Monday, December 24, 2012

The Danger of Gun Registration

If the government has your name as a gun owner, it may do any conceivable thing with it, from publishing the fact to marching to your home when there is a mass confiscation of guns.

Registration of guns is just one step away from confiscation.

Don't think the government doesn't have plans to take away your guns in a "national emergency." A Bill Clinton insider told me the government even has a plan to take out drug gangs and mafia gangs if there is major civil unrest. The thinking is that gangsters have too many weapons that could cause a problem for government control and if civil unrest becomes enough of a threat to the government, they will take out gangsters and their weapons supplies. The already have lists of who to take out.

If you can't find your gun now, it's probably a good time to report is lost or stolen to the police, when things are quiet, that way you will have proof long in advance that you no longer possess any weapons, when they come looking for them.

28 comments:

  1. if someone published a list and interactive map of all the people on food stamps or welfare it would be called an invasion of privacy.

    but posting lists of private taxpayers personal decisions is ok - why is that?

    i think there should be public lists of welfare and food stamp recipients - after all these people taking money from the taxpayer, the taxpayer should be informed about their tax dollars usage - that way when any tax paying citizen drives by and see a brand new car in their driveway or these recipients of public tax money at wal-mart with their new xbox or 60" flat screen television they can be reported for fraud.

    the publishing of this gun owner list is nothing more then an attempt at INTIMIDATION of citizens rights.

    in the 1960's they published lists of suspected Communist sympathizers - so what we have here is the obama administration and the liberal media trying to make our Constitutional rights into something to be ostracized like communism in the 1960's

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FYI: The new car in their driveway was paid for by their direct engagement(s) in prostitution, Drug dealing, robberies, off-the-books tax free money. This will only become more profound during the second term of Obama.

      Delete
  2. All this is well and good, but you haven't yet proposed a solution for fixing the problem of insane people getting their hands on rapid-fire weapons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There isn't one. No place will ever be perfectly safe at all times. Nutbags will get it illegally if they have to. Get it? Ever heard of the drug war? How do people get ILLEGAL drugs? Well....uh...illegally.

      It's not rocket science.

      Oh, and just think how horrible it is when nutbags with political power have guns (you know, like Hitler, Stalin, even Lincoln or some other tyrant) and we don't.

      Delete
    2. Sane people with rapid-fire weapons.

      Delete
    3. @Anonymous: Do you walk around with a rapid-fire weapon all the time? If not, your response is empty talk; boring.

      @Mike: If I'm your neighbor, I suppose you won't object to my building a nuclear reactor or high explosives in MY backyard. (Don't think it is difficult, and don't think it hasn't been done by amateurs.) I did not suggest that we must all disarm ourselves. I like the idea of anyone buying it to have passed some course on safe handling and storage of weapons.

      Delete
    4. Without addressing the foundational / structural problems in our country there is no "fixing" the problem.

      Look at Australia. A heavy handed / "ban 'em all" approach, is not only ineffective but exemplifies a gross misunderstanding of the problem.

      Government will NEVER be able to legislate away gun violence, any more than it can with murder.

      You want to decrease the amount of similar incidents in the future? Allow greater amounts of qualified citizens to carry a weapon, require continual training to ensure competency, and uphold their right to defend themselves.

      Long term solutions?

      Investigate big pharma and it's culpability in these problems.

      Get government out of the way of the economy so that we can unravel the mistakes of the past, create lasting economic vitality, and improve the financial situation of the typical American. This would decrease the amount of time devoted to debt service and allow greater time to strengthen familial bonds resulting in an improved sense of right and wrong / self esteem.

      Our leaders should lead by example. If you denounce the slaying of a classroom full of children on one hand, then slaughter literally thousands via drone strikes on the other, how can you appeal to the conscience of a country?

      Of course none of these solutions have been tried or implemented, because it doesn't suit the agenda of those with the power to put them into effect.

      I suspect what will happen is a ban on magazines, semi-auto rifles, permits required for ammunition purchases, longer waiting periods when firearms are legally purchased, and increasingly draconian prosecution for firearm usage even in a situation deemed justified.

      It will only be after an American's right to bear arms is totally gutted, that it will become obvious such legislation was a failure.

