PDA

View Full Version : Cold Hard Facts About Guns



Shitoryu Dude
14th July 2003, 06:09
THE COLD, HARD FACTS ABOUT GUNS

Chicago Tribune, May 8, 1998, NORTH SPORTS FINAL EDITION

By John R. Lott Jr., the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime."

America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions. Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen.

Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety. Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively.

Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach.

The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.

Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers. The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer.

With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates.

Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks.

Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.

There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.

Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.

Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).

Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.

The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection.

How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.

These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does.
____________________________________________________

This message has been brought to you by a "gun nut"

:beer:

Mekugi
14th July 2003, 07:03
Harvey, bless you man!

Yours in the obsession to own more toys....

Rawsty

Rogier
14th July 2003, 10:42
Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.

There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.


When one studies all countries rather then a select few??? Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Finland, Sweden, Canada and Israel are all countries??

As for Switzerland.. as far as I know most of the gun owners there have the guns because of the way their army works. A very big percentage of their army is made up of people who are drafted when necessary and therefore own a gun.

Israel... lower deaths?? at this moment and in the past... The people who own guns in Israel own them for a very different reason than most people in the US. I can't imagine many people in Israel own a gun for hobby or sporting purposes.

And instead of looking at the total murder rate... shouldn't they be looking at murders in which guns were actually involved???


As for the piece... does it actually tell anything new... It wouldn't surprise me if the writer copied the whole thing off the net somewhere or just combined several threads from discussion groups

Soulend
14th July 2003, 11:04
If Professor Lott, the leading researcher and author of three books on the subject, copied it off the internet I would be very surprised indeed :)

Rogier
14th July 2003, 11:27
Of course you do understand that made that remark to illustrate the fact that this thing is and has been discussed often..

just read an interesting article from
NewScientist.com (http://www.newscientist.com)




Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented?


19:00 09 July 03

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

The US Congress is close to passing a bill giving gun makers immunity from liability for deaths or injuries caused by their products; legislation that would place gun makers in a uniquely privileged position. The move highlights the special place granted to guns in US culture, whereby the heavy toll of death and injury that guns inflict is normally viewed as a social and political problem, in which the need to tackle gun crime and accidents is set against traditional rights and freedoms to bear arms.

But many experts in the field are arguing that the casualties caused by guns should be seen as something different: a public health crisis that must be tackled with the same vigour as infectious diseases, mental illness and industrial and traffic accidents. To reduce the staggering numbers of gun-related deaths and injuries, they say, manufacturers should embrace a raft of technologies that make guns safer and stop them being used to commit crime.

There are 200 million privately owned guns in the US, including 65 million handguns. Firearms are now the second biggest cause of injury-related death in the country, killing 28,663 people in 2000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. For African-American teenagers aged 15 to 19, gun-related homicide is the leading cause of death, and for all American teenagers of similar age gun-related homicide and suicide come second only to motor vehicle accidents. "If it's the number one cause of death for portions of the population, how can it not be a compelling public health problem?" asks Stephen Teret of Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore, Maryland.


Gun-related homocide


Douglas Wiebe of the Firearm Injury Center at Penn (FICAP) at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia agrees. Last month, Wiebe and colleagues found that people who keep guns at home have a 72 per cent greater chance of being killed by firearms compared with those who do not, and are 3.44 times as likely to commit suicide (Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol 41, p 771). A 1997 survey by the CDC that compared the US with 25 other industrialised countries, including the UK and Australia, showed that the number of gun-related homicides in the US per 100,00 children below the age of 15 was 16 times that of all the other countries combined. The proportion of children below 15 who use guns to kill themselves was 11 times higher.


Making handguns safer
Many people in the US legitimately own firearms, and with no realistic prospect of gun ownership being banned that is unlikely to change. Around half a million guns are stolen from people's homes every year, many of which go on to be used in a crime. Making these weapons childproof, or designing them so that they can only be used by an authorised owner, could help reduce the number of gun-related injuries and deaths, says Teret.

Some simple technological safeguards, such as an indicator to show whether the chamber is loaded, invented 100 years ago, are still not universal on handguns. And with gun manufacturers under no compulsion to produce safe weapons, more sophisticated safety mechanisms are even rarer (see Graphic). When John Milne of Michigan State University in Kalamazoo and his colleagues recently surveyed 263 types of pistol made in the US they found only 13 per cent had a loaded chamber indicator. Only 20 per cent had a grip safety to make it hard for children to use the gun. And just 21 per cent had a magazine safety, which stops the gun firing once the magazine has been removed, even if there is already a round in the chamber (Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol 41, p 1).


Personalised weapons


While laws in states such as California and Maryland have driven manufacturers to build in some safeguards, critics still argue that there is no proof that this reduces the number of accidental deaths or injuries. The National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the sponsors of the immunity bill before Congress, sees such laws as the first step on the road towards limiting people's right to own guns.

Robert Ricker, a former lawyer for the NRA who has since testified in lawsuits against gun manufacturers, says that when the gun maker Smith & Wesson agreed with the Clinton administration to build safety devices into its weapons, the NRA led a boycott that nearly destroyed the company. The experience has made gun manufacturers wary of adding safety features to their weapons, he says.

But some progress towards safer and smarter guns is being made. In December, New Jersey became the first state to require manufacturers to build guns that can only be fired by their legitimate owner - though this will not come into force until 3 years after the state determines that such technology is commercially viable. The police are enthusiastic backers of this technology, seeing it as a way of ensuring that stolen guns are not used against them.

There are two main components to personalised weapons: sensors that determine who is holding the gun, and a mechanism to prevent the weapon from firing when an unauthorised person is holding it. This would make it impossible for children to use such guns and could prevent the thousands of deaths inflicted with stolen weapons. "They become unmarketable," says Eric Gorovitz, policy director for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence in Washington DC. Personalisation "transforms them from guns into rocks", he says.

Gun maker Colt has developed a prototype gun that transmits a radio frequency signal to a tag worn by the user. On receiving the signal, the tag transmits its identity to the gun, which releases an internal electromagnetic lock and allows it to be fired.

Such "proximity sensors" have their limitations. They are useless inside people's homes, says Donald Sebastian, head of the personalised weapons technology project at the New Jersey Institute of Technology in Newark. "In the home environment, [the tag] is probably going to be shoved in the drawer with the gun. It's tantamount to leaving the key in the front-door lock."


Electronic spark


To address this, Sebastian and his colleagues have developed a biometric system that is activated when someone grabs a gun. They found each person's grip has a unique profile, determined by the envelope of their hand, the length of the individual segments of their fingers, and the pressure each of these segments exerts. Sensors on the gun's grip can be programmed to recognise the profile of the person authorised to use the weapon.


So far, the team has only produced prototypes linked to a computer, rather than a real gun. And crucially, no one knows if a person's grip remains recognisable at all times, especially when they are panicked. Sebastian is confident the technology can be made to work, and the necessary hardware shrunk into a microchip and fitted into a normal handgun. But the project is languishing for lack of funds. "We don't have the dollars to put into commercial development," says Sebastian.

One commercial development that could ease the move towards personalised weapons is the electronic gun made in Australia by Metal Storm of Brisbane. In place of a mechanical firing mechanism, these weapons detonate their rounds using an electronic spark. Combining electronic ballistics with biometrics could be a sure way to enforce personalisation, says Sebastian. Ballistic fingerprinting could also help police track down guns used in a shooting.

However, guns are designed to injure and kill, so a "safe" gun will always be a contradiction in terms. And many people, especially the gun lobby, have always argued that it is not guns that kill, but the people that pull the trigger. It's an argument someone like Brandon Maxfield may find hard to accept. Nine years ago, when he was just 7 years old, Maxfield was accidentally shot by a babysitter, and is now a quadriplegic. On 7 May this year, a jury in California held the gun maker responsible and awarded Maxfield more than $50 million in compensation. The gun's design was faulty, the jury found, because the babysitter could not unload the weapon without first disengaging the safety catch. That ruling has been hailed as a landmark by gun-control advocates, but will mean little if Congress exempts manufacturers from further similar claims.

And unless changes are made to the design of guns, such accidents will continue. This year Richard Ismach and colleagues at the Center for Injury Control at Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, Atlanta, found that 32 per cent of unintended shootings in the US are caused by deficiencies in gun design (Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol 41, p 10). They say such injuries, which kill over 800 people each year including 150 children, could be prevented if all new handguns incorporated basic safety features. And whatever the gun lobby may say, most gun owners seem to agree. A National Opinion Research Survey cited by Ismach's team suggests that 59 per cent of them say that all guns should be personalised.


Anil Ananthaswamy, San Francisco

Rogier
14th July 2003, 11:30
and please note that this article was published on the net 5 days ago... (Harvey's thing was apparantly published 5/6 years ago)

and one of the interesting things:

Douglas Wiebe of the Firearm Injury Center at Penn (FICAP) at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia agrees. Last month, Wiebe and colleagues found that people who keep guns at home have a 72 per cent greater chance of being killed by firearms compared with those who do not, and are 3.44 times as likely to commit suicide (Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol 41, p 771).


wait a minute... didn't the piece Harvey posted state that this was a myth??? tsk tsk... scientists... always opposing each other's theories..

ScottUK
14th July 2003, 11:35
The Dunblane Massacre

I remember the politicians here stating that gun crime will be a thing of the past after the law banning handguns goes through.

What has happened since then? Gun crime has gone up just as we expected...

Anyone know the statistics for UK gun crime since Dunblane?

Meik Skoss
14th July 2003, 12:25
One of the better books that's been written about gun ownership and whether or not it's useful in deterring violent crime is "Armed and Female," by Paxton Quigley. She admits that she was against the idea of people (particularly women) carrying concealed weapons, and then... she really looked into the matter. Honest research, a book written by an honest woman, and she makes a *very* compelling case for how it does reduce the level of violence against individuals who are abiding the law and minding their own business. I urge people to read the book. It's very interesting, infomrative, and it might help people save their own lives or those of somebody they know.

Good post by Shito-ryu Dude.

Rogier
14th July 2003, 12:48
Originally posted by Sharp Phil
One must be many things to support firearms prohibition, sometimes fallaciously termed "gun control."

Foremost among them is stupid.

not exactly the well thought off and substantiated/founded (whatever the word is...) post one would expect of you Phil..


btw... does anyone have a link that compares murders in various countries percentage wise instead of just stating the numbers??

and another question... not being American I can't say I actually have experience with getting a fire-arm in the US. Can someone tell from experience how easy/difficult it is to get a fire-arm (legally)??

sean dixie
14th July 2003, 13:11
Rogier, I watched a docufilm recently where Micheal Moore got a free gun for joining a BANK! It wasn't the greatest piece of journalism ever but I did like the bit where he's looking down the barrel of the gun and says "Do you think it's wise to give out guns in banks?":confused: :D

TenguAteMyPuppy
14th July 2003, 15:17
That was funny.

...but just a reminder. Don't get on Moore's case for that movie being anti-gun. It wasn't. Moore is, or was, a member of the NRA and owns several guns.

He can be annoying though.

Shitoryu Dude
14th July 2003, 16:14
What prompted me to post this was seeing the movie "28 Days Later" over the weekend. One of the first things I noticed is that the survivors were armed with such things as baseball bats, molotov cocktails, and a cheap machete. Nobody had so much as a target pistol to defend themselves with, so they spent their time running like hell from deranged, mindless, blood spewing, virus infected "zombies" who were trying to kill everybody (nice plot). It wasn't until they met up with the remains of the army that anybody had any guns at all. Of course, in typical British fashion, those with guns are just as bad (if not worse) than the zombies.

I found the movie to a heavy-handed morality play on two fronts:

1) Using animals to experiment on is evil, leave the poor monkeys alone.

2) Guns are evil. Good guys don't have guns. Only undisciplined, heartless bastards who are twisted in the head have guns.

My thoughts were a litte opposite:

1) Don't mess around with research facilities - you don't know what that "poor little monkey" or rabbit may be infected with.

2) Security at such research facilities would be a lot better if armed guards were on duty instead of a dweeb in a lab coat

3) Killing infected zombies 50 feet away with a deer rifle beats doing it up close with a crude club

4) Brits need a good dose of reality about gun ownership

:beer:

Ben Bartlett
14th July 2003, 16:17
I've heard the whole pro vs anti-gun control debate so many times, that at some point I decided to actually read through the statistics. Insofar as I can tell (and I'm not an expert), gun control (or lack thereof) causes a statistically insignificant change in the amount of violent and non-violent crimes. The only place where you could see a real difference was the amount of violent crimes committed with guns (not surprisingly, that's higher in places without much gun control). So I've pretty much decided that I don't much care about gun control one way or the other, with the exception of a few small things, like background checks (and maybe a ban on assault rifles and such, since I don't see the point in having those, but if someone can offer me a good reason why they are needed, I'm open to it). Frankly, I think there are a lot of other issues that, if addressed, would do a lot more to reduce the crime rate than gun control, or having more armed citizens, and on my more cynical days I just wish people would drop the issue and move on to the more important ones instead (or, if they have to address it, just let it be a state issue; the federal government has more important things they could be doing).
I'm sure people on both sides of the issue will disagree with my reading of the statistics, but that's still where I stand. :)

Soulend
14th July 2003, 16:31
Originally posted by Ben Bartlett
and maybe a ban on assault rifles and such, since I don't see the point in having those

I would probably be inclined to agree, Ben, as soon I figure out what in the blue blazes an 'assault' rifle is in the first place. Beyond a term created by the media to strike terror into the hearts of non-gunowning liberal suburbanites, that is :D

Shitoryu Dude
14th July 2003, 16:42
Actual definition of an assault rifle: A fully automatic machine gun.

Media definition of an assault rifle: Anything that looks hi-tech, mean, or resembles a military weapon. Includes any rifle that is not bolt or lever action or does not look like a stereotypical "hunting" gun. Includes most shotguns as shotguns are perceived by the media to be a weapon of choice in certain video games. May also include some knives that look mean or really cool.

:beer:

Cady Goldfield
14th July 2003, 17:44
"A little man with a gun is a big man." Or, to paraphrase, "A small woman with a gun, and trained to use it, is a big man. Certainly, bigger than the schmuck who is foolish enough to attempt to attack her."

Marc Renouf
14th July 2003, 18:54
I fully support the NRA's position on legislation protecting firearm manufacturers from spurious lawsuits for the simple reason that it makes sense. The idea of counties and municipalities suing manufacturers simply because people were killed or injured in that jurisdiction by a weapon made by the manufacturer is ludicrous.

A perfect analogy would be the auto industry. No one in his or her right mind would suggest that we sue GM, Ford, and Chrysler simply because people all over the country are being killed by hit-and-run drivers. But that is exactly what's happening to firearm manufacturers. Automobile-related deaths are the number one killer of our teens. Where's the hue and cry? If the kind of legislation foisted on gun manufacturers were stuck on the auto industry, we'd all have cars that had no engine and never left our garage (i.e. they are nice to look at, can never be stolen, and won't hurt anybody by accident, but are almost useless for what they were intended for).

That's not to say that there aren't valid product liability concerns. If my handgun has a critical defect that makes it explode in my hand when fired, then yes, I should be able to sue the manufacturer. But if my firearm functions perfectly as it was intended, what busines does anyone have suing the firearm manufacturer because of something that I did with the product?

Lawsuits against firearms manufacturers are what we got when the tobacco industry was bled dry. Fast food is next. My prediction is the auto industry after that. If you want to legislate a better society, forget about firearms and ban trial lawyers.

Cady Goldfield
14th July 2003, 19:05
Marc, one snag in that argument is that the function of cars is to provide transportation. Killing and maiming with automobiles is an unfortunate and unintentional byproduct and consequence.

The function of guns is to kill or maim. It has not other direct function, being intended first and foremost to be a weapon. If we want to use something that only stuns or temporarily disable an attacker, we would not use a gun. The only legitimate non-lethal activity we can ascribe to guns is target/skeet shooting and similar marksmanship sports. But, let's not kid ourselves. Guns are for killing.

I don't disagree with your stand, I'm just saying that the car vs. gun analogy isn't an apt one.

