PDA

View Full Version : This is THE thread for discussion of guns / gun laws etc.


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Airborne Aircrew
8th Jan 2013, 22:11
There is a real need for a serious discussion about gun control but for some reason it can't be discussed sensibly here because there are some who, rather than look for a solution or sensible approaches, simply spout dogma that ends up derailing serious discussion.

I know darned well that the mods can ban individuals from a specific topic but it seems like they are being lazy and, rather than moderating, they simply delete the thread.

I suppose that's me banned...

If I offer to set up a website where these discussions can take place freely without the autodelete attitude of PPRuNe would:

a. Anyone be interested, and

b. Will I be banned for longer despite the fact it clearly wouldn't affect traffic here because the thread would have already been deleted.

Cacophonix
8th Jan 2013, 22:15
Airborne

It is a serious subject, I agree but it brings out the worst in many of us (I am guilty of this).

I will shut up now and never broach this subject on this forum ever again.

Damn it PPRuNe deserves more fun than this divisive stuff.

Caco

west lakes
8th Jan 2013, 22:17
Very quick to apportion blame without evidence, any thread can be deleted by the thread starter by simply deleting the first post.
Unless, of course, you (being Airborne Aircrew) started the thread, so would know if the first post had been deleted by himself

Airborne Aircrew
8th Jan 2013, 22:18
Caco:

You want fun? Come and visit me in the summer.... We can hang out on the lake drinking Pina Coladas, eating good food, swimming, fishing and generally having fun.

A lifestyle all protected by my guns... :E

Airborne Aircrew
8th Jan 2013, 22:19
Very quick to apportion blame without evidence, any thread can be deleted by the thread starter by simply deleting the first post.
Unless, of course, you started the thread

Caco!!!! Did you delete your thread??? ;)

Lonewolf_50
8th Jan 2013, 22:19
Airborne, doesn't it belong in the US Politics Hamster Wheel Thread? It seems that the bickering has to do with US Politics.

con-pilot
8th Jan 2013, 22:20
any thread can be deleted by the thread starter by simply deleting the first post.
Unless, of course, you started the thread

Okay, I am officially and completely confused.




Did you write for Monty Python? :p

Cacophonix
8th Jan 2013, 22:22
A lifestyle all protected by my guns... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Have I said I don't like guns? ;)

The beer and those exotic sipping liquids sound good. I am a terribly competitive fisherman but as you are armed I will try and be humble! :ok:

Caco

Prazum
8th Jan 2013, 22:22
You as in not the Op

west lakes
8th Jan 2013, 22:24
Okay, I am officially and completely confused.Blame the wine.

I was trying to make the point that if Airborne Aircrew (who I was answering) had started the thread, he would know if he had deleted the first post!!

Post edited!

Airborne Aircrew
8th Jan 2013, 22:26
Lonewolf:

It's a subject that deserves removal from politics. There isn't a politician who really gives a rat's behind about the deaths. They cry nice crocodile tears but they only care about their career... Combining it into the USA politics hampster wheel is silly.

I'd suggest a US Gun Control Hamster Wheel where non US Residents can be excluded when they demonstrate troll-like characteristics or an utter disregard/misunderstanding of US laws and culture... Yeah, that would work...

Anyone in?

Airborne Aircrew
8th Jan 2013, 22:28
Caco:

The beer and those exotic sipping liquids sound good. I am a terribly competitive fisherman but as you are armed I will try and be humble! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

You'd be absolutely safe as long as you didn't reach for my beer... :}

Milo Minderbinder
8th Jan 2013, 22:31
But that would exclude us folks who understand US laws and think they're nuts
And does the USA have culture? Has it existed long enough to understand the historic neccesity of such a concept?

Whirlygig
8th Jan 2013, 22:42
There is a real need for a serious discussion about gun controlIs there? Really?

but for some reason it can't be discussed sensibly here because there are some who, rather than look for a solution or sensible approaches, simply spout dogma that ends up derailing serious discussion.And any time someone has posted here with sensible, rational arguments, they are lambasted and decried as being idiots who know not of what they speak.

Cheers

Whirls

Airborne Aircrew
8th Jan 2013, 22:50
I'm thinking the last two posters are an example of what I'm talking about.

Milo:

Keep the conversation accurate to US law and culture and discuss possible solutions and you'd be fine. You're initial response seems to imply that you would shy away from sensible conversation.

Whirls:

And any time someone has posted here with sensible, rational arguments, they are lambasted and decried as being idiots who know not of what they speak.Those ideas need to be culturally and constitutionally viable... It's those teeny details that make simply sensible and rational arguments a bit void.

Dushan
8th Jan 2013, 22:52
And any time someone has posted here with sensible, rational arguments, they are lambasted and decried as being idiots who know not of what they speak.

Cheers

Whirls

They are all sensible and rational to the poster. The fact that somebody else doesn't agree with them does not make them any less rational or sensible.

The anti side seems to think that if somebody supports gun ownership they are irrational and senseless. The pro side does not take a stand that being an anti is a mental issue.

Checkboard
8th Jan 2013, 22:58
If you live in the UK, and want to buy a gun (and have a clean record) you can - absolutely no problem.

The UK law basically says that everyone may have a shotgun, unless the police can show they shouldn't.

Given that - most people simply can't be bothered.

Lord Spandex Masher
8th Jan 2013, 23:00
There is a real need for a serious discussion about gun control

What is the "need"?

Airborne Aircrew
8th Jan 2013, 23:08
Lord:

The mentally ill that get guns are a threat to me and my family. This is the need:-

http://www.hqrafregiment.net/images/bass.jpg

My daughter last July... Caught all by her self... :ok:

Dushan
8th Jan 2013, 23:09
The "need" is to stop the hysterical attempts to ban just about any firearm because a few loonies went on a rampage. The "need" is to preserve, protect, and defend The Constitution of United States the way it stands now and not to gloss over the Second Amendment and pretend it doesn't count or exist.

The "need" is to leave the law-abiding gun owners and their guns alone.

And BTW let's not kid ourselves and state that people in UK can buy guns. Yes, shotguns and .22s, but there is a lot more to guns than shotguns and .22s (with all respect to con-pilot and his 1898 firearm). Handguns, rifles, for hunting, sport shooting, collectible s, or just "toys".

Milo Minderbinder
8th Jan 2013, 23:12
"The mentally ill that get guns are a threat "

yes, I always thought that most people who get guns are mentally ill. Thanks for confirming it

Dushan
8th Jan 2013, 23:14
Milo, I think you just confirmed my previous point made to Whirls.

west lakes
8th Jan 2013, 23:15
Yes, shotguns and .22s, but there is a lot more to guns than shotguns and .22s

Which are quite capable of killing people as demonstrated in this area 2 1/2 years ago!

OK some other firearms can probably kill folk more effectively I'll concede!

Airborne Aircrew
8th Jan 2013, 23:15
yes, I always thought that most people who get guns are mentally ill. Thanks for confirming it

And that's why threads gt closed....:hmm:

Lord Spandex Masher
8th Jan 2013, 23:16
Aye, fair points for the "need" to have gun control.

But what is the "need" to discuss it here, or indeed anywhere else online, anonymously?

Cacophonix
8th Jan 2013, 23:21
Hell, she ACTUALLY catches fish... now that is competitive! ;)

Damn it, I am done. Just give me the beer man!

With respect to old Airborne who gives his kids a sense of the fun outdoors (see I didn't mention ballistics but only fishing). :ok:

Caco

Airborne Aircrew
8th Jan 2013, 23:25
Lord:

I'm far from anonymous... All you have to do is pay attention and you could send me snail mail in a minute.

Airborne Aircrew
8th Jan 2013, 23:33
Caco:

She won't get this until she is seven.... Which is one year and one day away...

http://images.lowpriceguns.com/i.php?a=10&id=67275&w=394&h=278

and she won't get to fire it until she can demonstrate she understands basic safety. Just like she didn't get a "big" fishing rod until she showed she could cast, reset the bail, watch the float, strike, fight the fish and place it in my hand on the bank with the "baby" rod.

With skill comes fun.. and responsibility... Yes, even at seven.

con-pilot
8th Jan 2013, 23:38
Guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns! :ugh:

Sick and tired about all this nonsense about guns. :rolleyes:

When are we ever going to discuss something really serious, something so heinous that I dare to mention its name.

The evil Brussels sprout.

Why just today I was visiting my wife who is in hospital. Thank God I was there when she was served lunch. Now I realise that what I'm getting ready to post may shock and appall some here. But this shocking incident must be told, as the spread of this vile substance is now nearly everywhere, even, GASP, in hospitals.

The server rolled my wife's lunch into her room and removed the cover, I being curious of what my wife's luncheon repast consisted of, looked at the tray of food. Then to my horror, I saw a serving of the vile and evil Brussels sprouts.

Quickly I sprung into action, with a warning shout of "DANGER, DANGER, EVIL IS PRESENT!" I leaped over her hospital bed from the easy chair I was reclined in, where I had been watching a movie, grabbed the vile and evil substance, ran into the corridor and ran as fast as I could to hazardous waste disposal receptacle and threw the offending substance into said receptacle.

Apparently my quick action highly impressed my wife, the server, the five nurses and three doctors that had ran into my wife's room when I had vocalized the imminent danger that my wife was in, as they were all standing there with their mouths open, looking shocked.

I told them that no thanks was needed, as I was a trained professional after all. Then my wife told me that perhaps I should return to our home and rest up after my life saving feat.

After I returned home a few hours ago my wife called me and said that when I return to hospital tomorrow to pick her up, not to bother to come in, but that the hospital director informed her that they will bring her to me and what ever I do, do not get out of the car, under no circumstances am I to get out of the car and walk in the direction of the hospital.

I thought that was very nice of them to reward me in that fashion, saving me the trouble of having to get out of the car to go in and get her.

Cacophonix
8th Jan 2013, 23:44
Airborne

And this is said seriously with regard to you and your kid! I know it.

My dad taught me to shoot and I respect him for it, the grumpy old bugger that he was.

I guess it is not families and folks like you and your good family that the argument is about (oops, I started I have started to talk about guns again)!

I shall quit the field with one last video (not me eh?). The Motor City Madman and a good song, plus I kinda agree with the last bit in his video but I just think none of us should be messianic!

Take care out there and have fun. :ok:

See I am conflicted about this stuff but come to SA and see what hell bad arms have wrought when in bad hands!

Caco

Ted Nugent - Kiss My Glock - YouTube

Lord Spandex Masher
8th Jan 2013, 23:53
AA, my point is that discussing it in unofficial channels won't achieve anything positive.

P.S I was taught to shoot the L81 and L98 by a Rock Ape, I could strip and rebuild it in under a minute too.

lomapaseo
8th Jan 2013, 23:56
All that need be said has been said. It's just that we don't agree.

It looks like the problem will be self correcting by letting nature take it's course and start to proon the gunless from the gun toting, It's like paper-rock-scissors. Bullets always win against flesh and words.

It becomes easier now that the market is being flooded with assault rifles.

I predict a lot more argument losers will win the day by resorting to their weapons.

Dushan
9th Jan 2013, 00:01
con-pilot, you should go over to the "What would you ban" thread and tell us how you really feel about the evil spud.

Davaar
9th Jan 2013, 00:45
so heinous that I dare to mention its name.


What is this tarradiddle about the humble Brussels Sprout? I KNOW the fearsome THING that is streng verboten (English is too mealy-mouthed and wimpy to cover the topic) in hospitals and it is NOT the humble Brussels Sprout...................................................... ............................................................ ............................................................ ................................................ You dare, you say! Yes! I'll come right out and say it. The name is S*A*L*T, so there!

I was "in" almost exactly a year ago, and I had to get my daughter to smuggle in the fearsome contraband. The need was for an old Smith's Potato Crisps packet with the little blue twist of S*A*L*T enclosed.

Airborne Aircrew
9th Jan 2013, 01:03
See..

A perfectly good gun thread hijacked by the damned Brussel Sprout Mafia...

I tell you... It's going to take shotguns... Lot's of them to fix this growing trend towards eating Satan's farts!!!!

Phhhhhwar... Don't know what the world is coming to... Mumble, mutter, mumble, mumble...

MagnusP
9th Jan 2013, 07:02
Hey, con-pilot, here's a recipe to brighten your day! :p

Rachel Allen's luxury Christmas leftovers recipe: Brussels sprout soup | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-1101843/Rachel-Allens-luxury-Christmas-leftovers-recipe-Brussels-sprout-soup.html)

probes
9th Jan 2013, 07:26
Airborne Aircrew:There is a real need for a serious discussion about gun control
maybe you should begin from the beginning and explain what you mean by 'gun control' first.
Handling guns, selling guns, buying guns, storing guns, making sure guns aren't in wrong hands or something else - seems to have been a total mix in the threads up to now.
I have understood 'f-furriners' are not welcome (though it often helps when you get a view from the distance, and I don't mean myself as the viewer specifically - why be so hypersensitive about it?), but seriously, the fury about the amendment as a holy sacrament does seem weird. Because it means one possible [as it is possible to amend amendments, if people want to and need to] solution can't even be discussed, because.
What I have not understood is how more regulations on owning guns would affect the people who want to have good gun-skills, or teach their children in the field. The equipment could be kept in a secure club or something (which would also mean if you go there and have to speak to some people at least, they might notice if you've become unreasonable)? Also it might be reasonable to keep something at home, but again - there's a line somewhere. If one needs an assault rifle to make sure his wife won't miss the trespasser, why not a couple of grenades as well, then. And I'm not being sarcastic - for me the assault rifle seems as absurd as anti-tank warfare at home.

Airborne Aircrew
9th Jan 2013, 14:13
Probes:

It does seem odd that the 2nd garners biblical like devotion to someone unfamiliar with the psyche of America.

