The N.R.A. Is Naming Names

[Pinto]

The N.R.A. Is Naming Names
By Bob Herbert
New York Times

Monday 13 October 2003

The National Rifle Association doesn't call it an enemies list, but deep in the recesses of the organization's Web site is a long, long compilation of the names of groups and individuals that the N.R.A. considers unfriendly.

I'm happy to report that I'm on the list, but my name is truly one among very many. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. is there, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Children's Defense Fund and the Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs are there. The United States Catholic Conference, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Y.W.C.A. of the U.S.A. are all there.

Among the celebrities on the list are Dr. Joyce Brothers, Candice Bergen, Walter Cronkite, Doug Flutie, Michelle Pfeiffer, Vinny Testaverde, Moon Zappa and the Temptations.

Also on the list are the Kansas City Chiefs, Hallmark Cards, the Sara Lee Corporation, Ben & Jerry's, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City.

God Damn traitors :)

[mactastic]

Where's Michael Moore's name?:D

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic
Where's Michael Moore's name?:D

tattooed on the ass of some 10,000 NRA members? :-)

[mcrain]

Originally posted by zimv20
tattooed on the ass of some 10,000 NRA members? :-)

On one side it says "Michae" and on the other it says "Moore".

:D

[whocares]

Originally posted by mactastic
Where's Michael Moore's name?:D

He's a member of the NRA. Kinda ambiguous ain't it :confused:

[mactastic]

Originally posted by whocares
He's a member of the NRA. Kinda ambiguous ain't it :confused:

I know he is, but somehow I doubt he's a favorite of theirs.

[Desertrat]

From what I've read of statements by many of the various individuals on the list, they're against private ownership of firearms. So, why wouldn't they be considered as hostile to the interests of the NRA?

If an organization supports those views, or supports groups who regularly call for laws which are seen as inefficacious as to crime, but are merely "hassles" for honest citizens, why would these not be considered as hostile to the interests of the NRA?

'Rat

[pdham]

Originally posted by Desertrat
From what I've read of statements by many of the various individuals on the list, they're against private ownership of firearms. So, why wouldn't they be considered as hostile to the interests of the NRA?

If an organization supports those views, or supports groups who regularly call for laws which are seen as inefficacious as to crime, but are merely "hassles" for honest citizens, why would these not be considered as hostile to the interests of the NRA?

'Rat

The question is not why wouldnt they be considered hostile, it is why would any respectable NGO publish a list of hostiles on their website.

[Taft]

Originally posted by Desertrat
From what I've read of statements by many of the various individuals on the list, they're against private ownership of firearms. So, why wouldn't they be considered as hostile to the interests of the NRA?

If an organization supports those views, or supports groups who regularly call for laws which are seen as inefficacious as to crime, but are merely "hassles" for honest citizens, why would these not be considered as hostile to the interests of the NRA?

'Rat

And what does the list accomplish? How should members of the NRA use this information? Harass them? Camp outside their houses? Refuse to do business with them? "Take them out?"

I just don't see the purpose of publishing this information. Its childish and completely lacks effect for anything but harming these individuals personally.

If the NRA thinks that guns should be "more legal" (not trying to assign worth here, I just don't know how else to phrase it), they should win on the basis of their arguments, by appealing to congress or individuals, or by using their massive lobbying power. They shouldn't resort to this type of tactic.

Speak out against guns and end up on "the list!"

Who knows what the consequences could end up being...

Taft

[Desertrat]

Some folks use such lists for personal boycott purposes. From what I've seen, it's not as emotional as Cesar Chavez and the farmworkers with such things as the grape boycott.

Other gunowners make decisions about trivial stuff as music concerts or movies; why put money into the pockets of somebody who offends you?

It can affect one's views as to credibility of press releases from some organization on certain subjects.

It's like any information pertinent to the interests of a group.

As far as "personal consequences", I'd expect none at all. As a group, shooters and hunters I've known over a number of decades are among the more honorable. In right at thirty years of having a table at various gunshows, I've yet to get a hot check...But insofar as gun-violence, the vast majority of gun owners are reactors, not actors. Absent physical threat, they're a rather laid-back group.

Farmers, ranchers, doctors, lawyers, insurance salesmen, etc., aren't exactly known for raising a ruckus in the community. :)

Like any group, we've got our problem children. I'm not talking about criminals; I'm thinking more of the sort who study case law and the Constitution and are rather hot-headed about what they do indeed see as infringment. As I've said before, many of us will willingly cooperate with efficacious laws against criminals with guns.

If anybody's interested, I'm a moderator in the "Hunting" and "Rifle Country" forums at http://www.thehighroad.org We don't allow bad language or flaming. "Attack ideas, not people" is rather rigidly enforced. The Legal & Political forum sometimes gets a bit heated, what with a couple of resident Liberal Gunowners; one from England and one from Israel. :)

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Taft
Speak out against guns and end up on "the list!"

Who knows what the consequences could end up being...

Taft

If you let them keep a list, the next step will be that the jackbooted thugs will come take your guns away. Oh wait wrong list!:D

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pdham The question is not why wouldnt they be considered hostile, it is why would any respectable NGO publish a list of hostiles on their website.

Why not?

I like the list. Makes it easier for me to not spend my disposable income to line the pockets of people that seek to undermine one of the rights protected by the US Constitution.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Farmers, ranchers, doctors, lawyers, insurance salesmen, etc., aren't exactly known for raising a ruckus in the community. :)


You forgot fruit company engineers. :o

I remember seeing people wearing H&K tshirts, Sig Sauer tshirts, Glock tshirts walking around at lunch time. Too bad there isn't a shooting club there. :p

IIRC, Adobe has a shooting club. :envy:

[Pinto]

If people walked around my company wearing weapons t-shirts, I would probably think they were insecure and had small penises.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Pinto
If people walked around my company wearing weapons t-shirts, I would probably think they were insecure and had small penises.

HA!!!!!!

i might be just a tad more conservative and wait until they climbed into their SUVs...

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Why not?

I like the list. Makes it easier for me to not spend my disposable income to line the pockets of people that seek to undermine one of the rights protected by the US Constitution.

Are you kidding me? First, it is debatable whether the right to own a submachine gun is protected under the constitution (the constitution protects the right of a regulated militia to be armed), but assuming that the constitution was written with the intent of me owning an M-60, why on earth should someone's livelihood be compromised because they happen to disagree with that interpretation of the constitution? I mean, if the concept is attack the ideas (granted that was stated by another poster), not the people, then why on earth would you think that it is ok to try to take away their ability to earn a living?

That's silly.

[Inu]

Originally posted by mcrain
(the constitution protects the right of a regulated militia to be armed),

Thus, turning civillians into enemy combatants without the rights of PoW's.

[Desertrat]

Sorry, mccrain, I just don't follow your point in "why on earth should someone's livelihood be compromised because they happen to disagree with that interpretation of the constitution?"

Full-auto weapons have been federally controlled since 1934. According to testimony before Congress by representatives of the BATF, no crime was ever committed by somebody with a registered machine gun. The NRA discovered and reported one incident at around that time, wherein a policeman in Oklahoma used a department weapon to kill his wife. One other incident of a criminal use of a registered machine gun was reported a few years ago, again by a policeman.

The machine gun population of the US, non-military, is split about equally between police and non-police; it's estimated at around 220,000, total. (Machine guns are a delightful way to turn money into noise, and it's the money-aspect that causes my interest to be low. :) )

Anybody with skill and access to a lathe, milling machine, and the US Patent Department can build a machine gun. It's far easier, today, than it was for John M. Browning.

Some arguments over the 2nd Amendment have included the idea that it applies only to rifles, since that's what people had back in the 1700s. That line of argument would have one believe the 1st Amendment wouldn't apply to typewriters, radio or TV. And now, the Internet.

;Rat

[pdham]

interesting note....

the constitution was originally written to protect citizens from only the national government not the state government. This was changed with the 14th amendment and a series of court rulings known as incorporation. The rulings basically set precedent for which of the rights in the Bill of Rights would also be granted to preople in relation to state governments. Incorporation sucessfully granted people freedom of speech, press, reliegion and due process (also in the 14th) in regards to state governments. But one of the only bill of rights amendments that didnt get incorporated by a supreme court case was the right to bear arms. So the moral of te story is: while the natl. gov. cant take away your guns, under the way the constitution is written and the past precedents, the state gov. technically could.

No real point here, just thought it was interesting.
Paul

[Taft]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Some folks use such lists for personal boycott purposes. From what I've seen, it's not as emotional as Cesar Chavez and the farmworkers with such things as the grape boycott.

Other gunowners make decisions about trivial stuff as music concerts or movies; why put money into the pockets of somebody who offends you?

It can affect one's views as to credibility of press releases from some organization on certain subjects.

It's like any information pertinent to the interests of a group.

As far as "personal consequences", I'd expect none at all. As a group, shooters and hunters I've known over a number of decades are among the more honorable. In right at thirty years of having a table at various gunshows, I've yet to get a hot check...But insofar as gun-violence, the vast majority of gun owners are reactors, not actors. Absent physical threat, they're a rather laid-back group.

Farmers, ranchers, doctors, lawyers, insurance salesmen, etc., aren't exactly known for raising a ruckus in the community. :)

Like any group, we've got our problem children. I'm not talking about criminals; I'm thinking more of the sort who study case law and the Constitution and are rather hot-headed about what they do indeed see as infringment. As I've said before, many of us will willingly cooperate with efficacious laws against criminals with guns.

If anybody's interested, I'm a moderator in the "Hunting" and "Rifle Country" forums at http://www.thehighroad.org We don't allow bad language or flaming. "Attack ideas, not people" is rather rigidly enforced. The Legal & Political forum sometimes gets a bit heated, what with a couple of resident Liberal Gunowners; one from England and one from Israel. :)

'Rat

Just for some background info, I'm not really against gun ownership. I'm from the U.P. of Michigan. Its what some people would call "backwoods." While I'm not a hunter (I don't like killing, really), pretty much all of the men in my family are. I completely support their right to hunt deer, rabbit and any other legal animal. In fact, my father's family put food on the table for a good part of the year by having each man of the family hunt animals.

Anyway, the U.P. is rife with gun owners, mostly rifles and shotguns. Far more people there own a gun than in most places in the country. Even so, gun crime is practically non-existant. Same with Canada.

I can see how guns are often not the problem.

But inner-city Chicago is a far different place than the U.P. Gun crime is high. The west side sees something like 200+ murders a year, the majority of which are gun-related. This can often be tracked to gang-crime, and the weapons used are more often than not, illegally obtained, but it is gun crime nonetheless. I think fixing the root causes--POVERTY and DRUG TRAFFICKING--is very important, but we can't just let any person in Chicago have a gun, now can we?

I guess what I'm saying, Rat, is that you and I probably agree on many issues. I do think some restrictions are good, though. I'm not sure you do.

Anyway, even though we agree a lot on gun ownership, I can't agree with you on blacklisting. I personally think its disgusting behavior. The fact that the NRA would use the term "hostile" to describe these people speaks volumes by itself. Most of these people aren't "hostile" they simply disagree. What the NRA is attempting to do is cut out the legs of people who disagree with them.

That sucks.

Rat, you and I disagree a lot on many issues. But I'd like to think if a were running a store and you came into it, I could shake your hand and if you wanted something you would buy it from me. I'd do the same. Just because we disagree doesn't make either you or myself a bad person. We could even be friends. We just disagree.

This type of move takes the civility out of discussions and is a petty way to try and undermine your opponents on an issues. Also, it is generally inneffective. A few people not buying albums from an anti-gun musician won't make even a tiny difference.

But the list could be used for bad purposes. All it takes is one delusional NRA member (not saying NRA members are delusional, but lets face it, there's one in every group) to take "the list" to heart and we have a tragedy on our hands.

I don't like it one bit. No sir.

Taft

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Taft

But the list could be used for bad purposes. All it takes is one delusional NRA member (not saying NRA members are delusional, but lets face it, there's one in every group) to take "the list" to heart and we have a tragedy on our hands.

I don't like it one bit. No sir.

Taft

Funny thing about the NRA, they don't mind keeping a "hostiles" list, but the don't want the government to have a list of all legally registered guns and who their owners and buyers are (kinda like we do with cars) because they fear that the list, once assembled, will be used for bad purposes. Specifically they fear that such a list will result in the eventual removal of their guns. I guess they feel like the average citizen should be trusted more than the federal government (I know many of them are deeply hostile to the federal system), but doesn't it smack of hypocrisy when they can keep a list of people who disagree with them, yet they refuse to conceed on a list being kept on them?

For the record, I am a weapons enthusiast, who wishes people were not idiotic enough that we could allow civilians access to (most of the) same weapons the military has. I would like to see EVERY gun crime solved, thus making it virtually impossible to even conceive of using a gun in a crime unless you WANT to get caught.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
For the record, I am a weapons enthusiast, who wishes people were not idiotic enough that we could allow civilians access to (most of the) same weapons the military has. I would like to see EVERY gun crime solved, thus making it virtually impossible to even conceive of using a gun in a crime unless you WANT to get caught.


I would rather that there are no criminals, but ever since known history, there has been murder. Best way to counteract that is to make it more difficult for the would be criminal to do their thing. Don't know about you, but a dead criminal would never do a single crime again. And having the criminal be killed by their would-be next victim is very fitting.

