Pelosi made it official to ABC: ‘We want registration.’

[MaverickCowboy]

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d8-Pelosi-made-it-official-to-ABC-We-want-registration (http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m4d8-Pelosi-made-it-official-to-ABC-We-want-registration)


Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dropped a verbal bombshell in the middle of an interview on Good Morning America April 7, and surprisingly, neither the press nor a majority of gun rights activists seemed to notice.
Responding to a question from ABC’s Robin Roberts, Pelosi said that while Congress apparently does not want to take anyone’s guns away, “We want them registered.”

Roberts: Under the Bush administration, you pretty much said the ball was in their court when it came to reinstating the ban. Now, it's a Democratic President, a Democratic House. So, is the ball in your court where this is concerned?
Pelosi: Yes, it is. And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution because the court, in the meantime, in recent months, the Supreme Court has ruled in a very- in a direction that gives more opportunity for people to have guns. We never denied that right. We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered. We don’t want them crossing state lines...

Perhaps equally alarming was Pelosi’s dismissal of an amendment on the District of Columbia voting rights legislation that would expand gun rights in the city.
Pelosi made the astonishing argument that the desire by District residents to have a vote on the House floor via a fully-recognized representative is “a civil rights issue.” However, in her opinion, requiring the city to recognize the right to keep and bear arms – that was affirmed by the Supreme Court last year when it struck down the District’s handgun ban – is “draconian.”
“I don’t think that that should be the price…to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House,” Pelosi told ABC’s Roberts.
Translation: Pelosi thinks one civil right is more important than another.

During his presidential campaign, President Barack Obama supported reinstating the federal ban that expired in 2004. In Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported a renewal of the ban.

Even if Pelosi was only alluding to so-called “assault weapons” that the Obama administration would like to ban – as acknowledged earlier this year by Attorney General Eric Holder – she certainly did not make that clear. And even if she were, gun rights activists will quickly point to California, where first there was registration and then came the ban.
That ban did not prevent a scumbag named Lovelle Mixon from gunning down four Oakland, CA police officers last month, nor did a federal statute prohibiting convicted felons from having any kind of gun keep Mixon disarmed. Yet Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has called for renewing the ban nationwide, ignoring the California law’s failure to stop Mixon from getting a gun.

California has the toughest ban on assault weapons in the nation.

Last month in Mexico, Holder told reporters that in the Obama administration’s effort to crack down on the alleged illegal smuggling of guns from the U.S. to Mexico, “I don’t think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of the efforts we have begun and will expand upon.”
About the same time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was reminding reporters in Mexico that she had favored a semi-auto ban while in the Senate, and that the administration is “exploring” some avenues regarding these firearms.

Obviously, I am someone who supported the assault weapons ban which was passed in 1994, but it was passed with an expiration date and it expired ten years later. I, as a senator, supported measures to try to reinstate it. Politically, that is a very big hurdle in our Congress. But there may be some approaches that could be acceptable, and we are exploring those.

Whether Pelosi or Holder or Clinton meant to alarm American gun owners – tens of millions of whom have never harmed a soul – their rhetoric has sufficiently aroused concerns. Considering the anti-gun track records of Pelosi, Holder, Clinton and their boss, those concerns are legitimate.
While MSNBC’s David Schuster sought earlier this week to demonize these gun owners in the wake of the Pittsburgh shooting, that’s hardly the way to build consensus.
There are no easy solutions, but this much is certain: Banning firearms from law-abiding citizens because criminals use guns illegally is not one of the options.



They are really pushing for this. If i remember correctly, the gun owners protection act of 1986 included a provision prohibiting any type of registration scheme.


Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (2) (a)) being: No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Registry_prohibition

[ZeroZen]

B*tch, my gun is fracking registered. What else you want to ask for...
she should check out the gun store whom they sell gun some are criminally registered.

[MaverickCowboy]

B*tch, my gun is fracking registered. What else you want to ask for...
she should check out the gun store whom they sell gun some are criminally registered.


your soul.
your income.
your brainwashed children.
welfare state.

[Dilla2k]

Can someone explain to me whats so bad about registered guns? Im not gonna pretend to be super educated on this subject.

[MaverickCowboy]

Can someone explain to me whats so bad about registered guns? Im not gonna pretend to be super educated on this subject.

Usually leads to confiscation or harassment.

in the 80's NY went door to door asking for peoples AR15's and ****, just when they decided black rifles are bad and evil.

also.

Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (2) (a)) being: No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm...ry_prohibition


they shoved that in there because all the anti gun people have at one time said they want to get all the guns in this country. why give them leverage?

Registration has led to confiscation in almost all countries. thats why we gun owners are weary.scared. concerned, etc.

[Dilla2k]

Your fears sound reasonable then. Im all for gun ownership with as little regulation as necessary for a host of reasons one of which is when the government tries to enslave us all. Im goin' out guns a blazing pun intended.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

I've always thought that gun ownership should be federally supported but regulated by the states. This is because someone who lives in suburban New York has a lot less of a reason or desire to own a gun, whereas someone who lives in rural Montana has an excellent reason to own a gun, area + culture etc.

Obviously this would need more legally fleshing out, but does anyone agree or disagree?

[MaverickCowboy]

I've always thought that gun ownership should be federally supported but regulated by the states. This is because someone who lives in suburban New York has a lot less of a reason or desire to own a gun, whereas someone who lives in rural Montana has an excellent reason to own a gun, area + culture etc.

Obviously this would need more legally fleshing out, but does anyone agree or disagree?

I disagree. i live in Urban Miami and i carry a pistol for protection, crime is pretty bad and they've tried car jacking me at red lights.
so id say someone in NYC has a better reason to own a firearm for self protection than a Montanan, but a Montanan has more sporting purposes.
Rifle for rural. Pistol for city self defense.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

What I meant was that i think the problem can't be reasonably solved at a national level. This is because for every liberal New Yorker who feels safe with the police and advocates gun control, there will be the guy 2,000 miles away who will perceive any action at the federal level as (rightly) an attack on his rights, when in reality the New Yorker (if they're reasonable) probably doesn't care about the rural guys ownership of larger firearms.

Therefore if we put the question to more local governments they would be able to make laws their communities are happy with. I didn't mean to imply banning guns in cities and allowing them in rural areas. The fact is that most suburbanites, especially those on the east coast, did not grow up around guns and hold a skewed and terrified opinion of them as a result. This shouldn't affect someone else's rights far away to own a gun, but because all of the deliberation occurs at the national level, it does.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Oh great, here we go another round. The smoke screen of hot button issues is on the rise again in the media/politico propagan… err I mean manufactured consent machine, guns, homo****** marriages, abortion, etc. I wonder what Federal Frankenstein is really up too these next few weeks. What’s the real power it wants? I bet its worth a lot of money ;)

[MaverickCowboy]

Oh great, here we go another round. The smoke screen of hot button issues is on the rise again in the media/politico propagan… err I mean manufactured consent machine, guns, homo****** marriages, abortion, etc. I wonder what Federal Frankenstein is really up too these next few weeks. What’s the real power it wants? I bet its worth a lot of money ;)

My brans hurts. what are you trying to say?

[Hobbesian Penguin]

i think its something along the lines of, "this is merely alarmist rhetoric by the paranoid far right trying to drum up opposition to the government"

[OhioSquid]

i think its something along the lines of, "this is merely alarmist rhetoric by the paranoid far right trying to drum up opposition to the government"

Could be that. Could also be Pelosi et. al. manufacturing outrage to distract from something else they're planning.

[Soldat_Américain]

DC is a military district so if the Army saw fit, it could impose Martial Law today, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's not a city, it's the only Military District in the US. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

Could be that. Could also be Pelosi et. al. manufacturing outrage to distract from something else they're planning.

yeah that was my second choice, that it was the government trying to distract people from less popular political matters that they might be moving on, i think now this was probably his actual intention, though I wouldn't agree

[Anthony91]

DC is a military district so if the Army saw fit, it could impose Martial Law today, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's not a city, it's the only Military District in the US. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Quite interesting bit right there, never knew that before.

[NuckmasterJ]

DC is a military district so if the Army saw fit, it could impose Martial Law today, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's not a city, it's the only Military District in the US. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Any source for this? I've been looking around and I have seen nothing claiming D.C. to be a military district.

"The United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) has supreme authority over Washington, D.C.; residents of the city therefore have less self-governance than residents of the states. The District has a non-voting at-large Congressional delegate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_%28United_States_Congress%29), but no senators. D.C. residents could not vote in presidential elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election) until the ratification of the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) in 1961"

That does not constitute a military district.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

DC is a military district so if the Army saw fit, it could impose Martial Law today, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's not a city, it's the only Military District in the US. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I don't think thats true. I'm pretty sure D.C. is a Federal District, which places it under the control of Congress, not the Army. There is a military district, but all of the United States is divided into different districts based on how the army is stationed there.

