The Caddy Shack

...not your typical golf forum


    More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Share
    avatar
    jt1135

    Posts : 441
    Join date : 2012-12-05
    Location : Middle of Nowhere

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  jt1135 on Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:11 am

    Big Dave wrote:
    jt1135 wrote:Here's the minnesota statute on bumping somebody off in your house.

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065

    so the law doesn't say "if he's in your house", it says "reasonable concern for safety" etc. In other words, your actions are subject to the interpretation of a jury. Same thing pretty much everywhere. There is no circumstance I know of in the USA in which it is legal to just open fire. You have to be able to explain yourself. My friends and I talk this stuff through all the time. If someone is coming at you and firing is the last resort, you fire more than once just to be sure you hit them, but then when the man falls or stops coming toward you, when you stop firing, you have to begin from scratch as far as threat assessment. No jury ever allows someone to stop shooting, evaluate someone laying there wounded, and then start shooting again. The second set of shots is NOT self defense and is never considered that in trials, as far as I know. You cannot backshoot someone who stole your purse and ran. You cannot shoot someone laying on the ground unless he is grabbing at a gun or aiming it at you. It is imperative, to pass the jury sniff test, that you make them believe you had no other choice, or that you believed you had no other choice.

    Just because he is in your house is NOT a license to kill. People scare off burglars from their homes without shooting them on a regular basis. Most burglars are willing to run if they realize they've been found out. And most gun owners do NOT want to kill anyone, under any circumstance.

    It's called self defense. If what you do is NOT defending yourself, you usually have a LOT of explaining to do. there was a guy here in Houston last year, got pissed at his neighbors for loud partying, went there several times and was run off, so he strapped on his .45 openly, put a camcorder on his shoulder, and walked into their party saying loudly to to the camcorder "see, I'm being threatened, I am in fear for my life", etc. Finally the neighbor came at him, and he shot the guy. He put the tape into evidence but the jury, obviously, found him guilty. He provoked the assault, partly by strapping on the gun in open carry, partly by trashtalking. the jury could plainly see he WANTED the neighbor to come at him so he could shoot the guy. Even if he WAS in fear for his life, that doesn't help if he was the one who STARTED it.

    That guy is a stone killer, not a "home defender", and he shouldn't be lumped in with them. Maybe he killed her because he didn't want her surviving and testifying/suing him. Regardless of his reasons, he's a MURDERER. Self defense was a non starter. This is not because he had a gun, not because guns were legal, not because self defense with guns was legal. it is because the man is a very bad man, with murderous impulses, who indulged himself. If the stats are to be believed, elsewhere that day in America, four or five innocent people successfully defended their lives or well being with guns, mostly without firing. That guy was an outlier. Most law abiding gun owners don't shoot anyone, ever, and if they do, it's legitimate. and most gunshot wounds are caused by illegal guns, possessed illegally, in areas where gun ownership is strictly regulated or illegal. That's just statistical fact. Anecdotes can inflame, but without the big picture, they mislead. Banning guns would remove the ability to self-defend from the law abiding people, but a paper ban would do nothing to stop the use of illegal guns, which is by far the biggest cause of gunshot wounds here. By a thousand to one.

    As I have always said, prove to me you can make my life and my family safe, get the guns away from the bad guys, and I'll hand mine over. But not 'til then.

    /end troll

    The last sentence says or preventing the commision of a felony in the actors place of abode. I'm pretty sure burglary is a felony and not a misdeamnor. He might have been okay wounding them but putting the coup de grace to the girl was what is going to do him in.
    avatar
    jt1135

    Posts : 441
    Join date : 2012-12-05
    Location : Middle of Nowhere

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  jt1135 on Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:15 am

    Bout 40 years ago we had a burglary at my uncle's house about a mile away while he was gone. The cops pretty much knew who did it and got the stuff back. The sheriff said, and I remember hearing him say this, if you shoot him in the house your okay. If he gets out after being shot, drag his ass back in.
    avatar
    Big Dave

    Posts : 138
    Join date : 2012-12-06
    Age : 57
    Location : Houston, TX

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Big Dave on Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:35 am

    jt1135 wrote:Bout 40 years ago we had a burglary at my uncle's house about a mile away while he was gone. The cops pretty much knew who did it and got the stuff back. The sheriff said, and I remember hearing him say this, if you shoot him in the house your okay. If he gets out after being shot, drag his ass back in.

    I have heard those tips too. Not from anyone serious, not from any LEO, and not since I was a kid. It is NOT okay to shoot someone in your house if you backshoot him as he is climbing out the window. It is not okay to shoot him if he is on his knees begging you not to shoot him and offering to call 911 himself if you'll just toss him the phone.

    It is only "okay" to shoot someone if he is coming toward you in a threatening manner and you honestly believe your well being or life is at stake. In other words, as a last resort. An old man here in south Texas was in the news last month, had a gun by his door at all times, a guy was kicking in his front door carrying a pistol, and the old man sized up the guy, decided he was impaired, and did not even pick up his own gun. He took the gun away from the guy as he was coming in and kicked the crap outta the guy. He was old, but he was an old rodeo cowboy and not afraid of physical stuff. Juries even take that into account. Little old ladies get a little bit of slack compared to strong capable men. It's all about being able to explain to them why you were afraid and why you thought you had to shoot.

    I have owned a gun since age 19. Bloomberg said he was not responsible enough to own a gun at 19 and didn't know anyone who was. I suspect most of his fellow students at some elite eastern university were NOT in fact responsible enough. Most people are. We send thousands of 19 year olds around the world with guns, black plastic ones with large magazines, and those young people seem pretty darn responsible to me. Every time I touch a gun I worry I might shoot myself or someone else. It's why I never HAVE. At some point in life, gunslinging is one of the childish things that recedes from memory as we become adults. Picking up a gun is taking a chance of it going off. Most people feel the importance and the weight of that.
    avatar
    jt1135

    Posts : 441
    Join date : 2012-12-05
    Location : Middle of Nowhere

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  jt1135 on Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:48 am

    It is only "okay" to shoot someone if he is coming toward you in a threatening manner and you honestly believe your well being or life is at stake

    I would disagree with you on that point. If you are in your house and somebody breaks in, a person has the right to protect themselves and their property. If time permits, call the cops. If things don't work out that way and he gets inside, plug the bastard. Yes, you can't chase him down and shoot him. You can't shoot thru the door as he hasn't entered yet but once he steps over that doorsill he is in the wrong. Which is better? Being held accountable by 12 people or carried by 6. Things happen so fast and most of the laws have something that asks what was the home protectors intent. The perp should be held accountable for his actions as well as the person who shot him. If he has a knife, which is a lethal weapon, and you have a gun, well then he wasn't very smart was he. I hope I never get put in that position, but if I did, I would have no qualms about pulling the trigger.
    avatar
    Big Dave

    Posts : 138
    Join date : 2012-12-06
    Age : 57
    Location : Houston, TX

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Big Dave on Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:12 am

    jt1135 wrote:It is only "okay" to shoot someone if he is coming toward you in a threatening manner and you honestly believe your well being or life is at stake

    I would disagree with you on that point. If you are in your house and somebody breaks in, a person has the right to protect themselves and their property. If time permits, call the cops. If things don't work out that way and he gets inside, plug the bastard. Yes, you can't chase him down and shoot him. You can't shoot thru the door as he hasn't entered yet but once he steps over that doorsill he is in the wrong. Which is better? Being held accountable by 12 people or carried by 6. Things happen so fast and most of the laws have something that asks what was the home protectors intent. The perp should be held accountable for his actions as well as the person who shot him. If he has a knife, which is a lethal weapon, and you have a gun, well then he wasn't very smart was he. I hope I never get put in that position, but if I did, I would have no qualms about pulling the trigger.

    lady I know was at home earlier this year sleeping at 3 am and heard a window break, after several thudding attempts failed. Tempered glass ya know. But he finally broke it, at which point she loudly announced I gotta gun and I'm not afraid to use it! He ran. She did have a .380 in her hand, is a CHL holder, practices regularly and is NOT afraid to use it. Single, 55, lives alone. But if she hadn't had it, if he'd come in, God only knows what might have happened. Again, to say we want gun bans is to say people like that should have to suffer the risk of existential combat with very bad people on horribly unequal terms. She weighs 101 lbs and has arthritis. But man she can shoot. God created man, Colt made them equal, or something like that. FBI stats say for every crime committed with a gun (including the 500 shootings in Chicago alone this year, where they are banned), there are FOUR crimes against persons which are prevented or interrupted by citizens with legal guns. Mostly they don't have to shoot.