But, since we are talking about arms (weapons), if you reread US vs Miller case (http://www.hoboes.com/html/Politics/Firearms/miller.html), which was the case that directly confronted the National Firearms Act of 1934, which sough to impose a $200 tax on automatic weapons and sound suppressors, it actually said that the only weapons that are guarranteed by the Second Amendment to the citizen are ones that help in preserving a well-regulated militia.

The Court can not take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and therefore can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

Pretty weird, but I seem to have a few catalogs from Beretta and other shotgun manufacturers that say short-barrel shotguns are only for sale to military and police agencies. Sounds pretty clear cut to me that if a weapon is suited for the military and police, then it would be suited for a militia as well.

Also, in 1934, $200 is a LOT of money. How can you tax a thing such as a shotgun for $200, when the shotgun itself only cost like $5? Seems to me that the tax was a punitive tax designed to infringe on the ownership of such an arm.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Taft
Just for some background info, I'm not really against gun ownership. I'm from the U.P. of Michigan. Its what some people would call "backwoods." While I'm not a hunter (I don't like killing, really), pretty much all of the men in my family are. I completely support their right to hunt deer, rabbit and any other legal animal. In fact, my father's family put food on the table for a good part of the year by having each man of the family hunt animals.

But inner-city Chicago is a far different place than the U.P. Gun crime is high. The west side sees something like 200+ murders a year, the majority of which are gun-related. This can often be tracked to gang-crime, and the weapons used are more often than not, illegally obtained, but it is gun crime nonetheless. I think fixing the root causes--POVERTY and DRUG TRAFFICKING--is very important, but we can't just let any person in Chicago have a gun, now can we?

But the list could be used for bad purposes. All it takes is one delusional NRA member (not saying NRA members are delusional, but lets face it, there's one in every group) to take "the list" to heart and we have a tragedy on our hands.

I don't like it one bit. No sir.

Taft

Okay, you put up multiple points...
1) You are against killing of animals.
2) Crime is bad, and best way to fix it is by fixing the root causes (POVERTY and DRUG TRAFFICKING)
3) List can be used for bad purposes, and you are afraid that someone might use it for something bad.
4) You don't like it.

Here is my rebuttal.
1) Are you a vegetarian? Isn't it pretty disingenious to be against the killing of animals but for paying someone else to do your killing for you in order to eat meat? Me, I'm not against killing. I think that others can do it more cheaply than I can with their ranches and farms. But I would also like know that I am capable of providing for myself if I need to. Having the tools and means to do that is a prerequisite.

2) Crime is bad. I agree with you there, but why is it required that crime victims be disarmed? Which is the only thing gun control does. Crime control is better, but we already have laws against crime. POVERTY and DRUG TRAFFICKING, how do you propose to fix that? Tax the rich, give to the poor?

3) Responsible gun owners, and there are a lot of them in this country do not go out and murder people on a list. At last count, there are over 200 million, thats a 2 followed by 8 zeros, privately owned firearms in the United States. How many of those were used in a violent criminal act in the past day? Past week? FBI says in 2002, there were 353,880 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm) Thats 0.177%! So, you would make a law that punishes 99.83% of responsible gun owners in order to get the 0.177%?!!!:eek:

4) Isn't this country great? Freedom of speech/press applies not only to you, but to other groups as well. Even groups that you do not agree with. And the same Freedom of speech/press allows you to challenge these other groups too. Thats the only way the best ideas come out, when they are subjected to scrutiny from multiple fronts. I'm sure you know about Galileo and how the Church squelched him. Bad stuff, Maynard.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic Funny thing about the NRA, they don't mind keeping a "hostiles" list, but the don't want the government to have a list of all legally registered guns and who their owners and buyers are (kinda like we do with cars) because they fear that the list, once assembled, will be used for bad purposes. Specifically they fear that such a list will result in the eventual removal of their guns.

Okay... check this (http://www.gunownersalliance.com/kopel.htm)out.
Ottoman Turkey - 1.5million armenians dead
Soviet Union - 20 million anti-communists dead
Nazi Germany - 13 million jews dead
China - 20 million anti-communists dead
Guatemala - 100,000 indians dead
Uganda - 300,000 christians dead
Cambodia - 1 million smart people dead

That is 55.9 million dead people from 1915 to 1981. Average of 846,000 dead people each year. In WW2, there were 14.9 million dead soldiers (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html).

Maybe we should have more wars and less gun control laws. More people would be alive that way.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mcrain
Are you kidding me? First, it is debatable whether the right to own a submachine gun is protected under the constitution (the constitution protects the right of a regulated militia to be armed), but assuming that the constitution was written with the intent of me owning an M-60, why on earth should someone's livelihood be compromised because they happen to disagree with that interpretation of the constitution? I mean, if the concept is attack the ideas (granted that was stated by another poster), not the people, then why on earth would you think that it is ok to try to take away their ability to earn a living?


No one is taking away their ability to earn a living. The only thing being done here is to inform the consumers of the political ideas coming from these people. How is that a bad thing? I could argue that the liberals did the same thing to Dr. Laura Schlesinger.

[Frohickey]

Actually, full automatic guns have been used in crimes in the last century. Look at the North Hollywood bank shooting, these uses smuggled guns from Mexico, but they were not NFA34 guns.

Another was the full auto MP5 used by Eduard Lutes to kill his neighbors and shoot at his police chief. This MP5 was his department issued gun, since he was a police SWAT team member. Again, not a NFA34 gun.

So, maybe we should take full-auto guns away from the cops. If it only saves one life, is the mantra of the gun-controllers. :p

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Pinto
If people walked around my company wearing weapons t-shirts, I would probably think they were insecure and had small penises.

Women wear these tshirts too... does that mean they have small penises too? :o

I think the whole small penis and gun/sports car/suv/powermac g5 argument is overdone.

[Pinto]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Women wear these tshirts too... does that mean they have small penises too? :o



Maybe they are just trying to "empower" themselves

[Taft]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Okay, you put up multiple points...
1) You are against killing of animals.


WHOA THERE BUDDY!!! Did you actually read my post? You misrepresented just about all of my arguments.

I didn't say I was against people in general killing animals. I said I didn't like to kill animals. I even said that I supported my relative's right to do so. As I said before, my father's family used to hunt for sustenance (they weren't that well off). How could you possibly be against a family hunting for sustenance? Our forebearers have done it since their creation.

If you want the whole story, I killed a chipmunk (sp?) witha BB gun when I was young. I thought the whole incident was disgusting and it made me sick to my stomach. I've had trouble considering killing an animal ever since.

I realize that meat is an essential part of our food chain. While it is certainly possible to be a vegetarian, it is very difficult to do so and is beyond the means of many families while maintaining a healthy diet. I eat meat. I enjoy it. But I could never kill a cow unless starvation was the only other option. Thanks to modern society, I'll likely neverf be in that scenario.


2) Crime is bad. I agree with you there, but why is it required that crime victims be disarmed? Which is the only thing gun control does. Crime control is better, but we already have laws against crime. POVERTY and DRUG TRAFFICKING, how do you propose to fix that? Tax the rich, give to the poor?


Dude, I was supporting the arguments of gun owners in what I was saying. I am saying that the root cause of gun violence isn't guns. Its something else. So taking away everyone's guns is not only infeasible, but its also not going to solve the problem.

But I also said that some reasonable amount of control is required. AK47s (not a gun person, so forgive my ignorance in gun names) should not be sold to inner city residents. It just makes sense. I know there are restrictions on guns in existence, but I think they need to be tweaked a bit. The current system isn't working.


3) Responsible gun owners, and there are a lot of them in this country do not go out and murder people on a list. At last count, there are over 200 million, thats a 2 followed by 8 zeros, privately owned firearms in the United States. How many of those were used in a violent criminal act in the past day? Past week? FBI says in 2002, there were 353,880 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm) Thats 0.177%! So, you would make a law that punishes 99.83% of responsible gun owners in order to get the 0.177%?!!!:eek:


Again, you misrepresent me.

My point is that a blacklist is petty, ineffective and just plain mean. Its not an honorable way to promote your agenda. It can only cause harm to the individuals on the list and doesn't do any good for the NRA's cause.

I agree with the fact that very few gun owners in this country would ever kill a person on the list, but that doesn't really address my point, does it?

4) Isn't this country great? Freedom of speech/press applies not only to you, but to other groups as well. Even groups that you do not agree with. And the same Freedom of speech/press allows you to challenge these other groups too. Thats the only way the best ideas come out, when they are subjected to scrutiny from multiple fronts. I'm sure you know about Galileo and how the Church squelched him. Bad stuff, Maynard.

This is barely worth responding to. You misrepresented my arguments, and then called me a cry-baby. Thanks.

Why don't you go back and read my original post carefully? You might actually see that I wasn't disagreeing with you nearly as much as you thought I was. You just assumed, likely because we've had so many liberal vs. conservative clashes in the past, that I was completely against guns and the killing of animals.

Thanks for the stereotype.

Taft

[Frohickey]

Sorry if I misread your post.

As far as AK47s, why should people who live in certain areas be prohibited from purchasing them?

No sir. I'm sorry I cannot sell you this AK47 because you live in the scummy side of town.

[Desertrat]

Taft, I guess we'll just have to disagree about the implications of the NRA "enemies list". SFAIK, such lists are common to many organizations, including the Dem/Rep National Party. Any organization which gets involved in politics makes a list of opponents of its interests...IMO, if they don't, they're fools.

However, you do have a good question which has been wrestled with for a long time:

"But inner-city Chicago is a far different place than the U.P. Gun crime is high. The west side sees something like 200+ murders a year, the majority of which are gun-related. This can often be tracked to gang-crime, and the weapons used are more often than not, illegally obtained, but it is gun crime nonetheless. I think fixing the root causes--POVERTY and DRUG TRAFFICKING--is very important, but we can't just let any person in Chicago have a gun, now can we?"

A serious problem with the final clause is that regardless of anybody's agreement with the "forced" answer to that, law-abiding people are not made safer by passing laws against their owning/using guns in self-defense. Disarmament is the common answer, and it has yet to work.

And I'd bet serious money that the majority of those 200 murders are committed by people for whom it is already a felony to merely possess a firearm. (That's anybody who's ever been indicted for a crime for which the punishment *could* be more than one year.)

How does any law protect you or me from the misuse of a stolen gun? Or from a legally-acquired gun?

Sure, I, like many, want laws against firearms possession by felons and the clinically insane. I also want relative freedom in ownership by law-abiding citizens.

I see no point in cosmetic garbage like worrying about "high capacity magazines" or the mythical "assault rifles" or the never-existed "cop-killer bullets" and other media creations. Nonsense of this sort distracts from the actual problems of real crime.

'Rat

[Pinto]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Okay... check this (http://www.gunownersalliance.com/kopel.htm)out.
Ottoman Turkey - 1.5million armenians dead
Soviet Union - 20 million anti-communists dead
Nazi Germany - 13 million jews dead
China - 20 million anti-communists dead
Guatemala - 100,000 indians dead
Uganda - 300,000 christians dead
Cambodia - 1 million smart people dead

That is 55.9 million dead people from 1915 to 1981. Average of 846,000 dead people each year. In WW2, there were 14.9 million dead soldiers (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html).

Maybe we should have more wars and less gun control laws. More people would be alive that way.

All those countries listed are Communist, Fascist or Dictatorships. Interesting that they should be used as examples as to why you need protection from the US government.

So you think that the US Gov't is gong to start slaughtering US civilians (rather than foreign civilians as is already the case), some time soon?

As the Govt has a powerful Airforce, should US civilians be allowed ground to air missles? How about Nukes? Just where do you stop?

The easier it is for "law abiding" citizens to get automatic weapons, the easiers it is for crims as well.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Okay... check this (http://www.gunownersalliance.com/kopel.htm)out.
Ottoman Turkey - 1.5million armenians dead
Soviet Union - 20 million anti-communists dead
Nazi Germany - 13 million jews dead
China - 20 million anti-communists dead
Guatemala - 100,000 indians dead
Uganda - 300,000 christians dead
Cambodia - 1 million smart people dead

That is 55.9 million dead people from 1915 to 1981. Average of 846,000 dead people each year. In WW2, there were 14.9 million dead soldiers (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html).

Maybe we should have more wars and less gun control laws. More people would be alive that way.

I'm not sure what your point is here... Dictatorships are good at killing people? Are you saying more people die from gun crime than wars? Or the other way around? Or that you are just someone who likes wars in general?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Pinto
All those countries listed are Communist, Fascist or Dictatorships. Interesting that they should be used as examples as to why you need protection from the US government.

So you think that the US Gov't is gong to start slaughtering US civilians (rather than foreign civilians as is already the case), some time soon?

The easier it is for "law abiding" citizens to get automatic weapons, the easiers it is for crims as well.

So, what you are counting on is that the United States would not turn into a Communist or Fascist dictatorship. Because if it does, and there is gun registration confiscation, then the mass executions start happening.

My contention is that the reason the United States is not turning into a dictatorship is precisely because of arms in the hands of private citizens.

Lets say a politically-savvy legislator makes lots of friends in high places, maybe even gets the higher ups in the military under his/her control. Its pretty sobering to the would-be dictator and his cronies when behind every blade of grass is a rifle pointed at them. Kinda makes you behave, no?

That was actually what a political science professor of mine said during class when lecturing through the Bill of Rights and its relevancy today.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
So, what you are counting on is that the United States would not turn into a Communist or Fascist dictatorship. Because if it does, and there is gun registration confiscation, then the mass executions start happening.

