How to control private gun ownership.

[Technosoul]

This message has no links because I am the originator of this idea.

Here is my plan for gun control.

We now have laws on the books that you cannot bear your private arms at a airport and at other locations, I would extend that location for all public places as well as on your personal private property. The exception would be if your house is located at least 10 miles away from any other populated area.

Instead you have to keep all your guns at a certified gun club. That way you still have the right to bear arms under our present laws but that right would be limited to the gun club. I would put the N.R.A. in charge of operating those gun clubs (and when they comprehend how much money they can make with membership fees they will agree with my idea). The N.R.A. would be responsible for security and for setting up safety rules within those gun clubs.

Each member would have secure places to store their guns, and they would have shooting ranges, gun shows where you can buy and sell guns, and special events of all kinds for gun owners. Plus some of the gun clubs would even have hunting grounds for use by the members. Farmers would raise rabbits, chickens, doves, turkeys, and other animals that the members can hunt and shoot for supper. The more wealthy clubs might even have cows you can hunt for or other such larger animals.

This would remove guns from homes, street stores, and cars, once the plan is conformed too by all responsible gun owners. And that would greatly reduce sources for criminals to steal weapons used for crimes and likewise would prevent children from accidently getting hold of their parent's guns.

The police would not do a house-to-house search to collect guns from non-responsible people, but as they go about their normal duties as policemen and they run accross a violator then we would have a very harsh punishment for the person arrested for have a gun outside of a certifed gun club. And the gun or guns would be taken away from the violator and handed over to the gun club officals for potential sale, cheap guns would just be destroyed.

This plan can be put into effect without admending the consitution or the bill of rights. Because you still would have the right to bear arms as long as they are kept (at all times) at the gun clubs.

People who are concerned about someone breaking into their house (self protection) would then need to find better ways to install home security systems or what not. They can even call the police to handle such problems.

As a side note this would boost the economy because the gun clubs would be hiring and live stock farmers would have another market, and security companies would sell more stuff, and house builders would have new things to add to new homes which would result in more people working, and etc. Meanwhile the gun makers would not loose their market.

Our neighborhoods would soon be much safer to live in, the N.R.A. would be happy with the big bucks they make off their gun clubs, the bill of rights people could not complain, and we would have responsible gun control instead of the impossible to enforce ideas now being used.

You do not play golf in your house, you go to a country club, so why play with guns in your house?

I am sure everyone of you would agree with the logic of my new gun control law. (but just in case you do not agree, then say why so I can correct you).

Give it your best shot.

Technosoul.

[Autolykos]

If someone wanted a gun badly enough, he could *make* one.

- Autolykos
"Regentes rectis separati semper sunt."

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Technosoul, I am sure everyone of you would agree with the logic of my new gun control law. (but just in case you do not agree, then say why so I can correct you).

If you don't think the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is a good idea, may I also suggest you do away with the First and Fourth? Who needs 'em anyway?(Irony)

[Technosoul]

a hand made gun must also be kept at a gun club.

My idea, as I clearly pointed out, would not take away the 2nd Admendment rights. You can still own all the arms you can bear at and within the gun club locations.

Technosoul

[Liberty Landing]

This plan can be put into effect without admending the consitution or the bill of rights. Because you still would have the right to bear arms as long as they are kept (at all times) at the gun clubs.

The Second Amendment places no such limitation on where arms can be kept or borne. I'm surprised that you think a right is still a right in its entirety so long as it's allowed to be practiced in at least one place in the country.

I am sure everyone of you would agree with the logic of my new gun control law. (but just in case you do not agree, then say why so I can correct you). Give it your best shot.

Because if you buy a gun for self-defense it does you no good locked away in a gun club somewhere.