    British gun restrictions have been accompanied by in increase in violent crime (including murders) until it is 4 to 5 times as high as American violent crime. Now break it out by state, remembering the largest amount of violent crime is where the least guns are, Chicago, DC, etc, and you find an even stronger correlation between armed citizens and lack of crime. Nobody's perfect... but it does hold the imperfect ones at bay, thinking their victims might shoot them. Legal concealed weapon permitted gun carriers account for .019% of gun crime. Less than 1/5th of one percent. Statistically zero.

    My solution to this is to hold legally accountable every gun owner for the safety of his weapons. If a gun is stolen and used in a crime, the owner has legal responsibility and pays a severe penalty. Put a few careless gun owners in jail for failing to secure their weapons and see how people act in their own self interest and how gun security improves. It is a big responsibility to own a dangerous weapon. We should all treat it as such and if we don't, there is a price to pay.

    End of problem, no new government bureaucracy needed, no jackbooted thugs out enforcing some new arbitrary law that makes criminals out of people exercising their constitution rights but does nothing to stop the REAL criminals from doing what they have done all along.

    /end troll2.0
    avatar
    jt1135

    Posts : 441
    Join date : 2012-12-05
    Location : Middle of Nowhere

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  jt1135 on Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:21 am

    Big Dave wrote:
    jt1135 wrote:It is only "okay" to shoot someone if he is coming toward you in a threatening manner and you honestly believe your well being or life is at stake

    I would disagree with you on that point. If you are in your house and somebody breaks in, a person has the right to protect themselves and their property. If time permits, call the cops. If things don't work out that way and he gets inside, plug the bastard. Yes, you can't chase him down and shoot him. You can't shoot thru the door as he hasn't entered yet but once he steps over that doorsill he is in the wrong. Which is better? Being held accountable by 12 people or carried by 6. Things happen so fast and most of the laws have something that asks what was the home protectors intent. The perp should be held accountable for his actions as well as the person who shot him. If he has a knife, which is a lethal weapon, and you have a gun, well then he wasn't very smart was he. I hope I never get put in that position, but if I did, I would have no qualms about pulling the trigger.

    lady I know was at home earlier this year sleeping at 3 am and heard a window break, after several thudding attempts failed. Tempered glass ya know. But he finally broke it, at which point she loudly announced I gotta gun and I'm not afraid to use it! He ran. She did have a .380 in her hand, is a CHL holder, practices regularly and is NOT afraid to use it. Single, 55, lives alone. But if she hadn't had it, if he'd come in, God only knows what might have happened. Again, to say we want gun bans is to say people like that should have to suffer the risk of existential combat with very bad people on horribly unequal terms. She weighs 101 lbs and has arthritis. But man she can shoot. God created man, Colt made them equal, or something like that. FBI stats say for every crime committed with a gun (including the 500 shootings in Chicago alone this year, where they are banned), there are FOUR crimes against persons which are prevented or interrupted by citizens with legal guns. Mostly they don't have to shoot.

    British gun restrictions have been accompanied by in increase in violent crime (including murders) until it is 4 to 5 times as high as American violent crime. Now break it out by state, remembering the largest amount of violent crime is where the least guns are, Chicago, DC, etc, and you find an even stronger correlation between armed citizens and lack of crime. Nobody's perfect... but it does hold the imperfect ones at bay, thinking their victims might shoot them. Legal concealed weapon permitted gun carriers account for .019% of gun crime. Less than 1/5th of one percent. Statistically zero.

    My solution to this is to hold legally accountable every gun owner for the safety of his weapons. If a gun is stolen and used in a crime, the owner has legal responsibility and pays a severe penalty. Put a few careless gun owners in jail for failing to secure their weapons and see how people act in their own self interest and how gun security improves. It is a big responsibility to own a dangerous weapon. We should all treat it as such and if we don't, there is a price to pay.

    End of problem, no new government bureaucracy needed, no jackbooted thugs out enforcing some new arbitrary law that makes criminals out of people exercising their constitution rights but does nothing to stop the REAL criminals from doing what they have done all along.

    /end troll2.0

    You are one hundred percent correct in this.
    avatar
    Playa Hata

    Posts : 72
    Join date : 2012-12-14
    Location : Bizarro World

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Playa Hata on Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:04 am

    jt1135 wrote:
    Big Dave wrote:
    jt1135 wrote:It is only "okay" to shoot someone if he is coming toward you in a threatening manner and you honestly believe your well being or life is at stake

    I would disagree with you on that point. If you are in your house and somebody breaks in, a person has the right to protect themselves and their property. If time permits, call the cops. If things don't work out that way and he gets inside, plug the bastard. Yes, you can't chase him down and shoot him. You can't shoot thru the door as he hasn't entered yet but once he steps over that doorsill he is in the wrong. Which is better? Being held accountable by 12 people or carried by 6. Things happen so fast and most of the laws have something that asks what was the home protectors intent. The perp should be held accountable for his actions as well as the person who shot him. If he has a knife, which is a lethal weapon, and you have a gun, well then he wasn't very smart was he. I hope I never get put in that position, but if I did, I would have no qualms about pulling the trigger.

    lady I know was at home earlier this year sleeping at 3 am and heard a window break, after several thudding attempts failed. Tempered glass ya know. But he finally broke it, at which point she loudly announced I gotta gun and I'm not afraid to use it! He ran. She did have a .380 in her hand, is a CHL holder, practices regularly and is NOT afraid to use it. Single, 55, lives alone. But if she hadn't had it, if he'd come in, God only knows what might have happened. Again, to say we want gun bans is to say people like that should have to suffer the risk of existential combat with very bad people on horribly unequal terms. She weighs 101 lbs and has arthritis. But man she can shoot. God created man, Colt made them equal, or something like that. FBI stats say for every crime committed with a gun (including the 500 shootings in Chicago alone this year, where they are banned), there are FOUR crimes against persons which are prevented or interrupted by citizens with legal guns. Mostly they don't have to shoot.

    British gun restrictions have been accompanied by in increase in violent crime (including murders) until it is 4 to 5 times as high as American violent crime. Now break it out by state, remembering the largest amount of violent crime is where the least guns are, Chicago, DC, etc, and you find an even stronger correlation between armed citizens and lack of crime. Nobody's perfect... but it does hold the imperfect ones at bay, thinking their victims might shoot them. Legal concealed weapon permitted gun carriers account for .019% of gun crime. Less than 1/5th of one percent. Statistically zero.

    My solution to this is to hold legally accountable every gun owner for the safety of his weapons. If a gun is stolen and used in a crime, the owner has legal responsibility and pays a severe penalty. Put a few careless gun owners in jail for failing to secure their weapons and see how people act in their own self interest and how gun security improves. It is a big responsibility to own a dangerous weapon. We should all treat it as such and if we don't, there is a price to pay.

    End of problem, no new government bureaucracy needed, no jackbooted thugs out enforcing some new arbitrary law that makes criminals out of people exercising their constitution rights but does nothing to stop the REAL criminals from doing what they have done all along.

