The open political discussion thread. Read the first post!

[MadMax]

No problem, we can create new ones!

As a resident of the Lone Star State, I can assure you that the recent political humor and comments from governor Rick Perry about succession have no serious basis. The recent Tea Part protests have probably been the catalyst for such talk, but the truth is that there is about as much chance of Texas becoming an independent republic again as my Yaris doing a 7.592 second quarter mile time at the local drag strip.*

I think all the talk is simply because of some of the radical proposals by the new administration. It has nothing to do with loyalty to the previous one either, whereas GW's popularity is probably higher in Texas than it is in most other parts of the country, his term as president has done nothing to encourage or support the alleged discussions on succession.

When Texas says it is like "A Whole Other Country," there is a lot of truth behind that statement. It is not an attempt to separate itself from the Union, but a recognition of the unique history and mindset that exists here. It is obviously not everyone's cup of tea, but I challenge you to find any state who the majority of its residents are as loyal to it as Texas. And that 'mystic' is even recognized all over the world, when I tell people I am from here it always generates much interest and enthusiasm that never occurred when I mentioned other states I have lived in (Florida, Maryland, Idaho, etc).

The bottom line is that all this talk about succession is just that, talk! But if there was any one state that would have the cojones to succeed, it would be Texas!

And, just to keep this thread going, as I am really appreciative of the moderators for allowing us such candid and open discussion; one of other reasons I like Texas so much is it is a very pro-gun state. Now, I also understand that not everyone feels that way; but I would still like to hear your non-hostile reasons for your opinion, just so we can discuss the issues and not attack anyone personally. It is far from being a cut-and-dry topic, as there are valid arguments for both sides; but in my opinion I believe there was clear intent on the part of our forefathers for including the Second Amendment in our Constitution, and I do not believe any administration should have the right to put restrictions on that which has been clearly stated in the governing document for this country!

Cheers! M2


* - That 1/4 mile time was posted by a 1987 Buick Grand National T-Type

[SailDesign]

Originally Posted by MadMax

<snip>

one of other reasons I like Texas so much is it is a very pro-gun state. Now, I also understand that not everyone feels that way; but I would still like to hear your non-hostile reasons for your opinion, just so we can discuss the issues and not attack anyone personally. It is far from being a cut-and-dry topic, as there are valid arguments for both sides; but in my opinion I believe there was clear intent on the part of our forefathers for including the Second Amendment in our Constitution, and I do not believe any administration should have the right to put restrictions on that which has been clearly stated in the governing document for this country!

Guns - a fun topic, and for some reason VERY contentious over here.

Let me explain my own background first, as itr has bearingon my opinions. I was born in the States, but was moved to England at the age of 5. I grew up there, thinking Limey and sounding Limey and generally not worrying much about the fact that I was a US citizen all the time.

In the UK, whe nI lived ther, you could have a gun if you wanted, but you needed a license. Famrers could have shotguns or rifles for pest control or sporting reasons, target shooters could have target guns, and so on. BUT - you needed to have each gun registered and a license to own it.

Then came Dunblane, and all kinds of guns were outlawed, including the very guns and ammunition used in Olympic pistol shooting. The whole British team had to practice in France.

In 1984, I moved to the States again, with an English wife and kids. I reclaimed the .22 target rifle I used while briefly at college here, a Winchester 52, and over time (we lived on a arm) added a 20ga shotgun and a couple of "sporting" rifles to the collection. I joined the NRA so I could shoot competitively, but un-joined when every week saw another rabid pro-gun advert, or another invitation to "protect my rights" by giving $$ to the Legal Fund.

My own view is that all guns should be registered. Just like cars. Do you bitch about having to register a car? Probably not - it is just one of those things you accept. I know some municipalities have a limit on how many cars you can own without being termed a "fleet" and being subject to an addition tax or license. On the island I live on, there is a limit to how many dogs you can own without being considered a "kennel" and having to apply for a license. This is small-town politics, and I can easily see a town saying "register your guns, but if you have more than (say) 20, we will consider you an "arsenal" and you wil need a special permit". Again if you are not breaking the law with them, then you have nothing to fear (except NRA-style paranoia).

I would register all of my guns in a heartbeat, but the local PD does not have a protocol for that.

My 2-cents.

[GeneW]

I've been told that Bob's banishment has been lifted. When he comes back is his own choice.

Originally Posted by SailDesign

Guns - a fun topic, and for some reason VERY contentious over here.

My own view is that all guns should be registered. Just like cars. Do you bitch about having to register a car?
My 2-cents.

Two views of government.

Theory A- People surrender some of their own power to the government in order to make things work for the common good. In this sense the US is a form of limited Anarchy. I think that this limited Anarchy has benefited us in some cases because freedom to chose is freedom to produce.

Theory B- People are subjects of the government, that laws are passed for the common good or for the benefit of the State. In such a State there is a Monopoly of Lethal Force by the State. Only they can harm others except in self defense. In Britain even the concept of Self Defense is under attack. People have been jailed for "fighting back" beyond a proportional defense. This is insane but that's a Labour Government for you.

Theory A is the idea upon which the United States was founded. Contained in the Declaration of Independence.

To a believer in Theory A it makes no sense to "register" one's source of personal power with the State. The State has no damn business taking it away from you, except as punishment for a crime and as such has no business knowing what you have until you break the law.

Some of us think that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment to the US Bill of Rights was akin to the old tradition of Archers in England, that to be Well Regulated (accurate shooters) one must practice routinely. Which you cannot do when the State keeps all of the weapons under its control. To me the 2nd Amendment does not explicitly outlaw gun registration, only forbids prohibition of owning a gun.


Theory B is the foundation of a typical modern State, such a Great Britain, which changed from the Divine Right of Kings to a Constitutional Monarchy, and finally today to a Parliamentary Democracy with a Royal Figurehead.

To someone who believes in Theory B owning a firearm is a privilege which can be taken away at any old time. Registering a firearm facilitates confiscation of a gun, either from an individual because of some deviancy on their part or because the State has decided to ban some or all firearms.

The grotesque over reaction in Britain after the Dunblane Massacre is a good example of where registration can lead. Handguns in Britain were kept in "shooting clubs" and were not permitted to be carried on the streets. The Dunblane shooter broke the law. Oh well...


My practical concern with registration is that registration lists have been abused by gun control groups, who have published them. If a woman has a right to privacy under Roe v Wade than certainly I have a right to privacy from the public regarding what I own. I am concerned that Insurance companies may be sued or bullied into levying insurance increases upon those who have registered firearms. There has also been use of gun registration lists to confiscate guns.


To a person who believes in Theory B, owning a firearm is a gesture of political defiance. When you own a gun under a State which claims monopoly of Lethal Force you are challenging its authority. Under such a government owning a gun is a political act.

Owning a car does not challenge the State since the State does not claim a monopoly on transportation. Owning a car is not a political act.

Registering Cars is a mechanism for generating revenue, from the sales of license plates and annual registration fees. Each car is already uniquely identified by its VIN. Aside making it convenient for Police a license plate has no practical purpose except revenue generation. Even auto theft is not an issue - the victim would hand over their VIN number to police.

Many US states have gun registration and have not seen decreases in crime. In several instances gun confiscation followed registration (California and NYC assault weapon bans, and in some cases New Orleans gun confiscation following Katrina).

I see no compelling reason for a national gun registry. I see every reason to be suspicious of the idea of registering guns, especially given the hostility of some interest groups in the US towards ownership of firearms. At this point in history it would be practically impossible to confiscate firearms in the US. A national gun registry would simplify the process of confiscation, with no gain in terms of public safety.

Gene