      By then it's far too late.



      Delete
    5. Get off your moralizing high horse, Jake. Insane people don't walk around all the time with rapid-fire weapons (whatever you mean by that) either.

      Yea, it's a problem...these insane people with guns. An infintesimally smaller problem, an incredibly minscule problem compared to government with guns.

      Your response to Mike is pretty cheesy, too. You imply that the same government that strongly desires to restrict gun ownership is the same government that will certify the courses on safe handling and storage. Your faith in government is disturbing.

      Government is not the answer, it's the problem.

      Delete
    6. @AnonymousDecember 24, 2012 10:48 PM

      I am quite aware of the situation in Australia. I did not suggest a "ban 'em all" approach.

      "Allow greater amounts of qualified citizens to carry a weapon, require continual training to ensure competency"
      Good! This is close to what I was suggesting too. QUALIFIED citizens.

      "Investigate big pharma and it's culpability in these problems."
      Yeah... this conspiracy theory is something I see quite often among EPJ-libertarians. Narcotics? Perfectly fine! Fundamental right! Prescription drugs? Here be evil! Fact-free knee-jerks such as the adam-lanza-was-on-fanapt report is a perfect example of that. I think this is a particularly American reaction. I have heard all kinds of horror stories of American psychiatry, so I suppose it is understandable to some extent. But I'm not in the US. Kids are not overdrugged in Europe.

      "If you denounce the slaying of a classroom full of children on one hand, then slaughter literally thousands via drone strikes on the other..."
      I am a libertarian. I already denounce the drone strikes.

      Delete
    7. Insane people with firearms is better than insane people with more deadly weapons, such as a long-blade stilleto switchblade knife. People get stabbed and don't even realize they're dieing until the perp is long gone. With guns so readily available, these crazy people get lazy and use what they think is most effective without putting real thought or creativity into it, thank God.

      Delete
    8. Stop advertising gun-free (i.e. fish-in-a-barrel) zones. Stop the proliferation of laws which discourage law-abiding, non-crazy people from carrying guns. If you think your neighbor is a danger to you, prove your case and get an injunction.

      Delete
    9. @Anonymous December 24, 2012 11:04 PM

      "Get off your moralizing high horse, Jake. Insane people don't walk around all the time with rapid-fire weapons (whatever you mean by that) either."
      My response was perfect for the BS comment by "Anonymous December 24, 2012 9:40 PM". What do I mean by "rapid-fire weapons"? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rapid-fire+weapons

      "Your response to Mike is pretty cheesy, too."
      I hope you don't mean that you wouldn't mind either if your neighbor builds a nuclear bomb in his backyard.
      Think of it this way: if my neighbor indulges in activities that put me at risk, am I justified in calling law-enforcement officials or not? These law-enforcement officials could be private industry, if it makes you feel any better. No need to jump to conclusions about my faith in governments.

      Delete
    10. I wouldn't disregard the contribution of SSRI's / other medications, utilized in the treatment of mental illness, to violence such as what occurred.

      The drone comment was directed at our leaders, rather than in your direction, as an example of the poor role model they portray to our populace.

      As far as "qualified", that's a difficult row to hoe. Who determines such a thing? The government? The mob? The victims? The lobbyists?

      I'm fairly certain regulation already exists that limits firearm ownership by felons, violent offenders, and the mentally ill.

      Delete
    11. @Anonymous December 25, 2012 12:52 AM
      My point about medications is this: we don't really know if the medications are to blame. We do know that Adam Lanza had issues. I'm aware that the US school system has a tendency to quickly categorize a student as having a mental disability -- because the school gets additional funding for each such student they declare. However, by all accounts of neighbors, friends of Adam, school teachers, etc. Adam was certainly not "normal". It is just as likely, given (1.) the ineffective psychiatry in the US and (2.) the nature of psychiatry itself, that Fanapt did *nothing* for Adam. Since we're in a situation that any guess is just as good as another, it's better not to continue discussing that, because it will lead us nowhere.

      "Qualified": I don't have an answer. That's one of the reasons I'm discussing it. But, do you agree, in principle, that whichever security agency we subscribe to, private or public, if I live with neighbors, the security agency should ensure that I am not endangering the lives of my neighbors? Building explosives at home is a perfect example of that.