My contention is that the reason the United States is not turning into a dictatorship is precisely because of arms in the hands of private citizens.

Lets say a politically-savvy legislator makes lots of friends in high places, maybe even gets the higher ups in the military under his/her control. Its pretty sobering to the would-be dictator and his cronies when behind every blade of grass is a rifle pointed at them. Kinda makes you behave, no?

That was actually what a political science professor of mine said during class when lecturing through the Bill of Rights and its relevancy today.

So why aren't Britain and Canada dictatorships? Or is it possible that there are other things that keep the dictators at bay besides masses of guns in civilian hands?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
I'm not sure what your point is here... Dictatorships are good at killing people? Are you saying more people die from gun crime than wars? Or the other way around? Or that you are just someone who likes wars in general?

What I'm saying is that there are more people dead from the hands of THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT than in a war against other countries.

I'm also saying that gun crime, as in a hoodlum holding up a 7-11 is a drop in the bucket compared to the deaths caused by governments against their own populace.

It can't happen here... those are famous last words spoken by most of the dead.

[Pinto]

Originally posted by Frohickey
So, what you are counting on is that the United States would not turn into a Communist or Fascist dictatorship. Because if it does, and there is gun registration confiscation, then the mass executions start happening.

My contention is that the reason the United States is not turning into a dictatorship is precisely because of arms in the hands of private citizens.

Lets say a politically-savvy legislator makes lots of friends in high places, maybe even gets the higher ups in the military under his/her control. Its pretty sobering to the would-be dictator and his cronies when behind every blade of grass is a rifle pointed at them. Kinda makes you behave, no?

That was actually what a political science professor of mine said during class when lecturing through the Bill of Rights and its relevancy today.

Plenty of Democracies that have gun control are not in any danger of turning into Dictatorships.

Your faith in Democracy is somewhat lacking.

You might as well say that you need your gun incase the Martians invade.

Talk about clutching at straws to rationalize your love of weapons.

[mod. edit - Flamebait]

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
So why aren't Britain and Canada dictatorships? Or is it possible that there are other things that keep the dictators at bay besides masses of guns in civilian hands?

How much time do I get? Britain and Canada has only recently enacted gun confiscation/gun registration.

The way I hear it, gun crime has been on the rise in England. Gun registration was the mantra in order to squash gun crime. Seems to not be working, or having the opposite effect. Maybe they don't have enough gun confiscation yet. (end_sarcasm)

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Pinto
Plenty of Democracies that have gun control are not in any danger of turning into Dictatorships.

Your faith in Democracy is somewhat lacking.

You might as well say that you need your gun incase the Martians invade.

Talk about clutching at straws to rationalize your love of weapons.

[mod. edit - Flamebait]

Its okay... I already saw the penis enlargement website before you edited the post. Some people just do not know how to properly debate without getting into ad hominems.

As to my faith in Democracy and lacking enough of it. A famous man said this, and it happens to fit. A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. Extra credit for figuring out who wrote this.

Rights do not originate from the goverment and on down to the people. Until you figure this out for yourself, nothing I say will make sense.

[Desertrat]

Folks here have commented negatively about such things as the Patriot Act, and the potential for its misuse. I've brought up how the RICO Act has already been misused. Stipulate for the moment that further terrorist acts within the US lead to P.A. version 2 or 3.0 or whatever.

Consider that the economic situation in this country is not very good, right now, and could easily become worse.

Recall that when Castro first came to power he was welcomed by many in this country. It was not until after the executions and his unveiling of his true aim of a Communist society that US hostility began. Folks were well and truly faked out.

Now: How difficult would it be, given existing Presidential powers in a "time of emergency" to create some ruling group in WashDC? Initially, the man on the white horse and his advisory group would/could easily be seen as potential saviors.

And as governmental powers have increased incrementally over the last (pick your era) 40 or 60 years, is it not possible that The Ruling Group could become permanent? It might take them several years, but if they're halfway smart they won't be obvious nor in a great hurry. "Emergencies" can last as long as temporary taxes.

They put their own personnel officers in the various law enforcement agencies, and put allied-view generals in charge of the Pentagon...Work out your own nightmare/scenario.

It seems to me that the necessary mechanisms are in place. I'm not predicting such a thing, so much as pointing out the possibility.

If such a horrible came to pass, of what form would be the resistance?

It says in the preamble to the Bill of Rights that it is a package against abuse of power by the State. And it takes belief in and use of all ten of them, regularly and often, to prevent my scenario of horror. Support for all ten obviates the need for anti-government firearms, and we can go back to dealing with the problem of misuse of firearms in crime...

:), 'Rat

[Pinto]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Its okay... I already saw the penis enlargement website before you edited the post. Some people just do not know how to properly debate without getting into ad hominems.

As to my faith in Democracy and lacking enough of it. A famous man said this, and it happens to fit. Extra credit for figuring out who wrote this.

Rights do not originate from the goverment and on down to the people. Until you figure this out for yourself, nothing I say will make sense.

So are you an anarchist then?

[Inu]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Okay... check this (http://www.gunownersalliance.com/kopel.htm)out.
Ottoman Turkey - 1.5million armenians dead
Soviet Union - 20 million anti-communists dead
Nazi Germany - 13 million jews dead
China - 20 million anti-communists dead
Guatemala - 100,000 indians dead
Uganda - 300,000 christians dead
Cambodia - 1 million smart people dead

That is 55.9 million dead people from 1915 to 1981. Average of 846,000 dead people each year. In WW2, there were 14.9 million dead soldiers (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html).

Maybe we should have more wars and less gun control laws. More people would be alive that way.

If you look at the average man-death by year, WW2 still wins. And your stat is only military personel. So if you fake statistics, at least make it that it is harder to spot please.

As for the poor non-arm-bearing people who died because they had no weapons:
Sample:
Armenians: Do you really believe they where all armed to the teeth like mahatma ghandi (aka. Weaponless)? I dont think they where helpless weapons wise, it was just no use.
Jews in Nazi Germany: The best thing that could happen for hitler would be that the jews organized them and shot back. This way he could have killed them in combat with his army. Not just detain, just kill them on the spot. Nice way of improving their situation (maybe that was the reason why they didn't? Jews wherent dumb then).
Guatemala: There are killer commandoes that extinguish whole settlements. They come at night and kill people in their beds. Guns wont protect you then.
Soviet and China: They for sure werent killed in combat, so guns wouldnt have helped either. Might be wrong on a case to case base, but the overall figure is right i guess

Not much clue of the other hotspots. Maybe handing free guns to everyone would have prevented the killing of innocents in a miraculous way (yeah, right), but i guess it just would have led to more bloodshed.

For every one who thinks Guns prevent Gun Crime:

Given everyone walks around with their own personal firearm. If a gangster now walks by and wants to kill you, how long does it take? 2 Seconds? How long will you be shocked that someone draws a weapon and aims at you? lets say you are paranoid and just suspect that someone wants to kill you, so assume 0.8 Seconds. Too much time to fumble out your weapon and kill him first. Bam, dead you are, and all you got is that maybe some innocent bystander gets out his weapon and shoots at your killer. If he can. If he dares. It might get him killed as well. But your dead anyway, thats not exactly helping you.

The problem is, if everyone is armed, the criminal already knows that he is going to die if he leaves you alive and turns you his back. So he wont do that. Not something i wish to encounter.

[Inu]

Originally posted by Desertrat

If such a horrible came to pass, of what form would be the resistance?

It says in the preamble to the Bill of Rights that it is a package against abuse of power by the State. And it takes belief in and use of all ten of them, regularly and often, to prevent my scenario of horror. Support for all ten obviates the need for anti-government firearms, and we can go back to dealing with the problem of misuse of firearms in crime...


Hm. Truly a dark vision you are painting there.

But then again, what would you do? Take your sawed off shotgun and shoot at tanks? Take your AK-47 and shoot at Combat Helicopters? Take a 9mm Beretta and shoot at Joe-Average who went to the army 3 Years ago?

Of course, nothing would help against the Helicopter and the Tank, but Joe Average would be dead regardless of you weapon of choice (if it wasnt the beretta). But the corrupt generals would still be in place, The Ruling Class would be still in contol, The Helicopters would Wreck your Houses and the Tanks would chase your little Ragtag Band of Revolutionists down.

I do believe the US has a chance to evade something like that, but its not by preventing a list of Gun Owners.

[Desertrat]

The fact that I don't think any western European style government would become totalitarian anytime soon doesn't mean it can't happen, which is why I offered the "gloom-and-doom". The changes of the 1930s in Germany happened in my lifetime.

To resist the actualization of a totalitarian government on the part of an armed citizenry doesn't at all mean taking on armored vehicles with small arms. That's utmost foolishness.

An armed citizenry CAN, if it's willing to die for its beliefs, kill those government people who would implement totalitarian policies. Since there are some 40 million families with firearms in the US, I'm dubious that anybody is foolish enough to believe that they could actually create a totalitarian state. If only five percent of gun owners "rose up" in some fashion, that's a lot of hostiles.

Historically, every country which has instituted firearms registration has seen firearms confiscation. In WW II, the Germans used the registration lists of Greece, Belgium and other countries to round up all firearms under penalty of death.

It's been a recent occurrence in Australia and England. In the U.S., confiscation following registration has occurred in New York State and California.

Many people who post in this forum believe our government has lied about Iraq. Why would government not lie about gun control?

Chairman Mao is widely quoted as having said, "All political power comes from the muzzle of a gun." Who am I to disbelieve him, at my age, with what I've observed? :)

'Rat

[mactastic]

Yeah just to be clear, I don't want guns taken away, just a national list of who has them. Instant background checks, no loopholes. I can't see how you can argue that the NRA can keep any list it wants (and is, in fact, stupid for not keeping one as 'Rat says) yet the government can't keep a list of its own detailing who owns what gun. Wouldn't it also be stupid of the government to not also keep a list?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Pinto
So are you an anarchist then?

Nope. I'm more of a constitutionalist. Classic definition of liberal.

[Code101]

Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah just to be clear, I don't want guns taken away, just a national list of who has them. Instant background checks, no loopholes. I can't see how you can argue that the NRA can keep any list it wants (and is, in fact, stupid for not keeping one as 'Rat says) yet the government can't keep a list of its own detailing who owns what gun. Wouldn't it also be stupid of the government to not also keep a list?

OK, how about keeping a national record of what every law abiding citizen has said! I mean come on, it's only the first amendment:rolleyes:

Did that sound dumb? I hope so because it's just that. The same goes for the second amendment. I don't want my name on some list as having a gun. That's a hit list as far as I'm concerned.

We have too many gun laws on the books now!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Inu
Jews in Nazi Germany: The best thing that could happen for hitler would be that the jews organized them and shot back. This way he could have killed them in combat with his army. Not just detain, just kill them on the spot. Nice way of improving their situation (maybe that was the reason why they didn't? Jews wherent dumb then).

For every one who thinks Guns prevent Gun Crime:

Given everyone walks around with their own personal firearm. If a gangster now walks by and wants to kill you, how long does it take? 2 Seconds? How long will you be shocked that someone draws a weapon and aims at you? lets say you are paranoid and just suspect that someone wants to kill you, so assume 0.8 Seconds. Too much time to fumble out your weapon and kill him first. Bam, dead you are, and all you got is that maybe some innocent bystander gets out his weapon and shoots at your killer. If he can. If he dares. It might get him killed as well. But your dead anyway, thats not exactly helping you.

The problem is, if everyone is armed, the criminal already knows that he is going to die if he leaves you alive and turns you his back. So he wont do that. Not something i wish to encounter.

I suggest you read about the about the Warsaw Ghetto. There, a handful of Jews with captured German weapons were able to hold back the German army for a month. It took the systematic shelling and burning and gassing of the sewers in order to kill the combatants. Making it more difficult for Hitler's army to do its thing, and also inflicting some casualties slows their progress. I guess some people like knee pads. (Ask me if you don't know what that means.) :o

As to a gangster that would like to kill any person. When a person has their gun drawn already, while yours is still in the holster, you are already down in points. To get back on top, you would have needed to have predicted the situation, by being aware of your surroundings and potential threat source. Then you can avoid it, or gain some advantage (cover, concealment, surprise, etc).

Besides, not everyone will be armed. I'm sure that you will not be. ;) But the ones that would like to be armed will be. That protects you because now, the gangster will need to really assess the situation to see if the victim is likely to be armed or not. Plus, they would need to make it so that the potential victim is alone. Can't have an armed witness to the crime deciding to intervene. Makes the chances for a clean getaway that much lower.

Now, if the armed witness intervenes, sure, you might have been shot since the gangster with the gun got the drop on you. But now, the armed witness hopefully would have decided to intervene and shoot the attacker as well. And he could call for the paramedics as well. Tell you one thing... the wounded/dead gangster won't be killing anyone anytime soon.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah just to be clear, I don't want guns taken away, just a national list of who has them. Instant background checks, no loopholes. I can't see how you can argue that the NRA can keep any list it wants (and is, in fact, stupid for not keeping one as 'Rat says) yet the government can't keep a list of its own detailing who owns what gun. Wouldn't it also be stupid of the government to not also keep a list?

What does a national list of gun owners accomplish?