Problems arise with guns when 1. they are in the hands of criminals, 2. when they are owned by or fall into the hands of people who are ignorant and untrained in their safe use and handling, and 3. when they are carelessly kept so that children and other at-risk individuals can come across them or have easy access to them.

Those are the issues I would like to see addressed by our governments, rather than see them dwell on the wholesale banning of firearms because "guns kill people."

Shitoryu Dude
14th July 2003, 19:24
Therefore, we should be instructing children at an early age on gun safety. Three is about the right time to introduce a kid to guns.

:beer:

Marc Renouf
14th July 2003, 19:26
Oh, and don't get me started on the "assault weapon" ban ... too late.

As dictated by the 1994 ban, a "semi-automatic assault weapon" (SAW) is any semiautomatic rifle with a box-fed external magazine (a "clip" for all you who only get your gun knowledge from movies) and two or more of the following items:

a pistol grip extending below the weapon
a collapsible or folding stock
a flash suppressor
a bayonet lug
an undermount grenade launcher

Let's look at each of these in turn, shall we?

Pistol grips extending below the gun are an ergonomic feature. They make the rifle more comfortable to fire by allowing the stock to lie directly behind the line of fire, rather than angling down. This makes recoil easier for the shooter to absorb and (theoretically) makes the weapon more accurate. But that was not Congress' stated reasons for why the pistol grip was bad. Apparently, pistol grips are bad because they "facilitate firing from the hip in a spraying motion," and "allow the weapon to be more easily fired one-handed."

Excuse me? Do these people know nothing about ergonomics? Anyone who has ever held an M-16 or AK-47 (two readily recognizable weapons with pistol grips) knows that firing from the hip actually requires more contortion of the wrist than firing something without a pistol grip (like a lever-action Winchester). And firing one-handed? What are our criminals, bodybuilders? Sure, Ahnold fires weapons one-handed in Terminator movies, so it must be easy, right? Wrong. Even an M-16, which has a fair amount of lightweight, compsite parts still weighs 8 pounds. That doesn't sound like much, but try holding it steady at arms length. Now try aiming. Now imagine that with recoil.

Furthermore, firing from the hip and firing one-handed are probably the worst, least accurate ways to fire. If I'm going to have a guy shooting at me with a rifle, I want him firing from the hip or firing one handed, because it means he's less likely to be able to hit anything! Short answer: Congress is stupid.

A collapsible or folding stock: I could see this for concealability issues, but there's already a minimum length restriction on firearms: 26 inches. Even if your weapon is longer than 26 inches with the stock collapsed, it's still a no-no. So why make them illegal?

A flash suppressor: contrary to popular (media) opinion, a flash suppressor doesn't make it harder for someone to see you firing at night. All that a flash suppressor does is minimize the flash seen by the shooter. It was originally designed for military use such that soldiers could more easily fire their weapons at night without being blinded by the flash of their own weapon (basically it directs the flash forward rather than out). I'd think that in terms of home defense, you'd want to allow people to use a device that would keep them from blinding themselves after firing at an intruder in a darkened house. After all, if they're blind, they may just keep shooting randomly.

A bayonet lug: When was the last time you heard of a drive-by-bayonetting? True, a bayonet lug could be used as an attachment point for a bipod or other accuracy-enhancing tool. But wait, bipods and other accuracy enhancing tools aren't illegal, are they? Nope, they're not, and you can attach them to more than just bayonet lugs.

And my favorite: the undermount grenade launcher. Grenade launchers are and have always been classified as "destructive devices," and have been tightly controlled since (you guessed it) 1936. Why another law to make weapons that could conceivable use them illegal?

The short answer is that these are all modifications that make a weapon "look scary." The law is not about weapons that are more dangerous, it's about weapons that resemble military hardware. There's nothing keeping you from owning a bolt-action M40A1 (the sniper rifle used by the Marine Corps). It's arguably the most accurate personal firearm in our entire military arsenal. But apparently it doesn't look scary enough to attract Congress' attention.

Finally, note that these are semi-automatic weapons, not fully automatic weapons. Anyone who thinks that the "assault weapon" ban was needed to "get machine guns off our streets" is sorely misinformed. "Machine guns," or fully-automatic weapons have been tightly controlled in the US since 1936, and were further limited in 1987. You need a Class III Federal Firearms License to own one, and in addition to being difficult to qualify for, holding a Class III FFL entitles the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, an oganization under the auspices of the Department of Treasury) to enter your place of business (or your home if you don't have a place of business) unannounced, without a warrant, at any time for full inventorying and auditing.

To repeat, the 1994 law does not deal with "machine guns" in any way, shape, or form. But if you ask most people about it, they feel that Congress was protecting them from fully-automatic AK-47s. Ahh, media hype.

Shitoryu Dude
14th July 2003, 20:30
My brother in Boise belongs to a company sponsored shooting team. They commonly sight in at 600 yards with 30-06 rifles designed 60 years ago (some of them were manufactured then as well). Many of them also use the same type of rifle used by the DC Sniper, which was also quite legal and was not covered by the "assault weapons" ban. His opinion of the shooting quality exhibited by Malvo was "amateur" (I had to agree, it wasn't anything special as far as difficulty went). Personally, I would be far more concerned about someone going postal with a .30 cal magnum rifle taking sniper shots at a half mile than some gun collector who has a .223 semi-auto with lots of neat stuff attached to it. Then again, most serial killers seem to prefer knives, blunt instruments, choking, etc., so what does that tell you?

Contrary to what gun control fanatics would have you believe, automatic weapons are not the "favored" weapon of criminals, nor are they readily available. They actually prefer pistols as they are smaller and easier to use. The number of times that machine guns have been used by criminals in the US since the days of Al Capone is miniscule - it is so unusual that they make movies out of it.

It is the individual, not the tool that is to blame.

dirithtai
14th July 2003, 20:39
I noticed you had no problems with the ban on underslung grenade launchers. ;)


Just a question, what do all the gun-enthused out there think of ownership of a firearm without intention of use, ie as a deterrent in a mugging? As a for instance, a freind of mine was going to NYU for college, and was contemplating buying a handgun for self protection. I asked her if she thought she was capable of pulling the trigger, and she said no. Isn't this something most people with a predatory bent can sense? And when a would be mugger/whatever calls her bluff, she is doubly boned, as he's now toting a peice with which to shoot and or pistolwhip (if its unloaded). Doesn't gun ownership as a form of self defense HAVE to come packaged with the willingness and ability to pull the trigger and lay waste to someone if the situation leaves no alternative?

just random thoughts spewing from my head...

Shitoryu Dude
14th July 2003, 21:00
Imagine this scenario:

The young woman you have been bothering to go out with you decides you are a bit too pushy. The next thing you know there is the barrel of what appears to be a howitzer pointing at your face. Do you

A) Back off before she blows your punk-ass head clean off

B) Crap your pants

C) Wet yourself

D) Lose your woody in record time

E) Start talking in quiet, soft tones with your hands up

F) Apologize profusely for ever being born

G) Decide she's really bluffing and try to take the gun away from her because you are such a kung fu master

H) All of the above except "G"


Note, selecting "G" may leave you quite dead even if she really was bluffing.

:beer:

ScottUK
14th July 2003, 21:57
4) Brits need a good dose of reality about gun ownershipWhat gun ownership?

All we're left with are shotguns, poxy .22 shoite and muzzle-loading blunderbusses! :redhot:

Ben Bartlett
14th July 2003, 22:58
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Imagine this scenario:

The young woman you have been bothering to go out with you decides you are a bit too pushy. The next thing you know there is the barrel of what appears to be a howitzer pointing at your face. Do you

A) Back off before she blows your punk-ass head clean off

B) Crap your pants

C) Wet yourself

D) Lose your woody in record time

E) Start talking in quiet, soft tones with your hands up

F) Apologize profusely for ever being born

G) Decide she's really bluffing and try to take the gun away from her because you are such a kung fu master

H) All of the above except "G"


Note, selecting "G" may leave you quite dead even if she really was bluffing.

:beer:

I'd have to say that I'd go with "I": call the cops and have her arrested for assault. You don't get to pull a gun on someone just for being "pushy" (well, not in this country, at any rate). Now, if I actually attempted to sexually assault her, that would be a horse of a different color. But I sincerely doubt I'll ever find myself in that situation, as going about sexually assaulting women doesn't strike me as a particularly wonderful thing to do (to put it mildly).

Vapour
15th July 2003, 00:17
U.S. do have extremely high crime rates especially murder and guns are prominent in these crimes. Surely, avialiability of guns (theoretically intended only for non criminal) has much to do with crimes involving guns not to mention number of accidental death involving guns. Certainly countries like Swiss don't have much gun problem. But these country generally have low crime rate to begin with. Adding oil (guns) to fire (high level of crime rate) would certainly be fatal. Brtain, for example, have equal (sometimes worse) level of felony compared to U.S. except murder.

Arming yourself with guns is certainly a valid resonse in such sorry state. Given 2nd Amendment, this second best situation is probably the best U.S. can live with. Introduction of mandatory training requirement akin to driving licence would probably help. But this still doesn't change the fact that it's the second best state.

A. M. Jauregui
15th July 2003, 00:54
I was a young woman that had a concealed carried weapon permit. In the year and a half that I carried a handgun for job related reasons, I never had to use it.

I am all for people’s rights to bare arms but I think that it should be standard practice for everyone to go through the same process that I did.

Personal: fingerprints, psychological test, Department of Justice background check, county sheriff background check, birth certificiate, CA Driver's License, 3 letters of character reference, employer, SSN, 4 personal contacts, residence history, employment history, 3 sets of names and addresses of neighbors, along with other monotonous details that I am most likely forgetting.

Training: 24 hours of class at a community college, basic firearms safety certificate, a hell of a lot of paper work.

Gun: make, model, caliber, serial number, inspections, proof of working knowledge, tests of functionality.

Cost: $600 for all the processing of the personal info and courses, however much my Walther PKK cost the company that I was working for ~$1000(?), and hours of my time.

I have never gotten into a situation while carrying were I felt the use of a gun should supersede the use of my mind. Harvey, every girl knows to call for the club / bar bouncer... It is their job to handle riffraff.

Shitoryu Dude
15th July 2003, 01:27
The situation I described was only to illustrate the point that "bluffing" is not an option you should be considering when a gun is in your face.

As regards to qualifications for a weapons permit - that is a very steep and very slippery slope. The words "shall not be infringed" are there for a reason; it is very easy to make the requirements for weapon ownership so stringent that nobody qualifies.

I do believe that weapons training should done, but I certainly don't trust the government to be in charge of it.

:beer:

Joseph Svinth
15th July 2003, 01:52
No one denies that North American inner cities are violent places. For some recent data on this, see http://www.cnn.com/US/9901/02/murder.rate . For comparable data for Western European cities, see page 9 of http://www.justice.ie/802569B20047F907/vWeb/flDANN4WZN8N/$File/Homicide.pdf . However, next time that somebody tells you that the United States leads the world in homicides, ask them when Latin America became the 51st state. For example, Cali (Colombia) and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) both have significantly higher homicide rates than any place in North America. (And yes, I am including inner city Detroit and DC.) For a discussion of homicide in Brazil, see http://www.ifb.com.br/english/documentos/mortality.pdf ; for charts, see http://www.paho.org/English/HCP/HCN/VIO/violence-graphs.htm .

It is possible that the incidence of violent death has something to do with living in densely populated areas. However, if that is the case, then why do Montana and Manitoba have higher homicide rates than Minneapolis/St. Paul? (See http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Gov/morrison2.html .) Likewise, why do Australia’s Northern Territories have a higher homicide rate than Sydney? (See http://www.aic.gov.au/media/990211.html.) As for it all involving easy access to handguns, then how does one explain Fargo, North Dakota, where there are firearms in most homes, yet both homicide and suicide rates are among the lowest on earth?

Soulend
15th July 2003, 02:47
Originally posted by A.M. Jauregui
I am all for people’s rights to bare arms

Yes! Down with mandatory sleeve usage!

A. M. Jauregui
15th July 2003, 02:49
The qualifications that I listed were for my concealed weapon permit. They were arduous but I feel justifiable - a pain in the butt but easy. For simple gun ownership the process is laughably light.


Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Myth No. 4...

The type of person willing to go through the [concealed weapon] permitting process is extremely law-abiding.

While I do not agree with some of the statistics of the article you provided, if the statement above is valid I am all for stipulating that citizens go through a similar process to the one that I had to go through. Personally I would like it if only “extremely law-abiding“ citizens had gun. ;)

Harvey, what do you propose be the requirements for gun ownership?

P.S. Joe that was another wonderful display of research. :)

A. M. Jauregui
15th July 2003, 02:54
Originally posted by Soulend


Yes! Down with mandatory sleeve usage!

Preach it brother... It would stop all those damn dirty magicians and their diabolical tricks. :D

Striking Hand
15th July 2003, 02:59
Originally posted by A.M. Jauregui

Preach it brother... It would stop all those damn dirty magicians and their diabolical tricks. :D

A friend of mine is a magician he does all his performances wearing slacks and a t-shirt.

A. M. Jauregui
15th July 2003, 03:27
I was just kidding... See what your sly comments do David. Someone stop the tangents. ;)

Jussi Häkkinen
15th July 2003, 03:47
BTW...when comparing US gun amount per capita to Finnish one, one should remember that in Finland practically all weapons are "long", i.e. hunting or sporting rifles and shotguns. Firearms are practically never bought for home safety issues - we don't generally feel that we'd need any kind of home protection weaponry.

Pistols, military weaponry and other similar firearms are very rare in Finland.

"Puukko", or Finnish knife, is still a more common weapon of murder than a firearm, I think.

Mekugi
15th July 2003, 03:52
Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
Marc, one snag in that argument is that the function of cars is to provide transportation. Killing and maiming with automobiles is an unfortunate and unintentional byproduct and consequence.

The function of guns is to kill or maim.

Hi Cady...

Sez who?

I know a deranged teenager that deliberately ran over a 6 year old boy in my town, Oregon City. That was intentional and he used his car. There is a major flaw in the arguement you have, this was not accidental, unintentional or otherwise. The fact also remains that cars kil FAR MORE people than those "horrible scary fire-gun thingies". Which is the real threat? BAN AUTOMOBILES!! They are the real killers. I mean sure, you would be giving up your right to drive to your mailbox every morning to drop the mail in, but "THINK OF THE CHILDREN"
Lets face it, these two things are in-animate objects that do not think or reason on their own. Bottom line. In fact, the Automobile is FAR more of a threat.

The function of a firearm is to, roughly, project a bullet down a barrel into a target, from point A to point B. The purpose of an automobile is to hurl itself through space at variable speeds, from point A to point B. Each of these things are a tool, and the bearer of the tool in fact, bear the responsbility. "Never confuse movement with action".

-Russ

Cady Goldfield
15th July 2003, 03:56
I wouldn't support untrained gun owners. Giving an untrained woman (or man) a gun to carry as a bluff can be problematic, particularly if the individual can't carry off a convincing and confident attitude. Bluffing successfully with an unloaded weapon requires a lot of moxie. You may as well go the whole distance and get trained to actually use the gun for real. That will provide more confidence than knowing that you have an empty gun and don't even know how to pose with it convincingly.

The rigorous process that Ana went through would improve the odds that the woman won't hurt herself with her own gun, or get into a situation where it can be wrested from her because she doesn't know how to use it properly.

Mekugi
15th July 2003, 04:05
Just a reminder from your friendly neighborhood Constitution:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

RAWSTY THE "GUN NUT"

OHH BTW, you can get shotguns and rifles in Japan. I am going to a shop down South of me, they seem interested in me after I had my GF call and I was invited to trap shoot with them.

Woohoo.

Striking Hand
15th July 2003, 04:16
Originally posted by Mekugi
J
OHH BTW, you can get shotguns and rifles in Japan. I am going to a shop down South of me, they seem interested in me after I had my GF call and I was invited to trap shoot with them.

Woohoo.

Yep, just be prepared for plenty of paperwork and background checks.

Plus, the gun licence comes with a little drawback.

The Cops can come at ANY time into your house and check on the firearm and how it is stored. You need to draw them a plan of your place and where it is stored.