EDIT: I was wrong, D.C. is the only military district, the rest of the country is under the protection of USNORTHCOM, but this is because of the rule governing army deployment in the United States. The Military District of D.C. however does not have any governing role and exists solely to protect the capital and surrounding area, and perform parade functions, guard government buildings etc. D.C. is a Federal District and administered by Congress.

[Soldat_Américain]

I don't think thats true. I'm pretty sure D.C. is a Federal District, which places it under the control of Congress, not the Army. There is a military district, but all of the United States is divided into different districts based on how the army is stationed there.
Hmmm, I've always read it the other way, but it would make sense that it's a military district, the funding does come directly from Congress as does every other part of the governments.


The U.S. Army Military District of Washington is a unique Army command which has an important three-fold mission:


Respond to crisis, disaster or security requirements in the National Capital Region through implementation of various contingency plans.
Provide base operations support through our installations for Army and Department of Defense organizations throughout the National Capital Region. Additionally, a variety of specialized support is provided including personal-property shipping for the region, CONUS-wide rotary-wing airlift and operation of the Arlington National Cemetery.
Conduct official ceremonies, locally and worldwide, in behalf on the nation's civilian and military leaders.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/mdw.htm

And I have searched on Google and Global Security for other military districts in the US, but can't find others. I know that there are commands for separate geographical regions of US Commands, Sixth US Army(US Army South) is the Army component of Southern Command.

And yes I understand, but I would think if riots started happening all over DC that would be deemed a security risk. I doubt that tomorrow you'd see Army units other than the Old Guard at the Tomb of the Unkown Soldier much in DC.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

And yes I understand, but I would think if riots started happening all over DC that would be deemed a security risk. I doubt that tomorrow you'd see Army units other than the Old Guard at the Tomb of the Unkown Soldier much in DC.

Okay, fine, but thats the same across the United States, a declaration of Martial Law can affect the whole of the United States or just a part of it, D.C. is included.

The point is that D.C., whilst a unique military district, is for the purpose of government, considered a Federal District. It is administrated by Congress, not the military. The military doesn't have any control over the budget or day-to-day affairs, the citizens of D.C. are not under permanent martial law.

[Geezah]

What I meant was that i think the problem can't be reasonably solved at a national level. This is because for every liberal New Yorker who feels safe with the police and advocates gun control, there will be the guy 2,000 miles away who will perceive any action at the federal level as (rightly) an attack on his rights, when in reality the New Yorker (if they're reasonable) probably doesn't care about the rural guys ownership of larger firearms.

The problem lies with people relying on the Police for personal protection.
The Supreme Court already weighed in on this, and the Police are there to Enforce the Law. The Police are not there to be at your beck and call 24/7 and the responsibilty of looking after yourself and your loved ones falls back onto the individual until help can arrive.



Therefore if we put the question to more local governments they would be able to make laws their communities are happy with. I didn't mean to imply banning guns in cities and allowing them in rural areas. The fact is that most suburbanites, especially those on the east coast, did not grow up around guns and hold a skewed and terrified opinion of them as a result. This shouldn't affect someone else's rights far away to own a gun, but because all of the deliberation occurs at the national level, it does.

Allot of people fear firearms due to projection, I know I suffered from it when I moved here from the UK, but after doing research found that firearms are not the problem.

Also, laws at a surburban level, don't take this the wrong way but that's pretty silly.

Enforce the laws we have rather than try and create new ones. Hell it's already illegal to break the law with a firearm, why not enforce those laws.

[California Joe]

What I meant was that i think the problem can't be reasonably solved at a national level. This is because for every liberal New Yorker who feels safe with the police and advocates gun control, there will be the guy 2,000 miles away who will perceive any action at the federal level as (rightly) an attack on his rights, when in reality the New Yorker (if they're reasonable) probably doesn't care about the rural guys ownership of larger firearms.

Therefore if we put the question to more local governments they would be able to make laws their communities are happy with. I didn't mean to imply banning guns in cities and allowing them in rural areas. The fact is that most suburbanites, especially those on the east coast, did not grow up around guns and hold a skewed and terrified opinion of them as a result. This shouldn't affect someone else's rights far away to own a gun, but because all of the deliberation occurs at the national level, it does.

Do you know how big New York, the state, is? Have you heard about their new Senator? Did you know that there are a whole lot of people in a whole lot of counties there that own lots o' guns?

I'm pretty sure you're generalizing to such a huge degree that your post renders itself nearly useless for discussion.

Would you like me to go down the list of East coast states where there are very healthy populations of gun owners? You know, the whole "cradle of the Revolutionary War", where that American independence and those God given rights type amendments were hatched...

Even us homo marrying Vermonters have a lot of guns and basically zero restrictions on them.

The people in suburban and city areas that are scared of guns, usually are because the only time they see them is when some asshole is shooting their kids or mugging them. How are they supposed to vote as far as gun issues go?

[delio]

EDIT: I was wrong, D.C. is the only military district, the rest of the country is under the protection of USNORTHCOM,

I believe D.C. too comes under the safeguard of USNORTHCOM, which divides its area of responsibility for administrative purposes -- D.C. and its surrounding area being one of those.


Military District of Washington is not a military district in the sense Soldat_Américain suggested. It's one of the several components commands of the U.S. Army, as implied in its full name -- United States Army Military District of Washington.

[Fade]

http://i41.tinypic.com/b51i1g.jpg

[bugkill]

Registration is a HORRIBLE idea and it is another way to subvert gun rights. There should not be a national registry that tracks guns that are bought legally. The government should not know what weapons citizens have in their homes and there is a reason why it is in the constituition.

The government should fear it's citizens and the mere thought that the federal government would know exactly what citizens have in their homes to defend themselves is scary. I really think that there are people out there that take their freedom for granted and they really do not understand that all governments can turn on their citizens, it has happened throughout history.

The framers understood this and that is what makes our country so different, the rights of the people trumps the government. People who hate guns need to get over it because our culture is built around freedom and the right to bear arms. We want the federal government to do its job, but ****ing around with gun rights is something that they need to stay away from. Guns have never been the problem and getting them registered solves NOTHING, but only adds to the intrusiveness of the federal government.

The states and the supreme court can handle this issue on their own and the federal government needs to stay the hell out of it. Pelosi and the others need to STFU on gun control and keep their opinions to themselves because gun rights are built into the constitution and there is no logical reason for have a national registry of law abiding citizens and the weapons in their homes.

[Soldat_Américain]

Registration is a HORRIBLE idea and it is another way to subvert gun rights. There should not be a national registry that tracks guns that are bought legally. The government should not know what weapons citizens have in their homes and there is a reason why it is in the constituition.

The government should fear it's citizens and the mere thought that the federal government would know exactly what citizens have in their homes to defend themselves is scary. I really think that there are people out there that take their freedom for granted and they really do not understand that all governments can turn on their citizens, it has happened throughout history.

The framers understood this and that is what makes our country so different, the rights of the people trumps the government. People who hate guns need to get over it because our culture is built around freedom and the right to bear arms. We want the federal government to do its job, but ****ing around with gun rights is something that they need to stay away from. Guns have never been the problem and getting them registered solves NOTHING, but only adds to the intrusiveness of the federal government.

The states and the supreme court can handle this issue on their own and the federal government needs to stay the hell out of it. Pelosi and the others need to STFU on gun control and keep their opinions to themselves because gun rights are built into the constitution and there is no logical reason for have a national registry of law abiding citizens and the weapons in their homes.
Why should the government of the US fear its citizens and inversely why should its citizens fear the government, and the idea of the right to bear arms wasn't in today's contexts. So are you saying we shouldn't register Motor Vehicles?

[Hobbesian Penguin]

I believe D.C. too comes under the safeguard of USNORTHCOM, which divides its area of responsibility for administrative purposes -- D.C. and its surrounding area being one of those.


Military District of Washington is not a military district in the sense Soldat_Américain suggested. It's one of the several components commands of the U.S. Army, as implied in its full name -- United States Army Military District of Washington.


Sorry, poor writing on my part, I mean that rather than have separate military districts USNORTHCOM was responsible for defence of the whole rest of the country, that USNORTHCOM is effectively the single "military district" for defence of the United States. Since USNORTHCOM seems to be concerned mainly with seaborne and airborne threats, and because the nations capital district is a special case, it has its own military district. Agreed.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

The problem lies with people relying on the Police for personal protection.
The Supreme Court already weighed in on this, and the Police are there to Enforce the Law. The Police are not there to be at your beck and call 24/7 and the responsibilty of looking after yourself and your loved ones falls back onto the individual until help can arrive.