[The Dunedan]

Problems:
1: Criminals don't obey laws. What makes you think they'd obey these laws? Please explain how disarming honest, law-abiding citizens would make anyone ( except murderers, rapist, and thieves that is ) any safer.
2: If I can't defend myself from the criminals who now outgun me ( see 1 ) and I am harmed, I'm gonna sue your ass off.
3: The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with skeet-shooting, hunting, or 1000-yard benchrest. The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that Americans could always defend themselves from ciminals, whether on the street ( muggers and burgalers ) or in Govornment ( do I really need to explain this one? ). Your proposal makes both such uses impossible. Additionally, the registration nessesisary for such a scheme makes it -far- too easy for the Gov't to disarm the people at will: just ask the British. The 2nd Amendment is about a right; what you're describing is a priviledge. Please learn and memorize the difference.
4: Biggest problem of all: ME. Try to take my guns, and I will shoot you. Send someone else to take my guns, and I'll shoot him and then you. And yes, forcing me to keep my guns locked up in a club somewhere does qualify as "taking" them.
And you had better believe there are lots, and lots, and lots of other people like me out there.

[PatrickHenry]

Technosoul, you are seeking an entry on my [SIZE=2]BLACK LIST[/SIZE] with this one...

[Dieval]

Originally posted by The Dunedan,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Dunedan,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Problems: 1: Criminals don't obey laws. What makes you think they'd obey these laws? Please explain how disarming honest, law-abiding citizens would make anyone ( except murderers, rapist, and thieves that is ) any safer. 2: If I can't defend myself from the criminals who now outgun me ( see 1 ) and I am harmed, I'm gonna sue your ass off. 3: The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with skeet-shooting, hunting, or 1000-yard benchrest. The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that Americans could always defend themselves from ciminals, whether on the street ( muggers and burgalers ) or in Govornment ( do I really need to explain this one? ). Your proposal makes both such uses impossible. Additionally, the registration nessesisary for such a scheme makes it -far- too easy for the Gov't to disarm the people at will: just ask the British. The 2nd Amendment is about a right; what you're describing is a priviledge. Please learn and memorize the difference. 4: Biggest problem of all: ME. Try to take my guns, and I will shoot you. Send someone else to take my guns, and I'll shoot him and then you. And yes, forcing me to keep my guns locked up in a club somewhere does qualify as "taking" them. And you had better believe there are lots, and lots, and lots of other people like me out there.[/b]

I think you nailed all the major issues here...
<!--QuoteBegin-PatrickHenry,
Technosoul, you are seeking an entry on my [SIZE=2]BLACK LIST[/SIZE] with this one...[/quote]And you thought I was bad

[Autolykos]

Originally posted by Technosoul, a hand made gun must also be kept at a gun club.

How would that be enforced if no one except the maker knows that he has it?

Laws mean nothing if they cannot be enforced.

- Autolykos
"Regentes rectis separati semper sunt."

[Comrade]

This is the worst idea I've ever heard. No, gun registration is wrong, "gun clubs."

I suppose Technosoul is one of those, "Give the burglar what he wants and be a good witness," people. Sorry, I'm defending my home.

Do you really think people buy guns just for plinking or hunting?

[Autolykos]

The stated claim of gun-control supporters is that gun control reduces crime. That is, it aims to reduce or eliminate the number of guns that criminals wield. However, criminals, by definition those who disobey laws, normally have no qualms about disobeying yet another law. Thus, the only people for which gun control works is law-abiding citizens. Criminals, already willing to break laws, probably do not care whether having a gun is illegal. So they will keep their guns, while law-abiding citizens will lose access to theirs.

The end result is that the criminals win.

- Autolykos
"Regentes rectis separati semper sunt."

[Comrade]

Citizen owned guns prevent 2.5 million crimes a year. That would be 2.5 million extra crimes committed every year, with all the people who obey the law disarmed.

[m5lange1]

Im all for gun ownership but I would really love to see where you found those statistics (and even more interested in how they were gathered).

[Liberty Landing]

Read Gary Kleck's article, I think it's something like "Guns and their Control."