Until the last decade or two Americans have, as a whole, been a fiercely independent bunch forged by a firm belief in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Americans have always believed that the Founding Fathers framed the documents to prevent government from getting out of control and that this was achieved by only allowing government certain powers and by specifically leaving all other powers in the hands of the people. This is unusual in most countries in that, for the largest part, their political systems allow governments to decide what powers they do and don't have. Americans have also been brought up believing that all this is just words without teeth and that the second amendment gives "The People" those teeth. Again, this is unusual in most political systems.

There is an inbred distrust of government over here. It's different from the distrust Europeans profess to. After all, America is the country the phrase "I love my country yet I fear my government" came from. The People's rights may not be infringed upon nor removed but governments can be.

The independence of the people and the seemingly unusual, (to many Europeans), "being prepared" for disaster or emergency is so ingrained the government even dedicates an entire web site to emergency preparedness at Home | Ready.gov (http://www.ready.gov/). To many on both sides of the political divide part of that "preparedness" is having weapons to protect oneself. I'll admit to being surprised sometimes when I thought I knew someone only to find that, quietly, they own several firearms and claim they would resist any attempt by government to remove them.

Once one begins to grasp that ingrained psyche it begins to become clear how any kind of gun control is impractical at best.

There are certain, incontrovertible facts.

1. The Second Amendment is at the core of American law and society and the right of the people to keep and bear arms has been upheld on several occasions at the Supreme Court. In other words, "The People" have an absolute, unimpeachable right to own and carry any number of guns.

2. If you repeal or change the Second Amendment in any way that restricts that absolute right then the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights must be torn up and started again. Why? Because when Law Enforcement comes to my door I'll tell them they were lost in a boating accident in Lake Michigan. Should he believe me then the changes to the law have done nothing but make me a criminal. If they don't believe me then the Fourth Amendment, (protection from illegal search and seizure), has to go too because the US courts couldn't handle the number of requests for search warrants. When they come back with or without a warrant and can't find my guns they'll ask me where they are. I, being fiercely independent, will plead the 5th Amendment. Again, the changes in the law have done nothing but make me a criminal. So they need to coerce me somehow to tell them. That will probably force them to write off the Eighth Amendment protecting me from excessive fines or bail. Again, I'm a criminal and the Bill of Rights is crumbling before us. No matter what you do no government would be supported in such a complete rape of the founding documents.

3. There are simply too many guns spread far and wide in the USA that even an attempt to register them all would be a costly exercise in futility. Granted, many would follow the law fully. Many will follow it partially by registering guns that might be tracked to them and not those that may not. Lastly, some will totally ignore it. Remember, the fear of registration is palpable here. Once a gun is registered it can be removed and Americans fear that. So, registration or removal of all the weapons in the USA is impossible and will leave only criminals with guns. It's too late to try to restrict.

4. If you ban/blanket register guns in the USA you will simply drive a healthy black market in them. America has demonstrated both with drugs and illegal immigrants that they either lack the ability or the real desire to stop the influx of either. Guns would be no different. So, removing or registering as many guns as you can now simply ensures that you will no longer be able to find any guns in the future except by luck.

So it is clear that instituting any form of ban or mass registration which so many seem to think is practical is, in fact, a pipe dream and some other way of trying to prevent episodes such as Newtown need to be considered.

The current wisdom seems to think that banning "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines it the way to go. It sounds all super dooper but, in reality, it does nothing. "Assault weapons" are, frankly, aggressive looking weapons that often lack the power of many of their less aggressive looking cousins. High capacity magazines is a bit of a red herring too. The Newtown shooter had 14 minutes and killed 26 people. That's a victim every 32.307 seconds. There are people with single shot muzzle loaders that could maintain that rate of fire so the ability to fire a large number of rounds quickly and without reloading clearly isn't necessarily a major factor in the body count. Even in Aurora the shooter only managed to kill 12 people in around three minutes which is hardly a rapid fire situation.

There are two factors that always seem to crop up in any incident such as this. One is the mental state of the shooter which, time and time again has been shown to be in an unbalanced state with some correlation between the sickness of the individual and the number of victims being apparent. Secondly, the duration of the attack which, while seeming to be intuitive, actually clearly demonstrates that the sooner an attack can be brought to a close the less victims we end up with.

It is well known that the Community Mental Health system in the USA has been decimated over the last two decades and the victims of that decimation are either shunted in and out of prisons or walk the streets among us. This needs to be fixed. People need to be able to be committed without their consent when they are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. That would go a long way to removing the people who shouldn't be around guns from the guns themselves.

Lastly, despite all the squealing from the politicians and the fluffies that are hell bent on removing all guns, there is a will in the USA to protect schools and other places where these events happen.

School teachers in Texas and Ohio are flocking to free firearms classes in the wake of the Connecticut elementary school massacre, some vowing to protect their students with guns even at the risk of losing their jobs.


In Ohio, more than 900 teachers, administrators and school employees asked to take part in the Buckeye Firearms Association's newly created, three-day gun training program, the association said.


In Texas, an $85 Concealed Handgun License (CHL) course offered at no cost to teachers filled 400 spots immediately, forcing the school to offer another class, one instructor said.


"Any teacher who is licensed and chooses to be armed should be able to be armed," said Gerald Valentino, co-founder of the Buckeye Firearms Association. "It should be every teacher's choice."
Source (http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-training-teachers-to-use-guns-0109-20130108,0,4582657.story)

The teachers themselves are prepared to risk their jobs to be able to be in a position to protect their charges. 900 stepped forward in Ohio alone. How many would step forward if the school encouraged armed teachers in the schools? The simple knowledge that there are armed people in these gun free zones will deter many of the attackers in the first place. Those who come anyway now will be opposed, slowed down and possibly killed or disabled before they can complete their "mission".

There are alternatives to draconian, government run schemes that scare the populace and ensure nothing will change. All that needs to be done is to remove the wailing scaremongers from the discussion and consider viable solutions. Failure to do that is to assure that the status quo will remain and sometime in the next few months some other nutcase will walk into a gun free zone in an effort to outdo the last one.

stuckgear
9th Jan 2013, 14:26
Guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns! :ugh:

Sick and tired about all this nonsense about guns. :rolleyes:

When are we ever going to discuss something really important; female breasts?

corrected for you CP.

NB: and i don't mind the subject expansion into T&A..

rgbrock1
9th Jan 2013, 14:53
Caco:

Don't be apprehensive about airborne being armed. he was once in the Air Force. They, by their very nature, haven't a clue how real shooting is done. :p:p:}:}

rgbrock1
9th Jan 2013, 14:54
stuckgear.

You DO know that Slasher is back on board? And you mention about female breasts? (A lofty topic for sure.)

Slash buddy? Any input into this?

rgbrock1
9th Jan 2013, 14:59
Airborne:

Quote from General Stanley A. McChrystal. Former head honcho in Afghanistan, US Army Airborne Ranger, US Army Special Forces, Army Infantryman and ultra-conservative:

"I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine," he said. "And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. That's what our soldiers ought to carry."

Said McChrystal, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

McChrystal, though he resigned in disgrace in 2010 after a Rolling Stone article, is still revered by many as a top general, and his comments are significant for a former member of the military. If he does continue to advocate for gun control, he could be a significant voice in a movement whose opposition appeals to machismo.

"I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don't think that's enough," he said.

Asked what his message was to the National Rifle Association and the House Judiciary Committee, he said, "I think we have to look at the situation in America. The number of people killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. I don't think we're a bloodthirsty culture, and we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people."

The SSK
9th Jan 2013, 15:06
Airborne Aircrew said (post #1)

There is a real need for a serious discussion
Then he said (post #38)

There are certain, incontrovertible facts

Blah blah blah
1. Blah
2. Blah
3. Blah
4. Blah
Blah blah blah
End of discussion

Airborne Aircrew
9th Jan 2013, 15:16
RGB:

but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our populationI'll point you back to something I linked to the other day regarding this by Massad Ayoob. He pointed out that the police currently use semi-automatic pistols and "assault weapons" with high capacity magazines because, as the experts in the field of protecting civilians they have deemed that this is what they need to do it properly. That being the case and knowing as we all do that when seconds count the police are only minutes away, logically semi-automatic pistols and "assault weapons" with high capacity magazines are the best things for us to protect ourselves with while we await rescue. Telling me that I can't have the weapons that the police deem necessary to protect us is paramount to simply taking all weapons.

McChrystal has an opinion and is entitled to it but it is just that, an opinion. If you put him in a situation in his house or neighborhood where someone heavily armed is a threat I'll guarantee you, given a good selection of weapons, he won't choose the .22lr target pistol if there is a .223 "assault weapon" lying there. Anyone can talk a good game but when confronted with a situation they will pick the tool that gives them the best choice of success. McChrystal is no different to anyone else in this matter.

Davaar
9th Jan 2013, 15:31
There is a real need for a serious discussion about gun control but for some reason it can't be discussed sensibly here

I may have contributed (by response to an earlier contributor's sneering pomposity) to the disquiet that led, I suppose, to the banning; but here it is revived perhaps peripherally but with apparent impunity. I notice but do not reply to the slur on my mental capacity because I own a rifle. That rifle is in a locked steel case ten miles away, and the ammunition in another locked case more miles in another direction. Each is behind two separate keys, which only I have.

Although the topic may not be discussed here, it certainly is discussed in the press. We take "The Globe and Mail", the "Sun", and "The National Post", and today's editions of each contain comment, one or more of editorial, columnar, or in letters to the editor, all on the refusal of the police to protect life and property and refusal to ignore judicial order. They do not want to hurt anyone, they say, but (unsaid) they do not give a hoot about peril to life, limb, and property on the railway.

Lack of an effective police force was the classic route to vigilante justice in the developing West. Not surprised.

It is popular among the unthinking to knock royalty, ignoring the fact that the King's peace replaced the rule of local potentates some 800 years ago. Now we have the rule or misrule of the interest group.

green granite
9th Jan 2013, 15:37
There are those that like guns and insist on keeping them, there are those that hate guns and want to ban them, both side are intransigent. What is there to discuss?

Airborne Aircrew
9th Jan 2013, 15:39
SSK:

End of discussion

You failed to read the last paragraph then... :hmm:

con-pilot
9th Jan 2013, 15:50
With great reluctance I will temporarily leave the subject of the dreaded Brussels sprout and comment of something that I heard reported about the Newtown shooting.

One of the laws that has been proposed was to increase the distance around schools that will declared a 'No Gun' area.

Well, I'm sure that will work. :rolleyes:

That just means that any person wanting to carry out such a horrible crime, will just have to go farther in a 'No Gun' area to reach their target.

And the geniuses that came up with this idea, make other laws.

Nobody thinks twice about having armed guards to protect money, but armed guards to protect children is not acceptable.

Yeah, that make sense.

Someone figured out that the killer broke over a hundred laws, city, county, state and federal that day. Like one more law would have stopped him.

The only way to effectively stop some one from shooting at you, is to shoot back.

Unless of course, they are shooting Brussels sprouts.

Dushan
9th Jan 2013, 15:57
But con, is it OK to shoot .223 back at Brussels Sprouts? I would think, yes.

hellsbrink
9th Jan 2013, 16:03
But con, is it OK to shoot .223 back at Brussels Sprouts? I would think, yes.

.223? The fields are prime practice grounds for Daisycutters or MOAB's. Small tactical nukes are also acceptable, as are multiple RPG's or M270's.

But a .223? That ain't enough to rid us of the scourge of sprouts.... :yuk:

con-pilot
9th Jan 2013, 16:04
When it comes to Brussels sprouts, scorched Earth would be the best tactic I do believe.

hellsbrink
9th Jan 2013, 16:08
Maybe not, C-P, because we have to think of the damage to the ozone layer from the fumes because of burning them.

High explosives, much more fun and just as effective.....

Dushan
9th Jan 2013, 16:09
Is Agent Orange still available?

Edited to add: Art Bell or Jesse Ventura may know where there is a secret government depository.

Octopussy2
9th Jan 2013, 16:16
I agree entirely with all the views expressed thus far on this thread regarding sprouts.

Airbourne I too am puzzled about why you perceive a need for further discussion. Seems to me you don't need to convince anybody. At present, those who share your views are "winning" - I don't foresee any serious attempt at gun control in the US, I doubt there is genuinely any political will for it, and even if there were, it seems that the difficulty in changing the Constitution would simply be too great. Add the NRA and the commercial interests that support it into the mix, and I suspect that even if the majority of American citizens supported enhanced gun control, it still wouldn't happen.

Seems to me it would take a miracle to alter the status quo now. And the majority of pro-gun posters on this thread are happy with that. So what's left to discuss?

Dushan
9th Jan 2013, 16:31
I notice but do not reply to the slur on my mental capacity because I own a rifle. That rifle is in a locked steel case ten miles away, and the ammunition in another locked case more miles in another direction. Each is behind two separate keys, which only I have.



But Davaar, what will you do if the Leeeberal come to your home and attack?

Turbine D
9th Jan 2013, 16:32
Airborne,
Perhaps this is what happened in the demise of the last thread and your vanishing posting:

CHAMP - lights out (Video) (http://www.boeing.com/Features/2012/10/bds_champ_10_22_12.html)

Moral of the story, don't get too personal with those who happen to think differently than you do.....

TD

Airborne Aircrew
9th Jan 2013, 17:39
Octopussy:

I don't foresee any serious attempt at gun control in the USI suppose it's not splattered all over your Swiss TV but right now the VP is "taking advice" from everyone involved at the White House so that he can properly advise Barry on what to do. At the same time the White House is investigating ways Barry can effect some/any controls on guns/ammunition/magazine sizes/etc. without the need to go through Congress - effectively ripping up the 2nd Amendment.