There is a reason why the majority of gun-owners in japan are part of the military or the police force.

Cheers.

Shitoryu Dude
15th July 2003, 04:26
My requirements for gun ownership:

US Citizen or legal resident alien
No criminal record of violent crimes
No history of mental illness
Under the age of 18 must have permission of parent or guardian

I personally do not believe that you should require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. If you have the right to own a gun, you should be able to carry it on you at any and all times or places. The default assumption is that you are armed for self defense reasons, not to commit a crime.

Gun ownship is a right because self defense is a right. I personally believe that gun safety needs to be taught from a young age.

Many people still get upset about being required to pass a hunter or gun safety class to purchase a deer license, but hunting, like driving, is a privilege.

:beer:

Jussi Häkkinen
15th July 2003, 05:15
Up-to-date hunter's license, purchasing permission (from a local police station) for each firearm and a firearm handling test for long firearms.
Up-to-date membership and recommendation of two trusted, existing members of a shooting club and a purchasing permission (from a local police station) and a handling test for each short firearm.
Every single one of legal firearms registered to their owners.

That's how it is here. Owning a gun is possible and not very hard to achieve. I can recommend that warmly to every country.

Mekugi
15th July 2003, 05:18
I personally think firearms training should be started at the first three months of Gestation, with headphones specially designed for the unborn child, inserted inside of the....well ok that's pretty extreme.

Otherwise I think they should teach shooting and firearms safety in school as a part of citizenship classes. Then again I was p'od when out school district in Oregon cut out the mandatory swimming lessons.

-Russ


Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
My requirements for gun ownership:

US Citizen or legal resident alien
No criminal record of violent crimes
No history of mental illness
Under the age of 18 must have permission of parent or guardian

I personally do not believe that you should require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. If you have the right to own a gun, you should be able to carry it on you at any and all times or places. The default assumption is that you are armed for self defense reasons, not to commit a crime.

Gun ownship is a right because self defense is a right. I personally believe that gun safety needs to be taught from a young age.

Many people still get upset about being required to pass a hunter or gun safety class to purchase a deer license, but hunting, like driving, is a privilege.

:beer:

Shitoryu Dude
15th July 2003, 05:44
I rather think mandatory swimming would be of much better benefit than what passes for phys ed. At least you learn something of great benefit rather than how to play dodgeball. :rolleyes:

:beer:

Sapporo Ichiban
15th July 2003, 05:48
"My requirements for gun ownership:

US Citizen or legal resident alien
No criminal record of violent crimes
No history of mental illness
Under the age of 18 must have permission of parent or guardian

I personally do not believe that you should require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. If you have the right to own a gun, you should be able to carry it on you at any and all times or places. The default assumption is that you are armed for self defense reasons, not to commit a crime.

Gun ownship is a right because self defense is a right."

________

Amen. Except I don't agree with the prior criminal record part. If you've served your time I think you should come out with a clean slate.

A. M. Jauregui
15th July 2003, 06:25
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
My requirements for gun ownership:

US Citizen or legal resident alien
No criminal record of violent crimes
No history of mental illness
Under the age of 18 must have permission of parent or guardian

I personally do not believe that you should require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. If you have the right to own a gun, you should be able to carry it on you at any and all times or places. The default assumption is that you are armed for self defense reasons, not to commit a crime.

I think that your requirements for gun ownership are too effortless, Harvey. But I asked you for your opinion of what should be required, so thank you for doing so.

A lot of the social dynamic that we currently have would change if a permit to carry a concealed weapon was not needed... Because of the multifaceted variables I cannot say if life for the majority would be bettered or not. I have a visceral feeling that such an allowance for everyday gun owners would not be beneficial.

Mekugi
15th July 2003, 06:25
Originally posted by Sapporo Ichiban
Amen. Except I don't agree with the prior criminal record part. If you've served your time I think you should come out with a clean slate.

I agree with that to the extent that a firearm was not used to commit the crime.

Even then, I think that is up for debate. "I shot him in self defense" can be a punishble offense even if on was in the right...so it doesn't hold any water the more I think about it. Hmmmmmmm

Marc Renouf
15th July 2003, 15:57
Tim Streets wrote:

"I noticed you had no problems with the ban on underslung grenade launchers."

Actually, my feeling on this is basically "six of one, a half-dozen of the other." For what it's worth, civilians can still get undermount launchers, but only 37mm launchers capable of firing flares or smoke (they are commonly used by the Coast Guard, but available to the public with special licenses). 40mm launchers (which is where all the explosive stuff is) are controlled.

I'm of mixed opinion where it comes to military hardware. While in theory the 2nd Amendment is there to guarantee a state free from tyrannical government, I think that there are public safety issues that are significant enough to not be ignored. I typically draw the line at explosives. I also think that fully automatic weapons pose a serious safety issue, because recoil can drastically increase the number of stray rounds being put out. We have a hard enough time with hunters considering their backstop now. I'd hate to see what it'd be like when they're ripping 20 rounds off into the air after the muzzle climbs up on them. 3-round burst would be nice, but that's probably just because I'm lazy and hate chasing wounded deer all over the county.

Besides, if you're worried about having to resist the military forces of a tyrannical government, a good hunting rifle can bag you an autmotic weapon or grenade launcher as soon as the poor bastard who is currently holding stands in the wrong place. That's why the Allies dropped those crappy one-shot "Liberator" pistols all over Eastern Europe during WWII - it wasn't a gun to use on the battlefield, it was a gun to use to get a better gun.

I think you'll find that responsible firearm owners understand that there should be limitations on firearm (or ordnance) ownership. I for instance, am in favor of owner licensing similar to driver licensing. Once you've taken (and passed) the mandatory coursework, safety training, and understand the legalities involved, you should be able to freely purchase any firearm you desire.

The only problem with this is that it fosters the idea that firearm ownership is a privilege, which it is not - it's a right. Hardline gun rights advocates will argue that any impediment to the ownership of a firearm is an abrogation of your intrinsic rights. But on the otherhand, liberties are protected by the rule of law. There are laws limiting you from saying anything you want (slander and reckless endangerment), so (minor) limitations to the 2nd Amendment are not out of the question as far as I'm concerned.

But just as I deplore laws limiting free speech (hate speech, while stupid, should be free - it only serves to warn everyone what an idiot you are), I also deplore laws that adversely limit the right to keep and bear arms.

Cady Goldfield
15th July 2003, 18:37
Originally posted by Mekugi


Hi Cady...

Sez who?

I know a deranged teenager that deliberately ran over a 6 year old boy in my town, Oregon City. That was intentional and he used his car. There is a major flaw in the arguement you have, this was not accidental, unintentional or otherwise. The fact also remains that cars kil FAR MORE people than those "horrible scary fire-gun thingies".

-Russ

Hi Russ,

Sez me.

Fact is, cars were NOT invented and are NOT made with the intention that they be used as weapons or instruments of destructions; guns, OTOH, were and are.

You can use a pillow to kill someone, too, but that's not its intended use or purpose. Guns' intended use and purpose is to kill or maim. Period.

I'm just waiting for car manufacturers to come out with...

The SAV(tm) --- Suburban Assault Vehicle(tm).
"Yes, you can be the first to own the 2004 Bloodletter, Fart Motor Company's first in a line of vehicles designed not only to provide transportation, reliability and comfort, but to eviscerate and reduce to a bloody pulp hundreds, even thousands of people! In fact, transportation, sleek looks and a hummin' 8-cylinder turbo engine are actually secondary to the Bloodletter's cutting-edge design as a mobile slaughtering unit!

Extendable razor-wheel hubcaps! Dashboard mounted antitank bazooka! Double barrel acid spray, retractable rear flamethrower and much, much more.

See your Fart dealer for a test massacre today..."

Sheesh.

Joseph Svinth
16th July 2003, 02:07
Cady --

I didn't know you were looking for a new ride. But, if you are, check out http://www.saracen.org/ . As for the price, if you have to ask, you can’t afford it. But, in case you were wondering, simply shooting the gun costs about $60 per second. At that price, I’d be recycling the brass, but hey, if you can afford a street legal Minigun (I just saw one advertised on the Internet for $300,000), probably you just shovel it over the side. For better pictures of the gun, see http://www.montysminiguns.com/RealityPage.htm .

Mekugi
16th July 2003, 02:37
If my memory serves me, vehicles were first invented and used to facilitate troop movement to the front lines of the battlefeild. Sorry, they were invented with the intention of being used as weapons.

You just didn't know it, and are afraid of firearms.

(sigh)

-Russ


Originally posted by Cady Goldfield


Hi Russ,

Sez me.

Fact is, cars were NOT invented and are NOT made with the intention that they be used as weapons or instruments of destructions; guns, OTOH, were and are.

You can use a pillow to kill someone, too, but that's not its intended use or purpose. Guns' intended use and purpose is to kill or maim. Period.

I'm just waiting for car manufacturers to come out with...

The SAV(tm) --- Suburban Assault Vehicle(tm).
"Yes, you can be the first to own the 2004 Bloodletter, Fart Motor Company's first in a line of vehicles designed not only to provide transportation, reliability and comfort, but to eviscerate and reduce to a bloody pulp hundreds, even thousands of people! In fact, transportation, sleek looks and a hummin' 8-cylinder turbo engine are actually secondary to the Bloodletter's cutting-edge design as a mobile slaughtering unit!

Extendable razor-wheel hubcaps! Dashboard mounted antitank bazooka! Double barrel acid spray, retractable rear flamethrower and much, much more.

See your Fart dealer for a test massacre today..."

Sheesh.

Joseph Svinth
16th July 2003, 03:06
In ancient times, wagons and chariots were used to transport officers (too fat and lazy to walk) and their accoutrements (you didn't think they wore that armor, did you)?

Ox-wagons started being used as rolling barricades in the Middle Ages, as when they were chained together, they did a nice job of providing mobile fortresses. The Boer laagers of the Blood River campaign are a recent example, but Jan Hunyadi was using the idea 400 years earlier. You see this in China, too, in General Qi's manual of 1561.

Military field hospitals with ox-cart ambulances were introduced in Spain in the 1400s. Custom carriages were introduced in the Napoleonic era (Studebaker built ambulances for the Union during the Civil War), and motorized ambulances went into service as early as 1899. Clara Barton and the Red Cross were very prominent in this latter development.

Armored trains were used extensively in the US and Russian Civil Wars, and the British used armored cars for colonial warfare before WWI. (Autos make fine machine-gun carriers.) Armored cars were used extensively in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) during the Great War, where they essentially eclipsed cavalry. Leonardo's armored vehicles are really armored cars, as they were wheeled rather than tracked vehicles.

For photos of early mechanized machine gun carriers, see http://minervamotor-car.50megs.com/custom2.html , http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/ww1/WW1.html , and http://derela.republika.pl/austin.htm . Powerful 35hp engines drove these behemoths...

Cady Goldfield
16th July 2003, 03:08
:laugh:

Russ, I think that the sled, drey and wagon were used first for transporting food, tents and people, not weaponry. Battlefields came way after hunter-gatherer and early pastoral populations.

The only car I can think of that existed for the sole purpose of destruction and mayhem, was the Death Mobile (remember "Eat Me"?) in "Animal House." :p

BTW, I am pro-gun ownership rights and gun use for self-defense. I'm just also a real stickler for making sure people know how to use and safely keep weapons.

Cady Goldfield
16th July 2003, 03:13
Originally posted by Joseph Svinth
Cady --

I didn't know you were looking for a new ride. But, if you are, check out http://www.saracen.org/ . As for the price, if you have to ask, you can’t afford it. But, in case you were wondering, simply shooting the gun costs about $60 per second. At that price, I’d be recycling the brass, but hey, if you can afford a street legal Minigun (I just saw one advertised on the Internet for $300,000), probably you just shovel it over the side. For better pictures of the gun, see http://www.montysminiguns.com/RealityPage.htm .

Hey! Those bloody bastiges stole my idea!

Mekugi
16th July 2003, 03:34
OKAYYYY...
Exactly when do you think the wagon came into use? The Native Americans only had horses AFTER their contact with Europe, they seemed to carry or drag most of their stuff before that.

Furthermore, the first firearms (notice I am not using "cannon" here)were probably developed for hunting- the military use came after that. Doesn't hold water.

"The only car I can think of that existed for the sole purpose of destruction and mayhem, was the Death Mobile (remember "Eat Me"?) in "Animal House." :p"
Ummm....
I don't see any of the Automobile or Firearm manufacturers advertising their products as "merchants of death" so the whole "scare" tactic doesn't work on me.

-Russ


Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
:laugh:

Russ, I think that the sled, drey and wagon were used first for transporting food, tents and people, not weaponry. Battlefields came way after hunter-gatherer and early pastoral populations.

The only car I can think of that existed for the sole purpose of destruction and mayhem, was the Death Mobile (remember "Eat Me"?) in "Animal House." :p

BTW, I am pro-gun ownership rights and gun use for self-defense. I'm just also a real stickler for making sure people know how to use and safely keep weapons.

Cady Goldfield
16th July 2003, 03:58
Russ,

I'm not sure why you have such a difficult time understanding that the sole initial function of guns is to be a weapon. Cars' purpose is to provide transportation.

Once those basic functions are met, of course we find other uses for them. Guns can be modified into starter's pistols or used for target shooting.
Cars can become penile extensions.

Hey, budo is like that too. It started out jutsu... for real-life combat purposes. In easier and more effete civil times, it got lap-dogged into philosophical and artistic modes. Things do evolve either way from their original function, depending on the stresses or indulgences of society.

Okay, 'fess up. You're trolling, right? :p

Wagons were a product of agrarian society, and are thought to have been in use in the Middle East and parts of Europe and Asia 6,000-7,000 years ago. They were used first to provide basic transport of people, produce and belongings.

War with battlefield vehicles is much more sophisticated, and came later.

The first function of vehicles was to serve the family unit or tribe, not to be war machines.

Hey, I was an anthro minor in college. I studied the development of human culture and agriculture.

But... you're just trollin'. :D

Mekugi
16th July 2003, 04:38
Not trolling, just wading through media driven biases that originate from watching T.V., movies and listening to idiot liberals that have to bend the truth to come up with their "facts"

The sole role of the firearm, was, is and forever will be a tool. Whatever it was, is and forever will be used for is up to the person holding it. Mandatory "Training" is a notion that allows beurocratic red tape and gungrabbers to stand in the way of the LAWFUL and CONSTITUTIONAL practice of a US Citizen's Rights. Paying attention to the way the system works in the USA and it becomes apperant what these "safety" laws are all about. Making laws that a allow the "buggerment" to take care of us because "we're too stupid" and the cheering on of an un-enlightened few that are willing to call a knife a murder weapon instead of a cutting tool is what I am fighting against. The same extends to a firearm.
Are we going to start blaming hammers for faulty carpentry next?

Wait...wasn't the hammer a weapon as well?
Wait....what about my live traps I use to catch squirrels? Are those weapons??
Hmmm...
Call the ATF.

-Russ

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
Russ,

I'm not sure why you have such a difficult time understanding that the sole initial function of guns is to be a weapon. Cars' purpose is to provide transportation.

Once those basic functions are met, of course we find other uses for them. Guns can be modified into starter's pistols or used for target shooting.
Cars can become penile extensions.

Hey, budo is like that too. It started out jutsu... for real-life combat purposes. In easier and more effete civil times, it got lap-dogged into philosophical and artistic modes. Things do evolve either way from their original function, depending on the stresses or indulgences of society.

Okay, 'fess up. You're trolling, right? :p

Wagons were a product of agrarian society, and are thought to have been in use in the Middle East and parts of Europe and Asia 6,000-7,000 years ago. They were used first to provide basic transport of people, produce and belongings.

War with battlefield vehicles is much more sophisticated, and came later.

The first function of vehicles was to serve the family unit or tribe, not to be war machines.

Hey, I was an anthro minor in college. I studied the development of human culture and agriculture.

But... you're just trollin'. :D

Sapporo Ichiban
16th July 2003, 04:57
Cady, I gotta agree with Marc on this one.

Why hold gun manufacturers liable when a gun kills or maims (whether aimed intentionally or aimed accidentally)? You are entirely correct that the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another human being. So why punish a manufacturer when they produce a product that does what it is supposed to do? To me, that's like punishing Honda for producing a car that starts when I turn the ignition.

