A lunch hour essay...

[Glassunion]

We are doctors, lawyers, professors, police officers, construction workers, engineers, small business owners, cashiers, ambulance drivers, etc…

We are from African, European, Asian, South American, Australian and Native American descent.

We are your neighbors, your teachers, your friends.


Yet, when we make the choice to exercise a Civil Right guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights, we are deemed criminal. We are in your eyes the root cause of all of the evil in this nation. We committed no crimes, we do not hate, and we wish only to protect the lives and liberties of ourselves, our loved ones and our friends. Yet, we are labeled evil; we are accused of crimes that will never take place. We are accused of thought processes that we do not have. You don’t even know us, yet there is seemingly no end to how often you will accuse and berate us.


You claim it is for our children, you claim it is for the common good, you claim it is reasonable. I just cannot see it. You ask us to register our arms, but we know it is but a step to remove them from us. For that you label us paranoid, call us names, and deem us to be unreasonable. We are not so advanced in this world’s society that there can never be an oppressive government. “Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”- Janet Reno, US Attorney General.


Sure it starts with registration. “What good does it do to ban some guns?  All guns should be banned.”  -Howard Metzanbaum, US Senator. Then later the truth comes out as the Constitution and Bill of Rights are slowly but surely fed into the paper shredder. “I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ... no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.”- Prof. Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.


But these thoughts of ours you deem to be paranoid. Surely the government would stop there. Just cross good ole number 2 off and we will call it done. They won’t take away any other civil rights. You contradict yourself when you say we are a nation of good honest people. The exception to that statement of course is the gun owner. But our own elected leaders say that we are not a nation of good honest people… “If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.” And… “When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities.” Both quotes from Bill Clinton, Former President of the United States. I guess that we can cross of good ole number 4 while we are at it.


It would surely stop there you say. We should burn some of our rights at the altar of safety. We should desire to be safe, not free. Our leaders will protect us from ourselves. If they don’t we will petition them, peaceably. However, our leaders might not see it that way… “You can't say you love your country and hate your government.” Again, good ole Bill Clinton.


Perhaps I am over reacting; perhaps my point of view is wrong? Maybe the individual has no right to defend themselves from harm. As you say, we are the harm, we are the wrong. Maybe we deserve no freedom, no liberty and no justice. They are just ancient words on an ancient piece of paper that stand for nothing but an ancient, unrealistic philosophy. “I don't give a goddamn. I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way… Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!” George W. Bush, Former President of the Unites States.


One day you may get your wish, you may take that first step. And will gleefully cheer to the world, “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” Adolf Hitler, 1935.


I will defend my right to never have to register my guns…

[T Wolf]

1. What does registration have to do with your RKBA? Are you OK with me keeping explosives & poisonous

chemicals in my garage, no matter if they might harm you or your kids?

Go ahead - keep and fire off your guns as much as you want. But I would want to know if a neighbor had weapons laying around, especially if my children were friends with yours (strange thought, I know).

[rd_kent]

4. There it is...."but what about the CHILDREN?????" Didn't take long at all.

When you find some here that advocates keeping "weapons laying around", then you might have a point. Go ahead, I will wait......

[T Wolf]

5. Guns are NEVER involved in accidents, are they? How am I to know that you are a "responsible" gun

owner?

I said you can keep and shoot your guns whenever and where ever you want. I would just like to know of their existence.

And answer the question. Do you have any objections to me keeping any kind of dangerous, poisonous, toxic materials on my property, and not having to inform anyone of their presence? Same thing.

[rd_kent]

6. I'm sure you have PLENTY of dangerous products on your property right now!

That you do not have registered, right? Just look under your sink or in your garage....


But I guess I didnt read that part in the Constitution about the "right to keep and bear dangerous, poisonous, toxic materials".

[T Wolf]

7. I'm talking about really dangerous things. Items that will cause death if you are exposed to them.

Or, say, how about if I dig some punji pits in my yard, but disguise them and don't let anyone know they are there? My property, right? What could be the harm?

