an interesting article, I submit

[alan]

December 18, 2012
Mises Daily


Tyranny and the Monopoly of Arms
by Stephen P. Halbrook on December 18, 2012

[Originally ran as "Gun Laws" on October 15, 1970 in The Libertarian Forum.]

Received the above referenced today via The Internet. While some of the material in this article is dated, there have been changes in the law since 1970, I submit that the article might prove of interest to people at this discussion. In any case, those interested should be able to access the article. The author's name is likely to be familiar to readers. Enjoy.

[Armorer-at-Law]

Got a link?

[HBoswell]

http://mises.org/daily/6321/Tyranny-...nopoly-of-Arms

[Armorer-at-Law]

Note the date of the original article:

[Originally ran as "Gun Laws" on October 15, 1970 in The Libertarian Forum.]

[alan]

Armorer-at-Law wrote:

Note the date of the original article:
Quote:
[Originally ran as "Gun Laws" on October 15, 1970 in The Libertarian Forum.]

I noted that the article was dated, and that in some respects, laws had changed.

Thanks for your attention.

[Metal god]

the applicant may own a gun on the basis of whether he is a “law-abiding” citizen (i.e., if he obeys every order of the power elite).

As soon as I see the writer put his opinion in parentheses and says things like this I sop reading . You know the rest of the article is going to be slanted .

I personaly am OK with a background check and a national data base for this so it can be completed the same day you buy a firearm . People with mental issues , felons , and a few others should not have access to guns . Asking them , do you plan to hurt anyone with the firearm is not going to weed any of them out .

I keep saying this in most of my post and I'll say it again . We need to as the pro gun people start speaking with one voice one message and one langauge . I see so many times , someone is making a great point then they throw out some extreme partisan political babble that takes away from the there original point . We also need to stop regurgitating the same old spoons and Rossie Odonald or how more people die from cars then guns . It does not sell . If we are going to win this up coming debate we will need some new ideas .

[NukemJim]

" someone is making a great point then they throw out some extreme partisan political babble that takes away from the there original point . We also need to stop regurgitating the same old spoons and Rossie Odonald or how more people die from cars then guns . It does not sell . If we are going to win this up coming debate we will need some new ideas ."

Agreed.

Really the key point that has to be addressed IMHO is how is the term "mental issues" is defined and practiced. Almost everyone agrees that someone with mental problems should not have access to a firearm. Where we vary is how the term "mental problems" are defined.

This can (and occasionally has) been construed as to include 1) anyone who owns or want to own a gun 2) anyone seeing a therapist/counselor 3)anyone on any meds for psych problems 4) anyone who has an inpatient admission for psych problems 5) anyone who someone else claims that they have a psych problem 6) someone who believes in a different type of politics than the gov in charge.

This is the real discussion we have been needing for years and all of us have been ducking it.

Combine that with privacy concerns and concern about stigmatizing those with mental health problems and the situation is difficult to say the least.

Have many questions few answers.

NukemJim