He basically said the recorded number is between 1 and 2 million, but that the actual number is probably much higher because so many incidents go unreported since no crime was committed.

[Scribbler1]

I have a few fundamental problems with your proposal.

Originally posted by Technosoul,   This would remove guns from homes, street stores, and cars, once the plan is conformed too by all responsible gun owners.  And that would greatly reduce sources for criminals to steal weapons used for crimes and likewise would prevent children from accidently getting hold of their parent's guns.

How about irresponsible gun owners? Or gun owners sick of laws which penalize the law abiding yet do little to stop crime? It is Joe Average who gets boned in this scenario, just like the whole misguided support of gun registration. I specifically said the misguided SUPPORT as the laws themselves are NOT misguided, as they are intended to allow quick location and confiscation by the government if they deem it necessary. Registration stops NOTHING but the ability of the law abiding American to protect himself. Given the level of crime in this country, I would ask you to demonstrate how your plan would limit crime.

The police would not do a house-to-house search to collect guns from non-responsible people, but as they go about their normal duties as policemen and they run accross a violator then we would have a very harsh punishment for the person arrested for have a gun outside of a certifed gun club.

Delaware has had a law which was supposed to mandate 5 years prison time, over and above the sentence for the crime itself, for anyone even HAVING a gun while committing a crime. The gun does not have to be used in the commission of the crime itself. It has done no good and is'nt even being enforced anymore.

And the gun or guns would be taken away from the violator and handed over to the gun club officals for potential sale, cheap guns would just be destroyed.

Sale to who? Most of the guns used in crimes ARE cheap guns, and no gun enthusiast or collector would give you a dime for a Saturday Night Special. Guns are not cheap, and it doesn't make much sense for a punk to spend $500 to $1000 for a good quality weapon just to get 200 bucks from robbing a liquor store.

This plan can be put into effect without admending the consitution or the bill of rights.  Because you still would have the right to bear arms as long as they are kept (at all times) at the gun clubs.

Since the Constitution states we have the right to KEEP and bear arms, limiting the posession of firearms to a specific place out of our hands is a bit of a stretch. I'm sure there would be a flood of challenges if the Constitution was not amended to reflect this.

[

People who are concerned about someone breaking into their house (self protection) would then need to find better ways to install home security systems or what not.   They can even call the police to handle such problems.

That's the worst reason YET! Home security systems are dependant upon too many variables (how good the system is, if the power's on, if the intruders couldn't disable the system, if the system is turned ON, etc.). And with so many false alarms going off, the police are not too enthusiastic about going to private houses when Brinks calls them up. Then there's the domestic violence angle. You rarely have to break in to kill your wife, and if you don't have a gun..."Honey, where are the steak knives?"
Calling the police? Difficult when you are tied up, beaten senseless or dead! Police can NOT act proactively. They can only REACT to a crime, and if you don't have an armed cop right next to you 24/7 he's not gonna be much good except to get the description of the criminal, provided you're alive to give it.

Our neighborhoods would soon be much safer to live in, the N.R.A. would be happy with the big bucks they make off their gun clubs, the bill of rights people could not complain, and we would have responsible gun control instead of the impossible to enforce ideas now being used.

Don't think so. In the real world this plan would fail, and in an ideal world the plan would fail. That puts us just about out of worlds.

That was my best shot. :)

Hunt COWS????

[Liberty Landing]

Our neighborhoods would soon be much safer to live in

I didn't even catch this before.
There are entire neighborhoods in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, Wyoming, Alaska, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, etc., where practically every single person owns a gun, yet these are not notoriously dangerous states.

This entire plan is predicated on the assumption that gun control actually does reduce crime, which you didn't bother to prove, you just assumed we all took it for granted, which we don't.

[Evil Baby]

I don't know if there is an answer to this other then an assumption, but where do the vast majority of criminals(sp) get their firearms from?