There are two things Liberals fear. An educated electorate and an armed one because they cannot simply dictate to either. I'm afraid I don't share your trust in the US government - especially this one.

Airborne Aircrew
9th Jan 2013, 17:40
But Davaar, what will you do if the Leeeberal come to your home and attack?

Attack? They are more likely to redecorate... :E

Davaar
9th Jan 2013, 18:21
But Davaar, what will you do if the Leeeberal come to your home and attack?



I shall turn to my new manual, my very first book by Karl May ("Winnetou") at page 1:

When he gets his ears boxed by an Irishman, a greenhorn runs off and takes his case to a judge, instead of just shooting the fellow on the spot like a real Yankee would.

I shall go Yankee and take my keys to where the hardware is. Snag is, da Leeberal has taken everything from me already.

I believe there are chaps who swim the Rio Grande to the Promised Land. I wonder if they are keeping a close watch on the other river? Die Wacht am St Lawrence"? Pity is I don't swim more than about fifteen paces.

Notice the report in the Post today, page 1, from the UK?

British Experts Cool on Warming -- Weather Office -- Temperature Predictions cut by 20%.

Oh! What a surprise! That will rock you on your heels! Someone should tell Hudak. I think I shall.

bcgallacher
9th Jan 2013, 18:28
More than 20,000 - yes 20,000 people die each year in the USA from gunshot wounds,8 children a day, yet Airborne is totally correct when he says gun control is not the answer. There are over 200 million guns legal and otherwise in US society and no law will ever reduce that number, it is just not a practical proposition.Gun control will only work in a society such us the UK where the guns are not yet there. Enforcing gun control laws to prevent guns getting into society is relatively easy -removing them when they are already there is well nigh impossible.We Brits do not have a gun culture of any significance and are fortunate that the mass slaughter of the USA does not exist on a regular basis. I think that the latest gun murders in the last year totalled 44, USA -9000 +. We have nut jobs in our country the same as the USA but they do not have the same access to firearms -many criminal gun deaths are carried out using backyard conversions of gas powered pistols as the real thing is difficult to come by. I have received training in rifle and pistol shooting and enjoyed many hours on the shooting range in Tucson but I would not like to have US gun culture here - the price is too high.

Airborne Aircrew
9th Jan 2013, 18:47
BC:

I think you'll find that more than half those gun deaths are not murders but suicides by gun. Typically, the US has 10,000 +/- gun deaths per year with around 55% being suicides, numerous accidents and the rest being murders. Interestingly, they never break out the percentage of murders that take place as a result of gang or drug related strife - which, to be honest, bother me little - criminals killing criminals saves the police have to go on the two way range with them. I'd wager a good number of the murders would be attributable to that.

BenThere
9th Jan 2013, 19:23
One of the many reasons tens of millions of Americans have guns in the house is that we anticipate the risk of needing them for one reason or another. We might need to hunt, we might need to defend.

I think it's great if citizens of other nations are comfortable that they will never have such needs, but taking the long view, and reviewing history, I'm not convinced theirs is sure to prove the better path.

I deplore the violence that makes armed self defense necessary in the US, but I didn't create that. I only have to live with it and cope in the best way I can. For me that means arming myself.

brickhistory
9th Jan 2013, 19:31
Looks like Barry is contemplating an Executive Order regarding gun control.

His very first Executive Order way back in January, 2009, was to order Guantenemo Bay closed.


That said, he is attempting to create tens of millions of lawbreakers by fiat.

He will fail, but the pot will increasing the roiling.


First time in my life that I think this could actually get ugly. Not a huge percentage, at present.

But not unthinkable.

con-pilot
9th Jan 2013, 19:56
Looks like Barry is contemplating an Executive Order regarding gun control.


'It's good to be the King.'

Mel Brooks

421dog
9th Jan 2013, 20:05
..."don't be ridiculous, I love the peasants... Pull!"

Airborne Aircrew
9th Jan 2013, 20:41
Looks like Barry is contemplating an Executive Order regarding gun control.

That is so... so... Barry... No thought for laws or Constitution.

boofhead
9th Jan 2013, 21:04
Canadians across the border probably have access to the same amount of guns as they do in the US but they don't use them for murder at nearly the same rate. Mexicans have supposedly restricted access but have a sky-high gun murder rate. This should show that the number of guns in circulation has little to do with the rates of gun crime, or simply removing some of the guns will not reduce gun crime.

Most of the crime committed in the US is restricted to the black and Latino communities, usually involves young black or Latino youths, and if those numbers were removed from the statistics you would see that the white male in the US has no higher rates of crime, particularly murders using guns, than the rates in the UK or other industrialized countries. So what exactly are we trying to do by restricting gun rights? I fail to see how the major users of guns to commit crime would be affected at all, in fact it has been stated that the gun control measures are not aimed at the criminals, only the honest citizen, who is not the problem.

It was sad to see that after Sandy Hook everyone jumped on the band wagon to control guns, then after that young lady in Georgia defended herself with a .38 everyone jumped off again. People are driven by emotions and have a very short attention span.

I have read reports that attribute crazy behavior to persons who are taking, or have recently stopped taking, psychotropic drugs. Drugs the left will have us give to all our kids if they had their way. Those drugs have severe side-effects, including suicidal tendencies and rage. All of the past mass murderers using guns, not just in the US, have had a connection to those drugs. Maybe, just maybe, the real problem is the drugs, not that those people are "crazy" (although it is probably true) as a major cause.

The chemical industry, fostered by the loonies, might be the true villains here. Maybe we need to restrict access to those drugs (and that should be possible, since the drugs in question are legal and given by prescription) and if it is truly necessary to use them, that people should be warned to watch out for questionable behavior and act sooner to reduce the probability of an event.

Dushan
9th Jan 2013, 21:40
I shall turn to my new manual, my very first book by Karl May ("Winnetou") at page 1:



I used to read Karl May, when I was 9 or 10...:D:D

Dushan
9th Jan 2013, 21:46
Looks like Barry is contemplating an Executive Order regarding gun control.

His very first Executive Order way back in January, 2009, was to order Guantenemo Bay closed.




And what are the chances of this one being carried out? The Gitmo "guests" have no arms (as in firearms, not talking about Captain Hook, here). 100 million Americans do.

"From my cold, dead, hands..."

Eve He wouldn't dare..

Davaar
9th Jan 2013, 23:20
I used to read Karl May, when I was 9 or 10

I knew he existed, but had never read him. Right now I am thinking of becoming a frontiersman, just like his so-far namelesss hero in "Winnetou". There must still be some vacancies.

I even have, or had, some of the gifts. I am or was quite deft with the .303 and .22 rifle, and that was of importance on the frontier.

Of late, true, the target seems much further away.

Then again, I used to ride a horse, and had a modest skill at jumping, and I don't just mean these fiddle-faddle obstacles in the ring where the top beam falls off at first tap, but your solid timber tree-trunks built across the trails in the Great North Woods.

If one had, as one often did, correctly, the premonition of a coming fall, one rolled after the fall to the side of the trail as fast as could be, unseen by the following thundering herd that threatened conversion to mincemeat.

That I could do, but I never rose to the heights of skill admitted by this hero-chap. His challenge was to ride a chestnut stallion that none had ridden before. As he put it: "Pshaw!"

When he clambered on board, the horse was "very unruly"; but chap asked for whip and spurs. I never did that, but more was to come. As the two stable-boys at the bit lit off for safety:

Instantly, the mare jumped once straight in the air, and then a second time off to the side, etc., etc.

There I leave them. I could never quite catch the trick that he had mastered of getting on to a stallion, converting him in mid-encounter to a mare, and then before dismounting effect a reverse change back to stallion.

421dog
10th Jan 2013, 00:11
Sounds akin to "Fenimore Coopers Literary Offenses"

Turbine D
10th Jan 2013, 00:36
Airborne,
If you put him in a situation in his house or neighborhood where someone heavily armed is a threat I'll guarantee you, given a good selection of weapons, he won't choose the .22lr target pistol if there is a .223 "assault weapon" lying there. Anyone can talk a good game but when confronted with a situation they will pick the tool that gives them the best choice of success.
You are wrong, nobody in their right mind has a assault weapon laying around unless they are in a war zone. Secondly, you don't need one to do the job, a pistol will do it better as the lady from Georgia demonstrated.
Three recent success stories:
Conneticut man accidentally shoots and kills his son
A teacher attempting to assist his sister in their quiet Connecticut suburb when she believed she was being robbed shot a masked stranger during a late-night confrontation. But Jeffrey Giuliano, 44, didn't realize that he had gunned down and killed his teenage son until the boy was identified by authorities.
CHICAGO (CBS) — A retired Chicago police officer accidentally shot and killed his son early Tuesday, after mistaking him for a burglar, the officer’s family said.
Man Accidentally Shoots and Kills Son
By: YNN Staff
What was supposed to be a fun summer motorcycle trip ended in tragedy Saturday morning as an off-duty Perry police officer mistakenly shot and killed his 37 year-old son at a motel in Herkimer County. Our Andrew Sorensen tells us the incident has left the quiet Adirondack village stunned and saddened.

Knowing you have much more training than these police officers in the handling and use of weapons in stressful situations, I am sure these successes will inspire your ambitions, keep talking the good game...

TD

Airborne Aircrew
10th Jan 2013, 01:40
TrD:

You are wrong, nobody in their right mind has a assault weapon laying around unless they are in a war zone. Secondly, you don't need one to do the job, a pistol will do it better as the lady from Georgia demonstrated.Did you read what I wrote? If you did, did you understand what I said? Because, from here you are, seemingly, in some other conversation. Reread this:-

If you put him in a situation in his house or neighborhood where someone heavily armed is a threat I'll guarantee you, given a good selection of weapons, he won't choose the .22lr target pistol if there is a .223 "assault weapon" lying there. Anyone can talk a good game but when confronted with a situation they will pick the tool that gives them the best choice of success. I bolded the important bit to help you out....

I think this will be the second time I've pointed out that you are in the deep end of the gene pool and are, somehow, treading water. Go home, there are tadpoles that need your intellectual input.

galaxy flyer
10th Jan 2013, 03:31
I'm also tired of these endless hamster wheel.

Those opposed to guns need to embrace real life and understand it is tragic, bad things happen to perfectly innocent people. No one of those bad things happened because an inanimate object, became alive and decided to kill, maim or scare people. Everyone of those bad things happened because a human, or a group of humans, made a error, intentionally assaulted the innocent or could not foresee the effects of a bad decision made at a remove.

The week 26 people were viciously killed in Newtown, 100 or so were killed on the US highways, 10 were killed in Chicago, all drug-related and black. In most major cities had similar murder rates. As was noted, take out the criminal connected murders in the highly controlled inner cities, the murder rate is not near as horrible as many thnk n the US. Being murdered in a mass attack is probably less likely than dying in a terrorist attack. Yet, the same people who posted "those who would give up their freedoms for temporary security, deserve neither", now, all too happily are ready to take some people's freedoms just because they don't like those freedoms aka rights.

GF

Seldomfitforpurpose
10th Jan 2013, 03:44
Go home, there are tadpoles that need your intellectual input.

You asked why these threads seldom have any longevity and you had the answer right in front of you all the time, someone posts an opposing opinion and you simply insult him :=

Rather than gun control maybe examining gun perception would be the way to try and make sense of it all. In a recent thread someone posted a stat saying only 40% of US households owned guns.

In simplistic terms that means that two thirds of Americans feel safe enough in their own homes to go to bed at night without needing a gun to hand.

Does this mean that somewhere in the region of 200 million of your fellow countrymen have got it wrong?

hellsbrink
10th Jan 2013, 04:10
And how, pray tell, will any sort of "education" program about firearms stop the gangs from using them? How will any huggy-fluff concept of changing "gun perception" stop criminals from being armed?

Tell us, oh wise one, how you will change the hearts and minds of those who have no intention of obeying the law, for these are the ones who are the reason some people feel the need to be armed......


bcgallacher

We have nut jobs in our country the same as the USA but they do not have the same access to firearms -many criminal gun deaths are carried out using backyard conversions of gas powered pistols as the real thing is difficult to come by.

Not according to what UK Gov stats say. "Real" firearms are still the weapon of choice, any sort of of incident using a air or gas powered pistol is a bit further down the list at just over half the number of incidents where "real" firearms were used. Of the incidents where an actual firearm was used in some way, 44% of those were handguns. Shows how good the UK "gun control" works, don't it..........

Richo77
10th Jan 2013, 05:01
I can hang out by the lake, drink beer and / or pina coladas, eat good food with good people, go fishing, swimming, and having lots of fun.

Dont need anyone's guns to a) do it or b) protect me whilst doing it.

Thank F*CK.

Octopussy2
10th Jan 2013, 07:13
Airborne the assumption that, because one lives in Switzerland, one does not have access to world media is a little naive.

It's not "trust" in the US government that I was expressing. But you're well aware of that, I suspect.

Even if the government attempts to pass legislation, it's inevitable that it will face the same treatment as the Brady Act did from the NRA and its commercial supporters. As I said, even if the majority of American citizens supported change I suspect it wouldn't happen. The odds against are just stacked too high.

I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, but sadly I suspect I won't be.

And on that note, I'm done debating this. There's just no point.

probes
10th Jan 2013, 07:34
OK, I see, Airborne Aircrew.
It does seem odd that the 2nd garners biblical like devotion to someone unfamiliar with the psyche of America.
so you actually wanted to discuss that once again. But that's something everyone (I guess) understood at least 3 threads back. Accidents happen, school shootings happen. Guns are part of the personal pride of an American man (and maybe woman) and let's be practical (which should sum up the rest of the long post. I appreciate you taking the trouble once again, though).
That's that, then.


I personally love Brussels sprouts and any other Brassica as well, btw.