There are several things wrong with this statement. First, I never said that someone should rely on the police for personal protection. I simply gave the example of a wealthy suburbanite who is likely to place a great faith in his local police force, since he has lived a sheltered life full of lawyers, where the rule of law always wins. Second, I get that the police exist to enforce the law, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't protect people either, thats retarded. "To PROTECT and Serve." The police are exactly there to be called on 24/7 in case there is a crime. When people think of gun crime they typically think, murder, assault, armed robbery. I get that if your too stupid to use a safety the police shouldn't have to sweep into your rescue, but if there is a case of armed robbery, theres a certain law being violated there and the police are going to place civilian protection pretty high on their list.

Can you cite the case where the Supreme Court weighed in?




Allot of people own firearms due to projection, I know I suffered from it when I moved here from the UK, but after doing research found that firearms are not the problem.

Also, laws at a surburban level, don't take this the wrong way but that's pretty silly.

Enforce the laws we have rather than try and create new ones. Hell it's already illegal to break the law with a firearm, why not enforce those laws.

I have no idea what your talking about in the first sentence, "projection...?"

If you had read my original post you will noticed that i mentioned laws at the state level, i never said the laws had to be implemented at the "suburban level." That said, its usually called "community level" and people do make laws at that level, frequently. In the town where i grew up there was a pretty strict "no handguns" policy. Was it unconstitutional? certainly, but no one challenged it because no one cared, it wasn't a gun owning community, the nearest range was several hours drive away.

Only the very end of this relates to my actual point, that maybe this is an issue that is better decided at a subnational level. Saying that "suburban laws are pretty silly" is a poor response.

[MaverickCowboy]

There are several things wrong with this statement. First, I never said that someone should rely on the police for personal protection. I simply gave the example of a wealthy suburbanite who is likely to place a great faith in his local police force, since he has lived a sheltered life full of lawyers, where the rule of law always wins. Second, I get that the police exist to enforce the law, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't protect people either, thats retarded. "To PROTECT and Serve." The police are exactly there to be called on 24/7 in case there is a crime. When people think of gun crime they typically think, murder, assault, armed robbery. I get that if your too stupid to use a safety the police shouldn't have to sweep into your rescue, but if there is a case of armed robbery, theres a certain law being violated there and the police are going to place civilian protection pretty high on their list.

Can you cite the case where the Supreme Court weighed in?





I have no idea what your talking about in the first sentence, "projection...?"

If you had read my original post you will noticed that i mentioned laws at the state level, i never said the laws had to be implemented at the "suburban level." That said, its usually called "community level" and people do make laws at that level, frequently. In the town where i grew up there was a pretty strict "no handguns" policy. Was it unconstitutional? certainly, but no one challenged it because no one cared, it wasn't a gun owning community, the nearest range was several hours drive away.

Only the very end of this relates to my actual point, that maybe this is an issue that is better decided at a subnational level. Saying that "suburban laws are pretty silly" is a poor response.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html

On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.

The post-mortem discussion on Gonzales has been fiery but it has missed an obvious point. If the government won't protect you, then you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family. The court's ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of violence must note: calling the police is not enough. You must also be ready to defend yourself.

In 1999, Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband Simon, which limited his access to their children. On June 22, 1999, Simon abducted their three daughters. Though the Castle Rock police department disputes some of the details of what happened next, the two sides are in basic agreement: After her daughters' abduction, Gonzales repeatedly phoned the police for assistance. Officers visited the home. Believing Simon to be non-violent and, arguably, in compliance with the limited access granted by the restraining order, the police did nothing.

The next morning, Simon committed "suicide by cop." He shot a gun repeatedly through a police station window and was killed by returned fire. The murdered bodies of Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 9 and Rebecca, 10 were found in Simon's pickup truck.

In her lawsuit, Gonzales claimed the police violated her 14th Amendment right to due process and sued them for $30 million. She won at the Appeals level.

What were the arguments that won and lost in the Supreme Court?

Winners: local officials fell back upon a rich history of court decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

Later court decisions have concurred.

Losers: anti-domestic violence advocates and women's groups, such as the National Association of Women Lawyers, failed to establish that restraining orders were constitutional entitlements. If they had succeeded, the enforcement of such orders would have been guaranteed by due process. Failure to enforce them would have been grounds for a lawsuit against the police, a precedent that local officials feared would flood them with expensive litigation.

Public analysis of Rock v. Gonzales has been largely defined by these two opposing positions.

A third position cries out: Given the court's position that the police are not obliged to protect us, responsible adults need the ability to defend themselves. Thus, no law or policy should impede the access to gun ownership.

Responsible adults — both male and female — have both a right and a need to defend themselves and their families, with lethal force if necessary. If domestic violence advocates had focused on putting a gun in Jessica's hand and training her to use it, then the three Gonzales children might still be alive. After all, Jessica knew where her husband was. Indeed, she informed the police repeatedly of his location.

Of course, the Gonzales case — in and of itself — presents difficulties for the use of armed force by private citizens. Would the same police who believed Simon Gonzales was not dangerous have believed Jessica to be justified in picking up a gun to protect her children from him? Would the police have charged her for use of a weapon? Regardless, these sticky debates would probably be taking place in the presence of three living children and not three dead ones.

Nevertheless, most anti-domestic violence advocates strenuously avoid gun ownership as a possible solution to domestic violence. Instead, they appeal for more police intervention even though the police have no obligation to provide protection.

When groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) do focus on gun ownership, it is to make such statements as, "Guns and domestic violence make a lethal combination, injuring and killing women every day."

In short, NOW addresses the issue of gun ownership and domestic violence only in order to demand a prohibition on the ability of abusers — always defined as men — to own weapons.

That position may be defensible. But it ignores half of the equation. It ignores the need of potential victims to defend themselves and their families. Anti-domestic violence and women's groups create the impression that guns are always part of the problem and never part of the solution.

The current mainstream of feminism — from which most anti-domestic violence advocates proceed — is an expression of left liberalism. It rejects private solutions based on individual rights in favor of laws aimed at achieving social goals. A responsible individual holding a gun in self-defense does not fit their vision of society.

In the final analysis, such advocates do not trust the judgment of the women they claim to be defending. They do not believe that Jessica Gonzales' three children would have been safer with a mother who was armed and educated in gun use.

The clear message of Gonzales bears repeating because you will not hear it elsewhere. The police have no obligation to protect individuals who, therefore, should defend themselves. The content of state laws does not matter; by Colorado State law, the police are required to "use every reasonable means to enforce a protection order." The Supreme Court has ruled and that's that.

In the wake of Gonzales, every anti-domestic violence advocate should advise victims — male or female — to learn self-defense. They should lobby for the repeal of any law or policy that hinders responsible gun ownership.

The true meaning of being anti-domestic violence means is to help victims out of their victimhood and into a position of power.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

Do you know how big New York, the state, is? Have you heard about their new Senator? Did you know that there are a whole lot of people in a whole lot of counties there that own lots o' guns?

I'm pretty sure you're generalizing to such a huge degree that your post renders itself nearly useless for discussion.

Would you like me to go down the list of East coast states where there are very healthy populations of gun owners? You know, the whole "cradle of the Revolutionary War", where that American independence and those God given rights type amendments were hatched...

Even us homo marrying Vermonters have a lot of guns and basically zero restrictions on them.

The people in suburban and city areas that are scared of guns, usually are because the only time they see them is when some asshole is shooting their kids or mugging them. How are they supposed to vote as far as gun issues go?

JESUS CHRIST what part of my post indicated such that I had a sea lampreys understanding of US geography and demographics? I generalized "Wealthy New York Suburbanite gun control advocate" and "Montana farm-living-on gun rights advocate" yes, I characterized them in the interests of time and ease of understanding. i used them merely to try and represent two sides of the gun control debate, which I am aware has large groups of highly individualistic people on both sides.

Thank you for accusing my post of being useless for discussion, based on the fact that i characictured opposite sides of the gun debate. I guess i am just as guilty as news outlets for attempting the simplification of a very complex issue.

I do not need you to explain to me that there are 19,000,000 people who live in New York State, and only 18,000,000 live in the New York Metropolitan area, no doubt the remaining 1,000,000 who live upstate constantly bathe in guns. The generalization was between eastern urbanites, who are usually characterized as being for gun control, and western rural dwellers, who are usually characterized as being against. I never meant to imply that somehow there is no such thing as a New Englander who lives outside a city and owns a gun. I am familiar with Maine, and New Hampshire, I do not for instant think that "Live Free or Die" is merely a friendly suggestion.