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Liberty Landing, The Second Amendment places no such limitation on where arms can be kept or borne. I'm surprised that you think a right is still a right in its entirety so long as it's allowed to be practiced in at least one place in the country. I am sure everyone of you would agree with the logic of my new gun control law. (but just in case you do not agree, then say why so I can correct you). Give it your best shot. Because if you buy a gun for self-defense it does you no good locked away in a gun club somewhere.

Technosoul answers:
Nor did it say we cannot have limitations. As I pointed out we already have laws limiting where you can bear arms, you cannot walk into an airport with a shotgun, you cannot walk into the White House waveing a handgun. And some states do not allow you to walk down mainstreet or into a bank with a gun.
Some states allow you to carry a handgun for self protection if you can proove that you need to do so, but permits also mean your rights are limited. So your objection is of non-effect.

You asked what is the point of owning a gun for self protection if it is in a gan club. Why take the law into your own hands when the police are handy and can respond quickly. Carry a cell phone. Make sure your house is properly locked and that you have some kind of security system. Get a bow and arrow.
Talk to your shrink about your paranoid problem. Lots of alternatives to guns for security or self protection. The days of the wild west are gone, get over it.

Technosoul.

[The Dunedan]

Technosoul:
The Constitution allows for NO infringements, under ANY circumstances. That's what the "shall not be infringed" part's all about. All infringements ( permits, victim-disarmament zones, etc ) are all illegal. A private individual or owner can specify that no weapons may be carried, but the Gov't may not. The Constitution is the higest Law of the Land; end of story.
As for relying on the cops:
1: The Police have no legal obligation to protect you.
2: Avg. response time for police in the US is over 20 minutes, not to mention the huge swathes of urban America where the cops don't even get out of their cars after sunset.
3: No other method allows the weak to defend themselves from the strong from a distance. How is my 5'2, 115lb best friend supposed to defend herself from a 6'2, 250lb attacker unless she is armed? Tazers, stunguns, batons, martial-arts; all these require the victim to be in close proximity to their potentially larger, potentially armed attacker. A handgun is the best means of defense in such a situation. Your "bow and arrow" suggestion is beyond silly.
4: You have failed to address the question: since criminals, by definition, break the law, what makes you think a rapist will follow this lunatic scheme?
5: You also ignore the 2nd Amendment's stated purpose: to ensure that the American people can defend themselves from Tyranny. How are they supposed to do that if their guns are locked up, and the FedGov has the names of all the owners?
5b: What do you plan to do about that "biggest problem" I mentioned? Even assuming that 99% of gunowners comply, that still leaves you with 800,000 VERY pissed off, well-armed people. Gonna kill us all, or just make us "disappear?"

[Liberty Landing]

Some states allow you to carry a handgun for self protection if you can proove that you need to do so, but permits also mean your rights are limited. So your objection is of non-effect.

That's absurd. The only thing that proves is that our current laws are also unconstitutional.

Why take the law into your own hands when the police are handy and can respond quickly.

It has nothing to do with taking the law into your own hands, it's about self-defense. If you can't draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism than you ought not to be in a position to tell other people what to do with their property.

Carry a cell phone.

What are you going to do, give your attacker brain cancer? Come on, we live in an era of slow response times -- probably because people have been brainwashed to call cops instead of defend themselves. In the time it takes police to get to you, you could already be dead, raped, robbed, or whatever.

Make sure your house is properly locked and that you have some kind of security system.

That's all good and well but it's ultimately only a supplement to gun ownership. Locks can be picked, windows can be broken, and security systems can be easily circumvented.

Get a bow and arrow.

Huh?

Talk to your shrink about your paranoid problem.

What the hell are you talking about? Seriously, find me one thing in even a single post I made that shows I'm paranoid.
I don't even own a gun, guy. I'm just saying that (a) you have not made the case that gun control reduces crime, and (b) you have not made the case that a reduction in crime justifies the reduction in civil liberties that would go arm-in-arm with your plan.