P.S just one thing - if
The independence of the people and the seemingly unusual, (to many Europeans), "being prepared" for disaster or emergency is so ingrained the government even dedicates an entire web site to emergency preparedness at Home | Ready.gov (http://www.ready.gov/). - how come people went to the evacuation centres during the Katrina and the world was shown videoclips with them complaining the government hadn't provided them with food and drinking water? One wouldn't need a website to fill some bottles with water when a hurricane is forecast, and put some slices of bread to the pocket before leaving home?

hellsbrink
10th Jan 2013, 10:21
You best look closer into Katrina before saying more, probes, the initial problems were caused by the New Orleans mayor and his decisions. All of this has been gone over before....

Seldomfitforpurpose
10th Jan 2013, 10:25
And how, pray tell, will any sort of "education" program about firearms stop the gangs from using them? How will any huggy-fluff concept of changing "gun perception" stop criminals from being armed?

Tell us, oh wise one, how you will change the hearts and minds of those who have no intention of obeying the law, for these are the ones who are the reason some people feel the need to be armed......


Ercule

Where did I mention either criminals or education :confused:

All I suggested was that if 60% of ordinary folk in a country are capable of existing quite happily without a gun do the other 40% who feel they can't really have any justifiable fears?

Airborne Aircrew
10th Jan 2013, 10:33
Probes:

how come people went to the evacuation centres during the KatrinaI did make that point that things have been changing over the last couple of decades didn't I? ;)

Katrina was actually a wonderful demonstration of how recent changes have created a huge, dependent population that simply turn to government with their hand out when things aren't going well. Furthermore, it's a perfect example of how government couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery. From hundreds of school buses left idle that could have shipped hundreds or thousands of people out of town, to stupid governors that delayed requesting federal assistance the whole thing was a mess. But, in my opinion, that does not absolve the people from their responsibility to firstly help themselves, (cue jokes about looters :} ).

Octopussy:

I wasn't being trite, you genuinely seemed unaware of the moves by the liberals over here to enact gun control even if it means ignoring the Constitution and, as is being threatened by the Vice President, simply using an Executive order which bypasses Congress to enact said controls.

brickhistory
10th Jan 2013, 13:09
In simplistic terms that means that two thirds of Americans feel safe enough in their own homes to go to bed at night without needing a gun to hand.


All I suggested was that if 60% of ordinary folk in a country are capable of
existing quite happily without a gun do the other 40% who feel they can't really have any justifiable fears?



Very, very broad assumptions and statements.

You have no way of knowing why those 60% (source please) have no firearms nor that they do or do not live in fear or that they do so 'quite happily.' I'd be willing to wager that there are law-abiding residents of New York or Chicago who wold very much like to have a gun, but the restrictions imposed make it nearly impossible to do so.

You have no way of knowing that those 40% (source please) that do have firearms do or do not live in fear.

Anecdotally, I possess firearms because they are toosl that could come in useful at some point.

It is enjoyable to shoot much as any sport or hobby is. It is a way to take the mind of daily cares and towards something else for a little while.

I have them because I can admire the craftsmanship and engineering done to produce a firearm. I can tinker (badly) to see if I can modify the piece to perform better for me or improve the appearance.

As a white male that doesn't engage in particularly risky behavior - no drug deals, avoiding known 'no go' areas of my community after dark, etc, etc, I have very little to fear regarding violent assualt.

I own because I can and I choose to. There is no power on earth that can take that away from me. There can be attempts, however.

MagnusP
10th Jan 2013, 13:17
Brick, SFFP's switch from "households" to "Americans" is also rather disingenuous inasmuch as we have no idea of the levels of gun support or opposition in either the 40% of households armed or the 60% unarmed.

Lies, damned lies and statistics?

Sprogget
10th Jan 2013, 13:33
I'm staying out of this one save to say as an observer, it's come to a pretty pass when Piers Morgan is not the most unhinged tosspot in a two way conversation.

ExXB
10th Jan 2013, 13:42
Another pointless thread lead by a bunch of old white guys who;


Are quite happy with the status quo (which hasn't yet affected them),

Are unconcerned because it's mostly blacks, latinos killing other blacks and latinos (which hasn't yet affected them),

See 'controls' as meaning government confiscation of their weapons even though nobody has suggested any such thing,

See 2nd amendment as god given and sacred, even though other amendments have be repealed when the people wanted it. (You can drink to that one),

Are not prepared to listen to anybody else's view, other than those other old white guys.


Is the status quote really acceptable? If you think yes, don't bother replying. If not, what measures do you think will actually work?

rgbrock1
10th Jan 2013, 13:58
ExXB:

Not to worry. If one reads enough of the available literature one might note that there is currently a grass roots movement underway here in the U.S. whereby momentum is gaining, in individual towns and cities, where local government is passing statutes which will ban the sale of assault weapons.
Once the statutes are passed, they will be put up for a vote by the citizens.

Slowly but surely one is going to see the revocation of the "right" of any citizen in this country to own an assault weapon.

And for those who don't think this is going to happen I suggest preparing yourself for the inevitable.

It's the way it's going to be and if you don't like it, tough shit.

Keef
10th Jan 2013, 14:20
It always baffled me that the amendment to allow a local militia ended up meaning that everyone could have a personal armoury, but that's how it went.

It baffles me even more to read the furious and vicious posts by the protagonists on both sides. It's obviously a highly emotional topic, where I suspect most folks outside the USA can't understand the passion it engenders.

Some strange arguments are used too, like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" - true, but an awful lot of people kill people using guns. It's a lot easier to kill someone unintentionally with a gun (like the unfortunates mentioned above) than with bare hands.

It makes me very uncomfortable, when I enter the USA, to see the immigration man sitting there in his uniform, with a revolver strapped to his side. I worry that if I get an answer wrong I'll be shot on the spot. Do immigration officers really need to be able to kill me, and what are the guidelines about when they may do so?

To me, the bottom line is that there are so many guns in private hands in the USA that any law to control them is going to take a very long time to get them out of circulation. "If I were going there, I wouldn't start from here."

Turbine D
10th Jan 2013, 14:22
Airborne,
She won't get this until she is seven.... Which is one year and one day away...
With skill comes fun.. and responsibility... Yes, even at seven.
It seems to me that on the issue of gun control or not, you seem to show a significant home invasion paranoid factor surpassing all others. The above quote along with a picture of a "pink" rifle for a 7 year old daughter is indicative of the degree of paranoia. I suppose the old process of having baby's first shoes bronzed will be replaced by having baby's first firearm bronzed in your world...

TD

MagnusP
10th Jan 2013, 14:33
Wrong, ExXB; I think you'll find that most supporters of the 2nd are sanguine about criminals killing criminals. Whether they're black, latino or Martian doesn't enter into it.

421dog
10th Jan 2013, 14:48
You should see the .275 Rigby I built on a Steyr Mauser action for my (currently 6 year old) son

I'm not going to give it to him until he's old enough, but I appreciate the sentiment.

I've a daughter who will likely be more of an upland hunter, and I have a 20 gauge Beretta silver pigeon with a 28 gauge frame which I'm looking forward to moving her into.

Regardless, my kids will appreciate the fact that, at least for the present, they live in the last place in the world wherein there is at least lip service to the idea that we the people are in control.

Seldomfitforpurpose
10th Jan 2013, 15:20
You have no way of knowing that those 40% (source please) that do have firearms do or do not live in fear.


Brick,

I got that stat from a previous thread and from one of the regular posters on here from your side of the pond however a quick google of 'how many US households have guns' gave me this

Who Owns Guns in America? — Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/owns-guns-america.html)

One-third of U.S. households own guns - UPI.com (http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-46991303850331/)

One-third of U.S. households own guns - UPI.com (http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-46991303850331/)

Gun ownership in the US: what the data can tell us | Harry J Enten | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/25/gun-ownership-us-data)

No great science to be drawn from any of the above apart from the plain and simple fact that more folks in your country seem to be able to go about their daily lives without the need for a gun, a bit like you it would seem, than those that do.

Which kind off comes right back to my question.

If most folk don't feel a need to keep a gun in the house to be safe why is it that some do?

bcgallacher
10th Jan 2013, 15:30
Airborne
The 9000+ figure is for homicides, Accidents,suicides etc bring the figure up to 23000. I have lived and worked in your country and understand your gun culture - I am just thankful that it does not exist in my country. I do not need a gun to protect my family from criminals as they do not have guns either.I can only hope it remains so.

galaxy flyer
10th Jan 2013, 16:15
SFFP

One might say the 60% are "freeloading" off the 40% that do have guns at home--bad guys can't be sure which homes do or do not have guns. In your country, the bad guys can be damned sure there are NO guns inside. That said, despite having many guns, none are loaded of outside the safe. And that said, "hot" house invasions are far more common than you might suppose.

bcgallcher what would William Wallace say about citizens without weapons? Why are you so sure the criminals don't have guns? The have been notable shootings over the years.

RGB. Don't be too sure about a reduction in "assault" style guns being banned, reduced or eliminated by new laws. They are flying off the shelves as are all the common accessories. There are now several manufacturers out West building them for in-state sales, no requirement to abide by Federal law in those cases. After all, despite the magazine ban in DC, Gregory had no problem getting one for his stunt. The ONLY outcome of these proposed laws would be control, subject and disarm lawful citizens.

I know scads of guys who use "assault" style guns in appropriate caliber for varmint and deer hunting. The style has evolved into the most popular gun, despite the misgivings of traditionalists like myself who gravitate to Browning Superposed shotguns and Model 70 rifles.
GF

hellsbrink
10th Jan 2013, 16:32
All I suggested was that if 60% of ordinary folk in a country are capable of existing quite happily without a gun do the other 40% who feel they can't really have any justifiable fears?

Maybe, just maybe, because some of that 40% need to think about critters that tend to kill, as pointed out before, others think about humans who will try to kill (see repeated stories of home invaders being shot and think why the homeowner wanted to be armed), others actually shoot targets, and others actually hunt.


Also, if you try to get that hamster to run a little faster in your head, you would realise that not everyone lives in an area where crime is any sort of problem. Ergo, they feel no need to have a weapon for protection.

But we know you have no interest in the reasons people want to have a firearm, because you are still trying to press the same lame-ass attempt at an argument despite the small matter of you being told the same things and the same things being said countless times before in assorted threads. And that is one little nugget you cannot hide from.

Airborne

From hundreds of school buses left idle that could have shipped hundreds or thousands of people out of town

Indeed, with Nagin saying that they couldn't be used because there wasn't enough drivers (so why is there so many buses?) and they didn't have insurance cover to use them anyway!! Never mind Nagin not ordering the evac order until the day before Katrina was going to make landfall, the late order to have contra-flow traffic on the highways into Nawlins which meant the roads were gridlocked, the matter of only enough food and water for the planned 15,000 people taking refuge which ran out quickly as far more people went to the refuges due to the late call to evac and lack of transportation for people thanks to Nagin dropping more than one ball.....

Nobody is saying that FEMA and others didn't screw up, but if Nagin had done things right at the start then the issues would not have been so severe. That ain't the fault of the Government in any way, that's purely down to the local authority. After all, they knew that there were around 120,000 residents who had no personal transport, yet the local evac plan had no provisions in it for the evac of the poor, sick, homeless, elderly and infirm who had no personal transportation. So you can guess who the ones all crammed into the refuges were...........

rgbrock1
10th Jan 2013, 16:40
galaxy flyer wrote:

I know scads of guys who use "assault" style guns in appropriate caliber for varmint and deer hunting

How sad and pathetic.

Turbine D
10th Jan 2013, 16:44
Airborne,
I am going to try this one more time with you.
1. I am not against the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution that grants citizens in good standing the right to own firearms.
It seems that anyone that does not agree with your viewpoints is labeled:
A. Anti-gun
B. Anti 2nd Amendment
That isn't true, at least for me.

What I am against is the logic that possession of a semi-automatic assault rifle provides super-duper insurance in case of an unexpected home invasion, it is false logic in my opinion. Assuming a gun owner practices safety within the household, the semi-automatic assault rifle would be locked in a storage case or contained in a gun safe with a combination lock. The ammunition for the semi-assault rifle would be in a separate location, also under lock and key. Since, home invasions are quick and unexpected, one would have little chance of retrieving the weapon in the time frame of the invasion. On the other hand, if it was fully loaded, sitting next to the front door, that would be a different story but certainly one where safe gun ownership and safety would be highly absent.

So owning a semi-automatic assault rifle has nothing to do with home invasion protection as you have indicated in the past. Therefore owning this type of weaponry can only be for the fun of going to the range and expending lots of ammunition in my opinion.

TD

rgbrock1
10th Jan 2013, 16:48
Turbine D:

Another point you failed to mention about the ownership of semi-automatic assault weapons.

There's a lot of bravado talk about owning them and training with them on a range. Fact of the matter is, it takes a certain mind-set to depress the trigger when faced with another human being.

My estimate is that about 50% of the owners of these weapons would have them turned against them and be shot with their own weapon.

Davaar
10th Jan 2013, 17:42
I'm staying out of this one save to say as an observer, it's come to a pretty pass when Piers Morgan is not the most unhinged tosspot in a two way conversation.

It would never do, Sprogget, for me to agree with you completely. Can we settle, without prejudice, on your first six words above?

500N
10th Jan 2013, 17:55
421dog

"You should see the .275 Rigby I built on a Steyr Mauser action"

Showing a bit of class in using the words 275 Rigby !

SOPS
10th Jan 2013, 18:12
Can I ask Dushan, why the hell do you need an attack rifle? Just asking.

con-pilot
10th Jan 2013, 18:16
I have noticed these figures of 40 and 60 percent being tossed around here and think we need to look at those figures a little bit more realistically.