It doesn't help solve any crimes. Even the DC sniper case (John Allen Muhammad, Lee "Illegal Alien" Malvo) was not solved by gun owners volunteering their information. Neither was the scouring of Form 4473 by the BATF and FBI.

What solved the crime was an alert trucker who was on the lookout for the car and the license plate of the car.

Plus, what led police to the car and license plate was a phone call from a minister that remembered a confession or comment that one of the alleged snipers said.

In any of the states that has ballistic fingerprinting, or mandatory handgun licensing/record keeping, NOT ONE case has been solved by using the list or the ballistic fingerprint database. NOT ONE!
BallisticFingerprinting boondoggle (http://www.mcrkba.org/BallisticFingerprinting.html)

[Dont Hurt Me]

people commit crimes not guns. why the democratic party doesnt understand this is beyond me. look at New York- they say you cant have a gun but they have highest crime rates around other then LA. Fact is NRA is to FAR FAR right on this issue of guns and the Democrats want to remove every gun in the land-FAR FAR left and here we go nothing gets done about anything. anyways most criminals dont follow laws so what good is another law?? I know that if im a criminal in New York it sure is nice to know that the house im breaking into wont have a armed homeowner in it. Stupid laws for Stupid people and the criminals love it. they cant enforce early gun laws why does anyone think more laws will solve anything is beyond me. Just more lawyers and politicians making money pretending to do something.

[Frohickey]

It would be great to have a legal liability law against legislators if a victim (or their familiy) can prove that you would have escape harm from a criminal if you were armed.

I remember reading about that Boston office shooting, where a software programmer-turned killer decided to gun down the HR folks because the IRS wanted to garnish his wages. One of his dead victims supposedly had a CCW permit from another state, but since Massachusetts does not allow CCW, he was not armed.

[Desertrat]

In detective novels of the English drawing room genre, a gun is often found at the scene of the crime. In real life, that doesn't happen.

That a gun is registered doesn't mean it won't be stolen; theft accounts for some 85% of all guns used in crimes (U.S. Govt numbers in public hearing). Of the remainder, the great majority were legally acquired and then either the purchaser committed a crime or a borrower such as Sirhan Sirhan committed a crime. How would registration keep somebody from losing his temper, or falling on some sort of egregious hard times?

The first purchaser of a new firearm has been on record ("The Yellow Sheet", Form 4473) since the passage of GCA 1957. From what I've read from FBI and BATF commentary, these records have been of little use in solving any crime. They merely verify that which is already known.

Again, since registration invariably has led to confiscation, I'm always gonna be agin it. Registration has nothing to do with preventing crime or making crimes easier to solve.

'Rat

[Dont Hurt Me]

registration only keeps those honest people honest and catches the few really stupid criminals who try to buy a gun the legal way other then that it creates more paper pushers who in turn will find away into more of our tax dollars.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Code101
OK, how about keeping a national record of what every law abiding citizen has said! I mean come on, it's only the first amendment:rolleyes:

Did that sound dumb? I hope so because it's just that. The same goes for the second amendment. I don't want my name on some list as having a gun. That's a hit list as far as I'm concerned.

We have too many gun laws on the books now!

How about keeping a list of people who don't agree with your position? Sound stupid? You don't want you name on a "hit list", yet it's ok for the NRA to keep its own list.:rolleyes:

How very.... hypocritical.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
What does a national list of gun owners accomplish?

It doesn't help solve any crimes. Even the DC sniper case (John Allen Muhammad, Lee "Illegal Alien" Malvo) was not solved by gun owners volunteering their information. Neither was the scouring of Form 4473 by the BATF and FBI.

What solved the crime was an alert trucker who was on the lookout for the car and the license plate of the car.

Plus, what led police to the car and license plate was a phone call from a minister that remembered a confession or comment that one of the alleged snipers said.

In any of the states that has ballistic fingerprinting, or mandatory handgun licensing/record keeping, NOT ONE case has been solved by using the list or the ballistic fingerprint database. NOT ONE!
BallisticFingerprinting boondoggle (http://www.mcrkba.org/BallisticFingerprinting.html)

Kinda like your "how long do i get before England reverts to a dictatorship due to taking away of guns", how long do I get to prove a national gun registry CAN help solve crimes, and even more so, keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them? Just 'cuz it hasn't happened yet don't meant there isn't hope! Or do you feel that just because we haven't found a cure for cancer yet that we should stop looking?;)

[Frohickey]

You know the quote by ol' Ben Franklin about substituting freedom for security.

Applies here in spades.

[Code101]

Originally posted by mactastic
How about keeping a list of people who don't agree with your position? Sound stupid? You don't want you name on a "hit list", yet it's ok for the NRA to keep its own list.:rolleyes:

How very.... hypocritical.

Hello!!!

The NRA is a private organization, they can keep any list they want. The difference is that they can't force people to add to that list, the government can! The NRA has no power to enforce and make a law.

The worst thing the NRA can do with a list is to exercise it's first amendment just like me. I can say who I do and don't like in public.

The government, if it fell into corrupt hands or the already corrupt UN on the other hand could use that list to go and get everyones guns.

No way! The second amendment is the second amendment!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Kinda like your "how long do i get before England reverts to a dictatorship due to taking away of guns", how long do I get to prove a national gun registry CAN help solve crimes, and even more so, keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them? Just 'cuz it hasn't happened yet don't meant there isn't hope! Or do you feel that just because we haven't found a cure for cancer yet that we should stop looking?;)

Don't need to redo the experiment.
Other countries, England, Canada, Australia, Nazi Germany, Germany, France, Soviet Union, China has done your experiment of national gun registry and solving crimes already.

Of course, some of these countries' solution was a bit more proactive. Such as killing the gun owners before they even committed any crime. Pretty innovative of them. ;)

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Don't need to redo the experiment.
Other countries, England, Canada, Australia, Nazi Germany, Germany, France, Soviet Union, China has done your experiment of national gun registry and solving crimes already.

Of course, some of these countries' solution was a bit more proactive. Such as killing the gun owners before they even committed any crime. Pretty innovative of them. ;)

And your experiment with handing out weapons to the general public has been tried in Afghanistan, now Iraq, oh and the gun crime here in the US is soooo low. It must be all those guns that keep us from killing each other.;)

And besides, are you saying that the US can't do things any better than the Nazis? Or the Chinese? I thought we were the greatest nation on the face of the earth?

[Pinto]

Originally posted by Code101
Hello!!!

The NRA is a private organization, they can keep any list they want. The difference is that they can't force people to add to that list, the government can! The NRA has no power to enforce and make a law.

The worst thing the NRA can do with a list is to exercise it's first amendment just like me. I can say who I do and don't like in public.

The government, if it fell into corrupt hands or the already corrupt UN on the other hand could use that list to go and get everyones guns.

No way! The second amendment is the second amendment!

What's to stop the NRA from being corrupted and used as a private army?

So the UN is corrupt, but the US Govt isn't??

Wake up and smell the roses.

[Pinto]

Originally posted by mactastic
And your experiment with handing out weapons to the general public has been tried in Afghanistan, now Iraq,

At NRA weddings do they all get their automatic weapons out and fire them into the air?

Thats what they do in other gun-toting societies, where all the tribesman consider it their birthright to be armed and dangerous.

It's a worry when the most dangerous country in the world is so full of armed paranoids.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Pinto
At NRA weddings do they all get their automatic weapons out and fire them into the air?

Thats what they do in other gun-toting societies, where all the tribesman consider it their birthright to be armed and dangerous.

It's a worry when the most dangerous country in the world is so full of armed paranoids.

I don't think there are NRA weddings. The last NRA function that I attended was a Friends of the NRA dinner, where they held gun and gun accessory auctions, guided hunt auctions and other types of auctions. There was dinner served, beef, salmon or chicken. There was wine and beer served to responsible adults. Proceeds of the auction are funneled back to the community in the form of equipment purchases for local groups doing marksmanship training and gun safety training of kids (and parents).

Armed and dangerous... those two words are not synonymous. I don't think all cops are dangerous to peaceful citizens. Sure, there are cops that are a danger with guns, like the ones that leave their gun on the roof of their car and drive off... or the ones that lose their department issued full-auto MP5... or the ones that shoot themselves ... or the one that negligently discharges a gun toward an arrestee that is already on the ground, complying with her partner's commands, while her partner is behind the arrestee putting on the handcuffs! (I can't seem to find the video, I think it was a Las Vegas PD shoot).

There are people out there, responsible people that treat guns and gun ownership with respect, and who have more training than the cops in gun safety and gun marksmanship.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
And your experiment with handing out weapons to the general public has been tried in Afghanistan, now Iraq, oh and the gun crime here in the US is soooo low. It must be all those guns that keep us from killing each other.;)

And besides, are you saying that the US can't do things any better than the Nazis? Or the Chinese? I thought we were the greatest nation on the face of the earth?

I don't know the answer to this, but maybe you might.

Are you sure that all the weapons owned by Afghans are being used in evil ways? How about the ones that use them to hunt? How about the ones that keep them in case of criminals or looters? Do you know that there are no such incidences? The only ones you hear about from the news media is the bad uses of guns. That is not surprising. Sensationalism sells. If it bleeds, it leads.

I've already quoted the FBI statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm) of 353,880 gun uses in crimes in 2002. I've already quoted the approximately 200million privately owned guns in America. Maybe we should have the TV news come out with daily news stories that today, on October 16, 2003, that 546,975 privately owned guns were NOT used in the commission of a crime (vs the 970 that were). I'm pretty sure ratings would promptly drop whenever the TV station got to that story.

[Desertrat]

mac, homicides via firearms represent some 25% to 30% of all homicides. That is, 11,000 via handgun; 3,000 via long gun--against a national total of around 50,000, mas o menos.

That compares to some 45,000 wiped out in car wrecks, and over 100,000 dead from medical mistakes--according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

You're safer hanging out with NRA types than doctors, seems like. :D:D:D

When you consider that over 100 million of us have ready access to a firearm of some sort, it seems obvious to me that the fear of run-of-the-mill citizen gunowners being dangerous to folks around them is just another myth. Perception over reality, as is all too common in today's world...

'Rat

[Inu]

I really start to get confused by this topic.

The left-oriented (liberal) side wants to categorize firearm ownage by keeping a "list".

The right wing (conservative) doesnt want that, argueing the government (wich happens to be conservative atm, and keeps getting conservative from time to time, when looked at in history) could rout them all up, or even take their toys away.

Thats like a complete 180 Degree turn on this issue.

Oh, and btw: because the NRA is some sort of political brainwash facility (what does candidate A say about guns? well there go XY% of votes...), your precious guns will NEVER EVER being taken away, unless the amount of gun crimes by holder of weapon rises to about 20% (wich, lets face it, it never will).

@Desertrat: No fair comparing doctor's mistakes with guncrimes. Medical mistakes happen because a much larger amount of people gets treated, and some percentage of them gets treated wrong (causing further injury or even death). If they werent treated, a much larger number would surely die, and that would kill the comparison completely :)

@Frohickey: I know how to handle every weapon i ran into in my short life of 27 Years. I can handle Myself, Knifes, Swords, Clubs, Staves, Bows, Crossbows, Handguns, Submachine Guns, Assault Rifles and Anti-Tank Rockets ("Panzerfaust" ???). I manage to be at least average to good with everything so far. Next Autumn my government might add heavy Tankmounted Machineguns (they even force me to come out and test my skill with the fricking rifle they gave me every year (i hate it)). We will see.
But even if i carried a weapon (preferrably a handgun, something small but functional. Maybe a 9mm Beretta would do) with me all the time - If i get robbed, it would be best just to give them the 50-250 sFr. i might carry. The chance they hurt me with some infectious needle (just a evil example of improvised weapon that can kill) is simply too big, and wealth is replaceable. Sure, i could talk myself out, or just kill the bastard. I could. With or without weapon. But its not worth the hassle.

[Desertrat]

Inu, I hadn't seen where mac had tried to answer my reasonaing aginst registration, so I was just nattering around. I brought up the doctor thing to playfully use the sort of argument so often brought in to justify getting rid of firearms. "If it will save just one life..." is a for-instance. :)

Insofar as having a hangun for self-defense "out on the street," mere possession doesn't mean squat. It's merely one piece of one's defense system. Far more important is situational awareness--as you're probably aware. If a throw-down money clip lets you get away without further incident, great!

Unfortunately, there are some Bad Guys out on the street who will work with your cooperation and then stab you for the fun of it. Can anybody know, ahead of disaster, what's in the mind of any robber? A gun is nothing more than a form of "insurance of last resort".

'Rat

[Inu]

Hm. If I choose to cooperate by giving the crook my money, and he smiles, puts it away and then surprisingly rams his knife through my ribcage, nothing would have helped i guess.

If he doesnt instantly cause a nerve shock that stops my system with it, and i resist the pain enough to be able to act, there might still be enough time to shoot the bastard or break his neck (adrenaline infused rage). Plenty of if's. Probably wont work.

As a side note, i was taught a technique of "giving away" my purse that would distract him for the split second i need to disarm him. If he is silly enough not to bring backup, that is.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Inu
If he is silly enough not to bring backup, that is.

