Personally, I would advocate for a total gun-carry ban across the board. No gun outside the house except PNP and AFP in uniform, on duty, and with a trackable, visible official police/afp vehicle. Gone is the business of firearm. I am fed up with the "responsible ownership" slogan that goes beyond the streets. And everyday, everytime people read gun-killed persons in the newspapers, I know I would be gaining the support of the general population.
Consider me obsessive compulsive, but each piece of the AFP/PNP ammunition, on the individual level, shall be accounted for on a daily basis, by usual accounting and auditing process. I don't care if the government needs to spend more for the process. I just don't want a single loose bullet. The AFP and PNP will be counting bullets in front of their officers everyday, funny, but that is eventually what I want.
And one false move, I'm gonna go for regulating the knives and the ice-picks. I am just showing you how fierce I would fight for the potential victims, the weak, the oppressed, who are still alive, by focusing on preventive measures.
To start-up and perk-up your interest on this advocacy, please allow me to state a few features. Then as I participate in debates in the internet, through time, I will also keep on adding more detail of my advocacy using a Reaction and Response format that you can also read below.
Start-up Features
- Only AFP/PNP enlisted personnel ON-DUTY and IN UNIFORM can CARRY holstered unconcealed guns outside residence.
- One hand-gun inside the house with maximum of 20 ammunition accounted every year.
- Sportsshooters and Hobbyists can have as many guns they want, but only one gun at home, they have to deposit the rest in a firing range where they are members of. Definitely, NO permit-to-carry shall be issued to transport guns from house to firing range -- police escort is needed to do this type of gun transport.
- All guns will have a tamper-proof plastic insert in the barrel with serial number that is fully accounted for by the government. One can fire the gun even if the plastic is installed. One cannot be authorized to carry a gun without that plastic insert. That plastic will determine if the gun is fired or not.
- All guns will have RF-Identifiers. All check-points in Streets, Malls, Busses, Tollways, Firing Range, shall be connected to a centralized firearm database.
- Number of carried ammunition shall be rationalized. There should be no excessive ammunition.
Comment from the Audience:
"The right to bear arms should be for everyone. The problem here is the rich and powerful having an arsenal; whilst the poor law abiding citizens are left defenseless. this makes the poor common folks open to oppression. Until we can have an effective police force in the area we should educate and teach law abiding citizens in the lawful use of firearms." ...
... "John, like I said before, I am pro-gun ownership, I have seen police officers intimidate law abiding citizens with their guns. Law abiding peace loving citizens! Criminals, police, military, and the rich have guns to protect their interest and ply their trade, what about the common man who just wants to be left alone in peace, what can he do to protect himself when one of those afore mentioned gets out of line, or decides they want what is his? We have already seen that our law enforcement cannot protect a lot of our citizens, the chainsaw murder victim, the three victims of the child assassin, and I am sure many, many more unreported. Like I said before there are more good than evil, only thing is; EVIL IS ARMED. If the playing field is levelled, GOOD WILL EASILY WIN. The only people who are afraid of armed good people are bad people." (Ronnie Levina)
My Response:
You said: "The only people who are afraid of armed good people are bad people". So how do you explain bankrobbers, payrollrobbers, hi-jackers neutralizing the security guards before they declare the hold-up? Kahit may baril pa ang nagbabantay, titirahin talaga yan kung gusto nilang tirahin.
Armed BAD People are basically Armed GOOD People. Its just they spend "opportunity time" to commit crimes when they get the chance of time and space. They do bad work on part-time basis. After doing a bad thing unreported without getting caught, they immediately go back again to the good mode -- patay-mali parang walang nangyari.
When an good armed person is in need of money -- what will he potentially do with his gun? Sangla or hold-up lang ang gagawin nyan. Masama din ang sangla dahil ma-transfer ang possesion to someone who may not be qualified to possess a gun.
During traffic altercation, when you have a gun in your car and you're blood pressure shoot up because of anger, you lose your control and temper, would you go down the car without a gun in your hand to scold the other driver? You are about to confront someone out of anger and of course you do pre-emptive defense that is why you have to come down the car with your gun. Do you know what will happen if things will go out of control? --- BANG BANG BANG!
Personally, I believe that Philippines should have a 1:1 ratio of guns:adult. This will make our country capable of fighting invaders (national defense issue). But this is not the focus of my policies.
What I want are policies that will PREVENT good armed men from doing something bad. Preventive measures is what I want.
I would rather do something to ensure the WHOLE POPULATION that there will be NO ARMED MEN who will terrorize them, than allowing a few to carry firearms to protect themselves.
Question from the Audience:
How about those rebels, armed groups, and private army of various political causes? How will you look at them from government perspective? Who will protect the public from the harassment of the private armies?
My Response:
I am for a solid Republic and also for freedom of peaceful organizations. I will tolerate organizations with ideals wanting to be separated from the Republic. But once a group arm themselves outside the supervision, control, and accountability of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Republic of the Philippines, they become TERRORISTS in my point of view -- no matter what their ideology is.
The government law enforcements shall deal with terrorists in a "shoot-to kill" standard orders. I want the National Statistics Office to deal with documentation of terrorists after the police encounters, I don't want a piece of rebellion cases to reach the courts.
