REAL STORIES
BY REAL PEOPLE Search
Friday, October 20, 2017

Should Guns Be Registered

Credit: CBS Broadcasting, Inc./KCAL9
Suspect vehicle with 25 or so police cars following pursuit from South Central LA to north of Rosamond, CA. Friday, May 7, 2010

Still think Big Brother isn’t watching you? Many liberals are seeking legislation that will require gun registration.

Last night about 9:15 p.m. Southern Californians got another episode of their favorite pastime: a high-speed chase. It began near the campus of USC at Adams and Interstate 110 (Harbor Freeway) and lasted about two hours ending near the interchange of California State highway 14 and Backus Road, about seven miles north of Rosamond, California near Edwards Air Force Base. The entire chase covered approximately 90 miles of three California highways: Interstate 110, Interstate 5 (Golden State Freeway) and State Highway 14 (Antelope Valley Freeway).

Police reports indicate that the driver of the vehicle had been involved in a father-son dispute in South Central Los Angeles. The man drove away in a white pickup and drove at speeds near 100 mph weaving through Friday night traffic and ending in the middle of the Mojave Desert. As of the time of the writing of this article, no further information was available.

However, this writer watched the last 40 or so minutes of this pursuit on local television channel 9 out of Los Angeles and at one point heard something said by the police analyst who was providing the color commentary on this chase. That something scared the hell out of this writer and even further solidifies the need for Americans to realize that their Second Amendment rights are in danger.

What the commentator said was, “if police have information on a suspect such as a name and address, they can pull up his driver’s license record and see if he has any outstanding warrants against him or if any firearms are registered to him” (emphasis added).

This is something that needs to send not only chills down your back but should send a brown streak up it. Now, of course, progressive liberals are going to whine and tell you that police have a right to know if you have any firearms.

Sure, and I have a right to carry a radar detector in my car to know when the police are using radar to set up speed traps. Any excuse the give the police an unfair advantage over civilians – a condition known as authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is a mere stepping stone between a free republic and despotic totalitarianism.

The rationale, completely and blindly supported by the reporter on KCAL-9, was that if the police have a record of what weapons are registered to the suspect then they will know if there is a possibility of that weapon being on board that vehicle during the chase. This then gives the police the authority to utilize unnecessary force in the apprehension of this suspect. I believe that police far more often than not abuse what little authority they are given.

Furthermore, it is also this writer’s opinion that police should not have access to information such as how many firearms a person has registered because that information should not be recorded as it is an infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What difference would it have made to know exactly what kind of weapon was potentially in the driver’s possession in the vehicle? The answer is none whatsoever. Consider that when the suspect finally stopped, the photographer in the KCAL-9 helicopter zoomed out his camera to reveal somewhere in the vicinity of 25 police cruisers parked behind the suspect’s vehicle. Every single one of those officers had either a sidearm or a shotgun trained on the suspect’s vehicle. Had the suspect attempted to square off on the police, he would have had so much lead pumped into his body he would have been able to serve as an anchor for an aircraft carrier.

The claim that police have a right to know what firearms you have registered to you is a load of fertilizer potent enough to fertilize the Sinai. Police have no need to know.

The fact is this: law-abiding citizens aren’t going to commit a crime with a weapon, regardless of how many or what kind they possess. That is why they are called “law abiding citizens”. Firearms used in committing crimes in the United States are generally obtained illegally – and those are usually smuggled into the country from elsewhere. The number of illegally obtained firearms taken from the homes of law-abiding citizens is lower than we are lead to believe. The only reason police want guns registered is so that in the event a crime is committed and the serial number of the weapon is traced back to a legally registered owner is so the police can harass, berate, belittle and antagonize the owner for having the weapon in the first place. Another name for a legally registered gun owner is “primary suspect”. Believe what you want, but the fact is that criminals know better to use guns they stole from gun owners in a crime. It is much less work to find a gun on the black market than it is to break into someone’s house and rummage around looking for a weapon. The greatest complication in stealing a gun is, of course, getting your fool head blown off by the legally registered gun owner protecting his house and family. Progressive liberals have yet to learn that banning guns in America to stop crime is like banning condoms to stop prostitution. As the old saying goes, “when they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.”

Criminals don’t like armed targets. Armed targets tend to shoot back. But protecting individual homes and families wasn’t the only purpose of the Second Amendment – it was merely a by-product. The real purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the other 26 and the documents that precede them. It is no wonder, then, that progressive liberals would seek to regulate firearm ownership out of existence in the United States. This ensures that the people have no ultimate recourse in reclaiming their nation from despotic tyrants should those in power chose not to honor the voice of the voters. The ballot box should always be the weapon of change in America. But even the Founding Fathers knew that the time might come when those elected to office might make an attempt to change the rules in order to ensure that they retain the power entrusted to them indefinitely. In that case, the use of force would be necessary to ensure that the republic would endure.