The only thing I was suggesting, was that perhaps it is a good idea for gun control legislation to be done at a sub national level. That is all I am trying to get across.

That because there are such varied people on opposite sides of the gun debate, because some of them are frightened suburbanites who should not be able to dictate their fear on other citizens, perhaps it would be better for more local levels of law enforcement to determine obstacles to ownership, registration, etc. That way communities who do not feel comfortable with the idea of concealed hand guns, or assault weapons will be able to ban them, whearas a community that is comfortable, whether it be in Montana, Maine, or anywhere, will be able to legalize and police their use as they see fit. That way maybe we won't have to descend into the "GUNS KILLED MY DAUGHTER AND RAPED MY WIFE." vs "THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO TAX MY TINFOIL HATS" every time. And we can actually get some stuff done.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html

Learn to read. That article is manipulating you. for instance, lets look at the first case Castle Rock vs Gonzales. This isn't all a case where she and her daughters were under violent attack by her husband, she dialed 9/11 only to have the operator respond, "Sorry ma'am we are under no legal obligation to protect you." and then hung up, leaving this poor gun control advocate at the mercy of her violent husband. Rather, the husband violated a restraining order and took the daughters to an amusement park. The police did show up, but believed the husband to be non-violent, and within the bounds of the order, which allowed him visitation rights, so they quite reasonably did nothing and left. Only later, after the dude committed suicide by cop, did they learn that he had killed his daughters. A crime the police certainly would have tried to prevent had they believed it was in danger of happening. The only thing the Supreme Court determined was that Colorado law did not mandate the enforcement of restraining order. At no point, anywhere, did the Supreme Court determine that the Police were not to protect people who were under attack or victims of a crime.

Second case, South vs Maryland, even more ridiculous, in this case Pottle, the defendant, demanded the local Sheriff protect him from workers who were trying to get money from Pottle. The Sheriff refused. This isn't unreasonable, the workers had not tried to attack or kill Pottle, there was a private dispute that the Sheriff did not want to get involved in. Had the workers attacked and murdered Pottle while the Sheriff watched the case would have been very different. The only thing the court determined was that the Sheriff was not liable to be sued for failing to protect Pottle. Basically that the police are not your private army, not that the police shouldn't intervene to protect people from violent situations.

The reason is because Pottle postulated in his claim that any individual who suffers as a result of the police failing to provide positive protection, in other words failing to prevent a crime from occurring, would be able to claim damages from the police. This means that every time the police fail to prevent a crime, someone affected can claim damages. obviously it is impossible for the police to prevent all crimes from occurring, they simply can't protect everyone from potential future criminals, therefore to give credence to Pottle's argument would allow an impossible number of civil suits to be filed against the police.

This brings us to the third case, Bowers V DeVito. In this case a man sued a parole officer after a another man, previously listed as "psychotic," had been released from prison and went on to kill the defendants wife. The defendant is not suing the police for failing to show up and save his under attack wife, he is suing the parole officer for releasing the prisoner. In a similar set of rulings to what we have seen so far, the court determined that to make positive police enforcement law would be practically impossible. it would mean that every time the police failed to prevent a random murder they would be legally liable. Furthermore, in the rest of the deliberation the court points out that the officers may even be eligible for punishment under Illinois Common Law. But the defendant filed only under Constitutional law which the court did not find applicable. This is a reasonable ruling, it does not mean that the police aren't going to enforce laws or try and prevent crimes from occurring, or refuse to protect you from clearly violent situations. It only means that it is not legal to sue the police under Constitutional law for failing to prevent a crime from occurring.

In any case where the police should intervene to protect someone there is usually a violent crime occurring, assault with a deadly weapon, trespassing, attempted murder, etc. and it is their job to enforce the law by stopping such breaches of the peace. In not a single one of the aforementioned cases was a person who was under attack or in imminent danger of being attacked, told that there was no constitutional right to protection by the police and had police protection refused on that basis.

The rest of the article is flawed as well, The idea that Jessica would have been able to save her children with a gun is cruelly laughable. What would she do? drive over to the amusement park and demand the husband return her children at gunpoint? The police made a terrible misjudgment in believing that the husband was non-violent, but they did not refuse to protect her. The author is operating under the idea that the police only grudgingly accept the duty to carry out their orders. That police everywhere are just lounging around, refusing to help people because they are not legally required to. There are bad cops out there, but there are plenty of good ones as well, this article safely ignores all of them.

[wildcat]

Why should the government of the US fear its citizens and inversely why should its citizens fear the government, and the idea of the right to bear arms wasn't in today's contexts. So are you saying we shouldn't register Motor Vehicles?

here from one of the founders.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-Thomas Jefferson

[beNder]

Registration is a HORRIBLE idea and it is another way to subvert gun rights. There should not be a national registry that tracks guns that are bought legally. The government should not know what weapons citizens have in their homes and there is a reason why it is in the constituition.

The government should fear it's citizens and the mere thought that the federal government would know exactly what citizens have in their homes to defend themselves is scary. I really think that there are people out there that take their freedom for granted and they really do not understand that all governments can turn on their citizens, it has happened throughout history.

The framers understood this and that is what makes our country so different, the rights of the people trumps the government. People who hate guns need to get over it because our culture is built around freedom and the right to bear arms. We want the federal government to do its job, but ****ing around with gun rights is something that they need to stay away from. Guns have never been the problem and getting them registered solves NOTHING, but only adds to the intrusiveness of the federal government.

The states and the supreme court can handle this issue on their own and the federal government needs to stay the hell out of it. Pelosi and the others need to STFU on gun control and keep their opinions to themselves because gun rights are built into the constitution and there is no logical reason for have a national registry of law abiding citizens and the weapons in their homes.

Very good points, but those days are long gone. The government knows more about you than your spouse does. Anybody that says they are against registration are usually labeled a paranoid nutjob. They may soon change their minds.

[Geezah]

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

...................

[G-AWZT]

"Change" I can believe in my butt. Lunatics running the asylum.

[California Joe]

Penguin seems to be a wound a little tight.

[11 Bravo]

Penguin seems to be a wound a little tight.

Most unusual , but I concur with your observation.

[HellToupee]

The government should fear it's citizens and the mere thought that the federal government would know exactly what citizens have in their homes to defend themselves is scary. I really think that there are people out there that take their freedom for granted and they really do not understand that all governments can turn on their citizens, it has happened throughout history.


Governments do not fear citizens with guns, citizens fear people with guns. Times have changed, a gun is no longer the pinnacle of weapons technology. Even when it was a militia was no match for a professional army.

I don't see a government being afraid of an unorganized mob with guns, that couldn't even defeat a lightly armored vehicle.

The argument behind an armed society seems to be one of fear, everyone being afraid of everyone else.

[PSG-1]

Here in Norway, we have to register every gun. If I want to buy a gun, either from a private person, or through a dealer, I need to apply first, and the seller will fill in the guns serial number, and submitt to the police. To get a licence, we need to have a reason to buy that gun. Self defense is not a legal reason here, so basicly, the only reason is hunting, competiton and collection. Now, if we already have one gun for big game hunting, the police will most of the time say no to give another one, because we don't need two, but we gan get one for small game hunting. Same with pistols, ( witch is only allowed for competition ), we usually only get one in one caliber, unless we compete in a higher level.

This registration system is ment to prevent criminals and sick people to get access to guns, with variable success. There is almost no problems with the registered guns, I've read somewhere that more than 99 % of gun crime here is comitted with unregistered guns. So that also tells that there are a lot of unregistered guns here, the criminals have no problem of getting guns. And they don't get those from stealing from legal owners, gunteaft is a small problem, they prefer to smuggle guns from other countrys in Europe. So let's conclude here that legal guns are a very small problem in Norway.

But the thing is, everytime there is a masacre, or missuse of gun somewhere in the world, they always start talking about stricker rules here. I am really concerned that someday they will just decide to ban guns here, and then show up on my door to collect my guns. After all, they ban them in Britain, so they can also do it here. I've invested quite a lot of money in my guns, and I have a genuin interest in keeping my collection, so it's not a good feeling, knowing this might very likely happen here. But it will not change a thing with gun crime, because the criminal will not be affected at all by this. In Britain, gun crimes have risen since the ban there.

I have mixed feelings with registration of guns. The good thing, it makes it harder for criminals to get guns, but it may very likely be used against us to take our guns away.