Any independent individual or group who wears garments that looks similar to Military or Police uniform shall be charged with usurpation of authority.
Comment from the Audience:
"You have a very warped view of your countrymen and very little trust in the goodness of your fellowman."
My Response:
I have a NO TRUST in ANY MAN who carries a gun (1) OUTSIDE PROPER UNIFORM, (2) OUTSIDE TIME OF DUTY, (3) OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY SUPERVISION.
GUN is not a TOY.
GUN is also not a SECURITY BLANKET.
PERFECTLY CONTROLLED GUN-CARRY LAW is society's SECURITY BLANKET.
In the Philippines, in my time in the future, in the streets, screwdriver is the maximum weapon wrongdoer can find, acquire, carry and use; the maximum weapon a police can carry is a 9MM caliber pistol.
In any event a criminal suspect resists arrest is believed to be carrying a gun, just even a small gun, I will send out the Military with bullet-proofs and tanks and bazookas and high-powered firearm -- with a mission: "Get me that single loose gun and a head on a plate".
The big guns stays in the firing ranges inside military camps that is closely supervised and guarded by the military. Another thing. No more gun and ammunition businesses are to be operated by private sector. Guns and ammos will become an exclusively government product.
Organized criminal groups are like wolves concealed in clothing of sheeps with guns. So, to uncover them, I will tell them that sheeps don't carry guns.
Organizad criminal groups are not afraid of citizens who own guns. But they are afraid of checkpoints. So, to defeat them, I will have to give them more checkpoints.
NO gun carry special permits. More checkpoints in mobile locations. It will be like gun-carry ban during elections, but whole year round.
Any independent individual or group who wears garments that looks similar to Military or Police uniform shall be charged with usurpation of authority.
Comment from the Audience:
"You have a very warped view of your countrymen and very little trust in the goodness of your fellowman."
My Response:
I have a NO TRUST in ANY MAN who carries a gun (1) OUTSIDE PROPER UNIFORM, (2) OUTSIDE TIME OF DUTY, (3) OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY SUPERVISION.
GUN is not a TOY.
GUN is also not a SECURITY BLANKET.
PERFECTLY CONTROLLED GUN-CARRY LAW is society's SECURITY BLANKET.
In the Philippines, in my time in the future, in the streets, screwdriver is the maximum weapon wrongdoer can find, acquire, carry and use; the maximum weapon a police can carry is a 9MM caliber pistol.
In any event a criminal suspect resists arrest is believed to be carrying a gun, just even a small gun, I will send out the Military with bullet-proofs and tanks and bazookas and high-powered firearm -- with a mission: "Get me that single loose gun and a head on a plate".
The big guns stays in the firing ranges inside military camps that is closely supervised and guarded by the military. Another thing. No more gun and ammunition businesses are to be operated by private sector. Guns and ammos will become an exclusively government product.
Organized criminal groups are like wolves concealed in clothing of sheeps with guns. So, to uncover them, I will tell them that sheeps don't carry guns.
Organizad criminal groups are not afraid of citizens who own guns. But they are afraid of checkpoints. So, to defeat them, I will have to give them more checkpoints.
NO gun carry special permits. More checkpoints in mobile locations. It will be like gun-carry ban during elections, but whole year round.
Question from the Audience:
How supportable is this advocacy to the law enforcers?
My Response:
The sector who will also get the highest benefit of my proposed policy is the uniformed military and policemen on-duty in the streets. If it will be easy for them to identify who are supposed to have authority to carry gun, and who are not supposed to carry gun , it will lower down the risk on their part.
The AFP and Police uniform I want is something that has a number at the upper back that is as big as a plate number ng motorized vehicle. The public can send a single text message to verify if the person in police uniform they see carrying a gun is on-duty at that very moment. They can send the text to a Firearm Center that will immediately reply without any human intervention.
Statements from the Public:
I hope you fools sell your cars along with your balls and brains. If a criminal wants to kill you, they will. My guns put meat in my freezer and on my table and provide countless days of relaxation and enjoyment while hunting. Educate yourselves and eliminate the real problem, criminals, not guns.
My Response:
No one would feel terrorized by a man who carries a riffle in the forest for sportshunting. What is terrorizing is when that man will carry his rifle outside the hunting zone, especially in heavily populated urban areas.Why? Well, how about me carrying an armed battle tank as my private car in the city?
Reactions from the Public:
So if I live in the city and I go to the shooting range and I bring my rifle in its case from my apartment to my car, that I am terrorizing people?
My Response:
Yes you are. The solution I am looking at is Sportsshooters and Hobbyists can have as many guns they want, but only one gun at home, they have to deposit the rest in a firing range where they are members of. Definitely, NO permit-to-carry shall be issued to transport guns from house to firing range -- police escort is needed to do this type of gun transport.
Reaction from the Public:
Why? What would this do or prevent?
My Response:
It will prevent "excuses". Organized criminal groups are like wolves concealed in clothing of sheeps with guns. So, to uncover them, I will tell them that sheeps don't carry guns.
Reaction from the Public:
What if they attack me with a knife or an axe or blow up a building or shoot me with an arrow or strangle me or burn my house down while me and my family are asleep and we don't have time to get out, what if someone kidnaps rapes and murders someone with out using a gun?