    /end troll2.0

    You are one hundred percent correct in this.

    Yet this is twisting the conversation to a ban of all guns. That's not what some of us are calling for. A line has already been drawn on what's acceptable and not acceptable under our second amendment right to bear arms. That line already excludes fully-automatic guns, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, etc. All some of us are asking is for that line be drawn to also exclude 50-round magazines and drums. I think you'd agree that it's reasonable that Joe Schmoe can't run down to Walmart and buy a loaded rocket launcher. Why is it not reasonable to also say Joe Schmoe shouldn't be able to buy a 100-round drum? This is beyond the needs of home protection and instead just becomes a function of "you're taking away my rights." No, we're not taking away your rights to protect yourself as you have a full array of other guns to use for home protection. We're just asking for a reasonable solution that may help prevent these mass killings going forward.
    avatar
    jt1135

    Posts : 441
    Join date : 2012-12-05
    Location : Middle of Nowhere

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  jt1135 on Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:33 am

    Playa Hata wrote:
    jt1135 wrote:
    Big Dave wrote:
    jt1135 wrote:It is only "okay" to shoot someone if he is coming toward you in a threatening manner and you honestly believe your well being or life is at stake

    I would disagree with you on that point. If you are in your house and somebody breaks in, a person has the right to protect themselves and their property. If time permits, call the cops. If things don't work out that way and he gets inside, plug the bastard. Yes, you can't chase him down and shoot him. You can't shoot thru the door as he hasn't entered yet but once he steps over that doorsill he is in the wrong. Which is better? Being held accountable by 12 people or carried by 6. Things happen so fast and most of the laws have something that asks what was the home protectors intent. The perp should be held accountable for his actions as well as the person who shot him. If he has a knife, which is a lethal weapon, and you have a gun, well then he wasn't very smart was he. I hope I never get put in that position, but if I did, I would have no qualms about pulling the trigger.

    lady I know was at home earlier this year sleeping at 3 am and heard a window break, after several thudding attempts failed. Tempered glass ya know. But he finally broke it, at which point she loudly announced I gotta gun and I'm not afraid to use it! He ran. She did have a .380 in her hand, is a CHL holder, practices regularly and is NOT afraid to use it. Single, 55, lives alone. But if she hadn't had it, if he'd come in, God only knows what might have happened. Again, to say we want gun bans is to say people like that should have to suffer the risk of existential combat with very bad people on horribly unequal terms. She weighs 101 lbs and has arthritis. But man she can shoot. God created man, Colt made them equal, or something like that. FBI stats say for every crime committed with a gun (including the 500 shootings in Chicago alone this year, where they are banned), there are FOUR crimes against persons which are prevented or interrupted by citizens with legal guns. Mostly they don't have to shoot.

    British gun restrictions have been accompanied by in increase in violent crime (including murders) until it is 4 to 5 times as high as American violent crime. Now break it out by state, remembering the largest amount of violent crime is where the least guns are, Chicago, DC, etc, and you find an even stronger correlation between armed citizens and lack of crime. Nobody's perfect... but it does hold the imperfect ones at bay, thinking their victims might shoot them. Legal concealed weapon permitted gun carriers account for .019% of gun crime. Less than 1/5th of one percent. Statistically zero.

    My solution to this is to hold legally accountable every gun owner for the safety of his weapons. If a gun is stolen and used in a crime, the owner has legal responsibility and pays a severe penalty. Put a few careless gun owners in jail for failing to secure their weapons and see how people act in their own self interest and how gun security improves. It is a big responsibility to own a dangerous weapon. We should all treat it as such and if we don't, there is a price to pay.

    End of problem, no new government bureaucracy needed, no jackbooted thugs out enforcing some new arbitrary law that makes criminals out of people exercising their constitution rights but does nothing to stop the REAL criminals from doing what they have done all along.

    /end troll2.0

    You are one hundred percent correct in this.

    Yet this is twisting the conversation to a ban of all guns. That's not what some of us are calling for. A line has already been drawn on what's acceptable and not acceptable under our second amendment right to bear arms. That line already excludes fully-automatic guns, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, etc. All some of us are asking is for that line be drawn to also exclude 50-round magazines and drums. I think you'd agree that it's reasonable that Joe Schmoe can't run down to Walmart and buy a loaded rocket launcher. Why is it not reasonable to also say Joe Schmoe shouldn't be able to buy a 100-round drum? This is beyond the needs of home protection and instead just becomes a function of "you're taking away my rights." No, we're not taking away your rights to protect yourself as you have a full array of other guns to use for home protection. We're just asking for a reasonable solution that may help prevent these mass killings going forward.

    You are correct sir. With Dave's point, I have no problem with people being responsible for their weapons. If you can't get a deer with a 10 round mag, you shouldn't be hunting. Target shooting does not need them either. Hell, I got a shotgun and a .22 in my closet behind my old suit uncased. Course there are no kids here and they aren't loaded either with the shells in a seperate spot. Come to think about it, don't think there is a guncase in the house.
    avatar
    jt1135

    Posts : 441
    Join date : 2012-12-05
    Location : Middle of Nowhere

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  jt1135 on Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:43 am

    Here's a little nugget for the gun control nuts

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-american-town-where-the-law-requires-you-to-own-a-gun-8429798.html
    avatar
    Poe4soul

    Posts : 417
    Join date : 2012-12-08
    Location : Portland, OR

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Poe4soul on Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:24 pm

    Big Dave wrote:

    As I have always said, prove to me you can make my life and my family safe, get the guns away from the bad guys, and I'll hand mine over. But not 'til then.

    /end troll

    One of my accountant's husband is a police officer and obviously has a concealed carry permit. When he has to go into a place that doesn't permit guns, like a bar, he puts the gun under the front seat. Seems pretty unsafe to me.

    I also had a girlfriend in high school, more like a friend with benefits. Anyway, her father was a paranoid freak. He had gun's all around the house within arms reach at any place he would be. He had multiple guns in the car. In the glove box, under the seat and even one under the spare tire just in case he was kidnapped and put in the trunk. He was crazy, one reason I stopped seeing the girl. Anyway, he got his car broken into. Three guns gone. Two months later, car broken into again while he was in a bar. All three guns stolen that he replace gone. He didn't report any of them. Seems like there is a weak link in the legal/illegal gun ownership. Without registration of the guns, there's no use trying to hold people accountable.

    What is reasonable responsibility for gun owners to secure their guns? Registration?

    avatar
    Playa Hata

    Posts : 72
    Join date : 2012-12-14
    Location : Bizarro World

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Playa Hata on Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:38 pm

    Poe4soul wrote:
    Big Dave wrote:

    As I have always said, prove to me you can make my life and my family safe, get the guns away from the bad guys, and I'll hand mine over. But not 'til then.

    /end troll

    One of my accountant's husband is a police officer and obviously has a concealed carry permit. When he has to go into a place that doesn't permit guns, like a bar, he puts the gun under the front seat. Seems pretty unsafe to me.

    I also had a girlfriend in high school, more like a friend with benefits. Anyway, her father was a paranoid freak. He had gun's all around the house within arms reach at any place he would be. He had multiple guns in the car. In the glove box, under the seat and even one under the spare tire just in case he was kidnapped and put in the trunk. He was crazy, one reason I stopped seeing the girl. Anyway, he got his car broken into. Three guns gone. Two months later, car broken into again while he was in a bar. All three guns stolen that he replace gone. He didn't report any of them. Seems like there is a weak link in the legal/illegal gun ownership. Without registration of the guns, there's no use trying to hold people accountable.

    What is reasonable responsibility for gun owners to secure their guns? Registration?