And when your little Johnnie comes over to play, or merely cuts across my yard on the way to school, he falls in. No biggie, right?

[rd_kent]

10. Again, I will ask you what intentionally creating a hazard has to do with this issue?

And the "really dangerous things" you are talking about ARE regulated and controlled. Creating a punji stick pit in your yard is not quite the same as owning a gun, now is it. And just how will being "exposed to" a gun "cause death"? How about trying to be honest here with your arguments?

I asked you to point out anyone here that advocates "leaving weapons laying around". No one does. Every Pro-2A person here will tell you that. But restricting the constitutional rights of citizens because of what MIGHT happen.....thats a slippery slope, my friend, a very slippery slope.

[T Wolf]

14. A weapon is a weapon. Why shouldn't I be allowed to dig a pit in my yard? It's my yard and anyone

who falls in is trespassing. Not my fault.

Even if it is camouflaged, it still is my personal property on my land. Why should you have any right to even know about it?

It would only harm someone who was breaking the law.

I would assume your view about your gun should be the same. It is your property, kept on your land. If I have no right to know about it... Same thing.

Just be honest and say that guns are great and there should be no restrictions of any kind on having them, using them, or informing anyone of their existence.

By the same "reasoning" there should be no consumer protection laws. Let the buyer beware. Right?

Personal freedom trumps everything. Right?

[cognoscere]

20. Actually, if someone fell into a punji pit you had dug, it would be your fault.

Sure, they would be trespassing, but you can't legally hurt people who commit property crimes. If you think so, than why not set up a spring gun or a dead man or maybe something that administers a nasty electrical shock, and have the police come out and inspect it for you? Be sure to let us know how that works out. Yes, a weapon is a weapon, but you can't indiscriminately use them whenever you please, unless, of course, you have a lot of time and money to defend yourself against excessive force charges.

[T Wolf]

32. Looking to the law as the criteria for right and wrong is stupid. The debate is on what SHOULD be

allowed.

If my neighbor has a gun, he should be free to blast away whenever and where ever he wants. I just should be made aware that a weapon is present on his property so I can inform my children to avoid it.

If I want to dig a punji pit on my property, I should be free to do so. But I should also be made to inform others of its presence so that they can be aware of the possible negative consequences of trespassing.

Just because the laws say something different, or you gun fans want to keep your weaponry secret from the gubmint does not make that the correct or proper thing to do.

[Glassunion]

33. Missed the point completly

[T Wolf]

34. What is the point? That we should be permanently locked into policies and values that arose

over 200 years ago?

If that is your argument, then you should join the national guard (militia) because that is the reason for the RKBA amendment. And even that is not entirely valid since we now have an existing military that dominates our society and spending. I would even argue that the rationale (militia) is no longer valid.

If that is your argument, then we will forever be locked into the tyranny of the small states and their over-weighted representation in Congress.

It is a far different world now than the late 1700's and we must adjust. Your Uzi that can fire countless rounds per second can do a hell of a lot more damage than a single-shot musket.

Sure, the Constitution "can" be amended, but that process is ridiculously difficult and in the current political environment, damn near impossible. For reference, see the dead ERA.

[Glassunion]

36. I'll simplify the point.

We already disagree on what the 2nd stands for. I will not argue that point.

My point is you seem to have the attitude that law abiding gun owners are criminals. You are of the opinion that these law abiding citizens need to register their private possessions (protected by the 4th) with the federal government, and be made publicly available as per your earlier statements. This is not unlike the registrations of sex offenders.

The exception is that the gun owner poses no more threat to society than you do. Like I stated before in response to another one of your posts. You probably already have deadly chemicals in your house right now. Anyone with a high school education can easily create a deadly gas, an explosive or poison with common household items. Here is where we differ, I do not expect to have you register your chemicals. I do not know you, however I trust that you will not do something stupid with those chemicals.