My Response:
You can have gun in your house for the protection of your family and property because no government can deploy a standby securityguard for each and every house.
But outside your house, in the streets, while driving or walking, no private citizen should carry a concealed gun. Only policemen on duty-time can carry a gun in the streets. Safety of the street is not the job of the individual private citizen, but of the government.
Reaction from the Public:
So, what if while I am walking down the street at night a group of kids attack me and pull knives out on me, or what if I am a woman leaving work late at night and as I walk to my car I see a man running towards me and he is dressed in a dark coat and a ski mask? What if while walking through the woods I come across a bear and her cubs and she ... See Morestarts to charge my way?
If you take away my means to protect myself, am I guaranteed a Police man with me every second I am out of my house till I get back to my house?
My Response:
If you are attacked, RUN! If every second of your life you are afraid of "isolated mishaps and crimes", then see a therapist.
If your neighborhood is indeed and factually that unsafe, then government should implement curfew for kids and random frisk-check for adults. This extreme government measure will be temporary and will gradually stop when ... See Moreyour feel safe again with your street.
What if you carry a concealed gun and EVERYONE else thinks the same way as you and they ALL carry a more powerful gun compared to you?
Reaction from the Public:
What if everyone carries a gun? Criminals will stop and think before they pull one out to rob you. Just the thought of more government is a bad idea. Do you have any idea how many guns are in the public's hands already? Are you going to clog up the justice system with everyone that is found in possession of a gun after a particular date? Maybe if ... See More criminals were irradicated we wouldn't have a problem with guns. I believe the problem is the people. Eliminating guns from our society is impossible because criminals will always have access to them, just like crack or meth, if you want it, you can find it. (Edward "Ed" Flancher)
Additional comments from a second person:
What if I am surrounded? What if I am handicapped and can not walk? How am I to run then? What if I can run but the person I am running from has a gun, his bullets can all run faster than I can.
I don't think you understand how crime and criminals work.
First off, the only way to give the state of emergency you are speaking of is to totally militarize the town you live in, which starts to be like a dictatorship. why should we do anything if we are going to depend on the government for all of our safety needs?... See MoreCrime will only stop when the criminals stop. To avoid drunk drivers, should we ban all cars? should be ban alcohol? Or punish those who are drunk behind the wheel.
Murders have been happening well before the invention of fire arms, and they will continue as long as we have criminals but punishing law abiding citizens who have every right (at least in America) to own firearms for defense, or for recreational use or for hunting is a privilege and it also guarantees us that our freedoms will never be taken away from us. (Khun)
My Response:
Your arguments of a gun-for-everyone is the choice that you took as a nation of gun makers. I hope you will feel safer in your streets in the long run. Good luck. But for the Philippines, I am looking at a new direction. A new model. I believe that a tighter gun-carry policy will help in reducing gun-related crimes in the streets. No crime-complainer country has ever tried the idea I have in mind, so I am redesigning something without a model. If my model will work, this will be my legacy to the next generation.
A criminal is not a 24/7 criminal. A criminal, before he commits a crime, is just like any ordinary person like your good self, your good wife, your good son, your good neighbor, and me. The access to any terroristic weapon makes a person "capable" of executing the crime. Gun is the ultimate terroristic weapon in the street that can be easily acquired. The second is bladed weapons such as knives.
It is almost impossible for government to stop anyone from holding on to a gun when he needs it. Guns can be easily acquired in some nations like USA.
It is almost impossible for government to stop a heavily-gun-armed bank robbers from declaring hold-up in the bank, even if the bank guards and every customer in the bank have guns.
But it is possible for government to make it difficult for criminals to move to and move out of the crime scene. And this is through a "very systematic" random check-points that will operate on a round-the-clock basis.
The courts will not be clogged, because the message is clear -- the police function is to execute on-the-spot anyone who carries a gun outside the house without proper authority.
The local police officer will be held accountable for any gun-related crimes that will take place within their jurisdiction.
Reaction from the Public:
I see where you are going, but let me say this. A gun doesn't make the criminal commit the crime, don't get me wrong it does help. Criminals are people who make choices like you and I, good and bad, but they will make the choice time and time again to go against the law, to go against the good people in society.
If firearms are banned the criminal will still commit the crime, if they do not have a firearm to use they will find something else to help them in their act.Guns are easy to get in the USA, as long as you are a law biding citizen with no criminal record, have not been in a mental hospital and in some states you have to take classes and courses (which I believe everyone should have to take, safety first) .
There is a big difference between Ed Flancher,myself and the rest of the responsible gun owners in America vs the "gun" culture that the media and Hollywood makes us out to be. we value and follow the rules the law gives us, we are very responsible with our firearms and treat them with the utmost respect. Other people, criminals, gangs and people who have firearms who shouldn't have them are the ones that need to be dealt with. And that is not an easy job.
I'm not sure how things are in the Philippines, I know it is a good country with lots of good people and I know that they have the same problems with firearms that we have here.in the wrong hands, firearms are a problem, it's like that with anything that ends up in the wrong hands.