    One term I keep seeing by the pro-gun side is "personal responsibility." In other words, it's not the gun's fault, it's the people who aren't responsible with them's fault. Unfortunately, that logic only works in an ideal world. Even the "good guys" aren't responsible sometimes. Should we really be making laws as it pertains to those who will truly be responsible while we shrug our shoulders at those who aren't? Take speed limits as an example. Why would we have them if everyone is personally responsible for their actions? If you drive 70 MPH in a busy neighborhood and kill a kid in the street, just serve your time. No sense in posting a restrictive speed limit for the rest of us "responsible" folks, right?
    avatar
    Poe4soul

    Posts : 417
    Join date : 2012-12-08
    Location : Portland, OR

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Poe4soul on Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:22 pm

    Playa Hata wrote:
    Poe4soul wrote:
    Big Dave wrote:

    As I have always said, prove to me you can make my life and my family safe, get the guns away from the bad guys, and I'll hand mine over. But not 'til then.

    /end troll

    One of my accountant's husband is a police officer and obviously has a concealed carry permit. When he has to go into a place that doesn't permit guns, like a bar, he puts the gun under the front seat. Seems pretty unsafe to me.

    I also had a girlfriend in high school, more like a friend with benefits. Anyway, her father was a paranoid freak. He had gun's all around the house within arms reach at any place he would be. He had multiple guns in the car. In the glove box, under the seat and even one under the spare tire just in case he was kidnapped and put in the trunk. He was crazy, one reason I stopped seeing the girl. Anyway, he got his car broken into. Three guns gone. Two months later, car broken into again while he was in a bar. All three guns stolen that he replace gone. He didn't report any of them. Seems like there is a weak link in the legal/illegal gun ownership. Without registration of the guns, there's no use trying to hold people accountable.

    What is reasonable responsibility for gun owners to secure their guns? Registration?


    One term I keep seeing by the pro-gun side is "personal responsibility." In other words, it's not the gun's fault, it's the people who aren't responsible with them's fault. Unfortunately, that logic only works in an ideal world. Even the "good guys" aren't responsible sometimes. Should we really be making laws as it pertains to those who will truly be responsible while we shrug our shoulders at those who aren't? Take speed limits as an example. Why would we have them if everyone is personally responsible for their actions? If you drive 70 MPH in a busy neighborhood and kill a kid in the street, just serve your time. No sense in posting a restrictive speed limit for the rest of us "responsible" folks, right?

    Registration really seems to be the sticking point for some. If you have guns to protect the citizens from the government, you obviously don't want the government to know who owns what. Logical. But then you can't hold anyone accountable for not securing or selling guns to criminals. I remember an undercover bit where a private gun sale was made in a parking lot via craigslist. The purchasers claimed he wasn't able to legally purchase this gun. The sale was made anyway. WTF? If the argument is that bad people kill, not guns. Then obviously we need to do a better job ensuring that bad people don't own guns. duh!
    avatar
    12pierogi

    Posts : 357
    Join date : 2012-12-05
    Location : Lake effect snowland

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  12pierogi on Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:43 am

    Big Dave wrote:
    jt1135 wrote:It is only "okay" to shoot someone if he is coming toward you in a threatening manner and you honestly believe your well being or life is at stake

    I would disagree with you on that point. If you are in your house and somebody breaks in, a person has the right to protect themselves and their property. If time permits, call the cops. If things don't work out that way and he gets inside, plug the bastard. Yes, you can't chase him down and shoot him. You can't shoot thru the door as he hasn't entered yet but once he steps over that doorsill he is in the wrong. Which is better? Being held accountable by 12 people or carried by 6. Things happen so fast and most of the laws have something that asks what was the home protectors intent. The perp should be held accountable for his actions as well as the person who shot him. If he has a knife, which is a lethal weapon, and you have a gun, well then he wasn't very smart was he. I hope I never get put in that position, but if I did, I would have no qualms about pulling the trigger.

    lady I know was at home earlier this year sleeping at 3 am and heard a window break, after several thudding attempts failed. Tempered glass ya know. But he finally broke it, at which point she loudly announced I gotta gun and I'm not afraid to use it! He ran. She did have a .380 in her hand, is a CHL holder, practices regularly and is NOT afraid to use it. Single, 55, lives alone. But if she hadn't had it, if he'd come in, God only knows what might have happened. Again, to say we want gun bans is to say people like that should have to suffer the risk of existential combat with very bad people on horribly unequal terms. She weighs 101 lbs and has arthritis. But man she can shoot. God created man, Colt made them equal, or something like that. FBI stats say for every crime committed with a gun (including the 500 shootings in Chicago alone this year, where they are banned), there are FOUR crimes against persons which are prevented or interrupted by citizens with legal guns. Mostly they don't have to shoot.

    British gun restrictions have been accompanied by in increase in violent crime (including murders) until it is 4 to 5 times as high as American violent crime. Now break it out by state, remembering the largest amount of violent crime is where the least guns are, Chicago, DC, etc, and you find an even stronger correlation between armed citizens and lack of crime. Nobody's perfect... but it does hold the imperfect ones at bay, thinking their victims might shoot them. Legal concealed weapon permitted gun carriers account for .019% of gun crime. Less than 1/5th of one percent. Statistically zero.

    My solution to this is to hold legally accountable every gun owner for the safety of his weapons. If a gun is stolen and used in a crime, the owner has legal responsibility and pays a severe penalty. Put a few careless gun owners in jail for failing to secure their weapons and see how people act in their own self interest and how gun security improves. It is a big responsibility to own a dangerous weapon. We should all treat it as such and if we don't, there is a price to pay.

    End of problem, no new government bureaucracy needed, no jackbooted thugs out enforcing some new arbitrary law that makes criminals out of people exercising their constitution rights but does nothing to stop the REAL criminals from doing what they have done all along.

    /end troll2.0

    The reality of Chicagos crime is its mostly 3 neighborhoods on the south side, and probably below the national average elsewhere. Very few cities do I feel safer Dave.
    I have no problem with guns in very responsible hands, but we can't turn are schools into prisons and have armed guards at the doors. It's a bad message in itself.
    People are fed up with guns getting into the wrong hands. Military style high capacity guns sales should be banned, unless you carry a proper federal permit, as in training security people or law enforcement. They have to do something about the lax laws regarding gun purchase and ownership, and transferring of gun ownership. Also I'm sure the ease of having a conceal carry permit is going to change. It's going to happen. I'm glad. Joes on it though, that's a little scary
    Protecting your family is and always will be a given, and everyone has the right to a gun.
    avatar
    Playa Hata

    Posts : 72
    Join date : 2012-12-14
    Location : Bizarro World

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Playa Hata on Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:36 pm

    12pierogi wrote:
    The reality of Chicagos crime is its mostly 3 neighborhoods on the south side, and probably below the national average elsewhere. Very few cities do I feel safer Dave.
    I have no problem with guns in very responsible hands, but we can't turn are schools into prisons and have armed guards at the doors. It's a bad message in itself.
    People are fed up with guns getting into the wrong hands. Military style high capacity guns sales should be banned, unless you carry a proper federal permit, as in training security people or law enforcement. They have to do something about the lax laws regarding gun purchase and ownership, and transferring of gun ownership. Also I'm sure the ease of having a conceal carry permit is going to change. It's going to happen. I'm glad. Joes on it though, that's a little scary
    Protecting your family is and always will be a given, and everyone has the right to a gun.