[bugkill]

Governments do not fear citizens with guns, citizens fear people with guns. Times have changed, a gun is no longer the pinnacle of weapons technology. Even when it was a militia was no match for a professional army.

I don't see a government being afraid of an unorganized mob with guns, that couldn't even defeat a lightly armored vehicle.

The argument behind an armed society seems to be one of fear, everyone being afraid of everyone else.

You are missing the point. The government is VERY fearful of creating a situation where the populace is angry. The difference with our country and other 3rd world nations is that we have a political system in place to deal with such issues, but the bottom line is that the government should not be given powers to know what guns you have unless they are illegal.

No one has yet to come on here and give a valid reason for having a national registry on law abiding citizens. What the f**k good is having a registry that lists americans that buy their guns legally and are not involved in crimes? Criminals find ways to get their weapons and many of it is either stolen or bought illegally, so what good does a registration do in our society?

I understand where you and others are coming from, but you are missing the principal behind the government not knowing what you have in your home. Also, you have no idea what you are talking about when it concerns armed americans fighting government forces. You do realize that there are many ex-veterans that would know how to fight and if insurgents in Iraq can give us a bloody nose, what the f**k do you think americans would do to government forces?

I'm not wanting my gun rights out of fear, but out of an understanding that it is my right to keep and bear arms for protection of my family and property. There is no purpose in federal registration, especially when I register my weapon with whatever state that requires it. You have no idea that we are one major financial, terrorist incident, or natural disaster away from having a situation where law abiding citizens would have to depend on themselves to survive.

Imagine if our financial system collapsed and basic things that you and I depend on are not available anymore. You can best believe that the GUN would be one of the most important things that you would need to have. If something like that happens, what type of government would you have? You have no idea, and if they had a national registry of knowing what citizens have guns, it would present major problems. I know it sounds like paranoa, but guess what? There is nothing guaranteed and that any country can fall from within, just look at the Romans.

Federal government should stay out gun rights and leave it to the states, simple as that. It is the PRINCIPAL of keeping government out of our homes and a national registry does nothing to curb crime or anything else, so no deal.

[MaverickCowboy]

...................

What do you think about it?

Im ignoring penguin dude here.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

Penguin seems to be a wound a little tight.

What irritates me is that I presented an idea about the gun control issue, that it should be decided at a sub national level, and rather than respond to that, you accused me of being tremendously ignorant about 1) the demographics of New England, and 2) the geography and demographics of New York specifically, based on an obvious caricature of two frequent stances on the gun control debate.

You then went on to say that because my post contained these two generalizations it "renders itself nearly useless for discussion." You then offer to cite gun owing populations in northeast states, because clearly I am so stupid that I think New York city is actually just a catch term for the entire northeast. You explain that because the American Revolution occurred in that region, (over 200 years ago when the area was actually a frontier colony with a highly rural population, as opposed to now where the vast majority of the population live in or close to major cities) there exists a large population of gun owners.

So excuse me for being mad that someone should ignore my point in favor of groundlessly and incorrectly insulting my intelligence.

[MaverickCowboy]

Lol....this Thread. Delivers.

[California Joe]

Hehehehe....

[James]

What I meant was that i think the problem can't be reasonably solved at a national level.

What "problem" are you referring to?


Therefore if we put the question to more local governments they would be able to make laws their communities are happy with.

That's absurd. America was built on the idea of individual rights.


I didn't mean to imply banning guns in cities and allowing them in rural areas. The fact is that most suburbanites, especially those on the east coast, did not grow up around guns and hold a skewed and terrified opinion of them as a result. This shouldn't affect someone else's rights far away to own a gun, but because all of the deliberation occurs at the national level, it does.

If someone doesn't want to own a gun, there is no law requiring them to. If they want to exercise their right to not own a firearm, that's fine. However, taking away my right because they are ignorant and afraid is not.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

Lol....this Thread. Delivers.

In case you're wondering I think registration is bad idea, not because I think the government is going to use to take away guns, but from what I understand about other registration schemes they are little more than paper wasting exercises.

[MaverickCowboy]

In case you're wondering I think registration is bad idea, not because I think the government is going to use to take away guns, but from what I understand about other registration schemes they are little more than paper wasting exercises.

Things like Registration fees, license fees, fees fees and tax fees. and fees.

the economy is bad as it is and taxes are up. if they raise taxes anymore and squeeze us of out money.THEN. they shall fear of blood running.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

Things like Registration fees, license fees, fees fees and tax fees. and fees.

the economy is bad as it is and taxes are up. if they raise taxes anymore and squeeze us of out money.THEN. they shall fear of blood running.

If only, they will just tell us that the taxes are necessary to keep the government running smoothly because of all the bad debt they're placing on public books, everyone will just go along with it in the interests of "the economy"

[Hobbesian Penguin]

What "problem" are you referring to?

The problem is that there are people who are totally entrenched on opposite sides of the debate, and that gun ownership is a "national" issue. Because its a national issue any sort of laws or obstructions agreed on will affect the entire country. So this means that people in totally separate circumstances, (such as rural vs urban) will be able to affect each other with this kind of blanket legislation. I think the way to solve that problem is to posit the question on a more local level. That way communities who have restrictive gun laws and are happy with them, will be able to keep those laws, and seperate communities who don't have those laws won't have to abide by them.



That's absurd. America was built on the idea of individual rights.

No, its not absurd. I can't believe no one in this forum was a Boy Scout, or fills out tax forms. Citizenship in America exists at three levels, the Federal level, (which is the whole country), the state level, (your state obviously), and the community level, (your county, town, etc.) Each level has its own set of laws and its own set of responsibilities, for instance, public schools are administered by the state and community, not by the federal government. However, international commerce and relations are administered solely by the Federal Government. In this relationship laws at the federal level take precedence, then state, then community. The problem is that laws about gun ownership are made at the federal level, lobbied for by people in one community, and will take precedence over laxer/stricter laws supported by a difference community. This is why gun control is such a massive headache of a debate.

This proposal isn't without precedent either, although it is legal in the United States to purchase and consume alcohol, there exist places, known as dry counties where it isn't. This is because the citizens of that location have determined they would rather not have it sold for whatever reason.



If someone doesn't want to own a gun, there is no law requiring them to. If they want to exercise their right to not own a firearm, that's fine. However, taking away my right because they are ignorant and afraid is not.

The issue is more complicated than that. Owning a gun is much different from owning a hammer, and maintaining your right to hammer things (as long as you don't infringe upon other rights). The libertarian ideal, that i can do whatever i want as long as I don't impact others rights, is utopian, you affect your neighbors in uncountable ways, even if you hardly interact with them. If you purchase a large powerful firearm, and you live in an area that is uneasy with guns, you will impact your neighbors in a negative way. As soon as a gun enters into the equation you instantly increase the risk of gun crime, accidental or otherwise. (Before you start harping about statistics, I know that a gun properly handled, maintained, etc. poses a very tiny risk death or injury, but you can't change the fact that no gun=no risk.) What if your community decides they don't want any of its members to own firearms? You can argue that America is founded on the principle protecting individual rights, and that many of the rights in American law are about protecting the minority from the majority, but America is also a democratic system, where the majority vote makes the law. And don't each of your neighbors have the right not to be negatively affected by your actions? if you owning a gun makes them afraid or uneasy, what gives you that right?

I grew up in Illinois, (a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country) in Chicago, (a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the country) In our neighborhood it just wasn't an issue, there were a few shotguns, but no handguns (by law), and practically no rifles. Nobody talked about their guns, nobody went shooting for recreation, there were a few people that hunted maybe once a year. The community was happy, nobody felt their rights were being infringed, nobody had a strong desire to own a handgun for protection or otherwise. Obviously to other people in other parts of the country this set up would be alien, perhaps frightening at the amount of strict gun legislation. Obviously this set up wouldn't work in other parts of the country so why are gun laws decided at that level?

[James]

The problem is that there are people who are totally entrenched on opposite sides of the debate, and that gun ownership is a "national" issue. Because its a national issue any sort of laws or obstructions agreed on will affect the entire country. So this means that people in totally separate circumstances, (such as rural vs urban) will be able to affect each other with this kind of blanket legislation. I think the way to solve that problem is to posit the question on a more local level. That way communities who have restrictive gun laws and are happy with them, will be able to keep those laws, and seperate communities who don't have those laws won't have to abide by them.

Do you mean the way NYC, Chicago, Illinois, and California have more restrictive gun laws than, say, TX or TN? Each state has its own set of gun laws, and some communities within those states (like Chicago, which you actually point out) have yet more laws.


