FA+
Shop
A rant about Rights and Guns
13 years ago
General
This is thank to Alxias
The UN is going to try to pass an international regulation law that would supposedly regulate the amount of guns one can own or one can purchase. I will admit now that all I've come to know about this has been hearsay from various petition sites and was introduced to me through a friend, but I will say I am skeptical about the arguments on both sides of this whole affair.
The first side I want to get into would be the action of regulating guns themselves. America has been convinced to sign the treaty, no small part I assume would be from the recent shooting at the Colorado theater in Aurora. I will not condone that act nor do I intend to do so on any level, but I must point to that and say that, as far as I have been informed by all that I have heard and read about this case, those guns were purchased by someone who had no prior criminal record, and, if I am wrong, had not any recent psychological incidents in teh past five years, if I am up to speed with requirements to purchase firearms. I can even assume they were purchased by those or himself after the age of 21, and after that, it is theirs to do as they wish, whether it good or evil we have consequences set in place for either course of action. Regulation in terms of buying will be new, but, I must question how will this be maintained? A database would be the first thought to come to mind, some method of marking things up somehow, but, to implement that at every possible location all across the globe, in just the LEGITIMATE stores that sell guns, would cost vast amounts of money a year to maintain, not to mention install and test, train and pay off owners of stores who don't like the idea as it is. In terms of how this law will be maintained, it'd be nearly impossible to regulate the guns that people already own, which is why there's such a public outcry. Were forces to drive door to door and check each gun you own, they'd need warrants, throwing the court system into chaos and clogging all the courtrooms for decades with proceedings and hearings, so trials would be long, drawn out, and would not be completed in any reasonable time. This brings me to my second point: Rights.
Many people are concerned about their rights, they feel that they are being infringed upon. I'd say it's possible, but not likely. In the same way that it would cost door-to-door troops billions upon billions of dollars to drive to everyone's house, grab and confiscate weapons for which they'd need warrants for each house, printed paper, gas, hourly wages, court costs, vehicles and a bureaus to oversee an international operation would be unrealistic to perform, and, people have said, "when they can take your guns you have nothing left." (personal feelings on that statement withheld) but it does have another side to it. If you don't know, in 1942, Japanese-Americans were interned in camps on the suspicions that they were spies, now, I use the word "Internment Camps" but they were nothing more that white-washed Concentration Camps. The only major violation that these people had committed was that their grandparents or parents were born in Japan. This meant that many law-abiding citizens were carted off, they had no right to a jury of their peers, no right to a fair trial, and had no rights other than, to put the way George Carlin said it: "right this way!" The government is trying it's best, I'll betcha that it's really trying to stop something like Columbine or Aurora from happening again, and I'm sure they have some honest intentions for doing this, but, to be honest, it is infringing on our rights, and it's not good that we allow them to.
I'm not a gun nut, I'm from Connecticut, and the last gun I fired was probably 2005, haven't even fired a bow and arrow during the time between 2005 and 2012. I don't own a gun permit and I'm not a member of the NRA. But, I will say that this law, though ineffectual, serves two purposes: it serves as an excuse for getting the worst offenders to come clean, before realizing the budget does not allow for everyone to be searched during what is now a time of upheaval, where the middle class, first created in the Industrial Revolution, is slipping back into the memories of both the now Rich and Poor, but this law also sets the dangerous precedent that we will allow ourselves to be restricted for the sake of those who do not use weapons, Those who can't and those who fear those who can and have to use them. Again, I'm not a gun nut, I was never around guns as a kid, and I can say that with my crap vision, it's best that I wasn't, but this law is a symbol, and symbols have power, don't let them hold that symbol over you, for whatever good intentions they may have, there are plenty of places in this country that have not had exposure to gun culture, and there are those that have, there are times when a gun is useful, and there is a time when it's not needed.
To that, I'd like to say that the addage "Guns don't kill people, People kill People."
The UN is going to try to pass an international regulation law that would supposedly regulate the amount of guns one can own or one can purchase. I will admit now that all I've come to know about this has been hearsay from various petition sites and was introduced to me through a friend, but I will say I am skeptical about the arguments on both sides of this whole affair.
The first side I want to get into would be the action of regulating guns themselves. America has been convinced to sign the treaty, no small part I assume would be from the recent shooting at the Colorado theater in Aurora. I will not condone that act nor do I intend to do so on any level, but I must point to that and say that, as far as I have been informed by all that I have heard and read about this case, those guns were purchased by someone who had no prior criminal record, and, if I am wrong, had not any recent psychological incidents in teh past five years, if I am up to speed with requirements to purchase firearms. I can even assume they were purchased by those or himself after the age of 21, and after that, it is theirs to do as they wish, whether it good or evil we have consequences set in place for either course of action. Regulation in terms of buying will be new, but, I must question how will this be maintained? A database would be the first thought to come to mind, some method of marking things up somehow, but, to implement that at every possible location all across the globe, in just the LEGITIMATE stores that sell guns, would cost vast amounts of money a year to maintain, not to mention install and test, train and pay off owners of stores who don't like the idea as it is. In terms of how this law will be maintained, it'd be nearly impossible to regulate the guns that people already own, which is why there's such a public outcry. Were forces to drive door to door and check each gun you own, they'd need warrants, throwing the court system into chaos and clogging all the courtrooms for decades with proceedings and hearings, so trials would be long, drawn out, and would not be completed in any reasonable time. This brings me to my second point: Rights.
Many people are concerned about their rights, they feel that they are being infringed upon. I'd say it's possible, but not likely. In the same way that it would cost door-to-door troops billions upon billions of dollars to drive to everyone's house, grab and confiscate weapons for which they'd need warrants for each house, printed paper, gas, hourly wages, court costs, vehicles and a bureaus to oversee an international operation would be unrealistic to perform, and, people have said, "when they can take your guns you have nothing left." (personal feelings on that statement withheld) but it does have another side to it. If you don't know, in 1942, Japanese-Americans were interned in camps on the suspicions that they were spies, now, I use the word "Internment Camps" but they were nothing more that white-washed Concentration Camps. The only major violation that these people had committed was that their grandparents or parents were born in Japan. This meant that many law-abiding citizens were carted off, they had no right to a jury of their peers, no right to a fair trial, and had no rights other than, to put the way George Carlin said it: "right this way!" The government is trying it's best, I'll betcha that it's really trying to stop something like Columbine or Aurora from happening again, and I'm sure they have some honest intentions for doing this, but, to be honest, it is infringing on our rights, and it's not good that we allow them to.
I'm not a gun nut, I'm from Connecticut, and the last gun I fired was probably 2005, haven't even fired a bow and arrow during the time between 2005 and 2012. I don't own a gun permit and I'm not a member of the NRA. But, I will say that this law, though ineffectual, serves two purposes: it serves as an excuse for getting the worst offenders to come clean, before realizing the budget does not allow for everyone to be searched during what is now a time of upheaval, where the middle class, first created in the Industrial Revolution, is slipping back into the memories of both the now Rich and Poor, but this law also sets the dangerous precedent that we will allow ourselves to be restricted for the sake of those who do not use weapons, Those who can't and those who fear those who can and have to use them. Again, I'm not a gun nut, I was never around guns as a kid, and I can say that with my crap vision, it's best that I wasn't, but this law is a symbol, and symbols have power, don't let them hold that symbol over you, for whatever good intentions they may have, there are plenty of places in this country that have not had exposure to gun culture, and there are those that have, there are times when a gun is useful, and there is a time when it's not needed.
To that, I'd like to say that the addage "Guns don't kill people, People kill People."