    And it begs the question of where does it stop? Should we have armed guards at all movie theaters and department stores? If the next shooting is at a church, do we have armed guards outside there as well? Meanwhile, armed guards certainly don't assure us that these types of killings will be prevented. Heck, there was an armed guard at Columbine. The jackhole in CT shot his way through a locked glass door at the school. Do we think the next guy will conveniently check in the school office next time? I've spoken to several teachers about this premise and they've all responded the same way: 1. There's no way teachers themselves should be packing and 2. Unless you have armed officers all over the school, what purpose would one guy serve.
    avatar
    Mongrel

    Posts : 1761
    Join date : 2012-12-04
    Location : The Oort Cloud

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Mongrel on Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:25 pm

    Playa Hata wrote:
    12pierogi wrote:
    The reality of Chicagos crime is its mostly 3 neighborhoods on the south side, and probably below the national average elsewhere. Very few cities do I feel safer Dave.
    I have no problem with guns in very responsible hands, but we can't turn are schools into prisons and have armed guards at the doors. It's a bad message in itself.
    People are fed up with guns getting into the wrong hands. Military style high capacity guns sales should be banned, unless you carry a proper federal permit, as in training security people or law enforcement. They have to do something about the lax laws regarding gun purchase and ownership, and transferring of gun ownership. Also I'm sure the ease of having a conceal carry permit is going to change. It's going to happen. I'm glad. Joes on it though, that's a little scary
    Protecting your family is and always will be a given, and everyone has the right to a gun.

    And it begs the question of where does it stop? Should we have armed guards at all movie theaters and department stores? If the next shooting is at a church, do we have armed guards outside there as well? Meanwhile, armed guards certainly don't assure us that these types of killings will be prevented. Heck, there was an armed guard at Columbine. The jackhole in CT shot his way through a locked glass door at the school. Do we think the next guy will conveniently check in the school office next time? I've spoken to several teachers about this premise and they've all responded the same way: 1. There's no way teachers themselves should be packing and 2. Unless you have armed officers all over the school, what purpose would one guy serve.

    And then you couldn't have just one guy. You'd need at least two so that one could go on periodic breaks. They would most likely be active or retired cops and/or private contract security guards. I work in a government complex and several years ago the government contracted with a private security company to provide armed guards at all the public entrances along with magnetometers both fixed and hand-carried. All are armed with semi-auto pistols in 9mm. The irony is that most of the time, these guys are more absorbed in working their hand-held communications devices texting their whatevers, watching movies, playing games, whatever, whatever, whatever you do with them. A reasonably competent shooter could walk into the front door, pull his pistol, and take out all three before one got his weapon out of his holster. As far as security at theatres or other retail establishments, you realize that you are depending on employees to ensure that all the doors that should be locked are locked. Now at the theatres, the average worker is probably a high school junior making less than minimum wage and is waiting for that big step up-- an opening at the local McDonald's for the entry level busboy position.
    avatar
    Big Dave

    Posts : 138
    Join date : 2012-12-06
    Age : 57
    Location : Houston, TX

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Big Dave on Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:38 pm

    Playa says -- Yet this is twisting the conversation to a ban of all guns. That's not what some of us are calling for. A line has already been drawn on what's acceptable and not acceptable under our second amendment right to bear arms. That line already excludes fully-automatic guns, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, etc. All some of us are asking is for that line be drawn to also exclude 50-round magazines and drums. I think you'd agree that it's reasonable that Joe Schmoe can't run down to Walmart and buy a loaded rocket launcher. Why is it not reasonable to also say Joe Schmoe shouldn't be able to buy a 100-round drum? This is beyond the needs of home protection and instead just becomes a function of "you're taking away my rights." No, we're not taking away your rights to protect yourself as you have a full array of other guns to use for home protection. We're just asking for a reasonable solution that may help prevent these mass killings going forward.

    (Dave says-- the guy in the theatre, his big mag jammed and he had to drop the AR and start in with the shotgun. In this one incident in which an actual HUGE magazine was used, the user was incompetent, the product was unreliable, and the size of the magazine turned out to be irrelevant. I would rather not ban something until it actually is effectively used in a crime. Holmes's attempt was the first I know of to use the big drum mag and it failed miserably. Most people cannot conceal the drum mag to carry it wherever they're going into a crowd. Those things are big and clumsy, and if you carry your gun with it attached you are carrying something impossible to even slightly conceal. If you carry it unattached, well it's not easy to get it attached, and you're ineffective. There's a REASON nobody uses big drum mags in mass killings. CLUMSY. Besides, most people don't have 'em and don't want 'em. It's the quintessential nonissue, the drum mag. As to the "rocket launchers" jazz, nobody's trying to buy them, nobody wants them, for defense against criminals or government or anything else. It's a red herring. People can't afford them, it takes more than one person to operate most of them (unless you're just going for one shot), and they can bring down airplanes, so they're not in the "personal weapon" class. Nobody's claiming the right to buy tanks, howitzers, Claymores or crates of C4. They're just protesting when the right to "keep and bear" arms (the "bear" proves it's personal weapons, not crew served rocket launchers or tanks or howitzers or missile batteries) is "infringed", meaning eaten away in small "reasonable" bits. Constitution says that can't be done, but half the country seems to want to infringe on these rights more with each passing highly publicized crime. The reason they made machine guns illegal in 1934 is pretty much down to Al Capone. There were gazillions of postwar Tommys in the hands of gangsters and they used 'em. The line WAS drawn by law. No more full auto without tight bg check, license fee, etc. And full auto is totally illegal to carry for any reason. For me, that's more than enough. The only weapons we allow are the ones that only fire once when you pull the trigger.

    But the most important thing Playa said is "we're not taking away your rights to protect yourself"… and mentioned home protection. But we have a constitutional right and duty to be strong enough to overthrow a tyrannical government. It's in the Declaration. Letting people nibble away at magazine size and so forth is a trend, and one restriction begets another, especially if the rationale for each of them refuses to discuss the practical needs of the citizens in terms of protecting themselves from tyranny. Home defense is not the primary purpose of the second amendment. Preserving FREEDOM is. If it's necessary to the security of a free state (not a government, a PEOPLE) that we form up into a citizen army, carrying our own weapons, in order to fight for our freedom, even against our own government if they are out to take it, then we have the right to have and carry those weapons. Reduce it to "home defense against criminals" and all sorts of infringements on gun ownership make sense. I probably CAN defend my house with ten shots. But if a bunch of jackboots are heading down main street, and we the people organize to go and fight them to prevent them implementing unconstitutional laws and institutions in our town, well they are going to have 30 round mags. I think we should have them too. Anyone who says "aww, that will never happen, you're paranoid" simply knows too little about history, RECENT history. It happens a LOT. Just because it hasn't happened here, in our lifetimes, is NO assurance that it won't. This current crowd is philosophically different from past leaders. They are more like international leftists than American Democrats. They believe America is fundamentally wrong and has to be completely changed. They have no respect for the constitution and think gun owners are their enemies and must be dealt with. International leftists = Nazis, communists, authoritarians, totalitarians…. It's happened before in history (which is why it's IN the constitution) and it will happen again. Hell, the British were actually gunning down law abiding men in the street who were walking around carrying their rifles, backshooting them and taking the weapons to be destroyed. They'd do a "gun check" in town, saying you had to drop off your gun before you went about your business, and they'd just collect them and not give them back. They lied and stole and murdered for GUN CONTROL. They were dead set on disarming the colonies COMPLETELY and they acted brutally and tyrannically for decades to do it. This is why the second amendment is IN the constitution, because it's a RESPONSE to tyrannical gun control efforts. "it can't happen here, it can't get any worse than this", that's what the Lithuanian Jews were saying as they marched into the forest on "work details" and found themselves standing in front of mass graves with gun barrels behind them. Things like this are the NORM in history. America is the EXCEPTION, but has no guarantee that its exceptional status is permanent. No guarantee beyond the right, duty, and ABILITY of its people to keep it the way it is. Power tempts, elites become aristocrats who feel threatened by "the masses". Happens throughout history. When you say it's "twisting" the conversation to a ban of all guns, well that is usually where the Left wants to go, bit by bit, so each small change is "acceptable and reasonable", until they get the whole thing. The British handgun ban is total, not just the bigger magazines, ALL handguns. Rifles and shotguns are limited in capacity, and must be registered. If there is another mass shooting in Britain, using the permitted weapons, then they'll end up banning them too. It's the way of the left, incremental movement toward what was their goal all along. They are doing it here. This is just the beginning, this 30 round magazine thing, this registration thing
    .)