TenguAteMyPuppy
16th July 2003, 05:01
Yes, it was -- and deliberately distorted in pursuit of that agenda.

No. Actually it was not, and Moore himself has said so. It concerned the media. If you would like to believe it was, be my guest.


The NRA doesn't seem to think so.

Moore supports gun ownership, just like you and I. He has never opposed the right to own weaponry.

I don't know if he supports the owning of beautifully crafted, oversized, German made, assault rifles like you and I, but hey, he could be worse.


Yes, in that way that all lying, pontificating, statist leftists can be.

Much like all lying, pontificating, hybrid politician/marketeer, rightists? Come on. I'm sure you know as well as I do that no one has a corner on the market in those areas.

I'm not going to defend Moore. Absolutely not. I will say this though: You people are investing too much effort in refuting "Bowling for Columbine." From an anti/pro-gun prospective, at least. Trust me.

TenguAteMyPuppy
16th July 2003, 05:08
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/orig/g3-sg1-1.htm

This has no relevance to anything in this thread. RESPECT THE SG1. I would kill a man to have one of these, in perfect, non-tampered with, working, automatic, condition. Any man. In fact, if I could do it with said assault rifle, that would be really great.

I just thought I would share.

adroitjimon
16th July 2003, 05:28
until you fully realize what an M60 Can do to a human torso
the surrounding foliage and your m-f-n eardrums you have no Idea
what a friggin firearm is about... firearms are all about murder
nothing else...point blank...

TenguAteMyPuppy
16th July 2003, 06:01
M60? Yeah, I'll take one of those too.

Mekugi
16th July 2003, 06:02
Originally posted by Sapporo Ichiban
You are entirely correct that the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another human being.

Umm....so what are my hunting and target rifles for? Killing people? None of the firearms I own have the main purpose of killing another human being- period. Why? Because I do not intend to kill another person with them. That does not mean I will not protect myself, my family or my country. In the course of the use of the tool that is a firearm, someone is killed, that is purely incidental to the intention. Period. Assuming otherwise is a complete distortion of the truth and really belongs in DC comics.

BTW....the atomic bomb....Einstein...anyone getting the picture here? It's not the tools, it's how you USE them.

-Russ

Mekugi
16th July 2003, 06:25
AHEM...

Okay...to begin with Firearms were not intended for murder no matter how many movies you watch!
Secondly, IMHO the M60 is a jamming piece of crap; I consider the BAR much better if we are talking older weapons; nowadays they have what they call a SAW boys and girls- which is a step up from the M60 to me, but nothing beats the BAR (unless we are talking about lightweight, then anything beats the BAR). The M60 Belt fed doesn't do much to the foliage, although it will make some nice little holes in trees. Thanks for the Marvel Comics movement Stan Lee and I doubt VERY seriously that you have a clue to what I am talking about.
Secondly, the BAR or the M60 are better served as a stationary weapon from long distance- crew fed even better; not for running around in the trees and I don't care if Jesse Ventura had a Vulcan Mini in the movie Predator that is a bunch of CRAP and it's not an M60.

Excelsior!

-Russ


Originally posted by adroitjimon
until you fully realize what an M60 Can do to a human torso
the surrounding foliage and your m-f-n eardrums you have no Idea
what a friggin firearm is about... firearms are all about murder
nothing else...point blank...

adroitjimon
16th July 2003, 07:04
OOOOOH I have been slashed about..."Kiddo"
The M-60 is the biggest hand held I have ever had the experience
to actively discharge... but yeah the saws are cool but how
manly is one compared to the "All Mighty"?

Besides ,it doesnt matter if you are murdering opponent personnel,
deer,raccoons,wombats or your m-f-n mother-in law murder is
murder,point m-f-n blank...carrying a fire arm actively
gives you an advantage of murder to wield against those that
are weaponless... and this is where the can of crap on the shelf
gets opened,perhaps again...
If I had a gun I would use it to kill when I wasn't using it
as a center piece for my lack of testicular fortitude...
As an alternative to using weapons of mass destuction,
I say that because when was the last time you ever heard of any
other creature on the planet except for Homosapiens having the
ability to produce weapons that weren't genetically attached?
So does that mean out of laziness you force your self to inflict
casual damage upon unarmed ignorant sentient beings?

Yes,yes I am well aware that it takes great skill to properly
use a firearm to achieve its objective,but I ask you this
How much skill and preperation goes into becoming a sheep or a
wolf? Stop killing the wolves and you will not have to kill the deer
they have done it for eaons without us...Why should we interfere
except for our own amusement?and if that being the case doesnt that
make all who weild weapons of unfair advantage terrorists to an
extent?...

Really, our governments posess the technology to colonize
uninhabited planets so why dont they initiate such courses of
action except for the evilest of four letter words,greed...
Murder is Murder point m-f-n blank...
take a bullet then tell me how little the hole is,
the mass of your intelect would not be able to fill the void caused
by said hole...
shoot me I will not die,kill me and I will live for ever...
cheers, depuff I'm not gonna take your stupid guns from you "Kiddo"

Mekugi
16th July 2003, 07:05
What State do you live in and how much are you looking tos spend??

-Russ

Originally posted by TenguAteMyPuppy
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/orig/g3-sg1-1.htm

This has no relevance to anything in this thread. RESPECT THE SG1. I would kill a man to have one of these, in perfect, non-tampered with, working, automatic, condition. Any man. In fact, if I could do it with said assault rifle, that would be really great.

I just thought I would share.

Mekugi
16th July 2003, 07:09
Originally posted by adroitjimon
I say that because when was the last time you
heard of any other creature on the planet except for Homosapiens
having the ability to produce weapons that weren't genetically
attached? So does that mean out of laziness you force your self
to inflict casual damage upon unarmed ignorant sentient beings?

Gorilla's do it. They pick up sticks and smack each other with them, they throw poop too. There are several other animals that use tools....for that matter.

BTW....what in the heck are you smoking man? Ease up on the ranting and focus, buckwheat!

-Russ

adroitjimon
16th July 2003, 07:23
Tools are slightly different than firearms much in the same way a
bo is different than a .22 agreed?

adroitjimon
16th July 2003, 07:25
what is the focus?is the topic not "The cold hard facts about guns"?
or was that another topic?

Mekugi
16th July 2003, 07:49
Chris,

What I mean is, slow down and define your point clearly. The last long post was all over the place man!

It's hard to read!

-Russ

Mekugi
16th July 2003, 07:57
Firearms are a tool- they are not aware of the world around them, they do not understand the difference between good and evil or do they have a dark mission to wreak mayhem or havoc in the world.

Firearms are a tool, an object, a thing. They are only as dangerous as the person who wields them.
Furthermore, I do not blame objects for the actions of human beings, or apes for that matter.

-Russ


Originally posted by adroitjimon
Tools are slightly different than firearms much in the same way a
bo is different than a .22 agreed?

adroitjimon
16th July 2003, 07:59
I'm sorry I guess I should appologize I do have buttons
and fire arms are one of them I appreciate them and if every
one bought one to display as a work of art instead of the way they
sometimes end up all would be good...

but to me Guns are like the word "nigger" just something about
the word makes me angry and again I appologize for
my back lashing ... Oh and also the word "kiddo" I dont like it
the same...

Rogier
16th July 2003, 08:24
Originally posted by Mekugi
Firearms are a tool- they are not aware of the world around them, they do not understand the difference between good and evil or do they have a dark mission to wreak mayhem or havoc in the world.

Firearms are a tool, an object, a thing. They are only as dangerous as the person who wields them.
Furthermore, I do not blame objects for the actions of human beings, or apes for that matter.

-Russ



agreed, firearms are a tool.. But giving them to 'human beings' makes them dangerous tools..

As for giving them to children and learning children how to handle them.... I really don't understand how people in here on the one hand agree that it is good to train children in the use of firearms and on the other hand start kicking and screaming if a 13 year old is given a black belt in some sort of martial art... (strange priorities..)

Iain
16th July 2003, 08:45
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Therefore, we should be instructing children at an early age on gun safety. Three is about the right time to introduce a kid to guns.

:beer:



I don't know about three years old. I think I'd want them to have fully developed cognitive ability, full motor control, and a higher level of spatial awareness. Conceptually you could introduce a three year old to firearms, but a three year old has a hard enough time wrapping their mind around the fact that they can't do or have everything they want. let kids be kids, let them deal with the problems kids have, and maybe when they're older start getting them acclimatized to the proper and effective use of extreme violence.

the gun 'problem' has several facets to it; mainly because guns have two distinct uses. A gun to a person living in a rural area does not fulfill the same function as it does to an urban or suburbanite, and legislation should reflect that.

The only middle ground is that people should recieve extensive firearm acclimatization before they are allowed to so much as touch a gun outside of a firing range. Not a weekend or week long course, but a full semester course in highschool. The only real way to minimize gun deaths is to teach absolutely everyone the good aspects of gun culture.

Another contentious area is the divide between legal and illegal gun owners. Legal gun owners are generally not the problem group; it's those who obtain illegal firearms specifically for their utility in the criminal underworld. the only real way to deal with this problem is to crack down mercilessly on people who traffic in stolen firearms and those who sell them illegaly. If you own a gun shop, and you're doing buisness 'on the side' your shop should be closed, all your assets siezed, and you should be locked away for no less than ten years. If you smuggle firearms from Canada or Mexico; 25 to life. If you own a manufacturing company and you fail to ensure the absolute safety of your product on its way to the store, you go to jail and they can find somebody who can do the job properly. Oh, and you get a nice big hefty fine which will go a long way to funding a universal gun acclimatization, maintenance and use programme.

I'm happy that I live in a country with few guns in the hands of either criminals or law abiding citizens. I know a lot of people in the US abhor the Canadian stance on firearms, and that's fine. It's not your country, and I'm not a US citizen, so I don't really mind you guys doing whatever you want. However, the majority of illegal firearms in Canada are shipped in from the states. That does bother me. We have the courtesy to stay out of US domestic policy as long as it doesn't effect us, you should do the same. Yes, there is a joint responsiblity to ensure border security -and neither side is really doing their part-, but the bulk of the problem exists on your end, not ours. We don't make the guns, and we have no idea where they're going unless you tell us.

Just an aside, but the 7-11 I do security in was robbed at gunpoint whilst I was working last Wednesday. It was a plastic gun. I could tell right out, and the cops found it in the alley behind the store afterwards. Now, what are the chances of a crackhead robbing a 7-11 with a real gun in Calgary? Really, really, low. Why? Because it's damn near impossible to purchase an illegal firearm without a lot more money than your average crackhead has. Now, if I'd been south of the border, what do you reckon the chances would be of both of us being armed and somebody ending up shot?

Mekugi
16th July 2003, 09:02
To the Group*

"Therefore, we should be instructing children at an early age on gun safety. Three is about the right time to introduce a kid to guns."


That does not mean letting them go to the range and shoot (unless you are like me....another story). It means taking the time to teach them safety >>EDDIE EAGLE STYLE<< (http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/index.asp)Something to this effect.

I was a toddler, just about the age when I was able to get into things by myself when I was told that firearms were dangerous, never to pick one up without and adult and all the basic no-no's. From that point on I knew that firearms needed to be treated with respect. Furthermore, at about age 5 or 6 I started shooting .22, age 9 I was shooting larger caliber and .22 pistol. At age 12 I was hitting the full auto, practical pistol and High Power M1 matches.

Never have shot anyone, never wanted to shoot anything but targets, the occasional delicious animal or varmint. The things i was taught at a VERY young age are with me forever and I have never had an accident to date.

Just my two bits.

-Russ

Ohh yeah...little quote:
Q: Are children safe in homes with guns?

A: It is estimated that there is a firearm in almost 50% of all the homes in the United States. Many of these homes have children, yet only a minute percentage of these households experience a firearm related accident. Obviously, extra precautions must be taken when there are guns and children in the same household, and when proper safety measures are taken, rarely does a problem occur.

Mekugi
16th July 2003, 09:37
Originally posted by Iain
the gun 'problem' has several facets to it; mainly because guns have two distinct uses. A gun to a person living in a rural area does not fulfill the same function as it does to an urban or suburbanite, and legislation should reflect that.

The only middle ground is that people should recieve extensive firearm acclimatization before they are allowed to so much as touch a gun outside of a firing range. Not a weekend or week long course, but a full semester course in highschool. The only real way to minimize gun deaths is to teach absolutely everyone the good aspects of gun culture.

I disagree with this, at least within the USA. I believe in schools having a firearm safety program mandatory, but I totally disagree with it being mandatory to own a firearm. There are too many loopholes that can be taken advantage of in the climate of todays courts and the social setting we live in as a group. This was never the intention of the Second Amendmant, nor does it advocate freedom in any sense. It instead allows a small group to impose their will on a larger group. I never had a "proper" firearms training course until Hunters Ed....yet I was around them all the time. No accidents at all. No reason to impose such things on anyone, unless you're a fascist looking to take over Poland....

On Rural and Suburban people....they should have the same rights. Hands down. I lived in a City and went hunting on the weekends. Why take away my rights? I know plenty of people in LA that do the same thing. No reason to take away the rights of the majority or the minority in either case- it solves nothing and only makes things more complicated. This is totally against equality and restrictive firearm laws HAVE NEVER STOPPED OR LOWERED CRIME. However, looser firearm laws HAVE lowered crime, and are doing so every day.


Originally posted by Iain
Just an aside, but the 7-11 I do security in was robbed at gunpoint whilst I was working last Wednesday. It was a plastic gun. I could tell right out, and the cops found it in the alley behind the store afterwards. Now, what are the chances of a crackhead robbing a 7-11 with a real gun in Calgary? Really, really, low. Why? Because it's damn near impossible to purchase an illegal firearm without a lot more money than your average crackhead has. Now, if I'd been south of the border, what do you reckon the chances would be of both of us being armed and somebody ending up shot?

Ummm so you are saying that our illegal firearms dealers should charge more? What are you really trying to say here? That if the Drug Dealer who does have the money buys the "real thing" it's ok because he paid alot for it? I'm missing the point, criminals are criminals. Maybe the Crack Head didn't want to kill you....had it occured to you that perhaps if they did and were looking for a cheap way snuff the 7-11 staff they would have shot you with a crossbow? Perhaps underneath that horrible cloak of drug induced insanity there was just enough morality that told them that killing and stealing were, in fact wrong; just specualtion of course. Furthermore, would it make you feel any better if criminals stabbed people to death with a butcher knife instead of shooting them? Again, restrictive firearm laws have NEVER reduced crime.

Fat to chew on....
-Russ

Iain
16th July 2003, 10:13
My point was if you crack down with avengeance on the sale and transport of illicit firearms, the less run-of-the-mill crackheads are going to be carrying one. Secondly, I don't care if your the nicest crackhead in the world, you're still a crackhead and I wouldn't trust you with a nerf gun. Thirdly, a crossbow posessed of enough go to kill a human with the same effectiveness as a firearm is going to cost you more than the firearm in the first place. less crackheads with guns is a good thing. We have less crackheads with guns in Calgary than in a similar city in the US (maybe not for long). I like that, and I approve (in principal) with Canadian firearms legislation.

Oh, and I didn't mean to imply that gun ownership was mandatory. Sorry if it seemed that way.

Cady Goldfield
16th July 2003, 12:53
Originally posted by Sapporo Ichiban
Cady, I gotta agree with Marc on this one.

Why hold gun manufacturers liable when a gun kills or maims (whether aimed intentionally or aimed accidentally)? You are entirely correct that the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another human being. So why punish a manufacturer when they produce a product that does what it is supposed to do? To me, that's like punishing Honda for producing a car that starts when I turn the ignition.

Richard,
I wasn't the one posing that arguement. My only comments were in stating that guns were invented specifically as tools for killing, while automobiles were invented specifically as tools for conveying human beings and cargo. What people choose to do with them that serve purposes other than those, are deviations from original intent. I consider Russ's comparison of cars and guns to be nonsequitor, because his words imply that automobiles are meant to be weapons, and guns aren't.

