. Currently, any nut can by-pass the system and get ahold of a gun."
Please explain to my some system that can prevent a nut from buying a firearm. There is no such system, as it cannot exist.
Saying we should have controls that prevent nuts from buying firearms isn't a solution when no such controls could ever possibly exist.
Right now, if you've been convicted of a felony, misdemeanor domestic violence, use any illegal drugs including pot, have ever had a restraining order against you (which has been used vindictively in many cases) been treated for mental illness, you cannot buy a firearm.
You are concerned about nuts, but since medical information is not public knowledge, are you actually advocating destroying Patient priveledge and making public everyone who has sought mental health treatment?
If so, do you really think the harm caused by people not seeking mental health treatment when they need it because of the public disclosure might outweigh the benefits of keeping firerams out of the hands of a very small number of people?
"We want restrictions on how many guns are manufactured and distributed, and we want tight controls on how they are distributed."
Those already exist. Remember, I have to wait for 15 days, a cooling off period, despite the fact that I have firearms at home. What exactly does the cooling off do? Nothing in my case, because it's intent isn't a cooling off, it's to place obstacles in the path of firearm ownership in the same manner that the anti-choice crowd wants to force women into a reflection period before an abortion.
Murder is illegal, but that doesn't stop killing, and simply wishing for a solution doesn't mainfest one. You say you don't want to ban guns, but you don't even seem to understand the basic Gun control laws that are in place, so how can you truthfully adovocate that we need more.
-
You ask if a Country that claims a Queen is really free!
[Read the article: Gun control or "hopes and prayers"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Re: Xanthro
So is the UK fascist? How about France? Australia?
We are the only culture in the world that thinks gun ownership is an inherent right. All I'm calling for is regulation within reason, the same way we regulate speech, the press, etc, and I'm being called a fascist.
-----------------------------
Yes, countries that have a King or a Queen are statist in my opinion. Neither God nor some other otherworldly authority rightfully determines who should lead a country, even if in a figurehead.
In the history of the Western World, the right to keep and bear arms has been the defining point of those who have rights and those who are merely serfs.
If the populace can't keep and bear arms, then by definition that country is Statist.
We are also one of the only countries in the World that has a system of Government based on power derived from the populace, and that power isn't inherent in the State. You are arguing the exact opposite, that people don't have rights, they have priveldges granted by the State.
The regulations you keep advocating are never stated, it's a chimera that doesn't exist, you aren't even aware of existing laws, so your opinion on what should be done is based on ignorance.