    Poe says -- One of my accountant's husband is a police officer and obviously has a concealed carry permit. When he has to go into a place that doesn't permit guns, like a bar, he puts the gun under the front seat. Seems pretty unsafe to me. I also had a girlfriend in high school, more like a friend with benefits. Anyway, her father was a paranoid freak. He had gun's all around the house within arms reach at any place he would be. He had multiple guns in the car. In the glove box, under the seat and even one under the spare tire just in case he was kidnapped and put in the trunk. He was crazy, one reason I stopped seeing the girl. Anyway, he got his car broken into. Three guns gone. Two months later, car broken into again while he was in a bar. All three guns stolen that he replace gone. He didn't report any of them. Seems like there is a weak link in the legal/illegal gun ownership. Without registration of the guns, there's no use trying to hold people accountable. What is reasonable responsibility for gun owners to secure their guns? Registration?

    (if he's a police officer, he already has rules and regulations that govern how he handles weapons and safes them, on and off duty. He ignored those rules as habit. More rules going to change his habits? Probably not. My guns in the car go in a steel key locked box under the seat that's chained to the seat post. The market already serves the needs of people to secure their guns by selling the means to do so. We just need to motivate them do do it properly, by punishing those whose guns are stolen and used in gun crimes. Dangerous property, high degree of responsibility for ownership. As to your paranoid guy, a responsible society needs to report him to authorities. You know about this high volume vanishing of guns under his care? How come you don't report him? That is probably grounds to redflag his next legal gun purchase.

    But stolen guns are less of a problem in the criminal gun market than smuggled guns, which have come into this country by the millions over the past few decades. My wife was murdered by a man with a little black .32 from eastern europe, no serial number. Most of the guns kicking around south side Chicago didn't get stolen from bedroom communities, they got smuggled in and sold just like the drugs are smuggled in and sold, probably by the exact same people. Doesn't help when our own damned government sends thousands of ARs and AKs to drug cartels, either. I say let's make laws that put gun owners in jail when guns stolen from them are used in crimes. Depraved indifference to the deadly consequences of such a theft should have some stiff penalties, give people the chance to step up and do the right thing without creating a giant list of new rules and regulations and a giant new bureaucracy to blow through gazillions of tax dollars enforcing it. But this will do nothing to end the mass smuggling of guns to America by organized crime, druggers, etc. That is the primary source of criminal weapons. It will still be there, even under the must restrictive of gun laws. Horse out of barn now, can't put toothpaste back in tube, etc. Anyone wanting guns will find a way to get them. There are too many in America now, hundreds of millions, and actual round-up style confiscation would turn the nation into a battleground, squads of jackboots getting in shootouts with both criminals and with citizens who rightly believe their constitutional rights are being violently taken from them. There will always be guns available to those who want to use them for bad purposes. That is a good reason not to disarm the good guys. No matter what the legislators do, we will always NEED good guys with guns. There are approximately two MILLION defensive gun uses each year, according to the National Institute of Justice. Between those attempted crimes and the ones NOT committed out of fear of armed victims, imagine what this whole country would look like if citizens were disarmed and everyone knew it. A crime wave that would make Albania look like the Vatican.
    )
    avatar
    Playa Hata

    Posts : 72
    Join date : 2012-12-14
    Location : Bizarro World

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Playa Hata on Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:19 pm

    Big Dave wrote: Constitution says that can't be done, but half the country seems to want to infringe on these rights more with each passing highly publicized crime. The reason they made machine guns illegal in 1934 is pretty much down to Al Capone. There were gazillions of postwar Tommys in the hands of gangsters and they used 'em. The line WAS drawn by law. No more full auto without tight bg check, license fee, etc. And full auto is totally illegal to carry for any reason. For me, that's more than enough. The only weapons we allow are the ones that only fire once when you pull the trigger.

    You’ve pretty much made my point for me. So in 1934 a type of arm was made illegal because they were getting in the hands of bad guys despite the fact that the “good guys” also had access to them and despite the fact that some probably felt it infringed on their second amendment rights.

    You also admit a line was drawn by law in 1934. So at some point, society needed to determine what is and is not allowable under the second amendment. Are you suggesting that the line drawn in 1934 (not when the second amendment was written, mind you) is the be-all, end-all of 2nd amendment interpretation? By the way, it wasn’t until the 1980s with Reagan and Scalia that the individual-rights view of the second amendment was affirmed. Surely you acknowledge the politics that were at play back then.

    But the key thing you said is, “for me.” Well, I’m glad you want the ability to determine where the line is drawn before we’re encroaching on 2nd amendment rights (which conveniently happens to be where we are right now), but cry foul when someone wants the line tightened a bit.

    Big Dave wrote: But we have a constitutional right and duty to be strong enough to overthrow a tyrannical government. It's in the Declaration. Letting people nibble away at magazine size and so forth is a trend, and one restriction begets another, especially if the rationale for each of them refuses to discuss the practical needs of the citizens in terms of protecting themselves from tyranny. Home defense is not the primary purpose of the second amendment. Preserving FREEDOM is. If it's necessary to the security of a free state (not a government, a PEOPLE) that we form up into a citizen army, carrying our own weapons, in order to fight for our freedom, even against our own government if they are out to take it, then we have the right to have and carry those weapons. Reduce it to "home defense against criminals" and all sorts of infringements on gun ownership make sense. I probably CAN defend my house with ten shots. But if a bunch of jackboots are heading down main street, and we the people organize to go and fight them to prevent them implementing unconstitutional laws and institutions in our town, well they are going to have 30 round mags. I think we should have them too. Anyone who says "aww, that will never happen, you're paranoid" simply knows too little about history, RECENT history. It happens a LOT. Just because it hasn't happened here, in our lifetimes, is NO assurance that it won't. This current crowd is philosophically different from past leaders. They are more like international leftists than American Democrats. They believe America is fundamentally wrong and has to be completely changed. They have no respect for the constitution and think gun owners are their enemies and must be dealt with. International leftists = Nazis, communists, authoritarians, totalitarians…. It's happened before in history (which is why it's IN the constitution) and it will happen again. Hell, the British were actually gunning down law abiding men in the street who were walking around carrying their rifles, backshooting them and taking the weapons to be destroyed. They'd do a "gun check" in town, saying you had to drop off your gun before you went about your business, and they'd just collect them and not give them back. They lied and stole and murdered for GUN CONTROL. They were dead set on disarming the colonies COMPLETELY and they acted brutally and tyrannically for decades to do it. This is why the second amendment is IN the constitution, because it's a RESPONSE to tyrannical gun control efforts. "it can't happen here, it can't get any worse than this", that's what the Lithuanian Jews were saying as they marched into the forest on "work details" and found themselves standing in front of mass graves with gun barrels behind them. Things like this are the NORM in history. America is the EXCEPTION, but has no guarantee that its exceptional status is permanent. No guarantee beyond the right, duty, and ABILITY of its people to keep it the way it is. Power tempts, elites become aristocrats who feel threatened by "the masses". Happens throughout history. When you say it's "twisting" the conversation to a ban of all guns, well that is usually where the Left wants to go, bit by bit, so each small change is "acceptable and reasonable", until they get the whole thing. The British handgun ban is total, not just the bigger magazines, ALL handguns. Rifles and shotguns are limited in capacity, and must be registered. If there is another mass shooting in Britain, using the permitted weapons, then they'll end up banning them too. It's the way of the left, incremental movement toward what was their goal all along. They are doing it here. This is just the beginning, this 30 round magazine thing, this registration thing[/i].)