From your post, I get the feeling that you do not believe in what the constitution stands for. That's fine, you are guaranteed the right to express that opinion, of course that guarantee comes from that crusty old piece of paper you despise so much. Here would be my suggestion, if you don't like it, vote for some who will fix it, or run for office yourself.

[X_Digger]

38. Bleach + ammonia..

Depending on ratio, you can produce chlorine gas, nitrogen trichloride (an explosive), plus enough heat to make it explode.

He should tell all his neighbors that he has potential chemical weapons and explosives in the house. /sarcasm

[Glassunion]

39. The old addage...

You mix acids and bases, they will blow up in your faces.

Wonder what Tyler Durden would do?

[T Wolf]

40. What if I already have created "bombs" by combining those chemicals? What if I have actual

explosives on hand? Even supposing no evil intent or "trusting" that I would not do "something stupid" - would you want to know that I had dynamite from my construction company sitting in my shed? Don't fall back on any law that supposedly controls something like this. Should you be told that?

[X_Digger]

41. Me? Nope.

I couldn't care less. I'm not the little old lady peeping out her curtains clucking her tongue at all the shenanigans going on in the neighborhood.

[T Wolf]

42. You are consistent. Thanks for that. I don't agree with you, but at least you are not placing guns

on an altar as being different.

Either we allow personal possessions with no limits or we control them (including informing others of their presence). Picking and choosing (via the law) what weaponry (for personal possession) is OK and what is not is the problem. And it leads to inconsistency in application.

I have more respect for people who assert that there should be no gun control laws than those who want to keep their guns but hold that "some" (e.g., automatics, grenades, phasers, ceremonial swords, whatever) should only be allowed to the military and law enforcement.

[gorfle]

48. Then you are breaking the law.

What if I already have created "bombs" by combining those chemicals? What if I have actual explosives on hand? Even supposing no evil intent or "trusting" that I would not do "something stupid" - would you want to know that I had dynamite from my construction company sitting in my shed? Don't fall back on any law that supposedly controls something like this. Should you be told that?

Whether I would want to know or not doesn't really matter, does it? If you've already decided to break the law by building bombs, what is a law requiring you to say you have done so?

The fact of the matter is, you probably already have dangerous chemicals on your property, and there are probably laws that govern how much you are allowed to legally store in zoned residential areas.

For example, you probably have a can of gasoline for your lawnmower. You are not required to inform your neighbors of this explosive, flammable liquid. You probably have bleach and brake fluid in your house. Maybe you even have chlorine for your swimming pool. You are not required to inform your neighbors of these auto-igniting, chlorine-gas producing chemicals.

The bottom line is, you can store nearly any chemical on your property without having to tell anyone. There are limits on the quantity you can store on your property.

But let's say you were an irresponsible chemical storer and decided to store a thousand gallons of gasoline on your property. If you are already this irresponsible to break the law, are you going to tell people about it?

Same thing with firearm owners. If they were intent on breaking the law, do you think they are going to tell people about it?

[T Wolf]

51. The point is not whether I am "breaking the law" - that is a red herring. The debate is

WHETHER the law should or should not compel a registration and notification of weapons.

If a gun is exempt (as it now is by law, why treat explosives any differently? IF you have the right to have weapons on your property without telling anyone, WHY should the law prevent me from having other kinds of weapons?

That is the logic that (most) gun-owners do not seem to get. You want your guns but I cannot have weapons of my choice? I'm just asking for consistency.

[gorfle]

52. Why.

If a gun is exempt (as it now is by law, why treat explosives any differently? IF you have the right to have weapons on your property without telling anyone, WHY should the law prevent me from having other kinds of weapons?

Because small arms are Constitutionally protected devices to be secured by the people for use in resisting tyranny. These arms must be anonymously owned in order to serve as the deterrent they were intended to serve.

[Glassunion]

55. I think I covered this in post #49

Looking forward to your thoughts.

[Glassunion]

49. Difficult to say... I'll explain.

Your dealing with an abstract thought. But I will answer the questions you posed.