Citizenship in America exists at three levels, the Federal level, (which is the whole country), the state level, (your state obviously), and the community level, (your county, town, etc.) Each level has its own set of laws and its own set of responsibilities, for instance, public schools are administered by the state and community, not by the federal government. However, international commerce and relations are administered solely by the Federal Government. In this relationship laws at the federal level take precedence, then state, then community. The problem is that laws about gun ownership are made at the federal level, lobbied for by people in one community, and will take precedence over laxer/stricter laws supported by a difference community. This is why gun control is such a massive headache of a debate.

See my initial response. States and cities have been enacting stricter laws than the Federal standard for quite some time. You're arguing that perhaps they should do something that they ARE doing - this is one of the reasons others are pokin at you in this thread; it is apparent that you aren't fully cognizant of the reality of how different gun laws already are in different places across the nation.


This proposal isn't without precedent either, although it is legal in the United States to purchase and consume alcohol, there exist places, known as dry counties where it isn't. This is because the citizens of that location have determined they would rather not have it sold for whatever reason.

Again... Chicago - no pistols. Memphis - sure, have as many as you want.


The issue is more complicated than that. Owning a gun is much different from owning a hammer, and maintaining your right to hammer things (as long as you don't infringe upon other rights). The libertarian ideal, that i can do whatever i want as long as I don't impact others rights, is utopian, you affect your neighbors in uncountable ways, even if you hardly interact with them. If you purchase a large powerful firearm, and you live in an area that is uneasy with guns, you will impact your neighbors in a negative way.

My neighbors have no idea if I own any firearms at all. Responsible gun owners don't generally walk around the neighborhoods flashing a piece. Regardless, if they react negatively to me owning firearms, that's their problem.


As soon as a gun enters into the equation you instantly increase the risk of gun crime, accidental or otherwise. (Before you start harping about statistics, I know that a gun properly handled, maintained, etc. poses a very tiny risk death or injury, but you can't change the fact that no gun=no risk.)

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. A handgun allows me, should the need arise, to defend myself, my wife, and my baby daughter from people who might choose to do me harm. I don't rely on the police for that - their job is to come investigate whatever happened after it's all over. Are you going to come protect me? I don't think so. I would argue that being forbidden to own a firearm has the potential to increase the amount of risk law abiding citizens have to deal with. As you are so familiar with statistics, I'm sure you're aware that rates for violent crime are higher in communities where gun ownership is severely restricted.


What if your community decides they don't want any of its members to own firearms?

I'd be tempted to tell my community to pack sand, but more realistically, few if any people would even know that I own firearms. This is a good example of why gun registration is a bad idea.


You can argue that America is founded on the principle protecting individual rights, and that many of the rights in American law are about protecting the minority from the majority, but America is also a democratic system, where the majority vote makes the law. And don't each of your neighbors have the right not to be negatively affected by your actions? if you owning a gun makes them afraid or uneasy, what gives you that right?

Don't I have the right not to be negatively affected by these candy assed neighbors? If anything, they are safer living in a neighborhood that I live in, because I have guns. When I go out and run errands, I take my pistol, which I am licensed to carry. No one knows I have it, but everyone around me is in a little bubble of safety.


I grew up in Illinois, (a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country) in Chicago, (a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the country) In our neighborhood it just wasn't an issue, there were a few shotguns, but no handguns (by law), and practically no rifles. Nobody talked about their guns, nobody went shooting for recreation, there were a few people that hunted maybe once a year. The community was happy, nobody felt their rights were being infringed, nobody had a strong desire to own a handgun for protection or otherwise. Obviously to other people in other parts of the country this set up would be alien, perhaps frightening at the amount of strict gun legislation. Obviously this set up wouldn't work in other parts of the country so why are gun laws decided at that level?

As you mention, Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Were those laws voted into being on a local level, or were they created in Washington DC? As I've mentioned several times already, you're arguing for something that already exists.

Personally, what it comes down to for me is my ability to defend myself. My life, and those of my family are far and away the most important things in the world to me. If my community is uncomfortable with me having the RIGHT to defend those things, I wouldn't worry about offending them; I think they'd need to seriously reconsider their values. I'm not going to rely on the government at any level to protect me and my family. Any "law" that restricts, or has the potential to restrict such a fundamental right is one I will not accept.

[MaverickCowboy]

Do you mean the way NYC, Chicago, Illinois, and California have more restrictive gun laws than, say, TX or TN? Each state has its own set of gun laws, and some communities within those states (like Chicago, which you actually point out) have yet more laws.



See my initial response. States and cities have been enacting stricter laws than the Federal standard for quite some time. You're arguing that perhaps they should do something that they ARE doing - this is one of the reasons others are pokin at you in this thread; it is apparent that you aren't fully cognizant of the reality of how different gun laws already are in different places across the nation.



Again... Chicago - no pistols. Memphis - sure, have as many as you want.



My neighbors have no idea if I own any firearms at all. Responsible gun owners don't generally walk around the neighborhoods flashing a piece. Regardless, if they react negatively to me owning firearms, that's their problem.



This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. A handgun allows me, should the need arise, to defend myself, my wife, and my baby daughter from people who might choose to do me harm. I don't rely on the police for that - their job is to come investigate whatever happened after it's all over. Are you going to come protect me? I don't think so. I would argue that being forbidden to own a firearm has the potential to increase the amount of risk law abiding citizens have to deal with. As you are so familiar with statistics, I'm sure you're aware that rates for violent crime are higher in communities where gun ownership is severely restricted.



I'd be tempted to tell my community to pack sand, but more realistically, few if any people would even know that I own firearms. This is a good example of why gun registration is a bad idea.



Don't I have the right not to be negatively affected by these candy assed neighbors? If anything, they are safer living in a neighborhood that I live in, because I have guns. When I go out and run errands, I take my pistol, which I am licensed to carry. No one knows I have it, but everyone around me is in a little bubble of safety.



As you mention, Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Were those laws voted into being on a local level, or were they created in Washington DC? As I've mentioned several times already, you're arguing for something that already exists.

Personally, what it comes down to for me is my ability to defend myself. My life, and those of my family are far and away the most important things in the world to me. If my community is uncomfortable with me having the RIGHT to defend those things, I wouldn't worry about offending them; I think they'd need to seriously reconsider their values. I'm not going to rely on the government at any level to protect me and my family. Any "law" that restricts, or has the potential to restrict such a fundamental right is one I will not accept.

Well said James.

another thing that shouldove been mention about "our democratic system"

you cant vote away rights. this is a republic.

[MaverickCowboy]

And don't each of your neighbors have the right not to be negatively affected by your actions? if you owning a gun makes them afraid or uneasy, what gives you that right?

I have a right not to be affected by your dumb statement.
But i would violate your first amendment.

your right ends at my nose.
I have a right to own and carry a firearm.
Nothing they say or feel can change that.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

Do you mean the way NYC, Chicago, Illinois, and California have more restrictive gun laws than, say, TX or TN? Each state has its own set of gun laws, and some communities within those states (like Chicago, which you actually point out) have yet more laws.

See my initial response. States and cities have been enacting stricter laws than the Federal standard for quite some time. You're arguing that perhaps they should do something that they ARE doing - this is one of the reasons others are pokin at you in this thread; it is apparent that you aren't fully cognizant of the reality of how different gun laws already are in different places across the nation.

Again... Chicago - no pistols. Memphis - sure, have as many as you want.

...........

As you mention, Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Were those laws voted into being on a local level, or were they created in Washington DC? As I've mentioned several times already, you're arguing for something that already exists.

Exactly, and the system worked relatively well, at least communities had some decision. But District of Columbia versus Heller came along and threw that all out. Now it has been confirmed by the Supreme Court that the 2nd Amendment trumps all those laws, meaning the legality of any community laws about the ownership of guns are in doubt. Suddenly Gun Control is a national issue again. Because of this ruling gun control advocates will feel they have no choice but to go national, affecting the rights of the whole country instead of keeping to their own communities. Its strange, D.C. vs Heller was seen as a major victory for gun advocates but all it does is make restrictive action at the national level more likely.


My neighbors have no idea if I own any firearms at all. Responsible gun owners don't generally walk around the neighborhoods flashing a piece. Regardless, if they react negatively to me owning firearms, that's their problem.

Great, thats not the issue at hand, the problem is that some communities would dislike it if their neighbors owned guns, whether they know or not. My argument is that if a community feels by majority decision that it should restrict the owning rights of its citizens than it should be able to.