First off, the figure of 40% of Americans that own at least one gun, is a figure where 40% of the people asked admitted to owning a gun, coupled with those that have registered guns. Do you really believe the criminal and gang elements are going to admit to owning a gun? Of course not. I know of people that have guns that have never registered them, no law to do so when they were bought or live in a state that does not requite guns to be registered.

So right off the bat, we know that the 40/60 figure is incorrect, logic dictates that it must be. One could make a case that true, accurate figures are at the very least 50/50. Perhaps, if the truth was really known, there is a better than average chance that there are more households with guns than without.

Trust me, in my area, me not owning a gun, is the exception, not the rule.

Airborne Aircrew
10th Jan 2013, 18:28
bcgallacher:

Erm, your country is my country if we set aside the Scottish/English differences... I just happen to have lived here for an extended period, (25 years). That's how I can claim a fairly robust understanding of the culture and society.

Turbine:

I shall point you again to Massad Ayoob's piece that sensible and logically points out that 50 years ago police were armed with .38 specials. Coincidentally, the handgun armed populace were armed with similar. In the 70's and 80's The police moved to a semi-automatic, "large" capacity pistol backed up by a shotgun. Interestingly, the armed population moved to a similar regime. In the last decade or so the police have added an AR-15 "assault" type rifle with high capacity, (30 round), magazines. The armed population has followed suit. This is based on the plain logic that since the police are the current experts on defending civilians and have deemed the arsenal above as absolutely necessary for them it is only logical and sensible that in the time between calling the police and them actually arriving the absolute best weapons I can have available to myself are those that the police deem necessary. There is the logic and reason behind people being able to own "assault" type weapons.

You also conveniently forget that the second amendment is what guarantees that the government are always aware that "The People" are the final arbiter in this country not the government, though watching His Majesty King Barack may belie this truth on occasion.

RGB:

My estimate is that about 50% of the owners of these weapons would have them turned against them and be shot with their own weapon. Poppycock, Sir, utter poppycock.

You are saying that at least 50% of all bad guys will continue to advance when presented with the business end of an AR-15 or similar weapon. You're getting like SFFP you are with your applying superhuman powers to the bad guys while denigrating the good guy as a worthless, quivering nincompoops.

Lord Spandex Masher
10th Jan 2013, 18:47
Con Pilot, at the same time you could say that not everyone didn't admit to not owning a gun who did and, therefore, they didn't so making the 60% figure more accurate and thus the 40% figure just as accurate.






Probably.

Turbine D
10th Jan 2013, 18:50
Airborne,

You glossed over the main point I was making relative to a home invasion in:
the logic that possession of a semi-automatic assault rifle provides super-duper insurance in case of an unexpected home invasion, it is false logic in my opinion.

So because the police have upgraded to semi-automatic assault rifles with 30 round clips, you think it is appropriate for you and all gun owning citizens to do the same to prevent a home invasion? Do you keep your semi-automatic assault weapon fully loaded next to the front door? If not, it would be useless by the time you got to it.

TD

Airborne Aircrew
10th Jan 2013, 19:09
TD:

Why do you have tunnel vision on a home invasion? An Assault type weapon isn't, IMO, the best weapon in the close confines of a house. I have a pistol with 18 round magazines and a short barrelled 12 gauge pump action shotgun for in home defense. I don't actually own an "assault" type weapon. I'm happy with my current collection. But I can assure you that there is a loaded weapon on two of the three floors in my house and when I'm in the house for any extended period the pistol leaves it's biometric safe and follows me around.

Just at the beginning of November last year the lovely people in the City of Detroit were bound and determined to cause a fuss if Barry didn't get elected. I can assure you those rifles would have been obvious and ready to be used before the scum got inside the houses of their owners. That's where they have their place.

Lord Spandex Masher
10th Jan 2013, 19:13
Have you done anything...

...to set up a website where these discussions can take place freely...

...yet?

Lonewolf_50
10th Jan 2013, 19:19
SOPS:
Can I ask Dushan, why the hell do you need an attack rifle? Just asking.

1. It is any of your business what he wants or doesn't want? No, it isn't, when it gets right down to it.

If you don't want one, don't buy one.

The freedom to choose is part of what the "rights" issue is on this matter.

2. Would you care to explain to me what an "attack rifle" is?

Just asking.

con-pilot
10th Jan 2013, 19:28
Con Pilot, at the same time you could say that not everyone didn't admit to not owning a gun who did and, therefore, they didn't so making the 60% figure more accurate and thus the 40% figure just as accurate.



No, sorry to say that is not logical and/or passes the smell test.

The registration of guns in the vast majority of states is relatively new, depending on one's age. So the majority of gun owners would/will not take the time and trouble of going out of their way to registration guns, which many believed that it was no one's business that they owned guns, especially the government, state or federal.

Also, there are a great many reason for people not to admit that they own guns, ranging from just not wanting the hassle of having to register their guns, to paranoia that one day the government will kick in their door and take their guns away from them, an action that is advocated by Temp Spike.

Reasons to lie about owning a gun, there is only one, which takes the wind out of many of the anti-gun crowd here and elsewhere. The only possible reason to lie saying that they do own and keep a gun in their home, is to discourage the criminal element from attacking their home.

Which brings us to this. Which sign would most discourage a criminal from breaking into someone's home.

WARNING, THIS HOME IS PROTECTED WITH GUNS AND LETHAL FORCE WILL BE USED.

Or

WARNING, DO NOT ROB THIS HOUSE, OR WE WILL BE VERY CROSS WITH YOU AND MAY CALL THE POLICE, IF YOU ARE MEAN TO US.

:p

Lord Spandex Masher
10th Jan 2013, 19:32
No, sorry to say that is not logical and/or passes the smell test.

I guess I should've used smilies to indicate humour. :)

:rolleyes:

rgbrock1
10th Jan 2013, 19:40
Con-pilot

Let me ask you this. Do you see anything inherently wrong with some states not requiring registration of weapons yet All states require the registration of a motor vehicle.

Hmmmmm. Something wrong with that picture, eh?

Dushan
10th Jan 2013, 19:44
Can I ask Dushan, why the hell do you need an attack rifle? Just asking.

I don't. Need has nothing to do with it. I simply want one and that should be enough.

How many things do you have and have absolutely no need for? Fridge, air-conditioning, paintings/art, car/motor bike/bicycle/roller blades, house with front/back yard, lawnmower, toaster, TV, stereo, computer, phone. You realize that I can go on all day. What is the point? If you choose to have any of these who is stopping you? I am not questioning your desire to have them. Why are you questioning my desire to have another toy, and disguising it as if it is an issue of "need"?

rgbrock1
10th Jan 2013, 19:46
Airborne:

Your arguments about what type of weaponry law enforcement uses and trying to support that with the "right" of the citizenry to own similar is, quite frankly sir, both illogical and disingenuous.

Law enforcement also possesses armored vehicles, automatic rifles, grenades and assorted other weapons of mass assault. Using your argument then it is alright for your average joe blow to own the same?

BenThere
10th Jan 2013, 19:48
Do you see anything inherently wrong with some states not requiring registration of weapons yet All states require the registration of a motor vehicle.


I don't see anything wrong with it.

Had the founders foreseen the EPA, perhaps there might have been an amendment declaring, "Well-regulated transportation being necessary to the commerce of a free economy, the right to vehicles shall not be infringed."

Lord Spandex Masher
10th Jan 2013, 19:50
Dushan, why do you want one?

rgbrock1
10th Jan 2013, 19:57
BenThere:

Ummmmm, WTF does the EPA have to do with motor vehicle registration???

con-pilot
10th Jan 2013, 20:01
First to the Lord. ;)

Yes, that would have helped. :ok:

RG

Let me ask you this. Do you see anything inherently wrong with some states not requiring registration of weapons yet All states require the registration of a motor vehicle.

Hmmmmm. Something wrong with that picture, eh?
10th Jan 2013 14:32


While not a true expert on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I have studied them quite a bit, I've never seen anything that requires the registration of anything. Plus, the registration of vehicles is a state issue, not a federal one. Guns are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Federal, not State.

Apples and oranges my friend, besides that, the number one reason for the registration of vehicles has nothing to do with their rights of ownership, it is strictly came about as source of revenue for the state. You know, a tax by any other name, is still a tax.

Besides that, I have not argued against the registration of guns, just the fact that is bascially worthless, as only honest citizens register guns, not the bad guys. So when it is time to kick in doors of honest citizens, as Temp Spike desires, the bad guys will still have guns, you will not.

One other thing, I can make one phone call and within an hour I can have many guns that I would like brought to my house, buy what I want and not register a single one, all completely legal, as of now that is. If that changes, I will make that call before the law changes or becomes into effect. You can count on that.

brickhistory
10th Jan 2013, 20:10
15-Year Old Boy Uses AR-15 to Defend Himself, Sister Against Home Invaders (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/09/15-Year-Old-Boy-Uses-AR-15-To-Defend-House-Against-Burglars)

15 year old boy defends his house and his younger sister against a front-door and back door assualt by two bad guys.

With an AR-15.


Just sayin'...

Dushan
10th Jan 2013, 20:14
Keef

It's a lot easier to kill someone unintentionally with a car (like the unfortunates mentioned above) than with bare hands.


Fixed it for you.:ok:

Dushan
10th Jan 2013, 20:19
It makes me very uncomfortable, when I enter the USA, to see the immigration man sitting there in his uniform, with a revolver strapped to his side. I worry that if I get an answer wrong I'll be shot on the spot. Do immigration officers really need to be able to kill me, and what are the guidelines about when they may do so?



Seriously? When was the list time you came? They all have semi-automatic handguns. Probably Glocks, some Berettas, maybe H&K. The old S&W revolvers are long gone.

Meanwhile at Heathrow:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38804000/jpg/_38804603_terror300.jpg

BenThere
10th Jan 2013, 20:24
WTF does the EPA have to do with motor vehicle registration???

EPA ultimately wants you out of your car and into a train. That's why it's getting in the way of energy development today. Energy independence and low fuel costs are anathema to EPA. Where you been these last 40 years?

Dushan
10th Jan 2013, 20:33
What I am against is the logic that possession of a semi-automatic assault rifle

There is no such thing. It's a contradiction of terms.

An assault rifle is, by definition, capable of full auto fire. Any attempt to label a semi-automatic look-alike as "assault" rifle is disingenuous and don for the purpose of making it look like something scarier than what it is. An AR-15 is no different than a Mini-14 yet people call it "assault rifle" because it looks like an M-16.

Lord Spandex Masher
10th Jan 2013, 20:34
Again, why do you want one?

rgbrock1
10th Jan 2013, 20:41
Dushan. There are some models of thr AR-15 which are indeed fully automatic. The civilian version of the same is semi. The automatic versions are indeed assault rifles.

Dushan
10th Jan 2013, 20:48
Dushan, why do you want one?

For the same reason I have a thousand other things. From cars, to cameras, to computers, to electronics, to flashlights, to tools, to gadgets, to appliances, furniture, art. Whatever. They are toys, grown-up boys like to play with. There must be things you have and nobody asks you to justify why that is.

However, I will oblige:

Guns, specifically, are precision designed, engineered, and manufactured. They are fun to take apart and put back together. They have adjustments one can play with and change characteristics.

lomapaseo
10th Jan 2013, 20:49
Maybe what we need are two assault rifles (the kind that everybody is clamouring to buy today) to be sold in pairs chained together. That way you need two people to carry them at all time. At least that would make it more illogical that any two would be on the verge of insanity at the same time and able to carry out multiple killings of humans.

it's a simple matter of redundancy, seeing as society is unable to identify and correct all weak minded individuals that might some day get access to one of these weapons.

I'm convinced that the percentage of weak minded invididuals with unrequited grudges is not going to diminish. Couple this with the percentage of muliple shot high lethality weapons being made available and then couple this with the inability tp control the two coming together (except via paper pieces of worthless regulations)we are making the problem even worse.

Dushan
10th Jan 2013, 20:53
Dushan. There are some models of thr AR-15 which are indeed fully automatic. The civilian version of the same is semi. The automatic versions are indeed assault rifles.

OK, that may be, however calling anything "semi-automatic assault rifle" is totally wrong and only used by people who want to scare the uninformed masses in thinking that military-grade weapons are carried by everyday citizens.

Lord Spandex Masher
10th Jan 2013, 20:56
Dushan, I'm not asking you to justify it I'm genuinely curious why you'd want one.

Guns, specifically, are precision designed, engineered, and manufactured. They are fun to take apart and put back together. They have adjustments one can play with and change characteristics.

You've generalised with all guns but why, specifically, do you want an assault or "attack" rifle?

Airborne Aircrew
10th Jan 2013, 20:58
RGB:

Your arguments about what type of weaponry law enforcement uses and trying to support that with the "right" of the citizenry to own similar is, quite frankly sir, both illogical and disingenuous.

Really... RGB, you forget... I'm not trying to support the "right"... The Right is there, written into the Bill of Rights and upheld left and right by the Supreme Court throughout the years. But then you know that don't you? But it gets in the way of your belief. Change the Constitution or please, quit complaining.

I use the "what the police carry" argument to counter the "why do civilians need "assault" weapons rubbish. Simple as that. It's a logical progression. I could simply tell you that the phrase "Shall not be infringed" means any attempt to prevent "The People" from having any weapon they please so be quiet but I at least try to provide logical and sensible arguments to counter you.

I'm willing to bet that, given a serious enough threat and choice of weapons as I surmised when discussing McChrystal, you would choose the AR-15 over the other weapons. I won't push you on it for fear of making you a hypocrite.

BenThere
10th Jan 2013, 21:04
Yes and why would you want a fancy BMW 7 series when a Ford Focus will get you around just fine?

Why do you need three bedrooms when there's only two of you?

Why buy all this processed food and fresh butchered meat when a 100 lb. bag of beans and a like sized sack of potatoes could feed you for six months?