I think some of your methods are good, but target the wrong people. I would suggest that you use your methods to punish those who misuse(d) firearms, make the crimes so harsh that they won't or can't happen with the same person again.
Putting everyone into one category is unjust, If I am a law biding citizen and do not have a criminal record, why should I be treated as a convicted felon? If the Police know who I am, know that I have no convictions and a clean police record and they know I have registered firearms, where is the harm in that?
Statistically, law biding citizens with concealed weapon permits are not a threat, very rarely have they used their firearms in crimes or anger. And in a lot of cases we have also used our firearms to stop crimes from happening, Media and Hollywood won't show that because it is more entertaining and exciting to show someone misusing them than responsibly using them
My Response:
Not giving a gun-carry permit to ALL (including you) is not an act of treating you a convicted felon. There is no methodology yet that is able to determine which of the hands are wrong for firearm carry permit. Everyone is safer when everyone does not carry a firearm.
Reaction from the Public:
But see, you've missed everything I've just said. Convicted felons can not get a permit to carry a gun. I am not a felon so taking away my right to have that permit does put me in that same group as the felon.
Have you seen what is happening in England? when the English people lost their rights to own firearms the crime rate sky rocketed. What gives you the right to say who can and who can not have something?
You are taking an object out of a criminal element and you assume that with that object removed that criminal activity will stop. Let me ask you this. How many bullets were fired on September 11th 2001? How many guns were used to kill over 3,000 people?
My Response:
In my NEW policy, there will be separate requrements for (1) permit to own firearm and (2) permit to carry firearm out-house.
In my NEW policy, not only convicted felons are disallowed to carry gun, but ALL and EVERYONE is disallowed to carry gun with exemption to policement in uniform and on-duty.
In my NEW policy, gun ownership will still be permitted for household protection and sports purposes, but there will be tight QUALIFICATION. To get a license to own a gun, the person must present evidences of existence of real estate ownership and existence of substantial amount of personal income.
In my NEW policy, the number of ammunition that will be allowed for each gun permit will be RATIONALIZED.
In my NEW policy, you shall see a government that is very effective in operating searchpoints and frisks, such that it would be impossible for a person to move a concealed gun or any bladed weapon in street distances from one house to another.
Reaction from the Public:
You are going to have to figure out a way to pay for one massive police force. Even if it is government run they still need to get paid. Your policy is going to place someone between every single house to search anyone who walks down the street?
Not only is that impractical, it is also a waste of resources and also grounds for harassment.What if I am walking home from the market with milk? How many check points will I have to pass before I go home?
Will I be given papers the way the Jews in Germany were given as well?
And now your policy states that only people with homes and who have an "existence of substantial amount of personal income" can apply for a permit.
You said that people with firearms on the street "terrorize" people, but now after being so dead against it, you are allowing people to have a permit to carry a firearm?
So, now you are excluding people just because they don't make enough money,again falls under discrimination. And how much money is a substantial amount?
... "you shall see a government that is very effective in operating searchpoints and frisks, such that it would be impossible for a person to move a concealed gun or any bladed weapon in street distances from one house to another". The only way for this would be for strip searches and body cavity searches.
Your policy is very oppressive.
My Response:
With the same number of police force, what I will do is operationalize a perfectly mobile checkpoints in various random areas. Policemen checkpoint team are assigned different places everyday, and the headquarters makes decision as to where the checkpoints will be located. Hours of change-venue of chackpoints will also be unannounced and random.
The frisking will only be to search for guns and bladed weapons. The police will not look for your identity paperwork in a routine frisk, unless you are caught red-handed possessing or carrying with prohibitted materials not limited to guns. No strip searches. No body cavity searches. Just a simple metal detector search and dog sniffers for drugs.
Gun license for home use is essentially for the purpose of protecting your property and self-value. If you have nothing in value to protect, I think you don't need a gun, so I will not give you permit. While you are still poor, I will give you a free stick to protect your household.
If you consider police visibility as harassment, I am beginning to think you are the ones with the "wrong hands" I mention earlier, that is why you don't want tighter gun-carry policies.
People always complain why Police arrives only at the scene after the crime. It means they want Police to prevent crimes. My tighter gun-carry policies are intended to meet that level of law enforcement service that the public demands.
Reaction from the Public:
"Gun license for home use is essentially for the purpose of protecting your property and self-value. If you have nothing in value to protect, I think you don't need a gun, so I will not give you permit."So, what you are saying is that, my TV and my money are worth protecting and my family is not? my family is not my property and I don't value them in the sense of dollars and cents.
And now you can tell you does and does not need a gun? Can you also tell who does and does not need a door lock?
How about who does and does not need 911.Hitler, Stalin and Mao would have loved you
My Response:
I forgot to mention that your family will be included in the valuation of real estate value as long as your family member lives with you under one roof.
Well, the door-lock could be a related analogy. But I think if you don't have a door, you don't need a door lock. Have you ever heard of a crime using a door-lock as a weapon of the criminal to over-power the victim?
Forget Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Lenin is my idol.
Reaction from the Public:
I own several guns, why? Because I use different guns for different types of game. 22 or 20 gauge for squirrels, 12 gauge shotgun for ducks or waterfowl, 223 for coyote, 12 slug gun for deer, 30-06 for deer or hogs, 7mm magnum for deer.