So far transfers of power in America have been peaceful. The Second Amendment is necessary to ensure they stay that way.



About the Writer

D. E. Carson is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

5 comments on Should Guns Be Registered

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By D. E. Carson on May 10, 2010 at 10:24 pm

To the doofus who is not fond of my using the term "this writer" when writing articles. Sorry you don't like that, but I'm trying to get away from writing "I" in my opinion articles. When a writer is composing an article like this, it is actually proper and fitting that the author refrain from referring to him or her self in the first person when writing. You would be wise to check books like "The Elements of Style" and "The AP Stylebook" before being so critical of an author.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By D. E. Carson on May 10, 2010 at 11:04 pm

Ordinarily I completely ignore Category Five's comments, but as I was reading Ed Attanasio's comment, the last few lines of Deano's verbal diarrhea caught my eye. He so cleverly posted a link to a video and expected me to watch it, thinking albeit erroneously, that because it was something from a Michael Moore "movie" it would sway my opinion about guns.

The fact that Dean would even reference Michael Moore conclusively proves that he is a hard-core, ultra-left wing progressive liberal who bows at the altar of His Royal Highness, the liberal god 0bama and is incapable of factual and intellectual conversation. It is for this reason alone that I ignore Hurricane Dean at all costs.

Michael Moore has proven himself to be an equally buffoonish dolt who simply hates America, hates American capitalism (by which he himself has amassed huge amounts of wealth) and is, at heart a Leninist/Marxist Bolshevik Communist who desires to see America as a third-world socialist nation. Moore has repeatedly decried all Republicans as "rich bastards making money at the expense of working people" -- an endeavor in which Moore engages every time he cranks out one of his "crockumentaries". Moore is incapable of telling the truth as it should be told. Rather, Moore prefers to bend, and in come cases completely shatter, the truth so that it fits his eliteist liberal agenda. Take for example, the movie referenced by H.D.'s comment, Bowling for Columbine, Moore paints the late Charleton Hesston as a racist, the NRA as heartless and welfare recipients as victims of a capitalist society -- the third being a common theme through most of Moore's so-called movies. Bowling for Columbine is a clever piece of editing. Moore's portrayal of Hesston alone is worthy of an Oscar for best editing. Go back and watch the sequence of video carefully. You will see images of Columbine High School students in tears followed by footage of Hesston holding up a rifle proclaiming, "from my cold dead hands" followed by footage of a billboard announcing the NRA's annual meeting in Denver with Moore's voice narrating, "just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charleton Hesston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association." Following this Moore returns to video of Hesston saying, "don't come here? We're already here". Now when you watch this section of Moore's tragedy, you will see something very interesting. First, Hesston's comments of "cold, dead hands" was not made 10 days after Columbine, but a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina. Second, and more importantly, if you look at the two clips of Hesston, you will notice the following: his shirt and tie change from lavender and purple to white and red. You will also notice that the drapes hanging behind Hesston change color from burgundy to blue as well. Moore literally spliced video from two separate appearances together with the video of the billboard between them to give the viewer the impression that both occurred at the same speech and that they were both given in Denver at some pro-gun rally, when in fact they were from the NRA's annual meetings. And since the NRA is registered in New York, the laws of that state disctate that non-profit organizations are required to hold annual meetings and that dates, times and venues cannot be changed on short notice. So while it seemed that the Denver meeting may have been cold-hearted, it couldn't be moved, however, one thing the NRA did do in Denver was cancel all extra events planned and focused only on its annual meeting to conduct the organization's business as required by law.

Now obviously with this much detail recounted from Bowling for Columbine I have seen the "movie" and I have seen the 3-minute diatribe Dean suggested I watch. However, with the evidence presented, is it any wonder that I refuse to acknowledge any factual basis in Bowling? Michael Moore is a bold-faced liar. That this crock of garbage was dignified with an Oscar only shows the liberal leanings of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and utterly destroys any credibility AMPAS had in being unbiased and impartial.

Bowling for Columbine was a joke. Michael Moore is still a joke. What happened at Columbine High School was a tragedy. That Michael Moore capitalized on it for his own political agenda is a travesty. He's the one who should be ashamed.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Jack on May 12, 2010 at 01:08 pm

I really don't like the idea of the government having a list of gun owners. When Katrina hit this happened

http://www.infowars.com/new-orleans-mayor-admits-illegal-gun-confiscation/

Basically in a situation where the government was least able to protect its citizens, they went through and took the only means of protection people had left. Without a list of who owned guns this becomes much more difficult.