Hehe... all my training was under the assumption there would be multiple opponents. Most bad guys don't come alone. We'd train against 3 or 4 "bad guys" routinely.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Inu
@Frohickey: I know how to handle every weapon i ran into in my short life of 27 Years. I can handle Myself, Knifes, Swords, Clubs, Staves, Bows, Crossbows, Handguns, Submachine Guns, Assault Rifles and Anti-Tank Rockets ("Panzerfaust" ???). I manage to be at least average to good with everything so far. Next Autumn my government might add heavy Tankmounted Machineguns (they even force me to come out and test my skill with the fricking rifle they gave me every year (i hate it)). We will see.
But even if i carried a weapon (preferrably a handgun, something small but functional. Maybe a 9mm Beretta would do) with me all the time - If i get robbed, it would be best just to give them the 50-250 sFr. i might carry. The chance they hurt me with some infectious needle (just a evil example of improvised weapon that can kill) is simply too big, and wealth is replaceable. Sure, i could talk myself out, or just kill the bastard. I could. With or without weapon. But its not worth the hassle. [/B]

The NRA does not blanket endorse the Republican candidate. If you look, one of the liberals that is consistently endorsed by the NRA is Congressman John Dingell of Michigan. He's a liberal but he supports the right to keep and bear arms, which is one of the tenets of the NRA.

As to me and my skill with mechanical objects. Sure, I pride myself in being competent with the operation of a mechanical object. In fact, I pride myself in being competent with the operation of machinery, be it mechanical, chemical or electronic. But that is not the point. The point is, it is not my place (or anyone else) to limit what others choose to use for their self protection. I said self-protection, not criminal activity, not initiation of force, or any of the bad uses of guns (or any other type of tools).

The mantra of the anti-gun people is 'If it only saves one life...' How about the life of the woman living in the seedier part of town who is raped and murdered because the city she lives in does not allow weapons to be carried by citizens. The rapist/murderer sure did not have any trouble with that law.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Hehe... all my training was under the assumption there would be multiple opponents. Most bad guys don't come alone. We'd train against 3 or 4 "bad guys" routinely.

You train for the worse, but hope for the best.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
You train for the worse, but hope for the best.

Worst is like 10 people coming after you!:p

[Frohickey]

If you have 10 people coming at you at once... you are in real BIG trouble. :o

Times like that, you want backup.

[mactastic]

Times like that you wanna boogie out of there. Ain't no shame in running to avoid a fight. Specially one you can't win.:eek:

[Desertrat]

I read somewhere that cliches become so because of the truth therein. As in, "Discretion is the better form of valor." :)

Or, "There are times when it's best to practice not being there." As in, "Get out of the way, jackrabbit, and let somebody run who knows HOW!"

:D, 'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
registration only keeps those honest people honest and catches the few really stupid criminals who try to buy a gun the legal way other then that it creates more paper pushers who in turn will find away into more of our tax dollars.

Tighter gun laws would have prevented quite a number of homicides, inlcuding Columbine (where the guns were bought at gun shows using the loopholes), and a large percentage of firearm suicides.

[Desertrat]

The Columbiners may have used the so-called gunshow loopholes, but numerous laws were broken by the perps. They just as easily could have acquired fully-registered firearms, given the cooperation they had from adult-aged friends.

Numerous psychological studies have shown that those intent on suicide, if prevented from using one method, will find another. This is not even a matter for debate. (It's been at the heart of numerous discussions of the efficacy of waiting-period laws.)

If you're really interested in saving lives, call for a national speed limit of 20mph. That would save more lives than any or all of the gun control laws ever passed or proposed. If you're really interested in reducing criminal misbehavior with firearms, figure out how you would control those of evil intent. Prohibitions and controls haven't worked with alcohol or with drugs; why is it expected that some sort of magic would occur with respect to firearms?

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
The Columbiners may have used the so-called gunshow loopholes, but numerous laws were broken by the perps. They just as easily could have acquired fully-registered firearms, given the cooperation they had from adult-aged friends.

Numerous psychological studies have shown that those intent on suicide, if prevented from using one method, will find another. This is not even a matter for debate. (It's been at the heart of numerous discussions of the efficacy of waiting-period laws.)

If you're really interested in saving lives, call for a national speed limit of 20mph. That would save more lives than any or all of the gun control laws ever passed or proposed. If you're really interested in reducing criminal misbehavior with firearms, figure out how you would control those of evil intent. Prohibitions and controls haven't worked with alcohol or with drugs; why is it expected that some sort of magic would occur with respect to firearms?

Quite right; good points. Though the Columbine attacks would still have taken place, perhaps they would not have been as well armed as their were if tighter restrictions were in place.

I guess the real problem and question is the one Michael Moore asks in "Bowling for Columbine"

Why do Americans kill each other with guns at such a high rate? Everyone has an answer, but none of them seem to be right. The movie hints that it's because we live in a culture of fear and arm ourselves because of that fear, and are quick to pull a gun to solve simple problems.

[Desertrat]

"Why do Americans kill each other with guns at such a high rate?"

As I said before, guns are involved in about one-third of all homicides, so it might be better to ask why do we kill each other so much?

According to the CDC and DOJ numbers, if you take out black-on-black homicides, we're right in the band of homicides per 100,000 of population as most European countries. The range is roughly 4.5 to 6.0. Including black-on-black raises us to about 22 per 100K.

Black-on-black gun crime mostly inovlves the world of turf wars and drug sales; and holdups to get the money to buy drugs. (Just another tragic example of the mismanagement of the so-called War on Drugs, and various other federal programs.)

All this is available from the FBI/DOJ/CDC.

What's rather weird is that with the notable decline in our homicide rate during the last ten years, the fear of gun crimes has risen. Why? My own answer is the mix of perception as gleaned from the media ("If it bleeds, it leads.") and the ongoing growing desire for security that I've mentioned before.

One factor in the decline has been attributed to the reduction in the number of young people in the age-range most given to crime. The on-average longer prison terms being given mean that guys are generally older when they get out, and are thus less given to crimes of violence.

'Rat

[Daveman Deluxe]

Originally posted by Desertrat
What's rather weird is that with the notable decline in our homicide rate during the last ten years, the fear of gun crimes has risen. Why? My own answer is the mix of perception as gleaned from the media ("If it bleeds, it leads.") and the ongoing growing desire for security that I've mentioned before.

It is interesting to note that while overall crime has gone down in that period, the media has actually been reporting MORE crime as an asbolute number of crimes reported (and therefore as a percentage of the whole).

[rainman::|:|]

on a semi-related note, now that i'm 21, i will be getting my first glock in the next couple of months... a G28 or G30, .380 or .45 respectively. Probably the .38. Adding an internal laser, should be slick.

i think that sums up my opinion on gun ownership :)

pnw

[Dont Hurt Me]

its a constitutional right plain and simple. nice weapons. i use to have a ppk 380. sweet lil thing. tolerence's on the machine parts was fantastic. somehow i was thinking you were older mr paulwhannel.

[Desertrat]

My hands fit just real good around Old Slabsides. :) Mr. Browning created a Good Thing.

'Rat

[ColoJohnBoy]

My opinion is somewhat biased, seeing as how I was a freshman at Columbine when the killings occurred.

As much as I dislike it, I do recognize the fact that gun ownership has been interpreted as a Constitutionally protected right, and the I need to respect that. I also see that the second amendment states a "well-regulated" militia. With that in mind, I think the government has a right to legislate the sale, purchase, and ownership of firearms.

Guns are dangerous. There is no other way to injure or kill a person so detached or impersonal as the use of a firearm.

It isn't going to stop murders, or assuage the emotions that are felt by those who use firearms to ill ends. It is a reasonable step that we can take toward more responsible ownership, without restricting the access of those fit to own them. It is simply the right thing to do.

[Code101]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
on a semi-related note, now that i'm 21, i will be getting my first glock in the next couple of months... a G28 or G30, .380 or .45 respectively. Probably the .38. Adding an internal laser, should be slick.

i think that sums up my opinion on gun ownership :)

pnw

Go for the Glock 20! The 10mm round is not as popular but is the best! The FBI used it for a long time. I use it, it's my round of choice. Very powerful!

We need less gun laws not more. We can't even enforce the ones we have!

[pseudobrit]

What does a handgun do that a regualr rifle or shotgun couldn't?

I'll probably get an inexpensive rifle when I become a homeowner, but security against other humans at close range with a concealable weapon will be the least of my concerns. I'm thinking I'll need it more for animals. If I need it for property protection against humans, what better weapon could I have than an accurate rifle that is as useful from across the bedroom or kitchen as it is at a long standoff distance?

[Desertrat]

pseudobrit, one of the things one must look at when one possesses any means of deadly force is that of one's personal responsibility to avoid harming the innocent.

At THR, we've had numerous discussions about home defense weaponry. The consensus, given the penetrating power of any rifle, seems to be that one living in an apartment or a house with wooden and sheetrock walls shouldn't use a rifle. Too easy to penetrate a Bad Guy, a wall, and a neighbor--or a family member. Just a point to ponder, during the decision-making process.

A pistol is a one-handed weapon. My ex-wife had an occasion to hold her towel around her with one hand; with her Ruger Blackhawk in the other she explained to an intruder that he really had made a big mistake. He couldn't agree quickly enough. :)

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
pseudobrit, one of the things one must look at when one possesses any means of deadly force is that of one's personal responsibility to avoid harming the innocent.

At THR, we've had numerous discussions about home defense weaponry. The consensus, given the penetrating power of any rifle, seems to be that one living in an apartment or a house with wooden and sheetrock walls shouldn't use a rifle. Too easy to penetrate a Bad Guy, a wall, and a neighbor--or a family member. Just a point to ponder, during the decision-making process.

What about a shotgun, then? No crook is going to stand around for very long after hearing the tell-tale action of a shotgun.

A pistol is a one-handed weapon. My ex-wife had an occasion to hold her towel around her with one hand; with her Ruger Blackhawk in the other she explained to an intruder that he really had made a big mistake. He couldn't agree quickly enough. :)

Hmm... I don't think the intruder would have thought any differently if she'd been naked and brandishing a shotgun.

[Desertrat]

ColoJohnBoy, first let me say that I'm as aggrieved as anybody not involved with your school can be. It was indeed tragic.

That said, your comments lead me to believe you haven't read through this thread.

"As much as I dislike it, I do recognize the fact that gun ownership has been interpreted as a Constitutionally protected right, and the I need to respect that. I also see that the second amendment states a "well-regulated" militia. With that in mind, I think the government has a right to legislate the sale, purchase, and ownership of firearms."

I've spoken to this, but here's a point to consider: You, yourself, are part of the unorganized militia as defined in the law by Congress.

Another point is that governments have no rights. People, as individuals have rights. The Bill of Rights enumerates some of them, but it in no way conveys them. Rights exist with or without any government whatsoever. Governments are formed in order to preserve these rights--which is why folks worry about such as the Patriot Act.

My other objections to some of the legislating about firearms--and we already have thousands of laws pertaining to firearms--are already posted above.

"Guns are dangerous. There is no other way to injure or kill a person so detached or impersonal as the use of a firearm."

No. Guns are not dangerous, unless you also categorize screwdrivers and hammers as dangerous. A person of evil intent or who is ignorant of firearms safety can be dangerous. An ancient saying which is forever true is, "There are no deadly weapons. There are only deadly people." The issue of "detached or impersonal" does not at all apply to all people.

If you're at all interested in the general subject, beyond the coffee-shop level of discussion, I recommend a book, "Under the Gun" by Wright, Rossi and Daly. It speaks to the results of Florida's gun control laws, and people's interactions. These mostly-statistician types began as mildly anti-gun to neutral; the reasons for the changes in opinion make for an interesting appendix to the book.

Dr. Lott's results from his studies while at the University of Chicago, and the survey done by Prof. Gary Kleck of FSU are easily found and quite enlightening.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
No. Guns are not dangerous, unless you also categorize screwdrivers and hammers as dangerous.

So where is this hammer or screwdriver that has a "kill a human being" button on it?

A handgun is made to kill human beings. It is made to kill them at the flip of a lever. This is not a tool in the same category of hammer or screwdriver or even hunting rifle, all of which have purposes other than ending the life of a human being.

[ColoJohnBoy]

Thank you for your concern and sympathy, Desertrat.

You're right, I haven't read completely through this thread. Regardless, my comments were posted as a personal response to the post by Don't Hurt Me saying:

its a constitutional right plain and simple.

Yes, you can kill someone with a screwdriver or a hammer. But to do that, it takes something a little more then a 1/2" movement of your index finger. You have to watch a person writhe in agony as beat him with a hammer before he dies. Most of the cowards who use guns to kill people wouldn't have the guts for this, no matter how mentally or emotionally disturbed they might be. With a handgun, all the killer really has to see is a small hole and a little blood. Unless you're right up to the person shooting him in the face, it is more detached and personal than nearly any other way of killing someone. People can be dangerous, indeed. They are less dangerous without an instrument originally designed for a single purpose: to kill.

As a matter of fact, yes governments do have rights, derived from the people. We endow them with these rights so that they can ensure three societal necessities: freedom, order, and equality. If the government didn't have rights it would cease to function as an effective organization. Perhaps a better word than 'rights' is 'powers'. The government has the power to levy taxes, to declare war, and to legislate economic policy. If by sacrificing a small portion of my power I feel safer, I am more than willing to do that.

I'm afraid I'm a bit lost by your comment, "You, yourself, are part of the unorganized militia as defined in the law by Congress." The word militia was not the pertinent portion of my statement. I recognize that I fall under the Constituional definition of militia, as do all other citizens of the nation. As we all fall under that definition, we also are all subject to the classification of that definition: "well-regulated". Yes, indeed, we all have the right to bear arms. But just as that right is enumerated by the Second Amendment, it is also controlled and overseen by the free State whose security it was designed to protect.