Why have more than two pair of shoes?

Having what you want versus having what you need? Who has the right?

galaxy flyer
10th Jan 2013, 21:08
Frankly, registering cars has a lot to do with states collecting taxes than anything else.

RGB

While not my taste, using semi-automatics for hunting goes back to early '20s with the Remington Model 8, so I can't see any problem using a semi-auto that happens to look like a AR-15. They come in some very powerful calibers nowadays. I do know retired cops who had been former Marines and MPs that use them, it's what they're used to.

BTW, the State Police report says the Newtown killer used handgun(s), not an "assault" rifle as originally reported. So how would banning his mother's rifle influenced the boy's actions?

GF

Dushan
10th Jan 2013, 21:09
You've generalised with all guns but why, specifically, do you want an assault or "attack" rifle?

No particular reason, except that it is yet another variant of many. Just like I have dozens of flashlights, some with 1 AAA battery and some with a 12v rechargeable pack that put out a million candlepowers.


Also see my previous post re "assault rifle". While I would actually love to have one just to be able to take it apart and see how it works, and of course to fire it full auto, I recognize that it's pretty hard these days and since I didn't do it when it was easier I missed out on the opportunity. That was my loss.

For now I have to be satisfied with AR-15s for civilian use. Or a Mini-14...

Edited to add: BenThere I also have, as you know, a BMW 740iL, yes an "L", no less. Never sat in the back seat yet. I understand there is a lot of leg room:ok::ok:

galaxy flyer
10th Jan 2013, 21:18
Another high profile case of a mother using a handgun to protect her children during a home invasion, in Atlanta.

Atlanta home invasion leads to shooting (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16449815-911-tape-shoot-him-again-husband-tells-wife-hiding-from-home-intruder#comments)

And to add some facts,

5 Facts About Guns, Schools, And Violence - Reason.com (http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/01/10/reasons-5-facts-on-guns-and-gun-violence)
GF

Airborne Aircrew
10th Jan 2013, 21:36
GF:

No facts please... Only emotion...

birrddog
10th Jan 2013, 21:57
I am really curious as to the attachment to the idea that only "law enforcement" should have guns.

Like in NYC, where becoming a cop is really easy, unless you are a vet.
Canibals and rapists welcome. Drug addicts stealing guns from the station house to pay for his habit is cool. Dating, having babies with and smughling for the convicts you are in charge of protecting cool.

You have a badge. All is good.

These are just a few examples from NYC the past 6months alone.

galaxy flyer
10th Jan 2013, 22:02
bird dog

Here in the PR of Mass, we had a NYS corrections officer kill a cop, critically injure his girl friend and commit suicide with HIS SERVICE GUN!

Where do we get such men?

GF

brickhistory
10th Jan 2013, 22:09
The strategic reason why people are up in arms about the projected usurpation of the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, is that, ultimately, this is about personal freedom.

The right to bear arms is a God-given, inalienable right. As are others listed in the Constitution.

It is not for the government to take away by its decision.

If we are a nation of laws, then the only way to change the Second Amendment, is to do it properly via another amendment. The process is designed to be "are you really, really sure you want to do this?"

If that process, again a law as enshrined in the Constitution, were followed and the 2d Amendment repealed, then there is no further legal or ethical argument. In that case, the people, as designed by the Constitutional writers, will have had their say. All of them. Not a representational portion, but all of them. And two-thirds will have had to agree to surrender this right to the government. Not back to the government, mind you.

Tactically, the arguments about "being reasonable," or "only" banning assault rifles and magazines holding more than 10 is attempted circumvention of the Constitution. It may get through. I'd be less pessimisstic if Obamacare hadn't passed or been upheld, but it was, so the stupidity of the elected representatives and the timidity of the Supreme Court makes me question what I think to be right.

Such infringement will simply make millions of law breakers.

What happens when something else tragic happens which it will? Man is an evil beast and some want carnage and mayhem.

None of us defending our right to bear arms advocates for violence or the use of any weapon for illegal purposes. Like murder, like robbery, like killing innocent kids. Which are already against the law.

I am tired of the condescending attitude of "be reasonable" or it's only a small "compromise."

I and tens of millions of my fellow citizens did absolutely nothing wrong.

The punishment is being meted out towards us, however.

I want to leave you alone. You want to inflict your opinion upon me.

Who is the more respectful?

Dushan
10th Jan 2013, 22:23
And now they will coming for (only) your shotguns...

Taft Union school shooting: Boy had 'intended targets,' police say - latimes.com (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/01/taft-union-high-school-shooting-targets.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lanowblog+(L.A.+Now))

G-AWZK
10th Jan 2013, 22:24
The right to bear arms is a God-given, inalienable right. As are others listed in the Constitution.
Oh really? Which God would that be? I am not sure what is the worst; the arrogance or the ignorance.

I think any reasonable thinking person has now got a good grasp of the type of people who support the current situation.

BenThere
10th Jan 2013, 22:36
Which God would that be?

My God, of course.

The idea is that the individual has an inalienable right to defend himself. Government can't give it or take it away. It's a given. Get it now?

And nobody supports the current situation. There are opposing views as to the best path to confront it.

Back at you, Mr. Ignorance and Arrogance.

Dushan
10th Jan 2013, 22:37
I think you are missing the concept of God-given. What it really means that it is a right assumed by one person by the mere fact that this person is alive and living. It is not government-given or by some other entity or person. It cannot be granted by someone or to someone. Every living being possesses it. If you believe in God, as the founders did, you would say God-given, but you can just say naturally-assumed.

Don't call people names just because you don't understand what they say or disagree with it.

Lord Spandex Masher
10th Jan 2013, 22:38
So are y'all religious then? Or just when it suits?

BenThere
10th Jan 2013, 22:40
Just when it suits.

west lakes
10th Jan 2013, 22:41
I suppose that the new must have weapon is now the shot gun :uhoh:

Dushan
10th Jan 2013, 22:44
Being "religious" can have many forms. So yes, to some degree I am.

brickhistory
10th Jan 2013, 22:44
I am not particulary "religious" as that is a man-made creation and subject to all the foils of that creature.

The founders wrote "God-given."

As Dushan noted, use whatever phrase you like with the point being that I, as a legal American citizen, have the right, simply because I am, to bear arms. Or not. It is my choice. It is not the government's to grant or take away.

To finish on the religion bit; I've spent just shy of 50 years now trying to figure it all out (creation/evolution/Big Bang/infinity, etc, etc, etc) and have failed miserably.

As I did and do ponder, however, I am convinced there is a Supreme Being. Whether it's the Charlton Heston-looking gent, I admit to being unsure. Lots more pondering to do on that...

BenThere
10th Jan 2013, 22:44
Oh, yeah. Five shell pump. I love the sound of the pump. Lots of short range fire power in a 12 gage pump. You don't want to be standing in front of one.

Airborne Aircrew
10th Jan 2013, 22:47
GAWK:

Oh really? Which God would that be? I am not sure what is the worst; the arrogance or the ignorance.

I think any reasonable thinking person has now got a good grasp of the type of people who support the current situation.

I'm an atheist so I can answer this fairly authoritatively...

As a human being I am ingrained to defend myself. It's called the "survival instinct". In order to defend myself I will use whatever I need to do that efficiently and effectively. Who are you or anyone else to tell me I am not allowed to maintain weapons that would allow me to do so?

Don't try to use a person's religion as an excuse to minimize their rights and instincts, it makes you look silly and, frankly, uneducated.

con-pilot
10th Jan 2013, 22:48
G-AWZK

Just what does this phrase mean to you?

shall not be infringed

God or no God, matters not, the right of American citizens to own guns shall not be infringed, by the government.

Confirmed by many rulings of many Supreme Courts since 1789.

brickhistory
10th Jan 2013, 22:52
If y'all will excuse me, I'm off to convert money into .45 and .44 holes in paper.


Given the availability and price of that which is, I will probably regret shooting this part of my ammo stash.

Dushan
10th Jan 2013, 23:00
Tight groups, brick:ok:

Turbine D
10th Jan 2013, 23:01
Dushan,
An assault rifle is, by definition, capable of full auto fire. Any attempt to label a semi-automatic look-alike as "assault" rifle is disingenuous and don for the purpose of making it look like something scarier than what it is. An AR-15 is no different than a Mini-14 yet people call it "assault rifle" because it looks like an M-16.
You may think I don't have knowledge of guns but a semi-automatic rifle that is a knock-off of an M-16 minus the full automatic feature, one that has the fire power of that used in Sandy Hook should not be available in this country no matter the sobbing and gnashing of teeth from those who somehow think it violates the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. I had the pleasure of meeting with Bill Ruger, co-founder of the Sturm-Ruger Firearms company before his passing. Over several dinners we discussed weaponry in the United States and the movement towards those weapons of the semi-automatic variety. Subsequently, on March 30, 1989, Bill Ruger sent a letter to every member of the US Congress stating:
"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives."
William B. Ruger
This is a common sense approach to reducing unneeded firepower that is now in vogue. I am sure you will not agree with Mr. Ruger, nor did the NRA, even although he was perhaps the most successful designer, engineer and producer of firearms in the United States in the past 60 years.

Airborne,
I would like all of those that read this thread, but do not live in the United States, the following:
1. We are not all paranoid, sitting in a rocking chair in the room near the front door with firearm in hand awaiting the eventual home invasion.
2. We do not have a loaded gun available on every floor of the home or every room in the home.
3. We feel secure in our home when we are there, some of us have burglar alarms connect to the local police department should someone decide to break in when we are not home.
4. We have great faith in our local police to maintain the security in our city and neighbor hood. We do not see the need to match them in their armament capability in providing this capability.
5. While some of us do possess firearms, many of us do not and we still feel comfortable and secure not possessing them.
6. In summary, the majority of the posters on this thread who are fervently flapping their wings at any mention of restrictions of any sort do not represent the majority of Americans who feel secure and are secure in the absence of a personal armory and thousands of round of ammunition.

TD

Airborne Aircrew
10th Jan 2013, 23:01
Given the availability and price of that which is, I will probably regret shooting this part of my ammo stash.

Indeed you might... One of the rumours is a huge tax on ammo... Like that will stop the suicidal nutcase buying a stash on his credit card... :rolleyes:

Keef
10th Jan 2013, 23:05
Seriously? When was the list time you came? They all have semi-automatic handguns. Probably Glocks, some Berettas, maybe H&K. The old S&W revolvers are long gone.

I wouldn't know: I 'm no expert when it comes to handguns. But why, in the name of all that's wonderful, does an immigration officer need to be able to kill the people passing in front of him?

Yes, cars can kill people. But cars (despite what Mr Nader says) aren't designed to kill.


Meanwhile at Heathrow:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38804000/jpg/_38804603_terror300.jpg
No, those aren't immigration officers, they are highly-trained policemen and soldiers, and they are there to protect passing civilians from attack by terrorists, lunatics and others with guns and the like. They don't shoot unless there's a very valid reason to do so.

Dushan
10th Jan 2013, 23:12
They don't shoot unless there's a very valid reason to do so.

Neither does the customs guy, but it's nice to know that he can should a need arise.

Airborne Aircrew
10th Jan 2013, 23:17
TD:

6. In summary, the majority of the posters on this thread who are fervently flapping their wings at any mention of restrictions of any sort do not represent the majority of Americans who feel secure and are secure in the absence of a personal armory and thousands of round of ammunition.

Thank the lord you speak for all 300 million of the people that live in the USA. I feel comforted.

Keef:

No, those aren't immigration officers, they are highly-trained policemen and soldiers, and they are there to protect passing civilians from attack by terrorists, lunatics and others with guns and the like. They don't shoot unless there's a very valid reason to do so.

You are making that comment with a serious face, right???

con-pilot
10th Jan 2013, 23:20
Keef.

Can you find just one instance where a US immigration officer at a US airport has ever shot someone? I know of none and I used to be employed by a Federal Law Enforcment Agency, the United States Marshal Service. Anytime any Federal LEO discharged their weapon, any weapon for that matter, we received a report on the incidence.

Also, all, repeat all armed federal law enforcement officer, including immigration, must attend an school in Georgia where they undergo intensive training of using weapons and must re-qualify on a annual basis. Unless a Federal LEO has taken this training, they cannot be armed.

In other words, we don't just hire someone off the street, throw a uniform on them, give them a gun and let them loose. The TSA by the way, are not armed.

Airborne Aircrew
10th Jan 2013, 23:23
The TSA by the way, are not armed. Phew... :sad:

It is interesting thought that you can get on an aircraft that is guarded by unarmed people but you can't get off it without being confronted by armed people... :E

Dushan
10th Jan 2013, 23:25
Oh, and Keef, one more thing. In US, the guy you see when you cross the border is not just a "customs officer". He is a customs and immigration officer which makes him a border protection agent, as per Con's post...

con-pilot
10th Jan 2013, 23:28
Phew...

No kidding. The union that represents the TSA actually tried to have the TSA armed. That was the fastest union request to be shot down by Congress in the history of Congress and unions.




Yes, pun intended. :p

con-pilot
10th Jan 2013, 23:32
He is a customs and immigration officer which makes him a border protection agent, as per Con's post...

Correct, now called ICE agents, Immigration Customs Enforcement. The two agencies, customs and immigration, were merged post 9/11.

galaxy flyer
11th Jan 2013, 00:03
Newtown's school super wants an indefinite presence of police at their schools to calm students and parents. Maybe, the NRA did make sense.

GF

Cacophonix
11th Jan 2013, 00:13
Close-up of Spider spinning it's web detail seen Clearly.wmv - YouTube

Caco

Airborne Aircrew
11th Jan 2013, 00:19
That spider looks like Obama.. Dammit man, I think you caught him in the act... :ok:

Keef
11th Jan 2013, 00:24
You're right, I don't understand. Immigration and Customs people need to be armed? I suppose it scares people like me.