First question about making an explosive with normal household cleaners. No I should not be notified. You have a right in my eyes guaranteed by the 4th, to be secure in your personal effects. The why and what reason you have is none of my business, nor is it the business of the governments.

The second question was the abstract one. It is not based in reality. You ask me to acknowledge the fact that you committed a crime (taking dynamite from your business) then bringing it home and storing it in your shed (yet another criminal act) but then you ask me to ignore any laws that may be on the books against this sort of thing. Then ask me if I should be told that you did that. Since we are dealing in this abstract thought, I would still say no, that I have no right to know what you do at your residence.

Again you are criminalizing people who have done no wrong and mean no harm. This registration that you are asking for, I'll call it the list of undesirable persons list. As you have already expressed that you would not allow you children to play with mine, you have expressed that me and my children are undesirable.

Since you brought it up, would construction workers who need to use and handle explosives be on this list of undesirable persons?
Would the manufacturer's employees who produce the explosives be on this list of undesirable persons?
Would the employees of firearms companies be on this list of undesirables?
Would police officers who own guns be on this list of undesirables?
Would chemical company employees be deemed undesirable?
Would members of our military be on this list, they have access to some scary stuff?

So we agree to disagree. You want my name and address on a list. And much like the sex offender list you will keep you children away from me. Because even though I have not nor desire to commit a crime, you label me a criminal.

[Glassunion]

59. Crickets...

Perhaps if a point is raised, it should be based in reality. The what ifs of abstract thought do nothing to further your point if the land of unicorns cannot even be defended from your perspective.

[gorfle]

47. Now we come to it.

That we should be permanently locked into policies and values that arose over 200 years ago?

Are the issues of checks and balance against the military power of the federal government any less relevant today than they were 200 years ago?

If that is your argument, then you should join the national guard (militia) because that is the reason for the RKBA amendment. And even that is not entirely valid since we now have an existing military that dominates our society and spending. I would even argue that the rationale (militia) is no longer valid.

This has been discussed here many times before, so I will just go over the highlights in the debunking of your position.

First of all, the intent of the founders was to have militias, run by the states, made up of men from those states and led by officers from those states, to serve to eliminate or at least be able to counter federal military power. The reason for this decentralized military system was because they distrusted a strong central government with a military force that could be used to impose tyranny upon the states. It was also thought that it would be difficult to abuse the independent state militias to impose tyranny on other states because you could not get them to operate in concert unless there were near-unanimous agreement on their deployment. This would also make it difficult to undertake foreign wars without consent and participation by the states - a lesson that could be very useful today, by the way.

The upshot of this is that the state militias were counters to federal military power.

However, in 1903, with the passage of The Dick Act, the state militias were federalized, creating the National Guard. When this happened, the state militias ceased to be a counter to federal military power, and instead became adjuncts to it. Today, the National Guard functions as reserve federal military forces.

So. First of all, there is no militia, as our founders intended, for people to join.

However, the Dick Act, in addition to creating the Organized Militia (National Guard), also created the Unorganized Militia, which is all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the National Guard. Thus, in point of fact, most men, including you, ARE in the militia - the unorganized militia.

It is a far different world now than the late 1700's and we must adjust. Your Uzi that can fire countless rounds per second can do a hell of a lot more damage than a single-shot musket.

This is why the founders specifically specified "arms", rather than specific types of arms. The intent was for the civilian population to be armed with small arms similar in capability to what the standing army would use, so that the citizenry could replace, or at least counter, said standing army.

Sure, the Constitution "can" be amended, but that process is ridiculously difficult and in the current political environment, damn near impossible.

Just like our founders intended. Imagine that.

[Taitertots]

58. Your excessive fear doesn't justify invading other people's privacy

Your "please think of the children" doesn't trump the privacy of millions of Americans.


If you are worried about your children being near guns you better lock them in the basement. So many people own guns that they are without question everywhere in your neighborhood already.

[rd_kent]

21. You are just being willfully obtuse. The SARCASTIC point you are trying to make is not valid at all.

Your strawman army is yours alone, so I leave them for you to knockdown.