This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. A handgun allows me, should the need arise, to defend myself, my wife, and my baby daughter from people who might choose to do me harm. I don't rely on the police for that - their job is to come investigate whatever happened after it's all over. Are you going to come protect me? I don't think so. I would argue that being forbidden to own a firearm has the potential to increase the amount of risk law abiding citizens have to deal with. As you are so familiar with statistics, I'm sure you're aware that rates for violent crime are higher in communities where gun ownership is severely restricted.

Its not a "load of crap" its a very simple concept. Gun safety is meant to minimize the potential for accidents, it cannot eliminate it. As long as there is a gun involved there is a potential for accidents. This is elementary stuff, something that you as a responsible owner should at least be aware of.

Lets get one thing straight, I AGREE WITH THE RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS. I do not, for one second want to impinge on your right to own a gun, I appreciate guns, they are useful, powerful tools that are to be respected, they are not merely murder machines to be feared. The whole point is that there are people who disagree, for whatever reason they think that in the community where they live there should be heavy restrictions on firearm ownership. Rather than explain the virtues of firearm possession to people who are clearly afraid of their own dogs, why don't we try and find a way so that we each can get what we want? they can live in their communities, and you can live in yours.

Just so you know, the last statistic is meaningless. It is likely that communities with initially high crime rates are going to institute tougher gun control measures, rather than a relatively peaceful community instituting tougher measures only to have gun crime become more prevalent. For instance Chicago has very tough gun laws because it has an already high gun crime rate. Vermont has much less gun crime with laxer laws, so there is no public pressure to make them tougher.



I'd be tempted to tell my community to pack sand, but more realistically, few if any people would even know that I own firearms. This is a good example of why gun registration is a bad idea.

Don't I have the right not to be negatively affected by these candy assed neighbors? If anything, they are safer living in a neighborhood that I live in, because I have guns. When I go out and run errands, I take my pistol, which I am licensed to carry. No one knows I have it, but everyone around me is in a little bubble of safety.
Personally, what it comes down to for me is my ability to defend myself. My life, and those of my family are far and away the most important things in the world to me. If my community is uncomfortable with me having the RIGHT to defend those things, I wouldn't worry about offending them; I think they'd need to seriously reconsider their values. I'm not going to rely on the government at any level to protect me and my family. Any "law" that restricts, or has the potential to restrict such a fundamental right is one I will not accept.

First of all, I wouldn't necessarily feel safer just because someone near me was armed. I don't know them, I don't know if they are responsible, or safe, or what their intentions are. I realize that you have honorable intentions, but how am i supposed to know that just because you carry a gun? I get, "an armed society is a polite society" but i would only feel equally safe if I was also armed, and not everyone wants to own a gun.

Regardless of who is impacting whose rights, you are going to have communities which decide they are safer without guns, or with restrictions on guns, as shown above, they actually exist. There are over 300 million people in America and not all of them are going to agree. Sometimes, individuals will be outvoted, whether or not it is "right" thats how the system works.

[Johnny_H02]

In case you're wondering I think registration is bad idea, not because I think the government is going to use to take away guns, but from what I understand about other registration schemes they are little more than paper wasting exercises.
Want further proof of this? Look up the Canadian Gun Registry... see how much of a waste of time and money that was and still is.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

I have a right not to be affected by your dumb statement.
But i would violate your first amendment.

your right ends at my nose.
I have a right to own and carry a firearm.
Nothing they say or feel can change that.


Thank you Maverick, for another witty and helpful addition to this discussion that does not at all rely on insulting me personally, or blindly asserting your "rights" at the expense of the 303,824,639 other people you share this country with.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

Want further proof of this? Look up the Canadian Gun Registry... see how much of a waste of time and money that was and still is.

I agree, Canada is I think the best example of why registration is just another thing the government can claim is reducing crime while actually just creating a headache for law abiding owners and pointlessly spending money.

[orionhawk]

or blindly asserting your "rights" at the expense of the 303,824,639 other people you share this country with.
not sure how he did that. Americans have the right to keep and bear. if someone misuses that right, there are ample laws on the books for the matter. I don't flash my guns around. I don't behave recklessly with them. if the other 303,824,639 Americans are scared of my guns, that is entirely their problem.

there is no right not to be scared.

[James]

Exactly, and the system worked relatively well, at least communities had some decision. But District of Columbia versus Heller came along and threw that all out. Now it has been confirmed by the Supreme Court that the 2nd Amendment trumps all those laws, meaning the legality of any community laws about the ownership of guns are in doubt. Suddenly Gun Control is a national issue again. Because of this ruling gun control advocates will feel they have no choice but to go national, affecting the rights of the whole country instead of keeping to their own communities. Its strange, D.C. vs Heller was seen as a major victory for gun advocates but all it does is make restrictive action at the national level more likely.

I don't agree with the way some cities restricted our rights, but you might have mentioned this basic notion about the SCOTUS ruling in D.C. vs. Heller as a foundation for your whole argument. I agree that this has contributed to making gun rights a national issue again. I might also add the factors of a very liberal, naive democrat from Chicago who is our President, along with the liberal majorities in the House and Senate. As an aside, I find it ironic that it always seems to be "liberals" who want to both restrict our rights and hold our hands as we move through life.


Great, thats not the issue at hand, the problem is that some communities would dislike it if their neighbors owned guns, whether they know or not. My argument is that if a community feels by majority decision that it should restrict the owning rights of its citizens than it should be able to.

I disagree. Owning a firearm is as fundamental a right as freedom of speech.


Its not a "load of crap" its a very simple concept. Gun safety is meant to minimize the potential for accidents, it cannot eliminate it. As long as there is a gun involved there is a potential for accidents. This is elementary stuff, something that you as a responsible owner should at least be aware of.

You'll have to refresh my memory as to where I stated that gun safety is a load of crap. I think I stated that "no gun=no risk" is a load of crap.


Lets get one thing straight, I AGREE WITH THE RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS. I do not, for one second want to impinge on your right to own a gun, I appreciate guns, they are useful, powerful tools that are to be respected, they are not merely murder machines to be feared. The whole point is that there are people who disagree, for whatever reason they think that in the community where they live there should be heavy restrictions on firearm ownership. Rather than explain the virtues of firearm possession to people who are clearly afraid of their own dogs, why don't we try and find a way so that we each can get what we want? they can live in their communities, and you can live in yours.

I'm glad that you agree with the right to own firearms. That said, we don't accept such divisions for race, religion, age, or gender. I think one of your fundamental problems is that you are confusing "right" with "privilege". When it comes to rights, the opinion of the community should be irrelevant and inconsequential.


Just so you know, the last statistic is meaningless. It is likely that communities with initially high crime rates are going to institute tougher gun control measures, rather than a relatively peaceful community instituting tougher measures only to have gun crime become more prevalent. For instance Chicago has very tough gun laws because it has an already high gun crime rate. Vermont has much less gun crime with laxer laws, so there is no public pressure to make them tougher.

I never mentioned any specific statistics, just the irrefutable fact that places with stricter controls on the right of gun ownership tend to have higher rates of violent crime. Why do you call such facts meaningless? IT IS PROOF THAT RESTRICTING THE RIGHTS OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS DOES NOT WORK IN REDUCING VIOLENT CRIME. If you claim to support the rights of an individual to own firearms, but do not understand this fundamental fact, I really don't know what else to say.
You point out the restrictive laws of Chicago, which have been in place for many years. They haven't done much to curb gun violence there, have they? Why? BECAUSE CRIMINALS, BY DEFINITION, DON'T GIVE A SH*T ABOUT WHAT A "LAW" SAYS. One of the deepest flaws in the thinking of the gun control crowd is the notion that criminals will think "Gee, I'm going to go rob these people, and the law says I can't have a pistol... I guess I'll just take a knife."


First of all, I wouldn't necessarily feel safer just because someone near me was armed. I don't know them, I don't know if they are responsible, or safe, or what their intentions are. I realize that you have honorable intentions, but how am i supposed to know that just because you carry a gun? I get, "an armed society is a polite society" but i would only feel equally safe if I was also armed, and not everyone wants to own a gun.

I should have clarified this - me simply having a gun doesn't make people safer. Me having it and knowing how to use it is what makes people safe. Earlier in this thread you made a remark that indicated that you don't know what "projecting" is. It's projecting your fears or feelings onto the general population - in this case "how am I supposed to know that just because you carry a gun" = "I don't know a lot about guns, and they make me nervous, so I'm going to feel nervous about people who have them." If you only feel equally safe by being armed, bit choose not to own a firearm - Should my choice to ride a bicycle everywhere dictate that no one should own a car? I think not. As I stated earlier in this thread, America is built on individual rights.
For what it's worth, I'm a former USMC infantryman, and for the past five years I've made my living in Afghanistan, protecting American diplomats from the Taliban and Al Quaeda.