      Delete
    12. @Anonymous December 25, 2012 12:12 AM
      I don't know how you came up with your absurd factoids. You are hilarious!

      @Anonymous December 25, 2012 12:16 AM
      "Stop advertising gun-free (i.e. fish-in-a-barrel) zones."
      Easy! I never advocated it!

      "Stop the proliferation of laws which discourage law-abiding, non-crazy people from carrying guns."
      Do you mean law-abiding, non-crazy people like Adam Lanza's mom?

      http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/mother-of-sandy-hook-gunman-adam-lanza-was-a-gun-obsessive-living-in-fear-of-societys-collapse-16251468.html

      "If you think your neighbor is a danger to you, prove your case and get an injunction."
      Yup. That works so well! And Adam Lanza never shot anyone.


      Dear Anonymouses,
      Please use unique handles so that I can address your comments based on what you have been saying. This is getting too confusing for me. You don't have to use your names... use a unique number for all I care. You don't even have to use the same identifier in any of your other conversations, and that will protect your identities.

      Delete
    13. "I am a libertarian."

      If you propose government "fix" the problem, then no...you're not.
      If you don't propose government "fix" the problem, then why are you demanding other libertarians come up with solutions?


      "I hope you don't mean that you wouldn't mind either if your neighbor builds a nuclear bomb in his backyard."

      A nuclear bomb by very definition has an untold amount of people as collateral damage. There is no escaping that.
      That is NOT the same as automatic weapons.


      "Yeah... this conspiracy theory is something I see quite often among EPJ-libertarians."

      Yeah, because it is not like big pharma has anything to gain by having more and more disturbed people or anything, right? Just like the military industrial complex has nothing to gain by wars. It's not your problem because you live in Europe? Then why are you whining about rapid-fire weapons? As a European, that's (supposedly) not your problem either.


      "I already denounce the drone strikes."

      Any proposals on how to fix that problem ?


      As far as owners of weapons following some course; who decides? The State? The sellers? You? See if you can come up with an answer that is in line with libertarianism, since YOU are the one that is so worried.

      Delete
    14. Jake,
      "If you propose government "fix" the problem, then no...you're not.
      If you don't propose government "fix" the problem, then why are you demanding other libertarians come up with solutions?"

      1. I want whichever security agency is in charge, private or government, to protect me from sociopathic rampages as well as from well-meaning incompetents.
      2. We don't live with anarcho-capitalist security forces now.

      "A nuclear bomb by very definition has an untold amount of people as collateral damage. There is no escaping that.
      That is NOT the same as automatic weapons."
      Nope. Adam Lanza cause as much damage as a the best of these bomb blasts: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/bombblast.htm
      Would you allow a neighbor to build a regular kind of bomb instead? I don't care if my neighbor shoots narcotics day and night, but if he puts my life at risk, you can be damn sure I'd do something about it.

      "Yeah, because it is not like big pharma has anything to gain by having more and more disturbed people or anything, right?"
      I have already written a lot more than that about pharma.

      "As a European, that's (supposedly) not your problem either."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre
      But generally, these shootings seem to be common in the US, and less common in other countries with relatively free access to guns, even after normalizing for population size.


      "Any proposals on how to fix that problem ?"

      Drone strikes will not happen in an anarcho-capitalist society or in a minarchist society. Rampages like that of Adam Lanza could.

      Delete
    15. "1. I want whichever security agency is in charge, private or government, to protect me from sociopathic rampages as well as from well-meaning incompetents."

      They can't, unless you want them to stand guard 24/7.
      That's why more "security" always leads to less freedom. Even with more security, massacres by psychotic people still happen. Case in point, massacres in countries that have little or no gun freedom.

      "2. We don't live with anarcho-capitalist security forces now."

      You still haven't answered why you want solutions from other libertarians, seeing as you know a libertarian society has no central authority. And that's not counting the fact that you apparently already have all or part of the solution: Private Protection Agencies.