If you want to have a reasonable and rational conversation about this topic, I will be here when you are ready.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. So you don't want to know as long as the gun is camouflaged?

[gorfle]

46. Would you notify the government of your trap?

Or, say, how about if I dig some punji pits in my yard, but disguise them and don't let anyone know they are there? My property, right? What could be the harm?

If you were the kind of person to dig punji pits in your back yard, would you comply with laws requiring you to inform the government about said traps?

[Taitertots]

57. Guns don't cause death when exposed to them n/t

[Glassunion]

9. Here is an answer.

You don't know if I'm responsible. Just as I don't know that you are responsible.

Common household cleaners are very deadly and can be used to make an explosive, a poison or even a deadly gas.

Me, I don't care if you have those. I trust you with them, because you are not a criminal. Are you?

We fingerprint criminals, we register sex offenders. You seem to be placing me into that same group. Again accusing me of something I will never do.

[eqfan592]

15. Yep, hit the nail on the head.

Part of living in a free society is trusting your neighbors with a basic level of competence and responsibility when they are exercising their rights. A few people break that trust through there actions, but the vast majority are worthy of it.

[paulsby]

26. some things are constitutionally protected, some aren't

for example, if i want to buy bronkaid (an OTC bronchodilator that contains ephedrine), i have to sign a register, and show my ID. the purchase is recorded along with my name, etc.

why is that ok? well, it may not be as a matter of POLICY (iow, you can disagree with the policy), but it is as a matter of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, because there is no "right" to purchase bronkaid. thus, the govt. needs little justification (legally) to set these types of restrictions.

why these restrictions? because a TINY percentage of people who buy bronkaid (and other OTC drugs that contain either ephedrine or pseudoephedrine) use it as a precursor in methamphetamine production

the same does not apply to firearms, which ARE constitutionally protected.

much like speech.

i do not need to register a printing press, or get permission before i exercise free speech. if i decide to exercise free speech, it is unconstitutional for a law enforcement officer to demand my id merely for my doing so.

RKBA is a constitutional right. see: strict scrutiny

[gorfle]

45. How you can know.

How am I to know that you are a "responsible" gun owner?

That's easy. Criminal records are a matter of public record. If you suspect that a gun owner is irresponsible it is a simple matter to run a background check on them to see if they have a past criminal background. If they don't, odds are they are a responsible firearm owner.

Why?

Because most murderers, including people who murder with firearms, have extensive prior criminal backgrounds.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

[MineralMan]

13. Hmm...I have containers of gasoline in my garage, for the

lawnmower and my outboard. It's potentially explosive. I have tanks of propane, too, for the grill. I have various poisonous substances, too, stored in there, from cleaning products and solvents to pesticides?

Is that wrong? Whatever shall I do? How will I start my lawnmower? How will I deal with the infestation of mice?

Really...keep your kids out of my garage, OK? They don't belong in there. Surely you have taught them not to trespass, right?

[Glassunion]

19. A question about your question.

For the sake of argument. Since you stated the you wanted to know who has firearms. What would you do with the information?

[T Wolf]

43. Make it available to anyone who wants it. Like a "no trespassing" sign, others can be warned

so that they could make an informed decision about interacting with the property (or person).

I would think that many would like the warning that would provide to burglars, along the lines of the "protected by Smith & Wesson" bumper stickers so popular in some circles.

[Glassunion]

50. I think I address all of my issues with this opinion in reply #49

[PavePusher]

28. Fine by me.

It's easy to do so safely and responsibly.

One small difference: Guns are not going to "go off" by themselves. Many explosives are inherently unstable and require special handling techniques and tools.

[gorfle]

44. The problem with registration.

The whole point of the second amendment was to have an armed populace capable of resisting federal military power. If you give the federal government a list of the people able to do that, you greatly undermine their ability to serve as a counter to tyranny.

Are you OK with me keeping explosives & poisonous chemicals in my garage, no matter if they might harm you or your kids?