    Per Noah Webster:

    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

    That was in the late 1700s. Do you really think having access to AR-15s with 50-round magazine really applies to today’s landscape? At some point you need to update your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, because your current view doesn’t really apply to the technological advancements in warfare. If the US government wants to become a tyrannical power, there’s nothing our little guns can do about it.
    avatar
    Big Dave

    Posts : 138
    Join date : 2012-12-06
    Age : 57
    Location : Houston, TX

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Big Dave on Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:16 am

    Man oh man, nothing's harder than an intense online discussion when the wife's home for holidays. I pick up the laptop, type two letters and get the look... isn't there something BETTER you should be doing? aargh.

    anyways, all this talk about being equal to the military seems misguided to me. There are things they will not do in context of an aggression against their own people. First, they won't use massive destructive power. They don't want to destroy the infrastructure that is used to operate the economy that pays the taxes. They won't use rocket launchers, tanks, etc, against their own people on their own soil, unless they want a nation so destroyed that economic revival is impossibly difficult. It would impoverish the dictator to destroy the insides of his own country just to increase his own power. Self-defeating. So matching them, weapon for weapon, is not required. Any government campaign against the people will be people focused, not destruction focused. Old fashioned door kicking battle, but against a HUGE numerical disadvantage. When they banned machine guns in 1934, constitutionalists did not object. Somehow they knew that the gangsters had appropriated a weapon of war for their criminal purposes, and the removal of a weapon of war was not an issue to them. They wanted only their right to keep and bear arms. I trust the people to know what's going on. They did not object to banning Thompson .45 caliber submachine guns, which escalated gang warfare to a new and publicly dangerous level.

    But the people DO object to having their larger magazines taken from them. They DO object to weapons being CALLED military, i.e. "assault weapons" when they are NOT military, do NOT have full auto option, are the CIVILIAN versions. It is defining things downward, subjectivizing them, the slippery slope. The word "assault" is a military term. An assault weapon is a carbine with a full auto/burst/single shot switch. AR's have them, AK's have them. Nobody in America has those, not without long background check, steep federal tax license fee, proof of purpose, etc. You can go to a shooting range and rent a full auto for a day's expensive fun, but you can't buy and own one.

    What Americans want is to not be slowly defanged, one tooth at a time, until the idea of banding together, meeting on main street and repelling a tyrannical force of men headed their way determined to impose their will and take authority over the citizens is a no go. This can be done, as normal people realize, with weapons that are civilian class and are obtainable legally today. We are able to defend our freedom today. If we permit the continual small infringement of that right over time, we will one day wake up and be UNABLE to do that. I'm not claiming we'll win, or even that such a fight would take place. I hope it wouldn't. But the only thing that will prevent the increase in size and authority and force and arbitrary RULE of government is their fear of an armed revolution by the people. armed resistance. So, when government sets out to make me less able to perform my role in defense of my freedoms, even if it's slightly less, bit by tiny bit, reasonable excuses, etc., then I am not just suspicious, I am pretty certain of what they're up to. When Rahm E. says we can't have guns in schools, that would be disastrous, and then I find out that the school his kids go to has armed guards, I immediately realize he does not BELIEVE what he is telling me. That is propaganda, manipulation, etc. They ALL do that. Tell you one thing, and do the other. In their own lives they act with common sense, but when we do that, we are a threat to them, so they come at us with all these good reasons why OUR being armed and using armed force to dissuade dangerous criminals and defend the innocent is a bad idea. They can do it, but we can't. Because when we do it, we are a threat to a growing, imposing, authoritarian, central-command government that wants to tell us all what to do and what not to do with increasing belligerence and indifference to our well being.

    Armed guards in schools will be as effective at stopping school shootings as any kind of gun control short of an all out ban, and even THAT won't stop someone who wants to get a gun. We arm the guards who defend our money in banks; we arm the guards who defend our government offices. Why can't we arm the guards who defend our schools? And of course we can; I have read that many schools already have armed guards and have had for years, and there has never been an incident of the guard's weapon being fired in error or in anger. I do not believe there have been any school shootings at campuses with armed guards, either. Deterrence. "Gun free zones" attract killers; GET RID OF THEM. Soon as the 30 rounders are banned, someone will do a shooting with the 15 rounders, and THOSE will be too much, too risky, must ban for public safety, etc etc... then the 10s. Then semi autos altogether. Then larger caliber revolvers. It's a predictable path. It is unconstitutional.

    But no, we don't need machine guns or army weapons to defend our freedoms. We just need a large enough number of citizens who want to do it, carrying guns. That's all we need. It isn't a military battle per se; not weapon for weapon. It's about numbers and commitment. If you can't shoot back, commitment is suicide. If their ARs have 30 round mags, ours should too. The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with freedom to hunt or to fight off a criminal. It is entirely predictated on defeating tyranny, whether imposed by conquerors (after they've defeated your standing army) or imposed from within. The oath of office says protect and defend the constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic. There are such things. The constitution is what we protect. It's enemies try to overturn, alter and ignore it. It says "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That is, precisely, what these people want to do. Bit by bit. Until it means nothing. Bolt action .22 rifles will not get it done. The line must be drawn somewhere.

    The other day I asked a liberal friend what he'd do. he said "we have to ban assault weapons--" I immediately asked him what those were. He started, "well, to ME, that means--" and I said TO YOU? You want to ban something and you don't even know a non-subjective definition of the thing you want to ban? Do you realize how much that resembles tyranny? How tempting it is, to be "in charge" and lunge around making ill informed snap decisions like that "for the good of the people"?

    The greatest risk to gun rights is that the definition of assault weapon is on a blank page in a bill banning assault weapons, and it passes. That is how they've done health care, btw, by passing a bill with blank pages in it, to be written later but already called law.
    avatar
    Playa Hata

    Posts : 72
    Join date : 2012-12-14
    Location : Bizarro World

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Playa Hata on Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:28 am

    I'm just going to regress to bullet points.

    - You don't know how the government will attack.
    - "The people" who object to larger magazines taken from them are not ALL the people. I'd venture a guess that it's a small minority of people who will ultimately lose this battle for the betterment of society.
    - That slippery slope argument could have been used in 1934. Yet here we are and nobody's complaining about the absence of Tommy guns.
    - Again, "what Americans want" is a small, paranoid sect of our population. Even those in the NRA realize large magazines aren't necessary.
    - To my previous point about armed guards in schools, where does it stop? Next churches, then movie theaters, then Walmart, then...? As Mongrel pointed out, a one or two man security team isn't going to prevent a CT type shooting anyway.
    - Getting rid of them is as unconstitutional as getting rid of Tommy guns. Yet I don't see you arguing for their reinstatement.
    - You're right that there's some ignorance on what should be defined as permissible or not. However, that shouldn't prevent us from becoming more educated and working towards a solution.

    avatar
    Big Dave

    Posts : 138
    Join date : 2012-12-06
    Age : 57
    Location : Houston, TX

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Big Dave on Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:24 pm

    Playa Hata wrote:I'm just going to regress to bullet points.

    - You don't know how the government will attack.
    - "The people" who object to larger magazines taken from them are not ALL the people. I'd venture a guess that it's a small minority of people who will ultimately lose this battle for the betterment of society.
    - That slippery slope argument could have been used in 1934. Yet here we are and nobody's complaining about the absence of Tommy guns.
    - Again, "what Americans want" is a small, paranoid sect of our population. Even those in the NRA realize large magazines aren't necessary.
    - To my previous point about armed guards in schools, where does it stop? Next churches, then movie theaters, then Walmart, then...? As Mongrel pointed out, a one or two man security team isn't going to prevent a CT type shooting anyway.
    - Getting rid of them is as unconstitutional as getting rid of Tommy guns. Yet I don't see you arguing for their reinstatement.
    - You're right that there's some ignorance on what should be defined as permissible or not. However, that shouldn't prevent us from becoming more educated and working towards a solution.