TenguAteMyPuppy
16th July 2003, 23:46
What State do you live in and how much are you looking tos spend??

California (worst state EVER) and I am currently broke. Almost all my money is being invested for 3 months of general lowly trouble-making in Europe. However, assuming I had the money, I would gladly pay above whatever the going rate was, depending on how many options I had.

Jock Armstrong
17th July 2003, 01:09
Cadster is right- the comparison doesn't work. Gun cotrol in my opinion means holding it steady and shooting only that you wish to shoot. PLease don't give me any philosophy, o anti- gunners- I'm not listening. I wasn't going to get into this thread having had all these arguments before. As for studies, Lott is the only long term study available. Notice handgun control inc have been real quiet since that. Stricter gun laws in Australia had an adverse effect- crime with firearms went up. Guns in a law abiding society have noeffect on murder rates- merely the method used to commit them.

Nuff said- back to my cage......

Mekugi
17th July 2003, 01:16
Eww...

well the only thing I can say is first save your money to move out of CA, to like Idaho or Oregon. Then, save your money again to get that puppy.


If you lived up Nor't there in Oregon we could arrange something.

Fairly Honest Don's Parlour is a great place to get yours if you ever move....

-Russ


Originally posted by TenguAteMyPuppy


California (worst state EVER) and I am currently broke. Almost all my money is being invested for 3 months of general lowly trouble-making in Europe. However, assuming I had the money, I would gladly pay above whatever the going rate was, depending on how many options I had.

Kobe
17th July 2003, 04:22
I can not say so much about gun owner, it just do not fit in my mind, but its a little sad to see how many "Charlton Heston" are in the world.
Besides, I can try to understand why someone owns a gun, at the end, people should be free to do whatever wants to do as far not doing any crime or disturbing the others, but the gun worship I´m seeing in some people in this forum is just insane.
Best regards

Sapporo Ichiban
17th July 2003, 04:43
(1) Cady, sorry about my misread.

(2) Russ, I agree that there are hunting rifles and some folks use .22s or airguns for competition shooting but I still think it's fair to say that the purpose of a gun is to kill. I mean, military rifles and police handguns are designed to kill. Actually, I'd say virtually all handguns are solely meant to be used on another person.

Don't get me wrong. I'm against gun control and, like you, I believe that a gun is just a tool and how it's used depends on the owner. But just like a lawnmover is designed to cut grass and a chair is designed to be sat on--a gun is designed to kill. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that (after all, self-defense is killing too).

Mekugi
17th July 2003, 06:26
Originally posted by Sapporo Ichiban
(2) Russ, I agree that there are hunting rifles and some folks use .22s or airguns for competition shooting but I still think it's fair to say that the purpose of a gun is to kill. I mean, military rifles and police handguns are designed to kill. Actually, I'd say virtually all handguns are solely meant to be used on another person.

Ok...Just as a point of fact, firearms that the military and the police use are meant as tools of their trade. Whether they kill or not is up to the circumstances.
For police, the firearm is not intended to kill, but to keep the peace. In a war the purpose of the firearm is to stop the enemy. Killing is incidental. This is media talking when you start to divide tools up as "scary" and "not scary", not thought out logic and facts. They use the same principles for their mechanisms and machinary. So, can you tell me what the difference between rifles made for "killing" people and those that are not? Do you "just know" by looking at a picture of one? Are you sure that the media and limitless amounts of scare tactics haven't skewed your judgement?

Ohh btw....ANY and all rifles or pistol, whether they are "scary" or not, are used in competition. Full Auto and High Power, practical pistol and combat pistol. I have all of these matches, and all of the firearms were identical to the "scary" ones.

I have also used a pistol to hunt with. Does that mean that no matter what MY intention is, your definition over-rides the use that it was put to, because you "think" it is true?

Again, inanimate objects do not have their own will, a mind of their own or any type of agenda towards anyone.

To be honest, you are arguing points you cannot win because they are based on emotional reaction and not fact. That is the entire agenda of the anti-firearm legislation and political sway that is abound. Make no mistake about that.
They are simply things. Intention is in the wielder.

-Russ

Mekugi
17th July 2003, 06:44
Originally posted by Kobe
I can not say so much about gun owner, it just do not fit in my mind, but its a little sad to see how many "Charlton Heston" are in the world.
Besides, I can try to understand why someone owns a gun, at the end, people should be free to do whatever wants to do as far not doing any crime or disturbing the others, but the gun worship I´m seeing in some people in this forum is just insane.
Best regards
(Ok Brace yourselves here)
What's wrong with old Chuck Heston? Can you tell me? Because he believes in the Second Amendmant and is promoting the upholding of the common US citizen's constitutional right? How do you come up with that opinion? Based on emotion? "That's how I feel?"

Where is the "gun worship"? Are we talking about temples and a new god? Where has anyone here, truly pro-firearm, stated anything but fact? Are facts and logic "worship"- truly the belief of a deity depends on emotion and just accepting things that cannot be logical or explained. Is that what is going on here?
Tell me where?

Now on the flip side of the coin, take a good hard look at the anti-firearm groups out there, their behavior and VIOLENCE (yes, there was a lot of violence and threats against even WOMEN, Sisters of the 2nd Am. to be precise. Firearms bad, violence good...hmmmmm) is clearly the signs of people who have some severe emotional instability, lack of a life and smoke a little too much dill weed on the weekend. There are no limits to the mindless behavior that goes on in the midst of people who think they "know how to keep those stupid masses from hurting themselves or protecting themselves, because we know better." This is more like "Worship" in itself, namely because they do not base their opinion of fact, but rather some kind of skewed "faith" and extreme behavior. Is that the definition of sane? Glad to be INSANE then and I will take it any day over the "sane".

"FROM MY COLD,DEAD HANDS".....Chuck Heston. Bless 'im.
BTW...most people COMPLETELY miss what that really means.
No one wants another history lesson and tirade here? Please look up the facts, mayannn!
Truly,

-Russ

Kobe
17th July 2003, 09:01
ups, I did not mean to offend you, there is nothing wrong with Heston the actor, actually, I like him. If you mean Heston, the republican, ultra conservative and fascist, well, I do not have so much sympathy for him. His image in a rifle association meeting raising one rifle in his hand........priceless, I was not sure if I saw that same picture in his film(here he acted as Moses)
Talking about worship, start giving basic lessons of guns at 3 years old, own a M60, BAR(I do not know what exaclty BAR is, but I can guess), some explosives............yes, I understand, SELF DEFENCE.
Nothing to say about the anti-firearm groups, I understand that under your constitution you have the rigth to have it, so people are using their rigth to own a gun, which is 100% ok.
But to have the rigth does not mean to cross the line, even if you are allow to do it. I have the rigth to drink as much as I want to, but I'm not alcoholic. Own a gun, I have nothing agaisnt that, but to own a kind of explosives, automatic weapons, teach children of 3 years........that its too much and insane.
By the way, what its the point of MA, with a gun you do not need that(at least as a self defence).
Obviously we do not agree, but please, do not shoot at me.
best regards

Mekugi
17th July 2003, 09:43
No offense here- this is a forum and we are discussing, it's all good,
So in that vein:

Ultra conservative Charlton Heston? Are we talking about the same guy that marched with Dr. Martin Luther King? The man who has contributed his time, money and efforts to countless charities? That the same guy? Are you SURE you have all the facts or are you watching a certain MOVIE out in circulation named "Bowling for Columbine"? Secondly FASCISM does not fit his profile. Not in the least. Let me give you an example of a fascist,lets say.....OHHHHH....Adolf Hitler. He was TRULY a fascist and what was the first thing that he did to make arresting the Jewish population of Germany easy to deal with? Hmmmmm....you guessed it! Firearm bans. Yes, fascist support taking away firearms. Adolf did it in Germany and he did it in Poland. You heard it here first! Does ol' Chuck sound like a fascist? Are you SURE you know what fascism means or is?
Lets review the word "Republican"....better yet, look that one up on your own time as well.
Remember the guy named Abraham Lincoln? Did you know he founded the Republican party? Did you know the republican party was responsible for the first attempt at land conservation in the USA (called the EPA)? Did you know that the NRA was the first group to organize law and legistlation protection for land and animal in the USA- they call that environmentalist. Ultra-Conservative sounds good to me if that's what you want to label old Chuck as.

The only problem I had with him was that his face was on all of the flyers the NRA sent to me, along with a "personal message" TRYING TO GET MORE MONEY OUT OF ME. Which worked because I gave them more money. Of course they sent more pamhplets and flyers, compounding the situation. Nothing major really. He was and is a good man, and has done NOTHING to deserve slander and libel.

Sorry, you are not reading what is being written close enough or understanding what is being said, dude!

No one mentioned explosives. Although I used to have blasting caps as a kid for removing stumps...WAIT THOSE ARE MEANT TO KILL PEOPLE!! NOT REMOVE STUMPS...CALL THE ATF!!! GET JANET RENO BACK IN OFFICE (anyone notice after Janet Reno left office there have been no US Government swarming into peoples houses and holding them at riflepoint,no killing of women holding children and no seizing of households? Is it just me? Has anyone else noticed this??)

The M6o- re-read the whole thread involving that. After you googled the words BAR and M60, you were suddenly afraid, right? Why? It is fairly apperant that scare tactics work on you. You have been made afraid of firearms because someone has told you that they are "bad" and "scary". Media yet again.

Just because someone is on TV or making movies about things does not MEAN they re an expert on them. Take all the hype and fear and what you have is a distortion of the truth spit up as "infotainment".

But, you can have your opinion, and I can have mine. One, based on fear and misunderstanding and the other on fact and real world experience.


Truly,

-Russ




Originally posted by Kobe
ups, I did not mean to offend you, there is nothing wrong with Heston the actor, actually, I like him. If you mean Heston, the republican, ultra conservative and fascist, well, I do not have so much sympathy for him. His image in a rifle association meeting raising one rifle in his hand........priceless, I was not sure if I saw that same picture in his film(here he acted as Moses)
Talking about worship, start giving basic lessons of guns at 3 years old, own a M60, BAR(I do not know what exaclty BAR is, but I can guess), some explosives............yes, I understand, SELF DEFENCE.
Nothing to say about the anti-firearm groups, I understand that under your constitution you have the rigth to have it, so people are using their rigth to own a gun, which is 100% ok.
But to have the rigth does not mean to cross the line, even if you are allow to do it. I have the rigth to drink as much as I want to, but I'm not alcoholic. Own a gun, I have nothing agaisnt that, but to own a kind of explosives, automatic weapons, teach children of 3 years........that its too much and insane.
By the way, what its the point of MA, with a gun you do not need that(at least as a self defence).
Obviously we do not agree, but please, do not shoot at me.
best regards

TenguAteMyPuppy
17th July 2003, 10:28
If you lived up Nor't there in Oregon we could arrange something.

Trust me. I WISH I lived up in Oregon. Alaska would be good too.

Kobe
17th July 2003, 13:30
Russ,
Ok, you sound so sure about Heston, and maybe I'm wrong, I never rule out that possibility, I will try to get more information, but anyway, my apologizes.
About republicans, do not tell me, are you republican? Well, I will not discuss that republicans have done some good things in US, basically because they have been in power during many presidential terms, so yes, I accept they did a couple of good things.
If you want to talk abot fascism no need to mention what happend in the II World War, lets talk about Irak(Bush is republican, it is not?). And please do not make easy and nonsense comparations about Hitler and firearm ban.
Bowling for Columbine, no, I did not see it, do you advice me to see that film?
Its possible that I do not have all the information about weapons, I do not want to, but honestly speaking, I can no see why the he.. a civilian should own an automatic weapon.

Ben Bartlett
17th July 2003, 14:57
Alright, I'm going to pretty much stay out of the debate, because well, I've found people are pretty entrenched on both sides. But, I am going to clear up a couple of things posted by Mekugi.


Originally posted by Mekugi
Ultra conservative Charlton Heston? Are we talking about the same guy that marched with Dr. Martin Luther King? The man who has contributed his time, money and efforts to countless charities? That the same guy?

Yes, it's the same guy. It's also the same guy who once went about signing letters and protesting in support of gun control. Charlton Heston was, at one point, a liberal. Then, at some point in his life, he switched to conservative (I believe the story he told was that he kept seeing a poster for a conservative candidate with the byline "You Know He's Right", and at some point, Heston decided he was). So yes, it's the same man. He just held opposing political views at different points in his life.



Lets review the word "Republican"....better yet, look that one up on your own time as well.
Remember the guy named Abraham Lincoln? Did you know he founded the Republican party?

First off, Abraham Lincoln did not found the Republican party. He was their first successful presidential candidate, not the founder. Second, at the time, the Republican party was a bastion for liberals who opposed slavery. Around the early 20th century, the Republicans decided to align themselves with business and Southern conservatives (who, until that point, had been Democrats), and the Democrats aligned themselves with minority voters and unions, and the stances of the parties basically switched.

dirithtai
17th July 2003, 17:50
TenguAteMyPuppy Said:

"RESPECT the SG1"

I tend to respect any of H&K's stuff, its all quite lovely.


That outta the way...

There's been a few debates on the purpose of the gun. Let me clear that up real fast. The purpose of a gun is to propel small peices of metal at high velocities in as straight a line as can be managed, or in an expanding cone in the case of multiple peice sub-munitions type ammunition.

Therefore, I propose we not bother to control or regulate guns, as they in and of themselves are fancy and expensive baseball bats.

The real culprit here is the bullet. From my (admittely limited) experience in target shooting, (with a .22), the bullet for a target rifle is just a solid shaped bit o lead that makes a hole, with a case and an explosive propellant. Cool, those can be widely available.

However, the "hollow point" bullet designed to expand on contact making a messy messy wound should be a mite harder to come by, as really, if you're any kind of hunter whatsoever, you should get better at making the hole in the right spot, as opposed to just making a bigger hole. and you don't need to make a big hole in a target, either, so these should be limited. Besides, IIRC, these make the doctor's or mortician's job much harder than it should be.

Then there's armor peircing bullets, with the teflon coating etc. Affectionately dubbed "cop-killers" by the media (as much hysteria inducing hype as it may be), these things really aren't necessary. How many bears have you met wearing full body armor? targets with bullet proof vests? And, if you need it for home defense, remember, a high powered rifle shot will still knock a bugger off his feet, giving you well trained gunsman plenty of time to stick the barrel into his mouth and ask him not to go anywhere.


Quick note on the second amendment, though I'm no constitutional lawyer...

Originally posted by mekugi:

"A well regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, dat's pretty clear cut, that people get guns if they want. But, I demand equal recognition of my right to a WELL REGULATED militia. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying all gun owners are like what I'm about to describe, in fact I know a few who are very responsable.) There is nothing "well regulated" about a bunch of yay-hoos running about in backwoods michigan with converted full automatic AR-10's blowing the hell out of dummies in mock military uniforms. In fact, that's scary to me. So, again, have all the guns you want, (actually, I'd like to get my hands on a USP or MP5, as those things are just ...droooool), but someone somewhere had better be regulating you, and me. Otherwise, you're violating MY constitutional rights.


Whoa...rantage.

Mekugi
18th July 2003, 01:10
I can see someone doesn't really follow world events. Firearm bans, gun control and all of the things that are taking place NOW in the USA, were in fact, done by Hitler to the Jewish population of Germany. That is a fact and not a silly comparison, and such bans have been and will be ever associated with the controlling of the population.

I can see clearly that you don't follow world events, and I'm not going to waste my time blathering about it.

-Russ


Originally posted by Kobe
Russ,
Ok, you sound so sure about Heston, and maybe I'm wrong, I never rule out that possibility, I will try to get more information, but anyway, my apologizes.
About republicans, do not tell me, are you republican? Well, I will not discuss that republicans have done some good things in US, basically because they have been in power during many presidential terms, so yes, I accept they did a couple of good things.
If you want to talk abot fascism no need to mention what happend in the II World War, lets talk about Irak(Bush is republican, it is not?). And please do not make easy and nonsense comparations about Hitler and firearm ban.
Bowling for Columbine, no, I did not see it, do you advice me to see that film?
Its possible that I do not have all the information about weapons, I do not want to, but honestly speaking, I can no see why the he.. a civilian should own an automatic weapon.