See why I oppose any gun regulations? I'm not a criminal and most hunters own many guns for similar reasons.
I'... See Moreve also taken game with handguns, its my choice. And my freedom of choice that I will not give up. Someone with intent to murder or commit crime is not choosy about the weapon they use, they'll use the first thing they can get their hands on.
If you watch Cops or similar shows, you'll see those people will commit crime with anything, quite ridiculous at times but that goes to show how stupid they are to start with. I'd be willing to bet that most guns in the U.S. are owned by sportsman and used accordingly.
Felons buy or trade for guns all the time, but its from other felons. A tricky subject but goes back to the ones that live outside the laws that are already in place and taking away my freedom because of them is not going to happen.
My Response:
It is okay if you own several guns for hunting, you can easily get license fro sports and hobby purposes. Under my new policy, all hobbyists will just have to deposit it in the arsenal depository of the hunting-range club house, you can't bring your guns and ammo home. For hunting purposes, your freedom of choice of gun will not be taken away from you.
There is no such thing as gun-production companies by felons. Guns in the street are produced in legitimate gun factories. After the guns leave the factory, they pass though hands of good people before they reach the bad people. That's is the anomaly.
My solution ONE is, implement a tighter licensing requirements for the good-people-sector. Regulate also the movement of guns and rationalize the allowable amount of ammunition.
My solution TWO is, deter the bad-people sector using police check-points.
My solution THREE is, regulate also the policemen to prevent abuse. They have to be treated the same way as any civillian when they are off duty and not wearing uniform.
Reaction from the Public:
So the Phillipine government must be one of a kind. What makes you think that corruption isn't in your politics? Stalin is your idol? Seriously? I'm postive that these ideas of yours will only be that, ideas. Not realistic in America or any democratic country, have you noticed how Obama's approval rating has fallen through the floor in one year? He promised things that he can't deliver and he's implementing policies that free people don't agree with. We don't not agree with Communism or Socialism or Facism. If those are the type of government you like than maybe you should live in those type of countries, not America.
My Response:
I told you that Lenin is my idol because you mentioned some names who are out of the topic. Purist capitalists will not work in the long run because the exploitation of the rich over the working class will eventually explode. Purist Communists will also not work in the long run because there are always lazy people you can't force to work. Purist Socialists will also not workin the long run because the freedom of those who want to excel are suppressed. I am an independent politician in Philippines who advocates a good mix of capitalism, communism, socialism, theocracy, and democracy in every law that I will legislate. But this is really out of the topic. Is there a way you can go back to the gun-crime issue?
Reaction from the Public:
My mistake, Lenin not Stalin.In any society, you will have the criminal element. All levels of each class will have bad apples. Its human nature and to expect a government to control all aspects of people's life's will not ensure safety for everyone. Its been a problem since the beginning of time, its not a gun issue its a people issue. Gun ... See Morecontrol is not an option in my country because we fought and died for these rights and freedoms. If you grew up in this country you would understand it better. The restrictions you want to impose on others may intern be imposed on you by someone that has more authority or money or influence. Maybe someone will say that no car needs to travel more than ten miles a day or go faster than 50 mph. Its safer for everyone that way. Removing guns from society will lead to other types of weapons being used and then you will have taken away freedom from hard working honest people. Why would you want to harm the legitimate "good" people?
My Response:
Indeed, Gun Control is not an option in the US because you are primarily a gun-producing country and your economic direction is towards becoming a military super power in the whole world. The movies and TV shows that you produce that that are distributed worldwide are primarily intended to "showcase" the superiority of your war weapons and your army.
Well, I don't care how Americans will run their government. I don't care what amount of responsibility and accountability the Americans will associate with their sense of Freedom.
It is your affairs.In the Philippines, I am the politician of the near next generation. I promise you, as long a I am alive, I will prevent any foreign guns from entering Philippines, especially those that comes from US. I wil advocate in the whole Asia that in case we need to import guns, we will get it from neighboring nations within SouthEastAsia. And your Rambo-type movies will be a contraband film in the Philippines when my time will come.
Did I ever say I will remove guns from society?
Reaction from the Public:
Hi john check this video ..this is very interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu5j8C2Hrc0&feature=related this could be your mother , your sister or your cousin.. your pick (Andy)
My Response:
1. Please read our advocacy before you started reacting.
2. The Youtube says Ruth is unarmed in her house when she was attacked. Our adocacy allows gun ownership permits for in-house protection purpose, but we do not allow guns to be carried outhouse.
3. I have gun at home, my mother, sister and cousin is safe at home. But outside house, they don't carry firearm along with 99.99% of the population who does not carry firearm. So, why should I want the .01% of the population to carry firearm if that .01% don't know who among themselves are bad and who are good in every second of their lives. I represent the weak and the gunless, that is why I prefer a NO GUN OUTDOORS except for cops on duty and in uniform.
Question from the Audience
You mentioned that there will be many checkpoints. Would it is a hasstle to the motorists and people in general gets checked many times in a day?
My Response
That's a very good question. There will actually be two types of gun checkpoints. One is a vehicular checkpoint and the other is a personal checkpoint.
