A world without guns

[Mike Tx]

"Imagine the world without guns" was a bumper sticker that began making the rounds after the murder of ex-Beatle John Lennon on December 18, 1980. Last year, Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, followed up on that sentiment by announcing she would become a spokeswoman for Handgun Control, Inc. (which later changed its name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and which was previously named the National Council to Control Handguns).

So let's try hard to imagine what a world without guns would look like. It isn't hard to do. But be forewarned: It's not a pretty picture.

The way to get to a gun-free world, the gun-prohibition groups tell us, is to pass laws banning them. We can begin by imagining the enactment of laws which ban all non-government possession of firearms.

It's not likely that local bans will do the job. Take, for example, New York's 1911 Sullivan Law, which imposed an exceedingly restrictive handgun-licensing scheme on New York City. In recent decades, administrative abuses have turned the licensing statute into what amounts to prohibition, except for tenacious people who navigate a deliberately obstructive licensing system.

Laws affect mainly those willing to obey them. And where there's an unfulfilled need

[IPDBrad]

But Mike, if we outlawed guns then owning a gun would be a crime and we then no one would have one.

[IPDBrad]

Fron the article:
In order to ensure total conformity with the act, it's difficult to imagine leaving most existing constitutional protections in place. The mind boggles at the kinds of search and seizure laws required to make certain that people do not possess unregistered metal pipes or screwdrivers!

For example, just to enforce a ban on actual guns (not gun precursors), the Jamaican government needed to wipe out many common law controls on police searches, and many common law guarantees of fair trials. We'd have to trash the Constitution in order to completely prevent a black market in gun precursors from taking hold. Still, as the gun-prohibition lobby always says, if it saves just one life, it would be worth it.
------------------------------------

This shows how out of touch with reality the gun banners are. It is already apparent that they are willing to trounce on one of our 10 primary rights.

What makes them think they can rid the criminals of guns with all of their gun banning legislation. The federal government couldn't stop the production and importation of alcohol during prohibition. But now, in a society with much more widespread technology, equipment and know how, they expect to ban guns outright, right.

I hope none of the fine legislators in California/Mass/Maryland/NJ read this, they may start shutting down metal and machine shops. Oh, don't forget Zipp carbon fibre, and Dupont Plastics.

[Mike Tx]

Brad, I think the point of the article was to show the futility or trying to ban guns.

[IPDBrad]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Mike Tx:
<strong>Brad, I think the point of the article was to show the futility or trying to ban guns.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I know Mike, post was tongue in cheek.

[Sam]

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said something like that when they try to take away the second amendments is the time you will need it the most.

<small>[ 04-21-2003, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Sam ]</small>