Just as a postscript, let me pose this question: If you were in a hostage situation, whether it be in a school or on an airplane, would you be more likely to submit to the hostage-taker if he were holding a semi-autumatic handgun, or if he were holding a hammer or Phillips-head screwdriver?

Therein lies the difference. Therein lies the necessity.

[Desertrat]

pseudobrit, I'm partial to either a handgun, or a 20-gauge with #9 skeet loads. Regardless, skill with either is a (IMO) a necessary responsibility; sadly, not observed by all too many. One part of home defense is that part where "fire lanes" are preplanned. ("If I'm here, and he's there, it's safe to shoot.") For some, a stout, lockable bedroom door and a cellphone are the best defense. There's just no such thing as "One size fits all" in this sort of thing...

As far as my ex- and the towel, how many women do you really think would stand there bare-butted in order to use a rifle or shotgun? 'Scuse me, but that sounds like you don't know much about women. :D

ColoJohnBoy, we don't endow the government with rights. We collectively delegate our own authority to governmental people to act in our behalf. Whatever sort of Creator there may be endowed individual human beings with rights. You may have noticed that the chief action of most governments is to deny rights.

Ah, yesssss...the "well-regulated militia". The usage of "regulated" has changed dramatically in the last 200 years. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, it meant properly functional, as with the brand name of clock "Regulator". Militia groups provided their own weapons and trained together under elected leaders from the local community. They could march; they could shoot, and this led to them being described as well-regulated. Nowadays, it just means some bureaucrat wrote out some "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" stuff.

As far as danger from any weapon, a knife-wielder if within some twenty to thirty feet can be far more of a threat than one with a handgun. One can possibly wheedle one's way to within some six feet or so of a pistolero and then ruin his day. A knifeman will ruin yours.

Doesn't matter. A handgun makes a small woman the physical equal of an NFL lineman, and that's all that really matters--egalitarian that I am...

:), 'Rat

[vwcruisn]

Originally posted by Desertrat
As far as danger from any weapon, a knife-wielder if within some twenty to thirty feet can be far more of a threat than one with a handgun. One can possibly wheedle one's way to within some six feet or so of a pistolero and then ruin his day. A knifeman will ruin yours.


common... are you HONESTLY arguing that its easier to kill someone with a knife, much less a screwdriver or a hammer, than with a gun?? Please.. step back into reality.. THINK a little bit. Are you so narrow minded that you can't use a little common sense and admit that you are wrong, or at least that they are right? Has the NRA really brainwashed you this much?

[Pinto]

You don't need any weapon to kill. An gun just makes it heaps easier

I wonder what the nastiest non-gun rampage (go postal) ever was?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Pinto
You don't need any weapon to kill. An gun just makes it heaps easier

I wonder what the nastiest non-gun rampage (go postal) ever was?

I think it was Lancelot in the wedding scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. :eek:

Seriously, anybody who needs automatic weapons to hunt animals should not be allowed to do it. A rifle or shotgun is all anybody needs for sport or personal protection. Nuts who want to build weapons depots for weekend army games should know they don't qualify for the protection of the second amendment.

The NRA's list is meant to intimidate opposition and it won't be effective. I do wonder what will happen to the NRA when people on their list end up dead like some of the anti-abortion groups have had happen to people on their lists. Under a Ashcroft Dept. of Justice, I'm sure nothing will happen. He's too busy stopping the growing threat of sailor-mongering.*

* for those scratching their heads - read the following thread:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42341

[Inu]

Originally posted by vwcruisn
common... are you HONESTLY arguing that its easier to kill someone with a knife, much less a screwdriver or a hammer, than with a gun?? Please.. step back into reality.. THINK a little bit. Are you so narrow minded that you can't use a little common sense and admit that you are wrong, or at least that they are right? Has the NRA really brainwashed you this much?

Well, not easier. But knifes (and Unarmed Techniques) do indeed gain an advantage when used on closest-combat range. If your target gets you by surprise while you are holding a rifle, it can sprint (jump, basically) a very large distance.

If the knifeman knows what he is doing (had martial arts training) he will knock off your weapon and slit/crush your throat at basically the same time, rendering the supreme firepower of the firearm useless in a split second.

Of course, usually you dont robbed by ninja-muggers-from-outer-space, so a gun of any form might scare them ****less.

As for Rifles/Shotguns vs. Handguns as a Home Defence System: Rifles are a bit too bulky in Close Combat (Tried to describe that above... Attacker just has to hit one arm and its useless, and its easier to hit the weapon and force it to face another way), and Onehand Weapons can be swung faster, should there be two Targets, or the Weapon be pointed wrong after entry into a room.

Btw: I always used the Multi-Aggressor Training only for, well... Training reasons. I do not hope to succeed against multiple Targets. Against one Enemy, no problem. I once fought against 4 Opponents as a boy and got the crap beaten out of me, but only because i stopped shortly before beating one of my opponents to the ground - an action that was part of my rage and might have killed him. I am glad i ended up with a beating and not with a killed opponent.

[Taft]

Originally posted by vwcruisn
common... are you HONESTLY arguing that its easier to kill someone with a knife, much less a screwdriver or a hammer, than with a gun?? Please.. step back into reality.. THINK a little bit. Are you so narrow minded that you can't use a little common sense and admit that you are wrong, or at least that they are right? Has the NRA really brainwashed you this much?

I agree with your sentiment (guns do make killing a person much more impersonal), but that wasn't what he was arguing. He was arguing about the effectiveness of a weapon in combat. Inu's post should make it clear that certain weapons can be more dangerous at close range than a gun.

I'm not saying you don't have a point. In fact, I agree that one of the things that makes guns so dangerous is their ease of use and efficiency. But rat and inu have points too.

Taft

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Tighter gun laws would have prevented quite a number of homicides, inlcuding Columbine (where the guns were bought at gun shows using the loopholes), and a large percentage of firearm suicides.

Large percentage of firearm suicides?!!!

Sorry, but why should I trade a chance at good self-defense away so that someone wouldn't kill themselves with a gun?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Why do Americans kill each other with guns at such a high rate? Everyone has an answer, but none of them seem to be right. The movie hints that it's because we live in a culture of fear and arm ourselves because of that fear, and are quick to pull a gun to solve simple problems.

I doubt that is true.
Courts have already said that law enforcement has no duty (http://www.mcsm.org/noduty1.html) to protect individual members of society. So, who do we have to rely on? The good intentions of the criminals intent on taking my property or my dignity???

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
It is interesting to note that while overall crime has gone down in that period, the media has actually been reporting MORE crime as an asbolute number of crimes reported (and therefore as a percentage of the whole).

Interesting? Its actually predictable. Here you have crimes that are going down in frequency, which makes it rare and newsworthy. The more sensationalistic, the more newsworthy it is. Why report something that is ordinary? Like 99% of the guns in private hands were not committed in a crime today.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
on a semi-related note, now that i'm 21, i will be getting my first glock in the next couple of months... a G28 or G30, .380 or .45 respectively. Probably the .38. Adding an internal laser, should be slick.

i think that sums up my opinion on gun ownership :)

pnw

Better to get it with night sights first.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
As much as I dislike it, I do recognize the fact that gun ownership has been interpreted as a Constitutionally protected right, and the I need to respect that. I also see that the second amendment states a "well-regulated" militia. With that in mind, I think the government has a right to legislate the sale, purchase, and ownership of firearms.

Guns are dangerous. There is no other way to injure or kill a person so detached or impersonal as the use of a firearm.


What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

I could think of other ways of killing or injuring people that are more detached and impersonal. Lets see. ANFO bombs under a federal building in Oklahoma. Bacterial spores in the mail. Large vehicle against a crowd of pedestrians. Rat poison in food.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
What does a handgun do that a regualr rifle or shotgun couldn't?

I'll probably get an inexpensive rifle when I become a homeowner, but security against other humans at close range with a concealable weapon will be the least of my concerns. I'm thinking I'll need it more for animals. If I need it for property protection against humans, what better weapon could I have than an accurate rifle that is as useful from across the bedroom or kitchen as it is at a long standoff distance?

Ease of portability. A small firearm takes less space and is more likely to be carried than a large one. Unfortunately, good guys usually do not pick the time and place when they will be attacked, and a small firearm is more likely to be worn than a larger one.

Animals... remember, they come in two varieties. Four-legged kind, and the more dangerous two-legged kind. :p

[Taft]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I doubt that is true.
Courts have already said that law enforcement has no duty (http://www.mcsm.org/noduty1.html) to protect individual members of society. So, who do we have to rely on? The good intentions of the criminals intent on taking my property or my dignity???

That is a shady assertion at best.

While law enforcement might not be required to protect the average person or help them during a crime, nearly 100% of law enforcement officials will.

Further, most states have the equivilent of an "order to protect," which does require the police to enforce a court order of seperation between individuals. These are often used in cases of domestic violence, etc.

I agree that it isn't wise to completely rely on law enforcement for your safety, but this article (and its big brother "Dial 911 and Die") paint a far worse picture than is actually the case.

Also, the presence of a gun in a home does not decrease your risk of being a victim of a crime. In fact, if you have a gun in your home, statistically you are 22 times more likely (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/gunhome.asp) to have that gun used against yourself or someone you know than in self defense.

I'm all for making people safer and empowering them to defend themselves. Its the smart thing to do. But a gun in every home is not the only answer. In fact, statistically, that gun is more likely to be used against you or a loved one, or hurt you accidentally than for defense.

Taft

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
As a matter of fact, yes governments do have rights, derived from the people. We endow them with these rights so that they can ensure three societal necessities: freedom, order, and equality. If the government didn't have rights it would cease to function as an effective organization. Perhaps a better word than 'rights' is 'powers'. The government has the power to levy taxes, to declare war, and to legislate economic policy. If by sacrificing a small portion of my power I feel safer, I am more than willing to do that.

Just as a postscript, let me pose this question: If you were in a hostage situation, whether it be in a school or on an airplane, would you be more likely to submit to the hostage-taker if he were holding a semi-autumatic handgun, or if he were holding a hammer or Phillips-head screwdriver?

Government does not have rights
Only people have rights. Even the states do not have rights. The Bill of Rights and Founding Fathers knew this. Look at the Bill of Rights, especially the 9th and 10th amendments. They went to great pains to say rights/people and powers/states/government.

Lets turn your argument around. Lets say you are a hostage taker with a screwdriver or hammer, and in the commission of your hostage taking, you were confronted by a person with a semi-automatic handgun telling you to cease and desist.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by vwcruisn
common... are you HONESTLY arguing that its easier to kill someone with a knife, much less a screwdriver or a hammer, than with a gun?? Please.. step back into reality.. THINK a little bit. Are you so narrow minded that you can't use a little common sense and admit that you are wrong, or at least that they are right? Has the NRA really brainwashed you this much?

Prison guards are very sensitive to this issue. The ones I've spoken with would rather face an inmate with a gun than an inmate with a knife.

[Taft]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Large percentage of firearm suicides?!!!

Sorry, but why should I trade a chance at good self-defense away so that someone wouldn't kill themselves with a gun?

I actually agree with you on this one.

Also, many anti-gun people throw out a statistic that homes with guns are 5 times more likely to have a suicide than non-gun homes. This is a bogus statistic.

Why did those people commit suicide? Was it because suicide was more convenient with a gun around? Are there any demographic differences between gun-homes and non-gun-homes?

Those kind of statistics are meaningless because studies have shown a person's tendancy towards suicide wouldn't go up or down as the result of the purchase of a gun. In fact the statistic could be unrealistically high simply because some people buy a gun for the express purpose of killing themselves. It happens.

I'm all for using statistics, but they must be used intelligently. This kind of statistic, without additional data, tells us nothing.

Taft

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Taft
That is a shady assertion at best.

While law enforcement might not be required to protect the average person or help them during a crime, nearly 100% of law enforcement officials will.

Further, most states have the equivilent of an "order to protect," which does require the police to enforce a court order of seperation between individuals. These are often used in cases of domestic violence, etc.

I agree that it isn't wise to completely rely on law enforcement for your safety, but this article (and its big brother "Dial 911 and Die") paint a far worse picture than is actually the case.

Also, the presence of a gun in a home does not decrease your risk of being a victim of a crime. In fact, if you have a gun in your home, statistically you are 22 times more likely (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/gunhome.asp) to have that gun used against yourself or someone you know than in self defense.

I'm all for making people safer and empowering them to defend themselves. Its the smart thing to do. But a gun in every home is not the only answer. In fact, statistically, that gun is more likely to be used against you or a loved one, or hurt you accidentally than for defense.

Taft

You know what they say about statistics.
I see that the Brady bunch is still going on about the Kellerman study, which has long been refuted. But now, intead of the 43times, they toned it down to 22 times. How convenient. I guess a half-lie is better than a full-lie.

Lets see. You had the Central Park gropings, where police held off much to the distress of the women that were fondled and groped. You had the LAPD during the LA riots, where they held back when people were being robbed, and beaten.

If Brady's assertion is correct, then I, and my loved ones should be dead by now. Lets see... 22 times 25. I'm 550 times more likely to have one of my guns used against me. So far, the only thing my guns have hurt is my wallet. Shooting a lot is expensive. :p

In all seriousness though, training is the key here. Just like you do not expect to be a master at driving a car without practice on the road, or practice in an empty parking lot, you should not expect to be able to competently use a firearm without practice and training

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Frohickey
...