Also it really feels bad when you get profiled for any reason, in California, see what happens if you get pulled over and you have a gun in your car. Even if you are following all of the rules(have it in a locked box, and ammunition separate). The police will generally search your car, have you get out, etc. It would be especially annoying if I got the same treatment just because I showed up as a gun owner.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By D. E. Carson on May 16, 2010 at 12:04 am

Now you're the one who is lying, Dean. Hesston had no control over the location of the Denver meeting. You obviously did not read my response so I suggest you read it again -- thoroughly. Because when you do, you will see that I addressed the Denver meeting. But since I know you won't go back and read my response again here is what I said:

"Moore literally spliced video from two separate appearances together with the video of the billboard between them to give the viewer the impression that both occurred at the same speech and that they were both given in Denver at some pro-gun rally, when in fact they were from the NRA's annual meetings. And since the NRA is registered in New York, the laws of that state disctate that non-profit organizations are required to hold annual meetings and that dates, times and venues cannot be changed on short notice. So while it seemed that the Denver meeting may have been cold-hearted, it couldn't be moved, however, one thing the NRA did do in Denver was cancel all extra events planned and focused only on its annual meeting to conduct the organization's business as required by law."

Now what this means is this:

1) The NRA is a non-profit organization chartered in the State of New York. The by-laws of the NRA require (as do ALL NPOs) that an annual business meeting be held for the benefit of the entire membership for the purposes of electing officers, reviewing financial statements, etc. It is the same as the annual shareholder's meeting of major corporations. Within the by-laws of the NRA, annual meetings are scheduled well in advance to ensure the venue is available, etc. AT NO TIME WAS THE NRA PRIVY TO THE PLANS OF ERIC HARRIS AND DYLAN KLEBOLD. I'm sure had they been, Columbine wouldn't have happened at all.

2) The state laws of New York governing NPOs and their annual meetings make it impossible for a scheduled annual meeting to be changed on short notice -- obviously the 10 days between Columbine and the meeting was within that "short notice" threshold.

3) Taking into consideration the inability of the NRA to move the meeting and the Columbine incident the NRA board of directors decided to cancel all activities associated with the meeting that were not considered core to the business of the NRA. They came to town and left town without so much as a whimper. Michael Moore couldn't help himself and attempted to paint Hesston and the NRA as cold and heartless toward Columbine -- which he successfully did.

It amazes me, Dean, that you're so quick to jump on me about my stories. You somehow think that because I disagree with you that I must be lying. I write facts -- facts that have already been proven in multiple venues and by multiple sources. I don't rely on one single source and in fact, I do scan through reliable liberal sources, such as the New York and LA Times, the Washington Post and others. I differentiate between them and the garbage sites like Media Matters because Media Matters is owned by a man who hates America and its capitalist system in spite of the fact that capitalism made Soros a very rich man. Therefore, I do not trust Media Matters to tell the truth. You can choose to believe them all you want at your own peril. I choose to recognize them for what they are: a left-wing smear site bent on lying to the people in the hopes that a lie repeated often enough will become truth. I can't help the fact that you hate me, America and the rest of the world. But as I've said to you before, if you hate me so much, then stop reading my posts because frankly, you are the reason that even after my being gone for almost 3 months, my popularity is higher now than it has ever been. Before I left, I was only in the 6,000s. I'm well into the 7,000s now. So I suppose I should thank you for your bloviating because it seems to be attracting readers who might otherwise not be reading my material. In fact, at last check, I was the number 5 writer here. I have no idea who the four are above me, perhaps you're one of them. If so, goody for you. I'm glad that you have someone out there who likes to read you material. Frankly, I don't. More often than not I don't even respond to your gasconading on my articles because I don't like to argue with narrow-minded people who refuse to see both sides of an issue. It's clear you do not agree with me and I'm okay with that. I don't agree with you either and that is why I don't read your articles. I don't like your style or your politics so I ignore you. Perhaps it would be in the best interests of everyone if you extended the same courtesy to me.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By D. E. Carson on May 16, 2010 at 12:29 am

BTW: I just found the page that tells me who the four writers are above me and by golly, ol Category Five is right there at number four! Hot Damn! Congratulations old sport! You're just slightly more popular than I am. I'm proud of you, boy!

 Report abuse



Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.


Rate This Article


Your vote matters to us



x


x