Dushan
11th Jan 2013, 00:31
Remember, that same agent can be re-asigned to a Mexican border crossing. Would you say that then he doesn't need to be armed? All border crossings need to be equally configured.

Running_In
11th Jan 2013, 00:31
There was a quote from brick history about Obama 'attempting to create millions of law breakers' by banning certain fire arms.

It seems fairly self obvious that If the law changes and you choose not to follow it then you have chosen to be a law breaker.

Airborne Aircrew
11th Jan 2013, 00:32
Keef:

If you're scared by nice people doing their job that happen to have a gun on their hip then you really need to stay in your house. You are not made up for this "modern" world. If you can force yourself to use a telephone I'm sure you could find someone to deliver food and toilet paper to your house.

Of course, if you need a tradesman that happens to wear a tool belt with an aggressive hammer or screw driver you'll probably have to dive behind the couch... You do have a couch, don't you?

Cacophonix
11th Jan 2013, 00:37
I know damned keep the bloody Czechs/Hungarians/Russians out.

Damn it Dushan I can never remember what you are in time enough time to stop laughing before I put my tongue out at you!

For the record my forebears were Russians (Jews). It appears they didn't like us either. I mean the folks on another border I mean.

:p

Caco

BenThere
11th Jan 2013, 00:45
If the law changes and you choose not to follow it then you have chosen to be a law breaker

It gets complicated if the law is itself unlawful. In such a case you could be a lawbreaker if you obeyed the law.

Running_In
11th Jan 2013, 00:45
Yes AA, because people only carry hammers incase they need to kill some one :rolleyes:

Ben There

I guess people would just have to follow the law until it was ruled unlawful by an appropriate court.

Airborne Aircrew
11th Jan 2013, 00:57
It seems fairly self obvious that If the law changes and you choose not to follow it then you have chosen to be a law breakerThe deciding question is... "Is the law Constitutional?".

If it isn't then King Barry just became a monarch which is what the USA was formed to prevent.

The USA has, whether you like it or not, an almost perfect system going on. It's being derailed by people who care only about their political power but there are some checks and balances that are still usable... One of them just happens to be the Second Amendment. It's the most important of all really because without it the government is "of the people, by the government, for the government". The Constitution is quite clear, "The People" rule, the government is a tool of the people that can be removed by any means necessary - including the use of those weapons specifically allowed for by the second amendment.

This stuff isn't rocket science...

Airborne Aircrew
11th Jan 2013, 01:05
Running:

Yes AA, because people only carry hammers incase they need to kill some oneThere are some 300,000 Concealed Pistol Licenses issued in the State of Michigan... One in every 30 people in the state can carry a concealed weapon. It is also an "Open Carry" state which means I can openly carry any weapon that is registered to me except in Gun Free Zones like schools and federal buildings, (notice how the feds protect themselves).

I'll guarantee you that more people are killed by hammers than are killed by CPL holders with their guns in the State of Michigan every year as far as you want to go back... Yet one in 30 people are carrying a concealed weapon...

Get back in your box... :hmm:

BenThere
11th Jan 2013, 01:08
I guess people would just have to follow the law until it was ruled unlawful by an appropriate court.

Well, no. Unlawful laws should not be followed. Ask the Nazis at Nurnberg. Their appropriate courts supported genocide.

Any law that infringes on our right to bear arms is unlawful. There is a process to change that, if that's what the people want. But it's a lot more involved than just appointing Joe Biden to head a committee of bobble heads to make a recommendation.

I predict any attempt to take away the guns of Americans, even by virtue of laws passed, will be met with fierce resistance and fury like we haven't seen since the 60s.

Cacophonix
11th Jan 2013, 01:09
Where is Slasher when you need him? :p

A tribute to those demure creatures of the distaff kind...

Caco

Seldomfitforpurpose
11th Jan 2013, 01:22
But we know you have no interest in the reasons people want to have a firearm, because you are still trying to press the same lame-ass attempt at an argument despite the small matter of you being told the same things and the same things being said countless times before in assorted threads. And that is one little nugget you cannot hide from.


Ercule,

Clearly the simplicity of my question has flown right by you but as I have suggested to another poster on here why not just put me on your ignore list and save yourself some heartbeats :ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose
11th Jan 2013, 01:31
Trust me, in my area, me not owning a gun, is the exception, not the rule.

In the politest possible sense that sort of comes to the heart of my genuine question. If the perception of most where you liven is that it's simply too risky not to have a gun how on earth do those who have closed not to own guns survive?

The point I was trying to make was that if a huge swathe of your great nation get by each day without a need for gun, living side by side with those who do think they need guns to survive who has got it right?

I don't agree with Dushans point of view but have the utmost respect for his stance, he has guns of all variety because he can and he wants to.

What I can't get my head around is the notion that some of you are in perpetual fear for your lives hence your personal armouries whilst your next door neighbours go calmly about there day to day lives unarmed :confused:

Anyway just departing Ao Nang for Koh Lanta so will look into seeing how this one pans out in a few hours time, this retirement malarkey is killing me :ok:

con-pilot
11th Jan 2013, 01:35
To those that are frightened by law enforcement officers that carry guns, what on Earth do you do when you walk by the US Embassy in London?

As I stay at the Marriott by the Embassy, every time I have walked by the Embassy there are armed English police officers on every corner. Armed not only with pistols, but automatic "assault" guns as well.

Looks like I'm seeing a lot of double standards here.

Running_In
11th Jan 2013, 01:37
AA

Point specifically to the bit of legislation you're talking about that says the people can remove the government how they like when ever they feel?

What about the huge number of 'the people' that support the government?

This is simple stuff AA and Im surprised you don't follow it. Do grow up about 'getting back in boxes too'

Im waiting for a link to the recorded number of hammer killings?

It's tragic that anyone would have to cite Nazism in this debate. It just shows how weak the arguments are. The two situations are a million miles apart. You have the Supreme Court to mark the governments homework. The nazi marked their own. It's the edge of sanity to even try to bring the two together.

BenThere
11th Jan 2013, 01:44
The topic was unlawful laws, and Nurnberg is a case in point. Unlawful laws are invalid. You don't need to get on a high horse about Nazis.

con-pilot
11th Jan 2013, 01:50
Yes, a Supreme Court that has upheld the Second Amendment as it was written from 1789 to this day.

Which kind of makes your point, mute.

The question and concern is, if Obama tries to overturn the Second Amendment by executive order, which is in-Constitutional and an impeachable offense, will the American people stand for such a treasonous act?

Personally I don't think that is going to happen, hell even Obama is not that stupid. Even though some of his Obamatron followers are.

Running_In
11th Jan 2013, 01:53
Not really Con, I never mentioned the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn't need to be over turned for the law to be changed in some way.

Turbine D
11th Jan 2013, 01:59
Sometimes, things don't work out so well in Georgia...
From the NY Times:
Gun Enthusiast With Popular Online Videos Is Shot to Death in Georgia

CARNESVILLE, Ga. — Keith Ratliff loved guns. He built his own rifles. He kept bullets in his car’s cup holder. And on the rear window he slapped a sticker of the Starbucks Coffee mermaid firing two pistols.
Mr. Ratliff’s passion for firearms made him something of a celebrity on the Internet, where he helped make scores of videos about high-powered and exotic guns and explosives. His YouTube channel, called FPSRussia, became the site’s ninth largest, with nearly 3.5 million subscribers and more than 500 million views.

But last week, the authorities said, Mr. Ratliff, 32, ended up on the wrong end of a gun. The police in northeast Georgia found him dead at his office on Jan. 3, shot once in the head. He was surrounded by several guns, but not the one that killed him. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is treating it as a homicide.

TD

Cacophonix
11th Jan 2013, 02:07
Bit like the Arctic souls like the Russians (and the occasional Alaskan or frozen Canuck) who gets shot or shoots somebody else because his dog doesn't like KFC while he is doing God knows what!

Court Rules Dog Shot Man Dead (http://www.rferl.org/content/dog_shoots_man/24537026.html)


Caco

Cacophonix
11th Jan 2013, 02:09
More charming than a Rabbi and not armed you see!


http://gdb.rferl.org/B7D469D2-95A1-4B95-85AF-F2A274A28259_mw1024_n_s.jpg

con-pilot
11th Jan 2013, 02:13
Then most likely it was someone that he knew and trusted.

The majority of murders usually are committed by someone that the victim knows.

Never the less, I'll not be so boring as to post thousands of cases where a gun owner has had the completly opposite outcome.

Running_In
11th Jan 2013, 02:17
Is that because if you did, someone might just take the time to post all the other where the gun owner died?

500N
11th Jan 2013, 02:29
A few states are passing laws that will negate whatever
Obama tries to bring in in regards to banning semi autos.
Wyoming for one.

I think he'd like to bring in tougher but is being told
don't as it will get thrown out in court.

I think he'll try to ban certain accessories and
bring in checks for all purchases.

Just my HO.

Matari
11th Jan 2013, 02:43
You're right, I don't understand. Immigration and Customs people need to be armed? I suppose it scares people like me.

When I see a quote like this by a normally reasonable guy whose posts I typically enjoy, I have to ask: What is it about the British psyche that must conjure up some feigned fear of the US, when similar practices in other countries would never draw a comment?

For example, here are some civilized Dutch border police, just a few kilometers from the UK. Scary, eh?

http://www.marechausseecontact.nl/images/kmar_team_m-v_aankomsthal_shol_jul_12_kl.jpg

Cacophonix
11th Jan 2013, 02:44
And as always the reasonable the young Americans. We do so love them.

The "Americans" in South Africa | critcrim.org (http://critcrim.org/node/163)

Armed and stupid...

Caco

Matari
11th Jan 2013, 02:55
Great article. When will ya'll ever step up and admit maybe you have some responsibility for your own lot in life? Or is it just so much easier playing the poor victim to the evil yanks? Do you ever admit to yourselves that the schtick gets just a little old after a while?

Cacophonix
11th Jan 2013, 03:01
Matari

You have the cheek to say that! We gave you the first real example of a Russian SAM. We did our damned best against the Cubans and what did you give us?

Nit, **** all, zero.

Thank God for ...

Southern Comfort - Ry Cooder - YouTube

An American without any bullshit at all...

Caco

421dog
11th Jan 2013, 03:07
(from someone more observant than myself):

"I saw a movie once in which only the police and military had guns. It was called Schindler's List"

boofhead
11th Jan 2013, 03:27
Seldom, nobody says you have to have a gun (at least not any more, because the laws governing the Militia have been ignored for quite some time). But if you live in an area where the majority do own guns, you get the situation where the criminals are not sure who has guns and who has not, so they avoid those areas, giving the ones who do not own guns some protection as well.
In addition, if you call for help maybe your neighbour, who is armed, can come to your rescue.
That is one reason why the actions of the NY newspaper that published the names and addresses of the permit holders were so injurious, not only to those who were named, but to all those who were not named. It gave the burglars and home invaders a menu of where to go to either get guns or to avoid being shot.
It seems there is no limit to the level of stupidity in the world today. If the intention of all this gun-banning talk was to reduce the number of guns in private hands, it has back fired enormously. The gun factories cannot keep up with the demand, and ammunition is in seriously short supply. The more the idiots talk about banning guns, the more guns are sold. AR15s have almost doubled in price and the waiting list is over a year!

500N
11th Jan 2013, 04:27
" If the intention of all this gun-banning talk was to reduce the number of guns in private hands, it has back fired enormously. The gun factories cannot keep up with the demand, and ammunition is in seriously short supply. The more the idiots talk about banning guns, the more guns are sold. AR15s have almost doubled in price and the waiting list is over a year!"


Ruger isn't taking ANY orders and hasn't for a while. They can't make them fast enough.

Half a million semi autos were sold for Xmas.

Sales have increased 800% last year.

The minute anyone talks about banning guns or accessories,
sales go through the roof.

And if Obama does ban something, it will all go underground
because no one is going to hand anything in.

Richo77
11th Jan 2013, 04:34
Quote:

"The more the idiots talk about banning guns"

I love it how you gun advocates with all your god-given (thou shalt not kill?) right to any kind of weapon always resort to name calling!!! cracks me up.

Someone doesnt agree with your view of life, and the are an idiot or the like. Why dont you just shoot em? Go on, you know you want to....

500N
11th Jan 2013, 04:38
Richo77

Do you own a gun ?

Cacophonix
11th Jan 2013, 04:38
Todd Rundgren- Gun with Lyrics - YouTube

He says it well...


Caco

Richo77
11th Jan 2013, 04:53
500N,

Nope i can gladly say i dont own a gun. What does that make me? A leftie? a tree-hugger? there must be some name for me....

I know how to protect me and mine without having to use deadly force. Having said that if someone was seriously threatening one of my kids, i would kill them with my bare hands without thinking or blinking (if i could).

My uncle has a farm and taught me to shoot (specifically vermin) as a youngster, but I have no need for a gun in my life.

500N
11th Jan 2013, 05:02
Richo

"Nope i can gladly say i dont own a gun. What does that make me?"

Nope, no name.

Then why take such an interest in banning a legal, legitimate pastime
if you don't don't own a gun ?

I don't own one for protection - except against charging animals !
- in fact you are not allowed to own a firearm for protection. If
anyone put that down on an application, it would be rejected.

Since you could possibly use your hands with deadly force,
I think we should ban them :O

probes
11th Jan 2013, 06:19
Any law that infringes on our right to bear arms is unlawful.
Would someone explain (to a foreigner) what that covers actually? Probably it's not ok to go shopping and take your legally owned gun with you, or is it? How is hunting regulated - if it's your own land and a nasty coyote there, can one hunt for it or is a permit or something required?