In all seriousness though, training is the key here. Just like you do not expect to be a master at driving a car without practice on the road, or practice in an empty parking lot, you should not expect to be able to competently use a firearm without practice and training

Sounds like an argument for mandatory gun training prior to ownership to me.

[Taft]

Incidently, how do the pro-gun people around this forum feel about programs such as CAP (Child Access Prevention) laws?

Theoretically, those laws wouldn't restrict gun ownership. Rather, they would mandate that the guns must be owned and maintained in a responsible manner. If the owner didn't use, store, etc. the gun in a responsible manner, they would be punished.

To me, these types of laws seem like a good idea and should cross the pro- and anti-gun divide. As long as the burden on the gun owners was reasonable, I don't see a problem.

Taft

[Taft]

Originally posted by Frohickey
You know what they say about statistics.
I see that the Brady bunch is still going on about the Kellerman study, which has long been refuted. But now, intead of the 43times, they toned it down to 22 times. How convenient. I guess a half-lie is better than a full-lie.

Lets see. You had the Central Park gropings, where police held off much to the distress of the women that were fondled and groped. You had the LAPD during the LA riots, where they held back when people were being robbed, and beaten.

If Brady's assertion is correct, then I, and my loved ones should be dead by now. Lets see... 22 times 25. I'm 550 times more likely to have one of my guns used against me. So far, the only thing my guns have hurt is my wallet. Shooting a lot is expensive. :p

In all seriousness though, training is the key here. Just like you do not expect to be a master at driving a car without practice on the road, or practice in an empty parking lot, you should not expect to be able to competently use a firearm without practice and training

Eep! I didn't realize they were using the Kellerman study. I withdraw that point. In other studies, however, researchers have found no change in safety because of a gun in the home.

However, you didn't address my point about "orders to protect" and the safety gained from law enforcement and court use.

Taft

[Desertrat]

It has been demonstrated numerous times that a knifer, if within some 20 or so feet, will ALWAYS be able to cut or stab one who's carrying a concealed handgun. The prsumption is that the knifer begins the action, and the "toter" must react.

Always remember that the initiator of an action has a time advantage of 0.2 seconds before the average person can begin a response.

There's a guy named Chip McCormick who is a world class pistolero. He's won numerous international-level pistol matches. He is much faster than I am, and more accurate with a Colt 1911.

We played a game, a variant of the Hollywood western gunfight. We had similar open-carry holsters, with near-stock 1911s. The targets were steel plates at ten yards. The deal was, he couldn't begin his draw until he saw any motion of mine. Whoever hit his steel plate first had "killed" his opponent.

That 0.2 seconds meant that I "killed" him, every time. (For Chip, probably 0.15 or so. :) )

Again, if anybody is interested enough to do some learning, there are quite a few professionals over at The High Road .Org where all these issues are regularly discussed. Newbies show up all the time, and we regard patience as a virtue. (I'm mostly a rifle guy and a hunter, and I've answered the same questions hundreds of times over the last five years. :) )

Later,

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Taft
Incidently, how do the pro-gun people around this forum feel about programs such as CAP (Child Access Prevention) laws?

Actually, I'm more of a Teach-Your-Child-Right person. You can have loaded guns in stashed at various places in the house, and the would be just fine where they are if your child is taught not to touch them, or to touch them only when something bad is about to happen.

Children are not magical beings that are immature at age 17yrs 11 months, and mature at 18yrs (for rifles/shotguns). There is a progression of events that make children into responsible people. For some, they are already responsible at 15, some even younger, others never become responsible before they die.

You might have read old books about frontier life, where kids were taught to shoot at an early age, taught to hunt, and actually hunt on their own, etc. Here, parents had the time and inclination to teach their children the proper use of firearms, because biologically, there is nothing different from these children of a bygone era, and today.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
It has been demonstrated numerous times that a knifer, if within some 20 or so feet, will ALWAYS be able to cut or stab one who's carrying a concealed handgun. The prsumption is that the knifer begins the action, and the "toter" must react.


Heh... those are fun drills.

You have one guy, with an airsoft pistol that shoots 6mm plastic BB pellets. Position him about 20 feet away from a guy with a permanent ink marker (to simulate a knife).

The guy with the marker sometimes gets hit by the pellets, most of the time, its a miss. The guy with the airsoft pistol always gets large inkmarks on him. :p

[Desertrat]

Taft, there are at least two federal district court decisions wherein it was held that the police have no specific duty to protect an individual in the absence of direct, visual observation of a crime. (One case in the District of Columbia; the other in Oklahoma.) The police have as their primary duty the "peace and quiet" of the overall community.

Now, what individual officers do is another matter. And, yes, most are dedicated and will walk the extra mile for the people they protect. But it's not mandatory that they do so, under the law.

In the D.C. case, a woman was raped in her apartment. The rapist "took a break" for a snack in her kitchen. She called the police on her bedroom telephone, giving info about the crime, her name and her address. The rapist came back and repeated his crime. During this time, a squad car drove by her apartment building. Hearing no cries for help and observing no activity, they drove away. They made no investigatory efforts. As I understand it, she won her lawsuit in federal court and then lost on appeal by the city.

I don't know the details of the Oklahoma case.

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Taft, there are at least two federal district court decisions wherein it was held that the police have no specific duty to protect an individual...

'Rat

Here is a link (http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm) detailing several cases whereby law enforcement does not have a duty to protect individual citizens, and are not legally liable for failing to protect them.

28 cases!!! :eek:

Ruth Bunnell death. The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. - Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5

Laundromat attack. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a "special relationship" between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant's conduct; - Davidson v. City of Westminister (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252

[Desertrat]

Taft, IMO, any and all gun owners are responsible for devising some system of storing their firearms such that there is the absolute minimum of hazard to children, and also of the chance for theft. Period. Exclamation point.

Gunsafes, chains/padlocks, removal of bolts, trigger locks...

However, once any child reaches the "age of hacksaw", all bets are off as to physical means. One has the responsibility to "gun proof" a kid--which is quite easy and can be done as early as the age of three or four years. My parents did; I did.

Anybody whose child took a gun from an unlocked bedside table and did stupid, resulting in a civil suit for negligence against the parent? That parent doesn't want me on the jury.

'Rat

[mactastic]

So how come my right to keep and bear arms (I'm a pretty well regulated guy) doesn't include ANFO? There's a gopher that's been pissing me off lately, and I think that would be just the thing to convince him to relocate.

Reminds me of what Homer Simpson said (whined) when trying to buy a handgun... "Five days? But I'm mad now!" :D

[Taft]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Taft, there are at least two federal district court decisions wherein it was held that the police have no specific duty to protect an individual in the absence of direct, visual observation of a crime. (One case in the District of Columbia; the other in Oklahoma.) The police have as their primary duty the "peace and quiet" of the overall community.

Now, what individual officers do is another matter. And, yes, most are dedicated and will walk the extra mile for the people they protect. But it's not mandatory that they do so, under the law.

In the D.C. case, a woman was raped in her apartment. The rapist "took a break" for a snack in her kitchen. She called the police on her bedroom telephone, giving info about the crime, her name and her address. The rapist came back and repeated his crime. During this time, a squad car drove by her apartment building. Hearing no cries for help and observing no activity, they drove away. They made no investigatory efforts. As I understand it, she won her lawsuit in federal court and then lost on appeal by the city.

I don't know the details of the Oklahoma case.

'Rat

I understand that this is the case. But, as I said, individual officers (at least the ones I know) feel a duty to stop a crime in progress. Especially if that crime is as severe as a rape.

Further, individuals can use the courts to protect themselves against a person they feel is a threat. These orders of protection must be enforced by the police. I understand that these are not helpful in the case of a "random" attack or crime, but they are very useful for persons who feel threatened by a malicious individual.

Again, I emphasize that I support a person's right to defend themselves and prepare for the possibility of a crime. However, I personally don't think a gun is the best answer for everyone. In fact, I'd probably say that it isn't the best choice for most people.

Taft

[Desertrat]

Taft, real-world history shows us that there is a too-large number of dead women who thought they were protected by a restraining order. They're about as useful as a verbal contract with an Enron exec.

Now, I guess I'm sort of an elitist about guns. If somebody doesn't work with his pets to develop skill, and think out ahead of time for scenarios for self-defense, I'm sorta "look down my nose" at them. But, that's patently unfair. Real life results in self defense shootings include success in saving their own lives on the part of little old ladies and garden-variety storekeepers.

Every month, the NRA's "American Rifleman" has a page of squibs about self-defense with a firearm, taken from newspapers all over the U.S. (Includes the name of the papers, for verification if one doubts the NRA's veracity.) Many of those defenses were by people who apparently knew relatively little beyond "point it and pull the trigger." Regardless, they survived.

Doesn't mean everybody oughta go out and buy a gun. Some folks could never bring themselves to shoot another person. Some don't have the dexterity or coordination to be safe, themselves. But that's just the way people are...

Me? Hey, I haven't even had a fight since 1951. But I think it's reasonable to assume that my locally-known skill with a gun kept me from serious difficulty when I got crosswise with some next-door neighbors after I blew the whistle on their drug-smuggling activities on the Border. If you ever read the book "Drug Lord", I was crosswise with Pablo Acosta's uncle. :) He went to jail; I'm still walking around.

:), 'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Hmm...

Originally posted by Frohickey
Actually, I'm more of a Teach-Your-Child-Right person. You can have loaded guns in stashed at various places in the house, and the would be just fine where they are if your child is taught not to touch them, or to touch them only when something bad is about to happen.

VS.

Originally posted by Desertrat
Taft, IMO, any and all gun owners are responsible for devising some system of storing their firearms such that there is the absolute minimum of hazard to children, and also of the chance for theft. Period. Exclamation point.
...
Anybody whose child took a gun from an unlocked bedside table and did stupid, resulting in a civil suit for negligence against the parent? That parent doesn't want me on the jury.

What if your well-taught safety-conscious child has friends over who aren't so well-taught?

I think I'll assert 'Rat's opinion on this one. If you have a gun in your house, you tell the child what it is and what will happen to him if he touches it. Then you hide it and lock it away so he won't, because he's a child and he'll try anything to play with something he's not allowed to (because he's a stupid friggin' child!!).

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
What if your well-taught safety-conscious child has friends over who aren't so well-taught?

I think I'll assert 'Rat's opinion on this one. If you have a gun in your house, you tell the child what it is and what will happen to him if he touches it. Then you hide it and lock it away so he won't, because he's a child and he'll try anything to play with something he's not allowed to (because he's a stupid friggin' child!!).

Lets see. Friends over that are not so well-taught. I would think that my child would be well-taught as to inform me before they have friends over. Pretty customary, IMO, to ask parents before you bring friends over.

What if we just say this instead? I guarantee that my firearms will not be misused by me, or any other person through negligence. That includes my child knowing how and when to use it. Keeping it away from persons not competent to use it. Essentially, I guarantee that I will be a responsible adult. Good enough for ya? Or do you need to stick your nose into my business some more?

There is the rush to pass laws, especially firearms laws, in order to substitute for adult responsibility and supervision. This is unwise because everyone is different. You might have unruly neighbor's kids. I might not. You might live in a gated community with roving private patrol. I might not. You might be 250lb super-athletic ironman marathon runner. I might not.


You mention locking things up because your child is not well-behaved. Sounds like there is some opportunity there to teach your child proper behavior. Remember, you can't child-proof the world (locking everything up), but you can world-proof the child (teach proper behavior).

[Desertrat]

I told my kid at about age four-ish that when he thought he wa big enough to shoot any gun lying around the house, just tell me and we'd go shoot. It was his opinion that counted, not mine, about "big enough". By removing the mystique of "Oh, wow! A gun!" and the lure of the illict, guns became just another tool to him.

Kids are a problem when they're curious about "forbidden fruit". Take that out of the equation, and guns become no problem at all.

Well, not through several generations of my family, anyway.

'Rat

[Inu]

It would help alot if the guns are not stored "fire-ready", for christ's sake. How many kids got shot because some half brainer left a bullet in the gun?

Education made by holywood btw: magazine out, gun isnt loaded anymore... WRONG: still a ****ing bullet in it, and it might be enough. There are enough dimwits that dont do the "Savety Check to disarm a gun" (i dont know how you call it "Entladebewegung") every time they pick up a gun. I do. I know every time i take a weapon if its dangerous, for how many shots it will be dangerous and when it is just a funny shaped club. I feel save when i handle a gun. I dont do that with many of my co-soldiers.

[Desertrat]

"All guns are always loaded, all the time." "Never point a gun at anything you do not intend to destroy." "Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot."

It's a danged shame all kids aren't taught this.

I find it interesting that some will badmouth the "Eddie Eagle" program instituted by the NRA. "If you see a gun, stop! Don't touch it. Call an adult." What's wrong with that being taught in schools? (I grant that in today's world, there's a shortage of mature, responsible "adults" when it comes to dealing with guns.)

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
"All guns are always loaded, all the time." "Never point a gun at anything you do not intend to destroy." "Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot."

It's a danged shame all kids aren't taught this.

They should be, in school. Before the age of sex education.

[Desertrat]

mac, you can go to the dynamite store and buy all the ANFO ya want! That's only prohibited in some states, not by the feds. It comes premixed in 50-pound bags. (Easy enough to make your own, of course.) It's a shame you can only buy dynamite by the 50-pound case, at some $200 bucks per each. Gotta buy electric fuse caps by the box of 50, as well.

You must show ID to purchase, filling out a fairly lengthy form in quadruplicate. The original goes to BATFE, SFAIK.

Federal law requires explosives be kept in locked containers inside a locked building.

:), 'Rat

[mactastic]

Ohhhhh so if the states regulate your explosives/firearms then its ok, but if the feds do it, then it's an infringment on your rights? I'm confused.

[Desertrat]

Did I mention "rights"? I thought I merely stated the existing situation.

But it's easy enough to make your own ANFO. Okie City, remember? It's not even difficult to make your own detonator, for that matter. Highschool chemistry is sufficient education. And if you check around the Web...

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Did I mention "rights"? I thought I merely stated the existing situation.

'Rat

Well ok, lets take it a step further. Why is it not ok for a law abiding, patriotic American to own an anti-tank weapon? Or a fully operational Apache Longbow complete with Hellfire missles and what is it, a 20mm cannon on the nose? I'd like one for my militia please! Why can't I go grenade hunting fish? A Phalanx would be perfect come duck season. Not one of those buggers would get by me. Not allowed you say? Sure its expensive, but I've got my rights as an American to think of here.;)

[Desertrat]

:) Prior to some of the 20th century laws, you could indeed own your own cannon. Many soldiers brought machine guns back from WW I and nobody thought anything of it.

Read about our own Tiannemen Square event in Washington DC in 1932; the "Veterans' March" which led to the GCA of 1934. MacArthur, Patton and Eisenhower actually had their men fire on Americans.

Personally, I don't care if you can afford an M1 Abrams and a boxcar load of ammo. The pertinent laws concern damaging streets and disturbing the peace. Courtesy would have firing done in isolated areas, using AP instead of explosive/incindiary ammo; gotta think of damage to the land.

In the context of the Second Amendment, I think the issue is individual weaponry, not crew-served, for individual people. However, in the early days of both the colonies and then the nation, you'll recall, merchant ships were individually and privately owned, yet had cannon--so there's a bit of a dichotomy in this reasoning. And, militia groups had cannon.

[mactastic]

So we are not so much arguing whether there should be restrictions on weapons, rather the amount and types of restrictions on them?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Well ok, lets take it a step further. Why is it not ok for a law abiding, patriotic American to own an anti-tank weapon? Or a fully operational Apache Longbow complete with Hellfire missles and what is it, a 20mm cannon on the nose? I'd like one for my militia please! Why can't I go grenade hunting fish? A Phalanx would be perfect come duck season. Not one of those buggers would get by me. Not allowed you say? Sure its expensive, but I've got my rights as an American to think of here.;)

Your militia?

Hate to say it, but it is not your militia. Its the United States militia (http://www.webleyweb.com/klh/militia1.html). You are part of the militia. If you are male between 17 and 45, a citizen or declared your intent to be a citizen, or a female NOT in the national guard, you are the militia.

The word 'militia' has been turned by some fanatics and the press to mean something else, but the legal definition of the word has remained virtually the same since 1792.

[Desertrat]

If you've read the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist papers, you might recall the latter said that firearms should be denied "those of unsound mind and of ill repute." I don't any reasonable person would want unfettered possession of any and all weaponry. At the same time, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to restrain the State from abuse of power, and an armed citizenry is definitely a way to provide that restraint. The ballot box is preferable, of course, but I note a lot of complaining about the Patriot Act and what it could lead to...

To get back to the practical: The primary gripe within the gun culture is the passing of laws which do very little to restrain criminal misuse of firearms, but create an inordinate amount of hassle for the law-abiding citizen. We've lived without problems with the GCA '34, for instance; legally-registered machine guns, etc., have never been used in crime. (Non-LEOs own some 100,000 fully-automatic weapons, nationwide.) As far as registering other guns, it would do no good at all in preventing crime, and little in solving crimes. The Assault Weapon ban has to do with perception and "cosmetics", not the comparatively rare criminal misuse. The Brady Bill only keeps certain people from buying from a licensed dealer, not from a thief out on the street. Mandatory trigger locks ignore human nature. The "smart gun" idea is stupid. And so it goes.

So, yeah, control of crew-served weapons is a reasonable function of government, although I haven't a clue as to whether it's actually Constitutional. Besides, they're unneeded in restraining the State against abuse of power. :)

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
:) Prior to some of the 20th century laws, you could indeed own your own cannon. Many soldiers brought machine guns back from WW I and nobody thought anything of it.

Read about our own Tiannemen Square event in Washington DC in 1932; the "Veterans' March" which led to the GCA of 1934. MacArthur, Patton and Eisenhower actually had their men fire on Americans.

Yep. Look up Bonus Marchers (http://www.msys.net/cress/ballots2/bonus.htm) or Bonus Army (http://www.islandnet.com/~citizenx/bonus.html).
In the summer of 1932 the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces ordered the U.S. Army into action--to attack the veterans of the U.S. Army. General Douglas MacArthur, Colonel Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Major George S. Patton led the mounted soldiers, who wielded billy clubs and tear gas canisters. When it was all over the veterans' shanties and tents lay in smoldering piles. Proud veterans of World War I were driven from the nation's capital. "We were heroes in 1917," said one veteran bitterly, "but we're bums now."

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Your militia?

Hate to say it, but it is not your militia. Its the United States militia (http://www.webleyweb.com/klh/militia1.html). You are part of the militia. If you are male between 17 and 45, a citizen or declared your intent to be a citizen, or a female NOT in the national guard, you are the militia.

The word 'militia' has been turned by some fanatics and the press to mean something else, but the legal definition of the word has remained virtually the same since 1792.

Nice dodge. Ok, not my militia, THE militia. Happier?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Nice dodge. Ok, not my militia, THE militia. Happier?

What dodge?

Phalanx? You planning on mooring a destroyer in your backyard pool?

Any weapons system that is used and carried in the field by US soldiers should be fair game. Remember, it was only a short 227 years when soldiers fought side by side with militia, and distance between the two was measured in inches (fighting side by side).

Besides, after active and reserve components, its the National Guard, and then its the Militia. In Feb. 29, 2000, there were 1,369,022 (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2000/b04052000_bt166-00.html) active duty and reserve forces in the US military, thats all services combined. That is 1,369,022 to protect 281,421,906 (http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html) (okay 280,052,884 men, women and children).

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
What dodge?

Phalanx? You planning on mooring a destroyer in your backyard pool?

No, I want the Phalanx for duck season.:D Besides what does it matter what I want to use it for?

Any weapons system that is used and carried in the field by US soldiers should be fair game. [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed. Now why is this not the case?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Agreed. Now why is this not the case?

Because some liberal progressive back in the 1930s signed a law taxing some of the more fun weapons $200 a piece, even though these weapons were being sold for less than half that price!

[Desertrat]

Frohickey, to me, the GCA '34 was more like a Patriot Act thing. Congress was scared of armed veterans, for one thing. Plus, they had the excitement of the Prohibition era machine-gunnings to garner public support. Same sort of deal as the "Assault Weapon" ban.

The GCA '34 was probably the only gun control law ever passed that wasn't purely racist.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Wouldn't the courts have found that unconstitutional by now if it were?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Wouldn't the courts have found that unconstitutional by now if it were?

The only case involving NFA34 in SCOTUS was US vs Miller. Jack Miller was exonerated in district court, but the govt appealed to SCOTUS. US vs Miller is strange though. Miller was not around, there wasn't even a lawyer for the defense. Miller couldn't be found, this was in 1939.

DesertRat.
Its NFA34, signed by FDR
Its GCA68, signed by LBJ

There are others, but these two are the worse.

[mactastic]

So we should assume that the courts have held that some form of regulation on weaponry is acceptable?

BTW, why are the gun people not also really pushing for the legalization of all edged weapons as well? I would like to carry my katana instead of a handgun. I also have to be careful where I carry the Spyderco folding knife that lives in my pocket. Not everyone approves.

[Frohickey]

If you look at US history, gun control first started out in the south, and they were among the first of the Jim Crow laws.

As to knives, they are not as good. It needs to pass the grandma-in-a-wheelchair test. :p

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If you look at US history, gun control first started out in the south, and they were among the first of the Jim Crow laws.

As to knives, they are not as good. It needs to pass the grandma-in-a-wheelchair test. :p

What, you don't think I could off a grandma in a wheelchair with a sword?:D

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
The GCA '34 was probably the only gun control law ever passed that wasn't purely racist.

'Rat

Just how was the recent ban on assault weapons racist?

[Desertrat]

Apologies, Sayhey. I should have said "first", rather than "only". At the time of its passage, the NFA'34 (Thanx, Frohickey.) was the only non-racist gun control law.

An interesting point: I think it was in Plessy v. Ferguson wherein SCOTUS held that were a negro a full-bore human being, he'd have to be allowed to be armed. (Some such phrasing.)

Debate on NY's Sullivan Law had commentary speaking to control of dark complected or swarthy people.

In Missouri, as a for instance, the ban on carrying a handgun was only enforced against blacks. By and large, it was the same in Texas. There, most gun control laws dealt only with handguns, and were largely passed during Reconstruction.

The most racist gun control effort of more recent times was the effort to ban the Saturday Night Special or other cheap handguns. Nobody ever came up with any realistic way to so define the less expensive guns available to poorer people, a majority percentage of whom are blacks and Latins. (At the time, the Congressional Black Caucus went berzerk against the proposed law, on this reasoning.)

'Rat

[Sayhey]

No problem, 'Rat. I would freely admit that some of the past laws have had racist origins. I remember when all hell broke lose in California during the '60s when the Panthers showed up for a rally in Sacramento fully armed. Some very conservative legislators moved very quickly on gun control. All of that does not mean that gun control is either racist or unnecessary.

[Desertrat]

IIRC, that Panther rally was at the capitol building, wasn't it?

I rather enjoyed the fulminations of the "Berkeley Barb". Did in a bit of Red Mountain wine, myownself. :) Even got to wander the "Hashbury" in its heyday. Never got mail at the No Name bar in Sausalito, though. :D A buddy of mine was bartender at Gatsby's...Had a few "bachelor's dinners" at the old Paoli's. Ever been to Ferlinghetti's bookstore?

I wuz probably more of a Beatnik than a Hippie, though.

'Rat

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IIRC, that Panther rally was at the capitol building, wasn't it?

I rather enjoyed the fulminations of the "Berkeley Barb". Did in a bit of Red Mountain wine, myownself. :) Even got to wander the "Hashbury" in its heyday. Never got mail at the No Name bar in Sausalito, though. :D A buddy of mine was bartender at Gatsby's...Had a few "bachelor's dinners" at the old Paoli's. Ever been to Ferlinghetti's bookstore?

I wuz probably more of a Beatnik than a Hippie, though.

'Rat

Right, it was at the State capitol. If I recall it was around legislation that was aimed at the Panther's message of "self-defense." It was a long time ago and I was still a kid running after my big sister in anti-war demonstrations and away from the cops. I don't even want to go into some of the stupid things I did during those times. And, yes, I've been to City Lights bookstore. It's still one of the best bookstores in existence.

[mactastic]

Lordy I miss that bookstore. More eclectic stuff there than anywhere else. Bookshop Santa Cruz is not quite in that league, but also a fun place to get a look at some books you'd never find at Barnes and Noble.:p

Support your local independant bookseller!

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Lordy I miss that bookstore. More eclectic stuff there than anywhere else. Bookshop Santa Cruz is not quite in that league, but also a fun place to get a look at some books you'd never find at Barnes and Noble.:p

Support your local independant bookseller!

absolutely, mac! Have you ever been to Moe's or Cody's in Berkeley? I also love Green Apple here in the City (I'm sure that is too obscure.) Didn't know you used to run around here in San Francisco.

[mactastic]

Heck I grew up only 80 miles away, and had a ton of relatives in the city back then. Most have left or died now, and as I currently live in excess of 250 miles away now, I don't get there as often as I used to.

My sister was living in the Russian Hill area up until a month or so ago when she took a job working for the Gephardt campaign in Iowa. I'd go see her every so often and we'd hang out and party a little around town.;)

Seems like rents have gone down and availability has gone up over the last year or so...

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Support your local independant bookseller!

Barnes and Noble, Amazon.com, Borders and others are killing independent booksellers...

Just like eBay has killed electronics surplus stores.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Barnes and Noble, Amazon.com, Borders and others are killing independent booksellers...

Just like eBay has killed electronics surplus stores.

I know it. Oddly enough, about 6 years or so ago, Stephen King rode his Harley (this was before he was run over) up to Bookshop Santa Cruz on a tour he was doing to promote independant booksellers. Nice of him to do that.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Seems like rents have gone down and availability has gone up over the last year or so...

It's still one of the worst cities to rent in. I'm afraid I'm going to have to test the market in about 8- 10 months. I've got to sell my apartment and look for another place here in the City. Other than the rents and housing prices it's a great place to live.

[Frohickey]

I dunno.

I'm an advocate of the free market, but I can't see the lure of living in San Francisco with rents that are twice as much as a mortgage for a house elsewhere with more room.

I guess thats why I don't rent in San Francisco. But thats the beauty of the free market, I don't have to participate in it if I don't want to. :D