Mekugi
18th July 2003, 01:23
Originally posted by Ben Bartlett
Yes, it's the same guy. It's also the same guy who once went about signing letters and protesting in support of gun control. Charlton Heston was, at one point, a liberal. Then, at some point in his life, he switched to conservative (I believe the story he told was that he kept seeing a poster for a conservative candidate with the byline "You Know He's Right", and at some point, Heston decided he was). So yes, it's the same man. He just held opposing political views at different points in his life.

So you are calling Charleton Heston a Fascist? Whats the point here? So, he was a fascist when he was a "liberal"?


Originally posted by Ben Bartlett
First off, Abraham Lincoln did not found the Republican party. He was their first successful presidential candidate, not the founder. Second, at the time, the Republican party was a bastion for liberals who opposed slavery. Around the early 20th century, the Republicans decided to align themselves with business and Southern conservatives (who, until that point, had been Democrats), and the Democrats aligned themselves with minority voters and unions, and the stances of the parties basically switched.

Okay, he was a founding member. Is that any better? Did I say he was the sole founder?

-Russ

Mekugi
18th July 2003, 01:37
Bullets are inanimate objects, yet again. They do not kill people.

Also, the bullet type most commonly used by people to murder is the .22. Hollow points are design to "mushroom", and punch through a target. I use hollow point .308 to hunt, BTW. Make no mistake about what you read and what is reality.

The other ones look scary....sound scary, so of course, the fact is not important but how scary they are.

You are in complete misunderstanding of the "well regulated" meaning. It is something other than what you are saying or attempting to describe. It means to have firearms and supplies available to "the Militia". This, IMHO means every able body in the USA is part of the militia, and we have the right to have the ability to usurp the Government in the time that is becomes out of control. This is not a group weekend warriors that form a group. That means, in time of need, you defend your country with the firearms and the means. Again, don't let the media mess with your judgement.

Mis-interpreting the Second Amendment is what liberal idiots have been attempting to do for ages, don't help them. Out of all the Amendments in the Constitution, that one has little room for interpretation. It means exactly what it says, and that has been agreed upon for the last 200 years, actually make that 60. Firearms bans weren't a problem until we had lazy spoiled kids making up their mind to protest things that posed no real threat.

-Russ


Originally posted by dirithtai
TenguAteMyPuppy Said:

"RESPECT the SG1"

I tend to respect any of H&K's stuff, its all quite lovely.


That outta the way...

There's been a few debates on the purpose of the gun. Let me clear that up real fast. The purpose of a gun is to propel small peices of metal at high velocities in as straight a line as can be managed, or in an expanding cone in the case of multiple peice sub-munitions type ammunition.

Therefore, I propose we not bother to control or regulate guns, as they in and of themselves are fancy and expensive baseball bats.

The real culprit here is the bullet. From my (admittely limited) experience in target shooting, (with a .22), the bullet for a target rifle is just a solid shaped bit o lead that makes a hole, with a case and an explosive propellant. Cool, those can be widely available.

However, the "hollow point" bullet designed to expand on contact making a messy messy wound should be a mite harder to come by, as really, if you're any kind of hunter whatsoever, you should get better at making the hole in the right spot, as opposed to just making a bigger hole. and you don't need to make a big hole in a target, either, so these should be limited. Besides, IIRC, these make the doctor's or mortician's job much harder than it should be.

Then there's armor peircing bullets, with the teflon coating etc. Affectionately dubbed "cop-killers" by the media (as much hysteria inducing hype as it may be), these things really aren't necessary. How many bears have you met wearing full body armor? targets with bullet proof vests? And, if you need it for home defense, remember, a high powered rifle shot will still knock a bugger off his feet, giving you well trained gunsman plenty of time to stick the barrel into his mouth and ask him not to go anywhere.


Quick note on the second amendment, though I'm no constitutional lawyer...

Originally posted by mekugi:

"A well regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, dat's pretty clear cut, that people get guns if they want. But, I demand equal recognition of my right to a WELL REGULATED militia. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying all gun owners are like what I'm about to describe, in fact I know a few who are very responsable.) There is nothing "well regulated" about a bunch of yay-hoos running about in backwoods michigan with converted full automatic AR-10's blowing the hell out of dummies in mock military uniforms. In fact, that's scary to me. So, again, have all the guns you want, (actually, I'd like to get my hands on a USP or MP5, as those things are just ...droooool), but someone somewhere had better be regulating you, and me. Otherwise, you're violating MY constitutional rights.


Whoa...rantage.

Kobe
18th July 2003, 01:45
Russ,
Please, do not make such statements about world events. To minimize(and in comparation, the firearms ban was nothing)what Hitler did, means that the one that is not following the world events its you.
Ban firearms means to control the population? Come on, there are many countries, model of democracy that to own a gun is a serious crime.
You are talking about facts, its not a fact that all the weaponry it did not avoid the most bloddy atack US suffer in the last years?
Do you feel more secure and better owning a gun? Ok, its your right.
Last, you are worry about what happend now in the US, let me tell you that if the situation is getting worse is nothing to do with firearms control, but with to have such abnormal person ruling the country(and unfortunately, some other countries too)and "making friends" all over the world. But you have the rigth to own a gun, then lets be happy.

Mekugi
18th July 2003, 02:28
Go back, then start answering some of my questions I posed to you.
Use logical progression of thought. You still haven't answered why you feel the way you do about Charlton Heston, or any of the other questions.

In the countries you mention where "to own a firearm, it is a serious crime...." that is a statement assuming that the country in question is a FREE country. Think again. Are you talking about places such as Iraq? It is population control pure and simple. This is and has been the truth throughout history. Period. The best way to control the population is to take away the ability to overthrow the powers that be. Firearms control is 100% part of that, make no mistake. Whatever scare tactic, theology or whatever propoganda they use to take away that ability is only aiming at fascism the "actual thing" and not fascism the name calling.

The "bloody attack last year"? are you talking about 9/11? If there were firearms on that airplane, you bet it would have been avoided. Remember what they used?
So according to your logic here, even firearms control does not matter, they are going to attack anyway? Remember that the place that was attacked was New York City, New York, which has some of the strictist anti-firearm legistlation in the nation.

Now, you are showing outrage to an attack on the USA, so accordingly you should agree with what is going on in Iraq and what went on in Afghanistan. However, you seem to think that George Bush is a fascist at what is going on over there is terrible. Are you sure you are in touch with what you are thinking? Are you thinking what is happening over there is just because George Bush doesn't like Iraq? Have you payed close attention to the meetings that took place at the UN? Are you certain that you are not using emotional response and liberal, fact twisted journalism to try and justify things?

If you want to see a movie based on emotion, propoganda and infotainment, then see "Bowling for Columbine".

-Russ






Originally posted by Kobe
Russ,
Please, do not make such statements about world events. To minimize(and in comparation, the firearms ban was nothing)what Hitler did, means that the one that is not following the world events its you.
Ban firearms means to control the population? Come on, there are many countries, model of democracy that to own a gun is a serious crime.
You are talking about facts, its not a fact that all the weaponry it did not avoid the most bloddy atack US suffer in the last years?
Do you feel more secure and better owning a gun? Ok, its your right.
Last, you are worry about what happend now in the US, let me tell you that if the situation is getting worse is nothing to do with firearms control, but with to have such abnormal person ruling the country(and unfortunately, some other countries too)and "making friends" all over the world. But you have the rigth to own a gun, then lets be happy.

Mekugi
18th July 2003, 02:45
Originally posted by Ben Bartlett
First off, Abraham Lincoln did not found the Republican party. He was their first successful presidential candidate, not the founder. Second, at the time, the Republican party was a bastion for liberals who opposed slavery. Around the early 20th century, the Republicans decided to align themselves with business and Southern conservatives (who, until that point, had been Democrats), and the Democrats aligned themselves with minority voters and unions, and the stances of the parties basically switched.

Here ya go:

The Republican party evolved during the 1850's when the issue of slavery forced divisions within the existing Whig and Democratic-Republican parties. A new party dedicated to states' rights and a restricted role of government in economic and social life began making history.

Alan Earl Bovay, one of the founders (notice the plural here) of the Republican Party, believed a new party should be formed to represent the interests of the North and the abolitionists. He decided to call that party "Republican" because it was a simple yet significant word synonymous with equality. Thomas Jefferson had earlier chosen "Republican" to refer to his party, which gave the name respect bearing historical significance.

Evidence indicates there were several groups across the country that met to discuss the formation of a new party. Thus, the location of the first meeting has been disputed. It is known that Whig Party defectors met privately in February 1854, in Crawfordsville, Iowa, to call for the creation of a new political party. The first public meeting was held in March of 1854 at a small church in Ripon, Wisconsin, where Alan Bovay rallied anti-slavery forces and adopted resolutions opposing the Kansas-Nebraska act.

A second meeting was held in a one story schoolhouse in Ripon on March 20, 1854. Fifty-four citizens, including three women, dissolved their local committees and chose five men to serve as the committee of the new party: Alan Bovay, Jebediah Bowen, Amos Loper, Abram Thomas and Jacob Woodruff. Said Mr. Bovay, "We went into the little meeting Whigs, Free Soilers and Democrats. We came out as the first Republicans in the Union."

In July of the same year, the "Anti-Nebraska Convention" met in a grove of oak trees in Jackson, Michigan to write a national platform and concentrate its efforts to counter the Democrat's plan to extend slavery to new territories. The new party adopted a platform, nominated candidates for state offices, and produced two anti-slavery resolutions, one of which stated, "Resolved ... in view of the necessity of battling against the scemes of an aristocracy, the most revolting and oppressive with which the Earth was ever cursed or man debased, we will cooperate and be known as Republicans."

In 1856, "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Man, Fremont!" was the slogan of the Republican Party. At its first national convention in Philadelphia, the party nominated John C. Fremont for president (Abraham Lincoln was proposed as vice-president, but Senator William L. Dayton won the nomination). Although the party lost the election to the Democrats, it captured a third of the total vote, boosting its optimism for the 1860 elections.

adroitjimon
18th July 2003, 03:16
Okay sorry to chime in again but reading all of these posts
brought me to ask this question;

I was in the military in the early nineties and had the

opportunities to fire alot of really cool weaponry

50 cal.,m-something mortar launchers,rocket propelled grenades,
45.cal pistol,9mm pistol, m-16 (a1,,a1e3),m-60,12guage assault
shot gun,(mortars being my favorite,M-60 coming in a close second)

allthough I have never actually fired upon another human with
any of these weapons ,except in mock feild excercizes,I was
trained to do so...

here is where I get to my question;

what makes the "tracer" rounds glow?

I like the red I just never asked,but undersood fully thier
purpose.
:shot: :shot:

Kobe
18th July 2003, 03:16
Russ,
I already answer to the Charlton Heston issue, I told you that maybe I do not have all the information, but a very kind person clear some ideas in the forum about your prefered actor. Still, I will try to find out more information, because, as I also told you, I´m wrong with Heston and maybe he is a model to follow.
When I mention countries with strict regulations or even ban on firearms I also mention "model of democracy" which of course, can not include Irak, as it was not, is not, a democratic country.
According to you, firearm control is one of the most fascist way to control the population, wich means following the same logic, that we, most of the europeans are sheeps, living in dictatorship, just becasue we are not owning a gun.
I did not say "last year" I said "last years" and yes, I mean 11th Sep. What I was trying to tell you is that you can have your automatic weapon at home, but that it did not stop a terrorist to act. What stop a terrorist can be the police, the strategy, the international relations, the brain, etc...but never a middle class guy keeping a gun under the pillow.
Of course I felt so sympathetic with US for the 11 Sep., no one and no country deserve such horrible atack, but it does not mean that I legitimate what US government did in Afghanistan and after in Irak, it just does not make sense. No need to mention that the US army with all the weapons could not yet find Bin Laden nor Sadam. And of course, I do not like Bush, as I do not like fascism, I think that US deserve much better president than that ignorant, unable person, with enough(unfortunately) power and control to ignore the UN reconmendations and sessions.
But still, as I told you, if you think that keeping your automatic weapon in the basement, or to have a tank in the garage(that is the next step) will preserve the democracy in your country, feel free, you have the rigth, at least in the US, and hopefully not in my country.

Mekugi
18th July 2003, 04:09
You do admit that you do not have facts, proper information or anything of the like to base your opinions on, why do you keep posting? You know you really are unaware of what you are talking about. What's the point? Are you trying to show the rest of the board that ignorance and misinformation will over come facts, logic and reason? Remember: Europe was indeed dominated. If it wasn't for us "crazy americans" you would all be speaking German right now.

Don't go bashing President Bush when you clearly do not have a view of the world that is educated. I suppose you think Clinton was any better? FYI it is CLINTON and his backwards office that got us into this mess, his playing around and ignorance that made the world the state that it is in now. You're blaming the Janitor for the mess the kids made, buckaroo!

-Russ



Originally posted by Kobe
Russ,
I already answer to the Charlton Heston issue, I told you that maybe I do not have all the information, but a very kind person clear some ideas in the forum about your prefered actor. Still, I will try to find out more information, because, as I also told you, I´m wrong with Heston and maybe he is a model to follow.
When I mention countries with strict regulations or even ban on firearms I also mention "model of democracy" which of course, can not include Irak, as it was not, is not, a democratic country.
According to you, firearm control is one of the most fascist way to control the population, wich means following the same logic, that we, most of the europeans are sheeps, living in dictatorship, just becasue we are not owning a gun.
I did not say "last year" I said "last years" and yes, I mean 11th Sep. What I was trying to tell you is that you can have your automatic weapon at home, but that it did not stop a terrorist to act. What stop a terrorist can be the police, the strategy, the international relations, the brain, etc...but never a middle class guy keeping a gun under the pillow.
Of course I felt so sympathetic with US for the 11 Sep., no one and no country deserve such horrible atack, but it does not mean that I legitimate what US government did in Afghanistan and after in Irak, it just does not make sense. No need to mention that the US army with all the weapons could not yet find Bin Laden nor Sadam. And of course, I do not like Bush, as I do not like fascism, I think that US deserve much better president than that ignorant, unable person, with enough(unfortunately) power and control to ignore the UN reconmendations and sessions.
But still, as I told you, if you think that keeping your automatic weapon in the basement, or to have a tank in the garage(that is the next step) will preserve the democracy in your country, feel free, you have the rigth, at least in the US, and hopefully not in my country.

Kobe
18th July 2003, 05:02
Ok Russ, thanks for your educated post, I did not expect much less and I knew than sooner or later it will come, another amateur marshall fond of to play with guns pretending they are making this world better, the warranty of the freedom and the quintessential of all the good things of the humankind.
I admited that MAYBE I´m wrong about your actor, because, not like you, I can admit that I can make some mistakes.
About the facts, I spoke about facts, the only thing its that you did not like it. You play with the words, mixing Hitler, firearms ban, freedom, Irak.....no, things are not that easy, and every chapter of the history has a proper explanation.
Thank you so much for what US did for Europe, not less than what the Mayflower did for US, otherwise, at this time you most probably would still calling your wife pocahontas.
At the end, we are discussing the gun owning issue,, and as I´m triyng to tell you since some post ago, you have the right, then use it, but do not try to convice nor to patronise the rest of the world. You want more facts, nowadays, in the US, the most powerful country, the richiest one, and with a lot of guns(in percentage) its a real danger to walk in many parts of the country. Now compare the criminal rate with it with Italy, France, Spain, Norway, Germany, Holland......
And now, think a little than apart that to put a gun to anyone who wish to, for what the he.. your automatic toy is worth? For defence your country? Come on.
Easy, easy to say that everything good it happens now its thaks to Bush and everything bad ist thank to Clinton. But anyway, you like very much to keep on saying you are a very well informed person.
And sorry, but I did not understand "Buckaroo"
To this point, where your are losing the good manners, nothing else to say, keep on playing with your toys, do not forget, you have the right.

Mekugi
18th July 2003, 05:59
Show me where your facts are? <waiting>?