Regardless of who is impacting whose rights, you are going to have communities which decide they are safer without guns, or with restrictions on guns, as shown above, they actually exist. There are over 300 million people in America and not all of them are going to agree. Sometimes, individuals will be outvoted, whether or not it is "right" thats how the system works.

Thanks for that insight.

[California Joe]

James, your neighbors just called and they now know you have guns and are deeply disturbed. You should probably send them to me for safekeeping. Yeah....safekeeping. :)

[Geezah]

DC vs Heller came after 30yrs of restrictions against the law abiding to own handguns and have firearms unlocked out of a safe and not broken down.

DC was the murder capital of the World at one point, but it's OK, after all Mayor Barry said the following, "If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate."

In Ohio we had cities enacting their own laws, this was struct down by the State and Home Rule no longer applies, but Dayton, Cleveland and Columbus still have a go.

[remo williams]

You know it's funny I stumbled on this on my first visit back in a while here.

I see it like this, and I'll admit that I've read some things that support what I'm about to say, yet don't have access to them now. I know it's a standard practice to have backup sources. I apologize for that.

I recently went to a gun store to see what I could buy under what IS my right under the 2nd amendment. I live in one of the most restricted gun legislated states in the union. Aside from Ca or Ill. I've no criminal record, and there shouldn't be anything that would prohibit me from owning one if I chose to. However here, while the rest of the country enjoyed the lifting of restrictions of the assault rifle ban, our leaders copied that ban without the sunset clause [ the expiration of the ban], thus making the ban current and permanent.

In asking the owner of the shop, what I could get and what I'd have to do, it started out simple and quickly became complex. Here there are what's called the 5 deadly sins of rifle ownership.

1 No pistol grip. That's pretty much all AR's.
2 No bayonet lugs.
3 No flash hider. A muzzle break can be used.
4 No retractable stock If your arms are short, you're SOL.
5 No Hi cap mags. 30 rounds, and no more than 10 for pistols.

However, He told me you CAN have at least two of those features on your rifle if it's post ban. Pre ban is ok for all five. As it's by serial number, how the fcuk would I know what's what. or anyone else for that matter?

I could buy a P-90 semi-auto, but the mags are Hi-capacity, so it's like an ATM card with $19.50 in the bank. Useless. As well, the ammo is cost prohibitive.

If I bought a pre ban rifle, I can buy both pre/post ban mags. If it's a post ban, only post-ban mags. I could buy a post ban upper, and a pre-ban receiver and have post ban mags, but not if it was the other way around.

If I buy one rifle, I have to do the background check,and undergo one for each rifle purchase after. Ok. If I buy two at a time, it's only one check though.

If it's a private sale, none required, but one can still get hammered for having one. As well for one I built.

If it's registered, they will know what you have. As we've seen the propensity for sensationalism is great, and the law is only as good as those who interpret it.

To me this means that if,somehow like say, I'm on my way to a range and get pulled over. The officer is, told by me,of my rifle. Erring on the side of caution on his part, there's a strong possibility I could end up having more trouble than just a routine stop. All the while being within the limits of the law.

If I misunderstand any part of the workings of these laws, I'm screwed. If there's a massive anti-gun push on the part of the pols,prosecutors, I'm scwered. I have to prove my innocence at my expense. Far greater than what I paid for the rifle in the first place. If I have someone work on it, and they screw up, [such in the case of the guy in Wis who' doing 2yrs for his AR misfiring, as well one locally I heard about] I'm screwed. all because there's a maze of laws and personal interpretations of them, that I have to deal with. Aside from the cost

In the end,at least here, the laws are so vague,contradictory,and open to motivated interpretation, that it serves the purpose of disarming the responsible public. Since the state I live in is the leader/precedent setter for many laws/policies enacted throughout the country,from education to zxylophones. I see a dangerous trend being created. Nat'l registration allows for a data base of who owns what/how many, and where they are.

When I asked about the SOCOM supressd M4, I was told I'd have to be able to walk on water and talk to GOD to get a class 3 license. I asked if I just bought it, and sent it to Mexico would it be ok, to which we both got a laugh with a deadpan no.

I do not trust Pelosi, nor Holder, who believes the Amendment rights are just a privilage.

Criminals will never go through what I'd have to go through to own a firearm. Nor do tyrants throughout history.

[HellToupee]

You are missing the point. The government is VERY fearful of creating a situation where the populace is angry. The difference with our country and other 3rd world nations is that we have a political system in place to deal with such issues, but the bottom line is that the government should not be given powers to know what guns you have unless they are illegal.

Yes government of fearful of making the populace angry due to the fact the populace votes on who is in power, they are not fearful tho of a threat posed by guns.

As it was the worst massacres committed in my country were legal gun owners who then suffered mental break downs, the worst by a gun collector with a scoped ak47.

[G-AWZT]

Like a flash hider, pistol grip, and retractable stock makes the rifle more threatening so you can't have them installed. What garbage. All these little details are such bs.

[James]

Yes government of fearful of making the populace angry due to the fact the populace votes on who is in power, they are not fearful tho of a threat posed by guns.

As it was the worst massacres committed in my country were legal gun owners who then suffered mental break downs, the worst by a gun collector with a scoped ak47.

In the States mental illness will disqualify people from owning a firearm. Restricting the rights of mentally sound, law abiding citizens in response to a crazy person breaking the law is not a solution.

[James]

James, your neighbors just called and they now know you have guns and are deeply disturbed. You should probably send them to me for safekeeping. Yeah....safekeeping. :)

Hehe. rofl

[HellToupee]

In the States mental illness will disqualify people from owning a firearm. Restricting the rights of mentally sound, law abiding citizens in response to a crazy person breaking the law is not a solution.

How would you know they even have firearms without registration?

[Geezah]

How would you know they even have firearms without registration?

SO how exactly would registration reduce the chances of people running amok?

After all, in a similiar fashion to Hungerford and Dunblane, firearms that are already registered could be owned by nuts that are borderline and just need a little push over the edge.
Do we then infringe on the majoritys rights because of a few bad apples?

[MaverickCowboy]

How would you know they even have firearms without registration?

Background check at the beginning of all firearm purchases.
you live under a rock?

What if they bought a gun from the black market and never registered?

[MichaelF]

http://www.youtube.com/v/6yJ7cfr9Lso&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1

[MichaelF]

Double tap........

[SilentType]

Not going to have a good chance at holding up to judicial review.

The police powers of the states under the 10th Amendment are where proper restriction on the transport and registration of firearms falls under.

Is there a substantial impact on interstate commerce that the lack of firearms registration has right now? I would think that any claim that there is such a "substantial impact" on interstate commerce would be a labored one and frankly just an extreme reach by the Federal Government.

The NFA's registration under the power to tax has never been seriously challenged as Miller was a one sided argument, because neither Miller or his attorneys on his behalf submitted briefs or even showed up for oral argument and I think it's safe to say things are a little different now. I don't think it would be wise for the Federal Government to place in jeopardy their ability to register firearms under the NFA by trying to make a larger grab.

In terms of politics I think it would be INSANE. Frankly the Democrats have made serious inroad the last two elections into once solidly conservative districts. They have party members who have been elected by very narrow margins. A good rating by the NRA can mean as much as 5-6% points in an election where the person running against you has a better or worse rating. The Democrats have an election in 2010 and a very slim control of the Senate. Then Senator Obama during the 2008 Presidential Campaign was damn near screaming at a rally in Virgina that he would not take their guns for Pete's sake. They know the importance of this issue.

If the economy has not recovered or the recovery is lack luster by November 2010 and before that they push for some type of serious gun control measure...they're toast. They will have traded any hope they had for gains or even for holding on to their majority in the Senate and perhaps even the House by going for a token "feel good" gun control measure that is half-assed in appeasing their "base" at best. Meanwhile they'll have to burn up political capital to push for gun control that they'd probably rather use for universal health care, card check, environmental legislation, or any of the other measures they've had on their dream sheet for a long time.

Let's also not forget that Senate Majority Leader Reid voted against both Assault Weapons Bans and that he is facing a close election back in his state in 2010 so I don't see him being someone who will support such measures.

I think Pelosi says what she says because she would love to do it and it would certainly make those who elect her again and again happy back home, BUT at the same time you notice that gun control measures are not making it onto the agenda of committees that she has major influence over.

So relax. Stay frosty. The fight is going to come and it sure helps to be ready for it and discuss it, but unless the Democrats go full retard I don't think it's coming tomorrow.