The vehicular checkpoint will be very different that what you see in the past and nowadays. In my new policy, each checkpoint will be manned by uniformed police officers. The checkpoint has a big signage of a checkpoint number of some sort and the motorist can send the checkpoint number to a certain cellphone number that will respond if the checkpoint is legit, location of it, and the name of the officer who man the checkpoint. The officers also have ID numbers on the chest, back and shoulder -- you can text this number to a celphone number that will respond verification if the officer is legitimately assigned in that checkpoint place in that particular time. When a vehicle is checked, the plate number is sent by the officer to the central database, and the next checkpoint will no longer check the same vehicle -- the data is deleted at a random period of hours between 12 hours to 72 hours. There will also be ordinary citizens who will be given the opportunity to act as volunteer "checkers" and "reviewers" of the behavior of the checkpoint officers, they will act like deputized police internal affairs who will report irregular treatments by the checkpoints, and a volunteer's opportunity expires after three days.
The personal checkpoints are already in practice right now in almost all malls in Metro Manila. What I am planning to do is to expand it. These personal checkpoints will be installed in the entrance of rallies, concerts, subdivisions, condominiums, and at the perimeters of "gimikan" in the evening.
Reaction from the Public
You put too much blind faith in government, what happens when the government fails? what then?
What if the land I hunt on is my private land, what if I own over 100 acres of land that no one is allowed on and I have all my hunting tags and I hunt on my own personal private property, am I a criminal I do that?
My Response
There is chance that any government fails, but the government is the only institution we can CONTROL. If that land is your own private property, you may carry a gun outside your house as long as you don't cross the border of your property.
Reaction from the Public
It's no wonder you are so afraid of guns, with laws like yours, I would be afraid of being shot at too. It sounds like you would live by your rules if you were in charge, but would you live under your rules if you were just a citizen?
My Response
As a citizen? Of course YES! No one will be exempted from the no-gun-carry policy outhouse, whether politician, police, military, ordinary citizen.
Reaction from the Public
And yet you do nothing to stop crime. that is the reason to ban guns, is it not? Name me one way how your 'policy' stops crime? all you are doing is giving the government total control of it's people
My Response
Crime causes have many theories and can be stopped from many angles. But I only advocate on one angle, which is tighter gun-carry-policy. I am doing this advocacy to control peace and order by controlling the potential criminals who comes from private individuals and moreso from the criminals who hold office in government. The government must have control of itself and control/respect of the people.
Reaction from the Public
So, how do you plan on stopping crime in the real world?
My Response
So, how do you plan on stopping crime in the real world?
Reaction from the Public
No, Give me a particular way that banning guns is going to stop MURDER, give me a particular way that banning guns is going to stop DRUGS from coming into the country, give me a particular way that banning guns is going to stop ROBBERY, give me a particular way that banning guns is going to stop RAPE, give me a particular way that banning guns is ... See Moregoing to stop TERRORISM. Give me a particular way that any of what your policy does is nothing more than disarming the law biding citizens while doing nothing else to prevent crime.
My Response
In your policy, at pre-crime stage, the police and the citizens would not be able to identify a criminal and a law abiding citizen who both carry guns in the street.In my policy, at pre-crime stage, the police and any citizen would be able to identify a criminal and a law abiding citizen, because a law abiding citizen is not carrying a gun, and ... See Morethe criminal carries a gun. Government checkpoints will be very effective in making the criminals AFRAID to move from one point to another. All of the criminals you mentioned above carry weapons and the most prefered weapon is a gun. And as I have said all over and all over and all over again, we do not advocate TOTAL GUN BAN. What we advocate is tighter gun-carry-policy.
Reaction from the Public
"All of the criminals you mentioned above carry weapons and the most prefered weapon is a gun."you have proof on that? I would love to see the stats on that. Murder has been happening since the beginning of mankind, well before a gun was even thought of, Rape has probably been happening for just as long. Terrorists killed 3000 people in one day ... See Morewith some box cutters and a couple air planes, and you do not need guns to run drugs into a country, one of the most notorious cocaine runners in American history brought coke into the states on private planes.
My Response
We are not in the topic and in the advocacy of stopping non-gun-related crimes. Moreso, we are not in the advocacy of making crime statistics to ZERO. Your mind wanders. Let's just focus on gun-related crimes and finding ways to reduce it effectively. FOCUS: Gun-Related Crimes
I would like to invite you all to join the first division of my Advocacy Group in Facebook entitled Tighter Gun-Carry Policy (Gun Control Advocacy)
Reaction from the Public
I carry my gun outside all the time, I have a concealed weapons permit by my state and my gun is concealed at all times. Seeing how I have a state permit how does that make me a criminal? I've broken no laws and my state and government granted me my license.
My Response
From the perspective of those who does not carry guns, you are exactly that picture above.
Reaction from the Public
That must be the perspective of a paranoid crack head.
My Response
A paranoid crackhead carries gun round the clock for a lifetime. He dies old without ever using the gun for defense purpose. But he's got secrets on moments he used the gun.
Reaction from the Public
You forget that it is illegal for a crackhead to carry a gun in public, so instead of crying about guns cry about lazy cops not enforcing already existing laws.