    Nobody complained about the machine gun ban when it happened. So why are we complaining about the big magazines being banned? A question that deserves an answer, not a pat dismissal.

    "you don't know how the government will attack" a cheesy dismissal of discussion you just don't want to be a part of.

    "small paranoid sect" Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't really out to get you. And I'd say the small number of us is over 100 million. :-)

    "a small security team won't stop a CT shooting" then how come we've never heard of a shooting in a school that has armed guards? They only do it in "gun free zones". This isn't difficult. Deterrence is as valuable as ability to intervene, perhaps even more valuable. when the Clackamas mall shooter saw a guy with a pistol, he didn't fire any more shots, except to kill himself. Had dozens of rounds left. The legal pistol carrier didn't even shoot, and it STOPPED the shooter. One guy with one pistol, NOT fired. Don't tell me "small security teams" can't make a difference.

    I regard "becoming educated" as knowing what the second amendment says and why it says it.. knowing what the rest of the constitution says, and why... knowing what it is about the constitution that is so unacceptable to leftists, and why they won't accept it... knowing history, including recent history.. knowing human nature, which is taught by history.

    Incremental bans "reasonably" intended are how leftists achieve disarming the public. bit by bit, one reasonable "solution" at a time. that is what the left wants. And it doesn't matter what you want, because the left is in charge and has big mo. while ordinary decent people work on "solutions", they are working on a longer term plan which includes disinformation, propaganda, pleas to "be reasonable", etc.. history teaches us what THEY want, if we are not ignorant of it.
    avatar
    Playa Hata

    Posts : 72
    Join date : 2012-12-14
    Location : Bizarro World

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Playa Hata on Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:33 pm

    Big Dave wrote:
    Nobody complained about the machine gun ban when it happened. So why are we complaining about the big magazines being banned? A question that deserves an answer, not a pat dismissal.

    The bill was slipped in as a tax and in that day and age, I doubt too many were even aware of it. When the NRA head was asked how it would level against the second amendment, he said they didn't even research it from that angle. I guarantee you that if those guns were still legal, you'd be defending them just as you are the high-capacity magazines.


    "you don't know how the government will attack" a cheesy dismissal of discussion you just don't want to be a part of.

    How can I argue against your absolute certainty of things? I should probably just ask for the winning lottery numbers.

    "small paranoid sect" Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't really out to get you. And I'd say the small number of us is over 100 million. :-)

    I may die in a car crash tomorrow. Should I not drive my car? There's reasonable and then there's paranoid delusion.

    "a small security team won't stop a CT shooting" then how come we've never heard of a shooting in a school that has armed guards? They only do it in "gun free zones". This isn't difficult. Deterrence is as valuable as ability to intervene, perhaps even more valuable. when the Clackamas mall shooter saw a guy with a pistol, he didn't fire any more shots, except to kill himself. Had dozens of rounds left. The legal pistol carrier didn't even shoot, and it STOPPED the shooter. One guy with one pistol, NOT fired. Don't tell me "small security teams" can't make a difference.

    There was an armed guard at Columbine. Nice try.

    I regard "becoming educated" as knowing what the second amendment says and why it says it.. knowing what the rest of the constitution says, and why... knowing what it is about the constitution that is so unacceptable to leftists, and why they won't accept it... knowing history, including recent history.. knowing human nature, which is taught by history.

    Well then I'd suggest you work on the apparent contradictions in your own view of the second amendment.

    Incremental bans "reasonably" intended are how leftists achieve disarming the public. bit by bit, one reasonable "solution" at a time. that is what the left wants. And it doesn't matter what you want, because the left is in charge and has big mo. while ordinary decent people work on "solutions", they are working on a longer term plan which includes disinformation, propaganda, pleas to "be reasonable", etc.. history teaches us what THEY want, if we are not ignorant of it.

    Ah, yes. I was wondering when the right-wing rhetoric was going to come out in all its glory. Fox News has programmed you well. We've had a good discussion on the subject. It's probably best to cut it off as our sides have been adequately explained.

    avatar
    Big Dave

    Posts : 138
    Join date : 2012-12-06
    Age : 57
    Location : Houston, TX

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Big Dave on Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:14 pm

    My side has been adequately disparaged and insulted. Yours has not been adequately explained, except to call me crazy and say I'm wrong or I've been programmed or whatever. If you can show how the second amendment is contradictory, I'd like to hear that argument. Otherwise I agree, my side has been well explained. Lata hata.
    avatar
    Big Dave

    Posts : 138
    Join date : 2012-12-06
    Age : 57
    Location : Houston, TX

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Big Dave on Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:46 pm

    Kitty Werthman, Austrian nurse who lived as an adult through the rise of Hitler, saw him get elected in Austria by 98% margin (but she was programmed by Fox News, right?)--

    “Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

    “Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.”

    “This is my eye-witness account.

    “It’s true. Those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.

    “America is truly is the greatest country in the world.

    “Don’t let freedom slip away.

    “After America, there is no place to go.”



    Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/04/she-survived-hitler-and-wants-to-warn-america.html#ixzz2GZeXAEkX
    avatar
    Playa Hata

    Posts : 72
    Join date : 2012-12-14
    Location : Bizarro World

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Playa Hata on Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:14 pm

    Written in 1964: Paranoid Style in American Politics

    I'll refer you to the section entitled, "Why they feel dispossessed."

    America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals; the old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers; the old national security and independence have been destroyed by treasonous plots, having as their most powerful agents not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power.

    Events since 1939 have given the contemporary right-wing paranoid a vast theatre for his imagination, full of rich and proliferating detail, replete with realistic cues and undeniable proofs of the validity of his suspicions. The theatre of action is now the entire world, and he can draw not only on the events of World War II, but also on those of the Korean War and the Cold War. Any historian of warfare knows it is in good part a comedy of errors and a museum of incompetence; but if for every error and every act of incompetence one can substitute an act of treason, many points of fascinating interpretation are open to the paranoid imagination. In the end, the real mystery, for one who reads the primary works of paranoid scholarship, is not how the United States has been brought to its present dangerous position but how it has managed to survive at all.


    And 48 years later there's this:

    Big Dave wrote:Incremental bans "reasonably" intended are how leftists achieve disarming the public. bit by bit, one reasonable "solution" at a time. that is what the left wants. And it doesn't matter what you want, because the left is in charge and has big mo. while ordinary decent people work on "solutions", they are working on a longer term plan which includes disinformation, propaganda, pleas to "be reasonable", etc.. history teaches us what THEY want, if we are not ignorant of it.

    So while you imply that I'm part of the leftist movement seeking to chisel away your rights until the next Hitler comes, I shall call you paranoid. I call that even, so please leave the whining about disparagement and insult to the children. You're obviously a tougher guy than that.

    avatar
    Big Dave

    Posts : 138
    Join date : 2012-12-06
    Age : 57
    Location : Houston, TX

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Big Dave on Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:14 pm



    What I actually implied was that you were an "ordinary decent person" working on solutions, but "they" (grammatically meaning not you) are working on the bad stuff. So does this clarification mean I'm not paranoid? :-)

    I'm not whining about insult and disparagement. I'm pointing out that in my view I"m doing a better job of arguing than you, because I"m not doing ad hominem and you are. It's a sign of weakness of argument when you do that.

    I don't think we're even. I think I'm winning. But it's been work. You have been forced to ignore a lot of what I've said in order to hold onto your position, so I think I'm winning. I have not ignored being called paranoid. :-)

    It's been awhile since I"ve been in one of these wars on the non-golf side. Been interesting. Thanks for the engagement.

    Sponsored content

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:44 pm