I can take the time to go through your post piece by piece and dissect it, but that takes too much time and you're just not getting it. Besides, I doubt that you would listen given the air (or should I say Err?) of posts previous.
Just a taste...as not to disappoint...

you wrote:
"Now compare the criminal rate with it with Italy, France, Spain, Norway, Germany, Holland......
And now, think a little than apart that to put a gun to anyone who wish to, for what the he.. your automatic toy is worth? For defence your country? Come on."

Show me where Anti-firearm legislation has ever reduced crime, anywhere. Don't use "I think so", use pure facts. It is a FACT that Britian has lied about their crime rate and has outrageouly strict firearm control, it is a fact that the places that have the most anti-firearm legislation have the worst crime, and when they loosen up on the anti-legislation the crime drops to an ALL TIME LOW. Right now the USA has one of the lowest crime rates in history....oh and who is President? What does he advocate?

If the rest of the world wants to disarm themselves, like the French have, like most of Europe, and they want to place their full vestment into their "leaders", they should go ahead. In that same vein, I believe that those countries should realize that whatever they get, they asked for it.

You really need to re-read those posts to see what we were talking about and stop blathering about things emotionally. Seriously dude, it's getting old hat.
Always,

Russ



Originally posted by Kobe
Ok Russ, thanks for your educated post, I did not expect much less and I knew than sooner or later it will come, another amateur marshall fond of to play with guns pretending they are making this world better, the warranty of the freedom and the quintessential of all the good things of the humankind.
I admited that MAYBE I´m wrong about your actor, because, not like you, I can admit that I can make some mistakes.
About the facts, I spoke about facts, the only thing its that you did not like it. You play with the words, mixing Hitler, firearms ban, freedom, Irak.....no, things are not that easy, and every chapter of the history has a proper explanation.
Thank you so much for what US did for Europe, not less than what the Mayflower did for US, otherwise, at this time you most probably would still calling your wife pocahontas.
At the end, we are discussing the gun owning issue,, and as I´m triyng to tell you since some post ago, you have the right, then use it, but do not try to convice nor to patronise the rest of the world. You want more facts, nowadays, in the US, the most powerful country, the richiest one, and with a lot of guns(in percentage) its a real danger to walk in many parts of the country. Now compare the criminal rate with it with Italy, France, Spain, Norway, Germany, Holland......
And now, think a little than apart that to put a gun to anyone who wish to, for what the he.. your automatic toy is worth? For defence your country? Come on.
Easy, easy to say that everything good it happens now its thaks to Bush and everything bad ist thank to Clinton. But anyway, you like very much to keep on saying you are a very well informed person.
And sorry, but I did not understand "Buckaroo"
To this point, where your are losing the good manners, nothing else to say, keep on playing with your toys, do not forget, you have the right.

Kobe
18th July 2003, 07:50
You want more facts, more than the facts Rogier post in the page number 1? No, you do not want facts, you only want to play with toys(I heard somewhere that there is a link between to carry a gun and some sexual disorder, most problably you know about it)
Ok I agree with you, in everything, 100%, no more discussion and arguments, you have the reason, I´m on my knees begging your pardon, I apologize, I can not understand how I dare to argue with you, sorry, excuse me, forgive me.
You see, at the end you really convince me, there is nothing that a good gun in your hands pointing my forehead can not achieve.
And now, dear Russ, take your toys and get lost.

Mekugi
18th July 2003, 08:10
Remember, this is a polite discussion.

Furthermore, do you know how many times I have heard this type of response from people who cannot back up their claims? (ohhh the liberal masses in the USA are in-exhaustible.) You're not the first person I have had this exact conversation with and you won't be the last. Nor will this be the last time I will hear this blather either.

You have followed a traditional pattern for the emotionally opinionated. Welcome to the club!

-Russ


Originally posted by Kobe
You want more facts, more than the facts Rogier post in the page number 1? No, you do not want facts, you only want to play with toys(I heard somewhere that there is a link between to carry a gun and some sexual disorder, most problably you know about it)
Ok I agree with you, in everything, 100%, no more discussion and arguments, you have the reason, I´m on my knees begging your pardon, I apologize, I can not understand how I dare to argue with you, sorry, excuse me, forgive me.
You see, at the end you really convince me, there is nothing that a good gun in your hands pointing my forehead can not achieve.
And now, dear Russ, take your toys and get lost.

Soulend
18th July 2003, 11:06
Originally posted by adroitjimon
what makes the "tracer" rounds glow?

I like the red I just never asked,but undersood fully thier
purpose.


Phosphorus. The purpose of tracer rounds is to allow you to see where your rounds are going in the dark and thus make corrections to aim.

Would weigh in on the gun ownership thing but I've already done it to death in the past. I will state empirically that there is no correlation between ownership of firearms and any sexual disorder. I have enough to outfit a fire team handsomely and everything 'down there' works like a champ, thank you very much :D

Ben Bartlett
18th July 2003, 14:38
Originally posted by Mekugi


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ben Bartlett
Yes, it's the same guy. It's also the same guy who once went about signing letters and protesting in support of gun control. Charlton Heston was, at one point, a liberal. Then, at some point in his life, he switched to conservative (I believe the story he told was that he kept seeing a poster for a conservative candidate with the byline "You Know He's Right", and at some point, Heston decided he was). So yes, it's the same man. He just held opposing political views at different points in his life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So you are calling Charleton Heston a Fascist? Whats the point here? So, he was a fascist when he was a "liberal"?



No, I'm not calling Charleton Heston a Fascist. I'm calling him a conservative who used to be a liberal, thus all the marching with Martin Luther King and so forth. Thus responding to your question: "Ultra conservative Charlton Heston? Are we talking about the same guy...." The answer is "yes".




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ben Bartlett
First off, Abraham Lincoln did not found the Republican party. He was their first successful presidential candidate, not the founder. Second, at the time, the Republican party was a bastion for liberals who opposed slavery. Around the early 20th century, the Republicans decided to align themselves with business and Southern conservatives (who, until that point, had been Democrats), and the Democrats aligned themselves with minority voters and unions, and the stances of the parties basically switched.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Okay, he was a founding member. Is that any better? Did I say he was the sole founder?

-Russ


I've not been able to find any information to back that claim up (in all the documents I've read, he's not mentioned as a founding member), but if you can point me to a legitimate source that says otherwise, I'll stand corrected. :)

elder999
18th July 2003, 14:59
The Lincoln-Douglas debates are commonly held to have defined the difference between the Republican and Democrat parties.

The Republican Party was founded on the basis of principles invoked by Abraham Lincoln. He himself recurred to the principles of the American Founding, specifically the Declaration of Independence, so we can say that the principles of the Republican Party were the principles of the nation. In essence these principles hold that the only purpose of government is to protect the equal natural rights of individual citizens. These rights inhere in individuals, not groups, and are antecedent to the creation of government. They are the rights invoked by the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—not happiness, but the pursuit of happiness.

We should remember that the Republican Party was created in response to a crisis arising from the fact that the country had drifted away from its founding principles. While the some of the founders may have owned slaves, they denounced the institution as a corrupt system that America had inherited, but which for the sake of security could not be abolished all at once. However, they fully expected that they had put slavery on the road to extinction.

Ironically, the Republican party of today is about 180 degrees from practically all of the things that made so many believe that Lincoln was the greatest American president.

One quote of Lincoln has been occurring to me often lately in reference to the overactive production of lies by the Bush administration. Starting with the stories about the Clinton vandalism of the White House, which was proven to be false; through the threats against Air Force One on Sept. 11, which were also proven false; the bizarre stories about the pretzel, which just sounded ridiculous; to the recent prevarications about whether anyone in the administration actually read the famous environmental report, the Bushies seem to be constantly creating fantastic stories. It almost seems they just say whatever comes into their heads and hope it has the effect they want it to have.

On this subject Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." The Bushie's seem to believe they can, but Lincoln was a wise man and I think he was right. It's going to catch up to them.

Less often quoted are Lincoln's concerns about corporations, which had already started to show their character at that time to a visionary on the order of Lincoln. "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country," he said. "Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Stunning how perfectly he foresaw our current state in the 21st Century. Lincoln was a literary mind who often produced language as stirring and eloquent as Shakespeare or Keats. His Gettysberg Address is widely considered one of the great literary works of history. Pulling it out of the mechanical repetition of a Disney animatronic figure and examining it in light of the election of 2001 and today is again stunning.

Lincoln referred first to the unique historic moment when the founders of the United States "brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Here he is stating a fact, quoting the Declaration of Independence.

"Now," he continues, "we are engaged in a great Civil War testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure." This is exactly the question we collided with head-on when the Supreme Court stopped the counting of votes in 2001. That was the legal negation of precisely what Lincoln is referring to. Can a democratic nation endure? It was a question then only 80-some years since the founding the republic. It is very much a question in 2002.

This is the question which the modern southern Republicans and the compromised Supreme Court once again brought out and put on our table. Can democracy survive? If the holy polls are telling the truth, a majority of Americans are so fearful now they are content to let democracy and civil liberties go. I never believe the polls, but at the same time it's hard to completely dismiss them.

The Patriot Act took away the right to due process of law. Initially it was only done on paper. Now they are exercising it, and they are starting with people like Jose Padilla, who they can say is a lowlife. They show pictures, police drawings. He's obviously one of those brown, criminal types. He even changed his Spanish name to a Muslim name. If that doesn't prove he's a terrorist, how much proof do you need?

If we let it go with Padilla, then we have a legal precedent and there is no legal line between Padilla and you. You only have social protection. If you are in the right class, you will be relatively safe. But not necessarily. The thing is, you have no legal protection. The Constitution guarantees due process. But the Patriot Act negated it. It's an inherent conflict. It now remains to be seen where the legal collision is going to take place. If it goes to the Supreme Court under Rhenquist and Scalia and their sidekick Clarence, do you feel confident your legal rights will be protected? December 2001 cured me of that confidence for a long time.

If we choose to follow Lincoln's cause, as opposed to that of the Confederacy, then our job (should we choose to accept it) is:

"to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

...that includes, incidentally, our Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Let's just get one part very clear, America: that's "of the people, by the people and for the people."

dirithtai
18th July 2003, 16:27
Originally posted by Mekugi
Bullets are inanimate objects, yet again. They do not kill people.

You are in complete misunderstanding of the "well regulated" meaning. It is something other than what you are saying or attempting to describe. It means to have firearms and supplies available to "the Militia". This, IMHO means every able body in the USA is part of the militia, and we have the right to have the ability to usurp the Government in the time that is becomes out of control. This is not a group weekend warriors that form a group. That means, in time of need, you defend your country with the firearms and the means. Again, don't let the media mess with your judgement.

Mis-interpreting the Second Amendment is what liberal idiots have been attempting to do for ages, don't help them. Out of all the Amendments in the Constitution, that one has little room for interpretation. It means exactly what it says, and that has been agreed upon for the last 200 years, actually make that 60. Firearms bans weren't a problem until we had lazy spoiled kids making up their mind to protest things that posed no real threat.

-Russ



Bullets don't kill people? I think the AMA would beg to differ with that statement. Actually, anyone whose ever been shot and subsequently died would disagree with that assessment, if they weren't dead. Yes, human hands cause the bullet to be aimed at a person, but the bullet does the killing.

Second, don't call me an idiot because I interpret things with the actual definition of the words used. Most people call that common sense.

Regulate:

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.


Now, as far as I'm concerned your "HO" doesn't mean diddly squat. The words "well regulated" (reference my above posted definition for the word regulate, the present tense of regulated). The constitution clearly calls for controlled or ordered possession of guns.

"In times of need you defend your country with fire-arms and the means"

So where were you and your guns when the country needed you 2 years ago? Did you ship yourself off to Afghanistan with your M60 or whatever? If you did, hats off, but somehow I doubt it. Also, an armed citizenry is just this side of useless to prevent the most likely types of attack we'll endure. Firearms on the planes used in 9-11 would have been just as dangerous to the people on board as the terrorists were, since a miss or a "blowthru" shot would run a signifigant risk of rupturing and de-pressurizing the cabin. Even you must realize that at 30,000 feet, that's a DAMN bad thing, and could have caused the plane to crash into other densely populated areas.

If the enemies of the US come after us, its gonna be big, surprising, and probably over before anyone can pull a gun, so the argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from outside threats is...well asinine as far as I can see.

And lets not forget, the biggest blows to american civil liberties since 1776 have come from the Bush administration, so lets not get all high and mighty about how good Bush is doing. He's an ass, and has no business running a farm, let alone a country. If any government the US has had needs to be overthrown, its his.

And, if you're going to make a statement like "the most common ammunition used for murder is the .22" you should try and back it up with some sort of source, cause I can't find any statistics on gun make vs crimes.

And finally, you've been accusing everyone of falling victim to the "scare tactics" of the liberal media. But, since you're using the same tactics in your arguments, I have to class you as a hypocrit, or maybe just deluded. Use of such emotionally chrged statements as "Hitler espoused gun control" and "The best way to control the population ... Whatever scare tactic, theology or whatever propoganda they use to take away that ability is only aiming at fascism the "actual thing" and not fascism the name calling." smack of trying to scare me into your way of thinking.

The typical conservative hot air, if they don't beleve you yell louder till they do.

elder999
18th July 2003, 19:10
Originally posted by dirithtai


Second, don't call me an idiot because I interpret things with the actual definition of the words used. Most people call that common sense.

Regulate:

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.


Now, as far as I'm concerned your "HO" doesn't mean diddly squat. The words "well regulated" (reference my above posted definition for the word regulate, the present tense of regulated). The constitution clearly calls for controlled or ordered possession of guns.

"In times of need you defend your country with fire-arms and the means"


The typical conservative hot air, if they don't beleve you yell louder till they do.

I need to interject here.

FIrstly, a 1982 Senate Historical Study of the 2d Amendment concluded that the 2d Amendment means exactly what Russ said, and more. Everyone is supposed to be able to have guns....end of story.

http://hematite.com/dragon/senaterpt.html


The Surpreme Court, our ultimate arbiters on Constitutional matters, has consistently come down on just this side of all 2d Amendment cases in all of its history.

The Bill Of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, are considered to be a collection of rights guaranteed to the people on which the government cannot intrude. The court has ruled that it sees the words the people in the bill of rights referring to all of the people of the United States and that it is the same "people" referred to in the First (free speech, worship, press) as in the Fourth (searches, warrants) and Fifth (speedy trial, self-incrimination) as in the Second (right to arms).

Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that the government may not require a license to exercise a right. For example, the government may not require people to have a license to practice free speech, or to attend a church. Likewise the government may not require record keeping of those who practice a right or those who participate. Like the post-civil war era poll tax levied on blacks to prevent them from voting, the government may not require the people to pay any fees or taxes to exercise a right. This does not mean that any right is free from regulation or fees however. But the basic right must be unfettered. Claiming the government can't make you pay for a FCC license for a radio or TV station won't work, simply because the Court will remind you that you can retreat to a soap box or print up leaflets (or Web Pages!) and still exercise your right to free speech
You do not have a right to own a car, or to drive one. There is no constitutional guarantee for you to own or possess an automobile, truck, car, motorcycle, bicycle or even a skateboard. If any of these products were deemed to be illegal you would have no constitutional challenge under the Bill of Rights (except, perhaps, that of due-process before you must give up your vehicle).

With that out of the way, let's do a little comparison. First, let's think about registering guns like cars and licensing gun owners like car drivers. In the first place we'll have to purge a lot of useless laws off the books regarding firearms. Consider:


There is no waiting period to purchase an automobile.
Anyone can purchase an automobile as long as they can sign a legal contract to pay for it.
You are not required to lock up your car and keep it away from children.
People convicted of felonies or domestic violence can own an automobile.
Anyone paying cash can purchase an automobile, even if they're under 18.
You do not have to have a driver's license to buy an automobile.
The government does not have the power to inspect how you garage your car.
There is no limit how many cars you can own, or how many you can buy per month.
The government can't limit the features of your car, such as top speed, fuel capacity, horsepower, etc.
The government does not limit how many gallons of gas you can buy per month.
The only penalty for not registering your automobile yearly isn't a felony.
The government, except for a few states, cannot seize your automobile if you fail to register it.
You only need to register an automobile if you plan to use it on the street.
To obtain a driver's license you fill out a written test, provide a birth certificate (and/or INS papers), take an eye exam and a short driver's test to show you can operate the vehicle.
The fee for a license ranges from about $5 to $20.
Licenses are good for several years, some states renew automatically; others are lifetime licenses.
Licenses are only revoked after a court trial for misuse or violating the laws.