My Response
Oooops... pointing so something else! He he he. That's a secret crackhead right there, carrying a concealed gun in public!
Reaction from the Public
Make some sense illiterate crackhead, whats pointing?? i'm not allowed a concealed gun in public, in australia and the u.k that is a government approved activity for criminals only. Do paranoid crackheads also carry around pepper spray and stun guns, You know, mostly women who have used those two devices to fend off rapists?How many other women and men for that matter that carry these two devices around carry them and thankfully never use them? John, when you must be a paranoid crackhead when you get in your car and put on your seat belt and get behind its airbags. Oh and John, you're all about government. government, government and government that is your answer to everything, well my government gave me the permit to carry my pistol. You know, I hope I never have to use my gun, and if I could see the future and see that I would need it one day thirty years from now, I would only take it out on that day.
Joe, the problem with John is that he has no idea what he is talking about. His only defense is guns bad/government good. and is reply to anything that he has to answer for is 'government check points"
See John comes from a second world country, He doesn't truly understand freedom, he doesn't understand what a privilege it is for a country's population to be allowed to own let alone carry a firearm . The right to bear arms is the second amendment, that means that the only thing more important to the second amendment is the first amendment and that is freedom of speech.
I've run circles around John and have shown time and time and time again that his 'policy' is worthless, it doesn't work and it would never work. His 'policy' is an oppressive policy aimed at taking away from the citizens and giving all to government and he has even admitted himself that he worships Lennon (and not John Lennon) so that tells you what he really has in mind, he wants power, not to stop gun crimes
My Response
That picture above depicts who you are. Criminals hiding behind sheeps clothing.
Reaction from the Public
You're pathetic, you ignore everything I said and this is the best response you have? I received my license to purchase and carry hand guns and revolvers from the federal government (you know, the people you put all your faith into) they checked me out and with my license it proves that I am not a criminal.
And what grounds do you call me a criminal? Are you judge, jury and executioner? you know, Hitler labeled Jews criminals the way you are labeling people who own guns the same way.
My Response
You are the one who set the new rules of the personal mudslinging instead of intellectual discussion. And now you are complaining about the new rules? That's exactly how criminals think! So that's it! That's exactly you! You are it!
Reaction from the Public
So anyone who doesn't agree with you is a criminal?
My Response
In the same rule as anyone who doesn't agree with you is a follower of Hitler. You set the rule of the game.
Reaction from the Public
Haha, are you going to use the "I'm rubber and your glue" defense next? I like when people disagree with me, freedom of speech is wonderful, I don't try and take away their rights and label them criminals like you have with the picture above.
My Response
Lets assume you are a subset of a group of people who carry gun outside house. Another subset of the same group are the criminals. How do you differentiate yourselves as good man and criminal at PRE-CRIME stage?
Reaction from the Public
Are you serious?
My Response
I am serious. You are in a big room of 1,000 people who carries guns. one of you in that room is a would-be criminal who will go amok any moment. Are you safe in that room?
Think that that room is a movie house. It's dark. You are watching movie. You have a gun just like anyone else. But you know that any moment, one of you will start shooting people inside that room. Doyou feel safe in that room?
Reaction from the Public
Do you have the I.Q. of 15?
If a person pulls out a gun and shoots people,(criminal) and takes lives, I (not criminal) will remove my gun and kill the guy who is shooting into the crowd of people saving lives. And if you are in a room with that many people, you would probably have to go through metal detectors and security to make sure you are not armed first.
My Response
I thought it's okay for you that everyone carries a gun for defense purpose. And now you like metel detectors, well that's a good start of you liking my policy.
You don't know whose gonna get shot first. I am just asking if you are safe in that room. Do you feel safe in that room? Yes or No.
Reaction from the Public
I have said time and time and time and time again (proving that you don't read what I say but just come up with your own shit) that I am for people carrying guns the way I carry mine, legally and with legal permits. (not criminal)
a person who does not carry a permit and carries a firearm is doing so illegally and is a criminal (criminal).
and yes, if I am in the room and have my legally carried firearm with me, I feel very safe.
what if in that same room, that same criminal carried a bomb on his person, how would your policy stop that?
My Response
Before you answer my question. I would just like to go back to your statement that I am supposed to rebutt. You said thatif a personpulss out a gun and shoots people and take lives, you would remove your gun and kill the guy shooting into the crowd. Here is what I'm gonna say to that. Well, I hope no one else who thinks he is good will also shoot you for his safety. But have you ever thought that your defense have only became a good purpose only AFTER lives are already taken?
Your gun is too late. Someone was already shot in that DARK room! Crime was already committed! The gun you are carrying to defend yourself did not work in PREVENTING crime!
Now, you are looking at the checkpoint, that all of you who carries a gun in that movieroom must deposit all guns in the depsitory before you enter inthe movie room -- no exemption.
Reaction from the Public
No, now it's a dark room? Was it the butler? Did he use a candle stick?
John, if people see someone shooting people for no reason at all and then see someone shoot that person, you don't have to add 2+2 to figure out who is not trying to kill you and who is trying to kill you. (this is called common sense)
I carry my legally registered gun for... See More my protection, I do not go around looking to stop crime, I am not a police man, but I do carry my gun to protect my life and the lives of those with me.