      "Nope. Adam Lanza cause as much damage as a the best of these bomb blasts"

      I never knew Adam Lanza did as much damage as a nuclear blast. Why don't you stop moving the goal posts during the discussion. You were talking about NUCLEAR bombs.
      Furthermore, there is no "collateral damage" with rapid-fire guns in the case of Adam Lanza. He's a psycho who used a tool to deliberately annihilate all the people he ended up annihilating. Has nothing to do with making a bomb which OBVIOUSLY has no intent to merely harm very specific targets. You can use a sword to make specific targets. Again, completely different from a large bomb.


      "Would you allow a neighbor to build a regular kind of bomb instead? I don't care if my neighbor shoots narcotics day and night, but if he puts my life at risk, you can be damn sure I'd do something about it."

      Actually, i'd make sure to live in a neighborhood where i know what kind of people are living there. And if i find out a neighbor is building a bomb, i'd move.
      You see, you have the right to move. You do not have the right to use force, or have others use force, against people who have not yet committed aggression but whom MAY use aggression in a worst case scenario. This is not Minority Report. A guy might be putting something together with household items in his own kitchen. Does that give you the right to have people use force against him? No, it doesn't.


      "I have already written a lot more than that about pharma."

      That is a meaningless response.


      "As a European, that's (supposedly) not your problem either."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre"

      Had their citizens been allowed to attain and bear arms freely, it is severely doubtful as much people would have died.


      "Drone strikes will not happen in an anarcho-capitalist society or in a minarchist society. Rampages like that of Adam Lanza could."

      Prove it. No, seriously. You're making assumptions based on nothing. The Adam Lanza's of the world are going on a rampage in a completely statist, big government environment. You like to take these mass killings out of their context, as if the upbringing of murderers, their public education, the culture of war, and the way the state acts on all kinds of things play no part in all of this.
      I only have to say that in a libertarian society, schools could be privately guarded, and teachers could be armed, to introduce factors that completely change the context and circumstances of Adam Lanza's massacre. Just two obvious factors.

      You still didn't mention who would get to decide that gun-owners need to follow a course.

      Delete
    16. "That's why more "security" always leads to less freedom. Even with more security, massacres by psychotic people still happen. Case in point, massacres in countries that have little or no gun freedom."

      http://www.businessinsider.com/switzerlands-gun-laws-are-a-red-herring-2012-12

      "You still haven't answered why you want solutions from other libertarians, seeing as you know a libertarian society has no central authority."

      If a person can put many people at risk through his actions, he'd be allowed to do so by his own security company only after he has proven competence. As a security agent, I'd allow a house to get a gas connection only after a brief course on gas safety. I have worked for huge factories. I have seen serious such factories are about safety. Within a week of joining, I was already trained on how to use their fire extinguishers, where they are located, etc. We had ZERO accidents for about three years.

      "You still didn't mention who would get to decide that gun-owners need to follow a course."

      Now, if I were living in a community whose safety was managed by such a company, I can easily imagine the amount of training they'd have in place for any risky activity.

      "You were talking about NUCLEAR bombs."

      I was talking about all kinds of activities that put other people at risk.

      "Furthermore, there is no "collateral damage" with rapid-fire guns in the case of Adam Lanza."

      Adam Lanza was part of the collateral damage. Adam Lanza was not the person responsible for this: he was nuts. Nancy Lanza was responsible for it.

      http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/mother-of-sandy-hook-gunman-adam-lanza-was-a-gun-obsessive-living-in-fear-of-societys-collapse-16251468.html


      "And if i find out a neighbor is building a bomb, i'd move."

      How do you suppose you'll find out?

      ""I have already written a lot more than that about pharma."
      That is a meaningless response."

      In short, I said it's pointless to speculate endlessly. What specifically don't you get the meaning of?

      "You like to take these mass killings out of their context, as if the upbringing of murderers, their public education, the culture of war, and the way the state acts on all kinds of things play no part in all of this."

      Nope. Adam Lanza was nuts. I do not hold him responsible for the killings. "Culture of war"? Some gun manufacturers are shifting blame to "violent" computer games.

      "I only have to say that in a libertarian society, schools could be privately guarded"

      Good! When I travelled to India, I noticed that even their malls are privately guarded. They open and examine each bag that goes into the mall. The same goes for some of their work places, particularly, the large ones.

      Delete
    17. "All this is well and good, but you haven't yet proposed a solution for fixing the problem of insane people getting their hands on rapid-fire weapons."

      For 'rapid-fire weapons', substitute 'power', and you have described the problem much more precisely.

      You'll know we have a solution at hand when we start applying it at the ballot box, and in juries.

      Question: How do we keep insane people from voting, or rendering insane verdicts?

      Delete
  3. @ Jake GDecember 25, 2012 1:20 AM

    @ "Qualified": I don't have an answer. That's one of the reasons I'm discussing it. But, do you agree, in principle, that whichever security agency we subscribe to, private or public, if I live with neighbors, the security agency should ensure that I am not endangering the lives of my neighbors? Building explosives at home is a perfect example of that."

    Funny way of discussing something when you start out by expecting other people to come up with solutions, assuming that they even think one is needed because they, like you, would believe the problem would be similarly as grave in a libertarian society as it is in a statist society.

    Also, you were talking about "qualified" people in relation to rapid-fire weapons, not explosives.
    Again, since you are the one that seems to be so worried, why don't you come up with a libertarian solution to "unqualified" people owning rapid-fire weapons (not explosives).
    Bear in mind that there is no centralized authority in libertarian-land and that there will be no such thing as banning stuff because something *might* be dangerous.

    If you want to be safe, choose a nanny state instead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Funny way of discussing something when you start out by expecting other people to come up with solutions"
      Simple. Wenzel keeps bringing up the evils of government, post after post, and yet, has not proposed a way to solve the problem. Or do you even deny that there is a problem? Perhaps no one got killed. Perhaps it was all just a misunderstanding.

      "Also, you were talking about "qualified" people in relation to rapid-fire weapons, not explosives."
      "since you are the one that seems to be so worried, why don't you come up with a libertarian solution to "unqualified" people owning rapid-fire weapons (not explosives)."

      The same principle applies. If a person can put many of his neighbors at risk through his activities, I want it monitored and controlled.

      "If you want to be safe, choose a nanny state instead."
      Yup. 'Cause people taking risks with their own lives is the same as people taking risks with other people's lives.

      Delete
  4. By the way, in a free society, there are very likely to be enclaves where fire-arms are banned (out of a collective agreement), and enclaves where people are armed to the teeth.

    I wonder where the criminals and the psycho nutjobs will tend to go...

    Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's just silly. If there is an enclave where firearms are banned, and another with people armed to their teeth, there has to be a clearer border between the two, and monitoring of things that go from one to the other.

      Delete
    2. The "border" needed would be maintained by the gun free enclave somewhere around their town or whatever it is, and how they plan to keep armed people out would not be my problem, since it is their choice to ban guns.

      There is no need for the 'armed' enclave to have a border or to monitor what would come in from the gunfree enclave, for obvious reasons.

      I fail to see what your problem is.

      Seems like you're just making up weird arguments to fuel a non-discussion.

      Delete
    3. "I fail to see what your problem is."

      I believe I stated that as my first comment here.

      So long!

      Delete
  5. Jake, the solution is to let the market fix the problem. There is an obvious profit incentive out there to protect people from this kind of thing happening, and so the government should get out of the way and allow the market to get to work solving it. It is surprising to hear a self-proclaimed libertarian not be aware that this is the libertarian answer. Non-libertarians constantly want to know how this or that would work in a free society, and the answer is always the same, we don't know exactly. We just know that through profits and loss competition that the most successful businesses at serving their customers will thrive, and the businesses who fail to serve their customers will go out of business. Your question is like asking how many shoes will exist in a free market. Nobody knows, that's for profits and losses to decide.

    Now if you just want to know some possible ways a free society might handle the issue of guns, then you can read Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy. He offers a possible way that these things could be handled. But again, if there is a more profitable way to provide security the market will find it through the profit and loss system. I just know that asking the government to take liberties away, and to ask the same group of people who run the post office and DMV to sole the problem is about the worst idea anyone could come up with

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks Bob, a safe and "clean" way out. I'm proud to be a Wenzel.

    ReplyDelete