Are you still enthusiastic about it? You can see how many so called "gun-control" laws would be abolished by such a scheme. But we have not considered the opposite side of this question. Since you don't have a right to an automobile, the government can impose many laws on their ownership, purchase and use that cannot be applied to guns. But let's stick with guns for the moment and see what you'd have to go through.


Convicted felons could not own or drive a car.
You'd pay for a car, register it and then wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up your car.
Purchasing a used car from a neighbor requires the same waiting period and you would have to transact the sale through a licensed car dealer.
You could buy a car, register it but you'd need a special permit to take in on the streets.
To get the above "street permit" you have to show good cause and be of good moral character.
Persons convicted of "domestic violence" could not own or drive a car, even if that occurred 30 years ago.
Cars have to be stored where no child could access it and hurt themselves playing with it.
In some places (e.g. NYC or New Jersey) you would first need a permit to buy from the police department which sometimes takes up to 2 years to obtain.
If you own more than a certain number of cars, the government could enter your home at any time to ensure you stored your cars properly. This is actually a proposed law by Handgun Control, Inc. that would require anyone owning more than 4 guns to have an "arsenal" license and permit warrantless searches.
If a minor child stole your car and hurt himself or others with it, you'd be guilty of a felony.
In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) you would have to store your car partially disassembled.
Failure to register your car would be a federal felony (prevents you from owning another one).
People under psychiatric care or mentally incompetent could not own or drive a car.
Some models of automobiles might be banned after you buy them and you'd have to turn them over to the government without compensation.
"Assault vehicles" look evil and must be specially registered at extra cost. Hummers, 4x4 trucks, Suburbans, Dodge Vipers, Nissan NSX's, and Corvettes are likely targets.
Cars under a certain size or having certain features could not be imported.
You could not modify your car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering.
The government would allow some states or cities to not issue licenses at all, for any reason.
Cars could not be operated on city streets with gasoline in the tank. (Kinda defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it?)
In some states (e.g. Virginia, California) you could only buy one car per month.
There would be no traffic "infractions", all violations would be misdemeanors or felonies.
It would be illegal to directly buy a car from an out of state dealer or seller.
Car dealers would have to allow government agents to review their records without a warrant and without notice.
Car dealers who sell a car to someone prohibited would be charged with a federal felony.
Car dealers would be subject to being shut down by the government for failure to keep proper records and charged with a felony.
The inventory of car dealers could be seized and destroyed before a conviction was obtained.

This all sounds pretty silly, doesn't it? Most of these are gun-laws, applied to autos or drivers.

The first step in destroying a right is to control that right and make its use subject to government regulation and/or taxation. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan claimed that the government could tax guns and/or ammunition out of existence. Though I have a feeling that the Supreme Court would rule that plan an infringement on the exercise of that right, just as the poll tax infringed on the voting rights of the post civil war blacks. Imagine the outraged cry from the media if Moynihan proposed that people had to pay a $1500 tax each time they hired a lawyer - in essence, making you pay the government a royalty-fee for exercising your right to a lawyer for a criminal trial.

A license is permission from an authority to do something unusual or otherwise restricted by law. A right is something you have, like breathing, that the government does not give you. According to historical reviews, religious texts and our founding fathers, the right to resist a tyrannical government exists in all free men, as well the right to arms for the purposes of survival, defense of self and of the state. Don't be fooled by the way gun-control people twist the meaning of things however. The Constitution does not grant a right to keep and bear arms because that right pre-dates the Constitution and all other laws of men! The Second Amendment limits the power of the government to restrict or infringe on the right of its people to keep and bear arms!!

Once the government can require a license for you to practice a "right", then that right can also be denied to you by regulations, created by non-elected bureaucrats, to restrict your rights until it is impossible to obtain a license. Another way is to make the licensing procedure and paperwork so onerous that no one would want to obtain a license.







"It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.

"[The] governor constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.

"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.

"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353

[I]"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

The principle reason for the Secoond Amendment, however, as an examination of the Federalist Papers would show, is to enable the United States citizenry to overcome the government in the event that it becames necessary to overcome an administration that becomes tyrannical.

adroitjimon
18th July 2003, 22:57
Thanks for answering my question and just as I thought it was
phospherous,now you guys canget back to your debate...

Mekugi
19th July 2003, 00:37
Elder,

Outstanding posts. Very reflective. Although I would add that under the Clinton administration, there was an equal amount of Civil Rights being violated by BC himself in drag, changing his name to Janet Reno.


Stunning posts. Your arguements are essentially spotless.




-Russ:nw:

Mekugi
19th July 2003, 00:40
Originally posted by dirithtai


Bullets don't kill people? I think the AMA would beg to differ with that statement. Actually, anyone whose ever been shot and subsequently died would disagree with that assessment, if they weren't dead. Yes, human hands cause the bullet to be aimed at a person, but the bullet does the killing.

Are you going to put the bullet in jail and let the culprit walk free or the person who used the bullet ? Think about that. Who is truly responsible?

on the other tirade:
You are using =one= definition for a word out of context and for your own purpose.


-Russ

dirithtai
21st July 2003, 16:27
Elder99 :

I don't think I ever suggested licensing guns the same way we do cars, and if anything in my statements intimated this, my apologies for the unclarity. I freely admitted that everyone has the right to own a gun. I said that pretty clearly as I recall. I was looking primarily at definition 4, "to put or maintain in order." A person should be able to own anything short of ordnance (high explosives, vulcan guns, that sort of thing) without restriction. However, I DO think it should be a matter of public record who owns what. Why? As a matter of public safety. If someone is stockpiling high powered weapons/ammunition in my neighborhood, I feel that represents a danger to me that I should know about.

You said:
"Like the post-civil war era poll tax levied on blacks to prevent them from voting, the government may not require the people to pay any fees or taxes to exercise a right. This does not mean that any right is free from regulation or fees however. But the basic right must be unfettered. "

This seems to be a contradiction. You can't impose fees or make lists, but the right is not free from regulation or fees..? I must be missing something.

I would contend that listing what firearms you own does not fetter the right, as you still get the gun. You wouldn't even have to say where your store it, so that protects it from being seized, even if the 4th amendment didn't already protect you from that eventuality.

I just want to know where the "regulated" comes into play, because I can't beleive they didn't put it in there for a reason. Maybe they mean you only get one gun per person? The fact remains, the second amendment is unique among the Bill of Rights in that it is the only amendment to mention regulation at all. All other rights are categorical, you get free speech, a speedy trial, freedom of religion end of discussion. The second amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" very bluntly, and that should be given due consideration before blithely saying something which ultimately amounts to "Oh, they didn't mean it."
(Mekugi, I'm looking at you when I say that)

And since it would be Public record, the government can't seize the weapons without EVERYONE knowing what's going on, therefore defeating the purpose of Gestapo style disarmament, which only works if its kept in the dark for much of its run. (Plus, everyone knows who to run to if the evil liberals get back into power...:rolleyes: )


Mekugi:

When did I ever say anything about putting bullets in jail? Really, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I said people should have free access to target shot, hell, maybe I misunderstand the purpose of hollow point rounds too, and they're not primarily designed to make as big a mess as possible. I even bloody admitted that it IS a human hand that directs the bullet. Its in black and white a few posts up (well, black and a sort of dun brownish color). Obviously, a person must be held responsible for their actions, I assumed something that blatantly obvious could go without saying

However, I do maintain that YES, the bullet is the direct cause of death, and if ammunition was harder for criminals to come by, then gun-related deaths would be rarer. Maybe to clarify my point, I think that private manufacture of ammunition should be stamped on as hard as meth labs. In conjunction with listed gun ownership, it would be fairly easy for ammunition stores to look up when someone comes into the store. If somebody comes in and asks for 8000 rounds 7.62 FMJ, but are not listed as owning a gun capable of shooting 7.62 ammo, there's most likely a fairly nefarious purpose. However, if you walk in and DO own a 7.62 firing rifle, then you give the man your money and walk away with you scads of ammo, no further questions asked.

To further clarify my position, I don't think gun control makes violence rarer, but what it does do is make the weapons used in that violence somewhat easier to defend myself against. If I have a golf club, and he's got a knife, I've a fighting chance. If he pulls a .45 20 feet away, I'm pretty boned unless I am also carrying a gun and am a quickdraw master.


Incidentally, Mekugi, I think you should be among the most seriously concerned about things like the patriot acts I&II, as it gives power to the Feds to declare you a domestic terrorist, revoke your citizenship and deprive you of all ten of your basic bill rights in one swell foop. And that is something that cannot be blamed on anyone but Bush's lil buddies. Before you say, "For what, I never did anything wrong." Stop and consider the general morality of the CIA, FBI or any other major governmental enforcement branch. Do you really think they'd be above fabrication? Your staunch defense of ¤¤¤¤¤ even after he's seemingly repudiated everything the Republican party has stood for for decades honestly surprises me.

Mekugi
21st July 2003, 23:45
Originally posted by dirithtai
just want to know where the "regulated" comes into play, because I can't beleive they didn't put it in there for a reason

Regulate, in this case, means to be able to train with firearms freely. "To adjust so as to make operate accurately" would be the sense of the word.


Originally posted by dirithtai
When did I ever say anything about putting bullets in jail? Really, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Well, when you start blaming bullets and not a person, that is what you have. Bullet bans. Putting the naughty, evil no good bullet in jail. That is exactly where that thinking gets you.


Originally posted by dirithtai
However, I do maintain that YES, the bullet is the direct cause of death.
The direct cause of death is usually internal bleeding, tissue damage and or organ damage (among others). I could do the same thing with a bow, a jackhammer, nailgun, etc.


Originally posted by dirithtai
And since it would be Public record, the government can't seize the weapons without EVERYONE knowing what's going on, therefore defeating the purpose of Gestapo style disarmament, which only works if its kept in the dark for much of its run. (Plus, everyone knows who to run to if the evil liberals get back into power... )

Umm...everyone knew about the Nazi firearm bans, they didn't do anything about it. There is even literature on it from the NRA publsihed at the time, if memory serves. When the Jewish community finally figured out what was really going on, it was too late and the small upheavel that they did have was shot down in it's tracks. Point of fact.


Originally posted by dirithtai
However, I DO think it should be a matter of public record who owns what. Why? As a matter of public safety. If someone is stockpiling high powered weapons/ammunition in my neighborhood, I feel that represents a danger to me that I should know about.

Show me once where that is a matter of public safety. Once. Who cares who is stockpiling what, why does it bother you? Why is it your business? The fact is, it is no ones business. I don't trust a government that doesn't trust it's own citizens, period. Why is that a danger to you? Depending on what State you live in, chances are there is a law-abiding citizen doing just that.:)

Peace!

-Russ

Shitoryu Dude
22nd July 2003, 00:38
What consitutes stockpiling? At one time when I was a child I counted over 50 guns in my family home and many thousands of rounds of ammunition - was that a stockpile? Many of them were magnum calibers as well.

There were four boys who hunted and liked to target shoot. Additionally my mother had guns and we had a few family heirlooms, so it wasn't just "us guys". Every gun was for a pretty specific purpose and for a specific person. We all had .357 and .22 pistols for target shooting and defense. We had .22 rifles for target & varmit shooting. We had shotguns for bird hunting, rifles for deer & elk hunting. Rifles for hunting in the brush and lever action rifles for shooting coyotes. Later on we bought 9mm pistols for backpacking and for carrying on motorcylces on cross-country trips. We bought some guns just for the fun of shooting them. To tally all the guns my family now owns would be well into the triple digits. So far we have also managed to collect a fair assortment of concealed carry permits and marksmanship awards.

We loaded our own ammunition for these guns and when you do so you load up several hundred rounds at a time - a couple guys with their guns can easily shoot off a couple thousand rounds of ammo in an afternoon target shooting.

How any of this is a danger to anyone else living around me is a mystery. Are they perhaps considering breaking into my house and robbing me? The fact that I will shoot them dead and sleep easy at night should only concern the criminal.

:beer:

Mekugi
22nd July 2003, 00:52
I hear ya Harvey!

I guess us Nor'westers are just a wild crime ridden bunch.

Go figure....

-Russ


Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
What consitutes stockpiling? At one time when I was a child I counted over 50 guns in my family home and many thousands of rounds of ammunition - was that a stockpile? Many of them were magnum calibers as well.

There were four boys who hunted and liked to target shoot. Additionally my mother had guns and we had a few family heirlooms, so it wasn't just "us guys". Every gun was for a pretty specific purpose and for a specific person. We all had .357 and .22 pistols for target shooting and defense. We had .22 rifles for target & varmit shooting. We had shotguns for bird hunting, rifles for deer & elk hunting. Rifles for hunting in the brush and lever action rifles for shooting coyotes. Later on we bought 9mm pistols for backpacking and for carrying on motorcylces on cross-country trips. We bought some guns just for the fun of shooting them. To tally all the guns my family now owns would be well into the triple digits. So far we have also managed to collect a fair assortment of concealed carry permits and marksmanship awards.

We loaded our own ammunition for these guns and when you do so you load up several hundred rounds at a time - a couple guys with their guns can easily shoot off a couple thousand rounds of ammo in an afternoon target shooting.

How any of this is a danger to anyone else living around me is a mystery. Are they perhaps considering breaking into my house and robbing me? The fact that I will shoot them dead and sleep easy at night should only concern the criminal.

:beer:

Shitoryu Dude
22nd July 2003, 04:46
This happened in Australia - personally, if she took a swing at me with a tire iron I would have shot her. But if I cach someone in the house I don't have to sit on them as most people will put on police grade handcuffs for you when you back up your requests with a 9mm,

Female 'cat burglar' squashed
By Lorna Knowles
July 21, 2003

A WOMAN police suspect is responsible for a spate of burglaries was foiled after a man sat on her.

Jennifer Blair was halfway out of a window at a home in Rodd Point on Saturday when the owner spotted her, Parramatta court heard yesterday.

The man sat on her, but got off after she complained she could not breathe, police allege.

Blair then grabbed a tyre iron she had used to break into the property and hit the man over the arm. She swung the iron at his head, before he restrained her a second time.

Blair, 42, had numerous charges on her record, dating back 20 years, according to a tendered police facts sheet.

"There have been numerous break and enter offences of this type around Rodd Point, Five Dock and Drummoyne, where a similar modus operandi had been employed," the facts sheet said.

"These offences include the theft of the same sorts of items that the defendant was targeting at the premises where she was caught".

A check of police records showed Blair, a labourer for Leichhardt Council, had pawned or sold hundreds of items, the court heard.

Registrar Donna Evans said she was concerned Blair would commit further offences if released and refused bail, remanding her to Central Local Court today.

:beer:

A. M. Jauregui
22nd July 2003, 05:17
Personally I would have let them go right out the window. Everything that I care about has only sentimental value plus I have insurance for things of monetary worth. Sure I can restrain just about anyone and shooting a person is not a problem but common sense tells me that it is best to, just about always, let such things go...

I am unsubscribing from this thread.

Marc Renouf
22nd July 2003, 20:03
I could let them go. But then again, do I want to live in a society where someone can invade my home, take my stuff, and get away with it? Where not only can the authorities probably not help me, but where I am also unwilling to help myself? And how would I feel if I let them go and their next burglary was accompanied by a rape or a murder (as home invasion burglaries increasingly are)?

As I understood it, putting yourself in danger to protect others is what the study of budo is all about.

Shitoryu Dude
22nd July 2003, 20:12
That pretty much sums it up for me in many respects.

Example: Couple of weeks ago my wife and I along with her family are outside of our favorite sushi restaurant waiting for it to open. A young woman suddenly runs by on the sidewalk, not looking very happy, and following her by 40 feet is a young man, also running and looking rather determined and catching up to her quickly.

They go around the corner and I start off to see what the hell is going on. When I got to the corner I could see them walking together toward the grocery store across the parking lot, but I was quite ready to stop an assault at that point.

:beer: