Gun Control: It's not just for Colored People Anymore
A recurring theme in modern politics is the issue of whether the common citizen is entitled to the right to own and carry arms. Typically, this argument is considered “Gun Control versus Gun Rights.”
--Southern Racism, post Civ War.
--The subject of interpretation of the Second Amendment (Quote 2A) has been a constant There are some that would argue the right of one to self defense is a bit outdated, and should be repealed in a puff of obsolescence.
Indeed, using the same logic, one could argue for voiding the Third Amendment, and, in keeping with the current trend of Imminent Domain, allowing for members of the military and national guard the use of people's homes for an indeterminate period. This would have the secondary benefit of keeping citizens safe from crime, as armed soldiers would be living in the homes of the American people.
The Fourth Amendment is another troublesome problem that could be done away with as we continue our modernization of the Bill of Rights. Allowing for unreasonable search and seizure by government officials, including local, state, and federal police agencies would ensure that persons harboring now-illegal weapons would be unable to hide them. The benefits of public safety would reach until new levels.
The Fifth Amendment can be disposed of as well, for similar reasons to the Fourth. Allowing people to get away with not admitting to having dangerous items in the midst of an official investigation, and subsequent trial allows an unverified number of potentially dangerous people the ability to escape prosecution at the hands of what can only be considered a just and fair trial.
With the danger of guns gone, the only crime that will be committed will be gun crimes, and if a an officer of the law says you have a dangerous firearm of any type, it should be prima facia evidence of your guilt, thus negating the need for a trial, your rights as an accused person, or the need for a trial by a jury of your peers. Indeed, with these reasons pointing out the glaringly superannuated nature of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, excessive bail would not be an issue, as most, if not all crime will have stopped at this point. With this in mind, one can safely write off the Eighth Amendment as no longer needed.
Unfortunately, at this point, there may become a problem wherein people may insist they have the right to other kinds of dangerous ideas or items, possibly even weapons. For these reasons, the Ninth Amendment will most likely have to be stricken from the books, to ensure continued safety of the populace. With the Tenth Amendment being so closely tied to the Ninth, it only makes logical sense to remove any record of state or individual rights as well, lest there be any dangerous forms of dissent among citizen-subjects.
The First Amendment provides certain problems as well, but, being that it was written into the Bill of Rights prior to any other, it should only be subject to review, and possible revision, for public safety. Hate speech, conspiracy to commit a crime, or instruction in the commission of a crime can be very dangerous. The exact limits of the freedom of speech should be clearly defined, to ensure a proper level of freedom that does not go too far.
'Now that gun crimes are completely impossible'
"Don't believe the lie that guns are the great equalizer. A 120 lb. woman should be fully capable of fighting off a 220 lb. man"
-- The author of the paper was Eric Harris, one of the now-deceased infamous duo that was responsible for putting gun violence in schools in the public forefront.
--The point is, one does not know who is buying guns, particularly during illegal gun sales. With this in mind, it makes perfect sense to pass a law
AC
Pepper Spray – 20+ seconds to start
Call the cops – 45 minutes to Indian American Cafe
Cops – No duty to protect
Gun bans – Machinegun in Britain, cops are scared, stabbings WAY up, Australian Screwdriver stabbings, DC, Chicago, LA, NYC
Guns cause crime – Gun shows, police stations
Fewer guns, more safety – Unarmed victim zones
Gun nuts – Dali Lama and Ghandi
Talking Points
McCarthy – Barrel Shroud – Truly, these safety devices, which keep people from burning their hands on hot metal are a threat. Representative McCarthy is truly a Renaissance Woman, in touch with how to keep her constituents safe, even if they do not have any fingerprints from hot metal.
-Tucker Carlson: In February you introduced the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007; it would regulate semi-automatic assault weapons, including weapons that have pistol grips, a forward grip, and something called a barrel shroud. Weapons with a barrel shroud would be regulated. What's a barrel shroud, and why should we regulate it?
-Carolyn McCarthy: I think, I think the more important thing is that it also would have had banned the large capacity clips that Colin Ferguson had used, and also, uh, the killer, but when we're talking about--
-Carlson [overlapping]: Right...but I...oh, okay...but I, I read--I read the legislation--I, I'm sorry--I read the legislation and it said that it would regulate barrel shrouds. What's a barrel shroud, and why we should regulate that?
-McCarthy: The guns that were chosen back in uh, in those days were basically the guns that most gangs and criminals were using to kill our, our police officers. I'm not saying it was the best bill, but that was the best bill the we could get out at that particular time.
-Carlson: Okay, do you know what a barrel shroud is?
-McCarthy: I actually don't know what a barrel shroud is--
-Carlson: --Oh, okay, 'cause it's in your legislation--
-McCarthy: --I believe it's a shoulder thing that goes up.
-Carlson: No, it's not.
-- Find the shroud off the 995
Guns vs. Other death causes
V tech report's conflicting views
Racist beginnings
Brady vs Crime Rates
PC
DoJ RKBA is an individual right
Reported defensive uses yearly