There are already laws that deal with this issue.

[Taitertots]

56. Are you really hallucinating that guns are as dangerous as bombs and poison gas?

What on earth does registration have to do with your children's friends parents?

[rd_kent]

2. [phone]

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

[geardaddy]

3. I'm unemployed...

and of Antarctic descent.

[Glassunion]

11. Sorry...

I was so worried about leaving someone out. And of course I managed to leave one person off the list out of billions. And as my luck would have it, that person is a member of the DU family.

Consider my foot in my mouth...

[geardaddy]

12. lol

:D

[Callisto32]

8. .

:wow: :toast:

[damntexdem]

16. You have a right to own a gun: but not to bring it into my home, nor my church, nor onto my campus.

Nor into government buildings. Nor to political rallies, especially where the President or other elected officials will be present.

[eqfan592]

17. Actually, he does have the right to bring it into many churches and campus's...

...depending on which state he lives in and what permits he has. Same as for government buildings. Political rallies as well, even near elected officials, so long as he does do anything directly threatening (which applies to any person, with or without a firearm). So really, the only thing you got right was your home.

[Glassunion]

18. Yep.

You have a right to own a gun. Yes I do.
But not to bring it into my home. I wouldn't, I ask before enering someone's home.
Nor my church. I don't think we attend he same church, but if you invited me, I would leave it locked in the car.
Nor onto my campus. That would be up to the local laws.
Nor into government buildings. That is a federal law.
Nor to political rallies, especially where the President or other elected officials will be present. Again, that has to do with laws.

Thank you for your civility.

[rusty_rebar]

22. I want to know who brought a gun

into a political rally? And I don't mean some guy open carrying a block away from the rally.

[paulsby]

54. local laws don't trump civil rights

there is nothing special about a public campus, such that people give up their constitutional rights when entering one. fortunately, my state (WA) recognizes that.

private campuses, are of course , a slightly different question.

when i went to private grad school, i chose to violate school policy by carrying. note this was NOT a violation of the law (in my state), but they could have taken administrative action against me, to include expulsion. i took that risk. my choice.

a public campus does not have the authority to tell people they can't exercise RKBA on campus. not in a jurisdiction that understands the constitution.

[GreenStormCloud]

23. The law regarding concealed carry in churches has been changed in Texas.

It is now legal to carry concealed in a place of worship, unless specifically requested not to by the leadership of that place. Or is they have a 30.06 sign.

[PavePusher]

29. Technically I have the right to bring it to any publicly owned space.

That's not to say that some places don't have UnConstitutional laws on the subject...

Even the President disagrees with you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. As long as your state legislature agrees with you.

[Euromutt]

53. Excuse me, "your campus"?

I'm guessing you don't own the campus, so what gives your opinion more weight than that of any other student or staff or faculty member? Sheez, entitled much?

[GreenStormCloud]

24. Great essay Glass. N/T

[Glassunion]

25. Thanks...

I think my next one will be on racism in the civil rights group.

[proteus_lives]

27. Great essay!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Euromutt]

35. One negative point: the Hitler quote is fake

Germany introduced registration of privately owned firearms in 1928, and that was actually a relaxation of the firearm laws, since previously, private ownership of firearms had been completely banned to comply with the terms of the Versailles treaty. The only change the Nazi government made to firearms law was in 1938, and the new law actually loosened restrictions except for people deemed "undesirable" (communists, trade unionists, Jews, Gypsies, etc.).

Other than that, I applaud your essay. Though personally, I oppose registration because the SCOTUS has ruled (Haynes v. United States, 1968) that any person who is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm cannot be penalized for failing to register any firearm he does possess, as this would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In other words, the only good argument for registration has already been rendered null and void by judicial precedent which has exempted the people most likely to use a firearm for criminal purposes.

[Glassunion]

37. Thanks for the catch...

I checked several locations for each of the quotes, and could find nothing on refuting that one. There were quite a few I scrubbed from the essay, as I found them to be false.

Thank you for the correction.