My Response
Of course. The criminal gunner also carries a registered and licensed gun, just like you. What I am asking is, do you feel safe in that room?
Reaction from the Public
You're right, I am so stupid. Of course a criminal would carry a gun that he would use in a murder or other crime that has all his or her personal information, Why would the criminal want to get a gun from the street or steal one from a gun store or someone's home and make it HARD for the police to find them? I guess all criminals who do crimes ... See Morethat are not gun related also leave their names and addresses with the witnesses so that they can give the police all the info they need to arrest them promptly. A.and as I answered before, yes I do feel safe in that room, because I have the tools to protect my life and the lives of others, where as your policy would make it so that the only person in the room with a gun is the person killing everyone and with no means to stop him/her. That's a real well thought out policy you have there.
My Response
Now I will give you a comparative scenario. You have two separate movie houses, showing the same film. One movie house allows guns to get into the room. The other movie house does not allow guns to enter the room, no exemption. Which room will most movie goers prefer, especially those who have family, children and wives going with them to watch movie?
Reaction from the Public
People will go see the movie regardless so it doesn't really matter, you will get more people into the theater that does not allow guns because you have to be (at least in America) over 21 years old to own a hand gun. So your theater that does not allow guns will have more people in it mainly because more people will be under the age of 21 who want to see a movie. Keep setting them up John, I'm having fun knocking them down. If I were a bowler,this would be a perfect game.
My Response
Now, imagine that those two movie houses are America and Asia.
My friend, the direction of the wind will change in due time.
Reaction from the Public
I was, and I hope the wind does change soon because I am tired of smelling all your bullshit.
My Response
In my time to come, Tourist and Immigrant visa to Philippines will be 100 fold more expensive that visa to USA. And I hope US will not become a Nigeria with lots of guns and fat lazy people.
Reaction from the Public
T.that's a great plan, make a country that depends on tourist dollars to survive all of the sudden not get any tourist dollars at all and go under and sink, you have fun with that.
My Response
Tourist dollars? Did I mentioned tourist dollars? Would we encourage tourist dollars with very high visa fee?
Ahhh okay. I got it. Tourist will come and insist on coming to us despite high visa fee because they know they will be safe here with no guns around and our beaches are nice and we don't have winter. Yousee, you are learning now the benefits of a gunless outdoors.
Reaction from the Public
There are four major terrorist groups active in the Philippines today: The Moro National Liberation Front, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, Abu Sayyaf and the New People's Army.
Gunless outdoors you say?
My Response
I know that. They are not on city streets. They are in the forest and mountains. Their heavy firearms are all US-made, many of which are war surplus of the Americans. Their never-ending ammunitions are mostly coming from Philippine Armed Forces arsenal. They a have political fronts and they rub elbows with the local politicians. They are the "... See Moreorganized" crime groups in the provinces, they sometimes mix up with the regular population, and I have very doable plans to eradicate them effectively by installing checkpoints to cut their access to major economic supplies. I will open up seats in Senate for their representatives to battle peacefully in a debate. And I will ensure that armed struggles, in whatever form, is not a workload of the courts, not a workload of the Military, but of the Police and the Mortality statistics office.
Reaction from the Public
Wrong again, Mostly all terrorists despise American weapons and cling to AK-47 models made by everyone but the Americans.
Hhy don't you go tell them all about your policy, after all, they have all the weapons outside, they carry them outside, go send some police check points over there, hahaha
My Response
What? AK-47 here in Philippines? Your mind wanders withyour Discovery Chanel propaganda. Organized crimes here don't carry AKs. They carry M16 because that's what's supplied to them by crooks in the Philippine Military that rub elbows with the Americans gun-runners at the borders. AKs is not a good buy here because Philippines does not produce AK47... See More ammo.
And YES, I shall have heavily armed police units in the provinces specially trained to eradicate these organized groups. And every piece of gun we recover from the terrorists here, we will make sure that we will mention (in our press releases and news and national propaganda) the name of the nation who makes these guns being held by the organized crime groups.
Reaction from the Public
Where did you get the idea that checkpoints on the streets can effectively stop gun crimes?
My Response
I got the idea from a bank robber. He said he had experienced at least a dozen of robberies in Metro Manila. He said that they are not afraid of opponent guns in the rob site because they are fully aware of it and they know they can overpower them. He said that what they are afraid of is "surprise" police checkpoints from their hide-out going to the bank that they will rob. He said that they usually send at least two advance parties to ensure that there is no checkpoint along the way.
Reaction from the Public
How can you ensure that there will be no abusive searches in checkpoints?
My Response
This is the easy part. That can be done through a lot of ways. First, the police must be trained to be friendly and must be repeatedly seminared on their limitation of search. Each vehicle will have a primer (reading material FAQ) on checkpoints. There will be volunteer private citizens who will act like an ordinary driver and will review checkpoint operations. Policemen and checkpoints will have some sort of a big plate number wherein the motorist can text to the the headquarters -- in prompt text response, the HQ will tell if the checkpoint in that particular location and the policemen is legitimate. Etc. etc etc...