Lord Spandex Masher
11th Jan 2013, 07:09
Can armed citizens stop mass shootings? Examples of armed interventions. - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/12/can_armed_citizens_stop_mass_shootings_examples_of_armed_int erventions.html?wpisrc=obinsite)

More Guns, More Mass Shootings (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation)

Gun-death tally: Every American gun death since Newtown Sandy Hook shooting (INTERACTIVE). - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy _hook_shooting.html?wpisrc=most_viral)

There is no evidence indicating that arming Americans further will help prevent mass shootings or reduce the carnage, says Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College of Wisconsin. To the contrary, there appears to be a relationship between the proliferation of firearms and a rise in mass shootings: By our count, there have been two per year on average since 1982. Yet 25 of the 62 cases we examined have occurred since 2006. This year alone there have been seven mass shootings—and a record number of casualties, with more than 140 people injured and killed.

If former neuroscience student James Holmes were still attending the University of Colorado today, the movie theater killer—who had no criminal history and obtained his weapons legally—could've gotten a permit to tote his pair of .40 caliber Glocks straight into the student union.

nearly 80 percent of the killers in our investigation obtained their weapons legally

stuckgear
11th Jan 2013, 07:55
For example, here are some civilized Dutch border police, just a few kilometers from the UK. Scary, eh?

http://www.marechausseecontact.nl/images/kmar_team_m-v_aankomsthal_shol_jul_12_kl.jpg

matari,

here's the police at heathrow.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44320000/jpg/_44320921_armedpolice_getty.jpg

and at gatwick..

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/11/1/1288644551730/Armed-police-at-Gatwick-005.jpg

even chicks with guns..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1550000/images/_1551320_security300.jpg

all prepared for the british summer...

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50128000/jpg/_50128661_004221550-1.jpg


and get this.. the armed police mobile unit at heathrow is a yank tank..
London Metropolitan Police - American Style Police Vehicle at Heathrow Airport London - a photo on Flickriver (http://www.flickriver.com/photos/[email protected]/4262835158/)

they also have an F450 based unit too http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/police/dsc06813.jpg

i understand both to be resistant to frag grenades and 7.62 cal.

ExXB
11th Jan 2013, 09:29
Any law that infringes on our right to bear arms is unlawful

Are you sure about that? Your Supreme Court disagrees:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. ...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

BOSCBP
11th Jan 2013, 12:26
Correct, now called ICE agents, Immigration Customs Enforcement. The two agencies, customs and immigration, were merged post 9/11.

Incorrect. ICE is composed of the special agents who are responsible for investigations. The border officers are CBP - Customs and Border Protection. CBP is the result of the merging of all former border agencies (Agriculture, Immigration, Customs and Border Patrol), and all officers are indeed held to one of the highest standards of firearm proficiency within the Federal government. The firearm is considered part of the uniform, and to be without it is considered to be out of uniform. While it may appear to be overkill to wear a firearm sitting in a primary booth, it most certainly is not when one is boarding a ship at 3 a.m., or inspecting a train in East BF Texas, or while working at (or even worse - between) southern border land crossings where there is a hefty bounty on ones head.

Just saying.

rgbrock1
11th Jan 2013, 13:48
brick wrote:

The right to bear arms is a God-given, inalienable right. As are others listed in the Constitution.

God-given? What if one doesn't believe in god, then what? Mars-given? Sagatarius-given?

For anyone to ascribe "god" to a "given" "right" needs to rethink that premise.

rgbrock1
11th Jan 2013, 13:52
One thing which needs to be brought to the attention of non-US citizens is the following about our gun laws.

If you go to a brick-and-mortar shop to buy a weapon, yes you have to pass a background check, obtain the proper registration and licensing, etc.

However, if you mosey on down to the local gun "exhibition" or gun show you do not have to do any of the above. You plunk down your hard-earned cash and walk away with whatever your heart desires. No background check, no registration and no licensing necessary.

Kind of blows big holes through the brick-and-mortar shop requirements.

stuckgear
11th Jan 2013, 13:53
well if you're an atheist would that be an anybody given right ?

rgbrock1
11th Jan 2013, 13:55
boofhead wrote:

If the intention of all this gun-banning talk was to reduce the number of guns in private hands, it has back fired enormously

I think, for the most part, this talk is not about banning guns.

It's about banning assault rifles. Which belong in the hands of the military or law enforcement. AND NOWHERE ELSE.

rgbrock1
11th Jan 2013, 14:05
con-pilot wrote:

Confirmed by many rulings of many Supreme Courts since 1789

You mean the same Supreme Court which upheld Obamacare? How's that workin' out for ya?

rgbrock1
11th Jan 2013, 14:08
If one needs the use of an assault rifle to defend oneself then I'll say this:

You then don't need any weapon at all because if you can't make do with anything other than an assault weapon, you don't know shit about how to handle a firearm to begin with.

Matari
11th Jan 2013, 14:21
probes,

Although the Supreme Court has struck down challenges to the Second Amendment, local and state governments constantly pass laws to regulate guns, and these laws are always tested up to the supreme court level.

Many cities such as Chicago and Washington D.C. have very strict firearm regulations, up to banning of the possession of these weapons within the city limits. Of course, these cities have some of the highest violent crime rates of any cities in the country. The more they ban, the more the bad guys run free.

Other jurisdictions allow concealed or open carry of weapons, and yes when properly licensed one can quite happily go shopping with a loaded weapon.

Each state regulates hunting and fishing, and licenses are required. Gun owners and hunters contribute the most to conservation efforts through the purchase of these licenses.

Bottom line is, in most parts of the country people are free to own and carry, or not. I don't own a handgun or 'assault' rifle. I feel safe and am quite happy if my neighbors own or carry. It is their business, not mine. I taught all my children to shoot and respect firearms at our local range. No big deal....if they want to own it will be their choice.

Seldomfitforpurpose
11th Jan 2013, 14:26
If one needs the use of an assault rifle to defend oneself then I'll say this:

You then don't need any weapon at all because if you can't make do with anything other than an assault weapon, you don't know shit about how to handle a firearm to begin with.

Now that is a comment worthy of applause :ok:

If you need anything bigger than a 9mm to put down the thick as mince Muppet coming through your window late night looking for a VCR to steal then gun ownership is not for you, just source a better locksmith.

That said if you want an anti aircraft weapon for nothing more than fun then great but don't bullshit the best bullshitters with the 'I need it for home deee fence' rhetoric cos unless you live in Beirut an assault weapon is very much OTT to anyone with a modicum of gun knowledge :ok:

Gertrude the Wombat
11th Jan 2013, 14:36
even chicks with guns..
When in the UK you have a pair of police going around with machine guns one of them is usually a young girl, it seems to me. Whether this is a deliberate policy in an attempt to make them less scary I don't know. I suppose it sort-of works.

I think I prefer the rather less in-your-face approach taken at Buckingham Palace - OK so the guys you can just about see wandering around up on the roof, if you bother to look, do seem to be carrying sniper rifles, but the security that interact directly with the public at the back gate consisted mostly of (unarmed!) girl guides on my visit.

galaxy flyer
11th Jan 2013, 15:03
Referencing the term "God-given", please turn your attention to the Declaration of Independence which states, ""endowed by their Creator certain inalienable rights...". The Declaration was, in part, based on the English rights which were written in the Bill of Rights after the Glorious Revolution. Those rights include possession of weapons for personal defense and defense of the realm.

GF

Seldomfitforpurpose
11th Jan 2013, 15:05
When in the UK you have a pair of police going around with machine guns one of them is usually a young girl, it seems to me. Whether this is a deliberate policy in an attempt to make them less scary I don't know. I suppose it sort-of works.


Rubbish and shame on you :=

The girl in question will have earned her spurs in the exact same manner as her male counterparts and when push comes to shove she will be standing and returning fire whilst you and the rest of the civvy bed-wetting populace are lying prone and squealing.

Wonder how many of the repetitive posters on here could match that :ok:

stuckgear
11th Jan 2013, 15:06
You then don't need any weapon at all because if you can't make do with anything other than an assault weapon, you don't know shit about how to handle a firearm to begin with.

nope but when you've run out of ammo, you have something to use as a club.

:E

Seldomfitforpurpose
11th Jan 2013, 15:12
nope but when you've run out of ammo, you have something to use as a club.

:E

Which kind of proves the point, if you haven't got it done whilst fully ammo'd up and need to resort to using your AK as a Club as a method of suppression should you have, by law, been entitled to own a weapon in the first place :confused:

Turbine D
11th Jan 2013, 15:14
A little history as to why you see what you see in European airports in terms of visible security, it goes back 44 years ago:

In February, 1969, an El Al Boeing 707 was attacked at Zürich airport. An Israeli trainee pilot was killed, with another eight people being wounded. In a firefight involving security personnel, one hijacker was killed, while the others were arrested. The hijackers were later put on trial in Winterthur, Switzerland but released following the hijacking of a Swissair aircraft one year later.
On September 6, 1970, El Al Flight 219 from Tel Aviv to New York, with a stopover in Amsterdam, was the target of an attempted hijacking by Leila Khaled and Patrick Argüello after taking off from Amsterdam. The hijacking was meant to be one of the Dawson's Field hijackings, but it failed. 1 person was killed on this incident.
On 27 December 1985, after several failed attempts to attack El Al aircraft, guerrillas of the Fatah Revolutionary Council attacked El Al ticket counters at Rome-Fiumicino and Vienna-Schwechat airports, killing 18 people.
Another terrorist attack was foiled on 18 April 1986 in what became known as the Hindawi Affair. A pregnant Irishwoman named Anne-Marie Murphy was about to board an El Al flight at London's Heathrow airport when her bag was found to contain three pounds of plastic explosives. These had been planted by her fiancé Nezar Hindawi, who was booked on a different flight. Hindawi was jailed for 45 years, the longest sentence ever delivered by a British court. There was evidence that Syrian officials were involved and as a result, Britain cut off diplomatic relations with Syria.

I remember boarding a KLM flight years ago from Amsterdam to Tel Aviv. The closer you got to the boarding gate, the more armed personnel were present lining the corridor near the gate. Same was true in Zurich.

In Israel, they do thing differently. You don't see armed personnel. There are lots of security personnel circulating in the departure/check-in area in civilian clothes. But beneath their pants each has an UZI strapped to his/her leg, and they know how to use them, effectively.

TD

brickhistory
11th Jan 2013, 15:15
rgb,

I wrote "God-given" as that is the quote from the Constitution.

As has been explained, multiple times, in this thread, that means the right exists simply because you and I do. We, as legal American citizens, have the right simply because we are legal American citizens.


As to "needing" an assualt weapon, I don't "need" anything.

I can, however, have one simply because I want one.

And it is not for you to decide what I can and can't have.

I did nothing wrong. Tens of millions of other legal gun owners did nothing wrong.

You want to punish me by depriving me of a choice for something one individual did.

Do you not see what is wrong with that thinking? What about when someone decides something for you? Will you go meekly into the night?

When I read what you are writing now, I picture Piers Morgan.

And I chuckle...

Dushan
11th Jan 2013, 15:16
Would someone explain (to a foreigner) what that covers actually? Probably it's not ok to go shopping and take your legally owned gun with you, or is it? How is hunting regulated - if it's your own land and a nasty coyote there, can one hunt for it or is a permit or something required?

Here you go:

http://whatbensaid.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/gun-shopping.jpg?w=300&h=198

brickhistory
11th Jan 2013, 15:20
Posted, again, to easily disprove the point:

15-Year Old Boy Uses AR-15 to Defend Himself, Sister Against Home Invaders (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/09/15-Year-Old-Boy-Uses-AR-15-To-Defend-House-Against-Burglars)



A rifle would not be my first choice, but that's the point. It is my choice.

Just as this was the father's choice to possess and properly instruct his children on what and how to do what sometimes must be done.

Evil exists. Bad people will try to hurt those of us who wouldn't try to hurt others for their property, their genitals, or just for the hell of it.

It is my choice on how and with what to meet that evil.

It is not for rgb, Obama, or any non-U.S. observer to decide for me.

Lord Spandex Masher
11th Jan 2013, 15:29
Brick, you live in a state of fear. I feel sorry for you.

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

It's sad that you cannot speak your mind without fear of getting blown away.

rgbrock1
11th Jan 2013, 15:32
brick:

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamn piece of paper."

probes
11th Jan 2013, 15:35
thanks, Matari, and it looks that some restrictions are already there despite the Holy Amendment (sorry for being sarcastic, but really... if not anything else, then - what was meant by 'guns' at the time of writing the amendment, one wonders).
Another mantra that's hard to understand (to be PC) is this 'free choice'-thing. No big deal....if they want to own it will be their choice. Like being in the same room with the majority being heavy smokers: it's my 'free choice' to smoke, too, or go somewhere else.

BenThere
11th Jan 2013, 16:03
Brick, you live in a state of fear. I feel sorry for you.


Don't see how you can infer that. I, and I'm much like brick in my views on this subject, don't live in a state of fear, but consider being armed as a measure of self-sufficiency, that I have provided protection of my household. To me, it's coming to terms with the reality where there is the potential of my home and family being violated.

I don't carry much. I generally do when I have to go into Detroit, statistically even more dangerous than Beirut. At home I keep three weapons loaded. Two on the main floor where we live, a rifle and a pistol, and a shotgun in the basement, where it sets in a concrete protected space under the stairway where I have a clear line of protected fire on the doorway, the only entrance, should a criminal chase my wife or me down there.

My other self-defense cornerstone is my faithful canine, who seems to be able to sense anyone thinking about coming to our home and unfailingly barks to let us know about it.



"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamn piece of paper."

It's more than that to a lot of people. You even took an oath to defend it against all enemies. Are you repudiating that now?

rgbrock1
11th Jan 2013, 16:05
BenThere:

I'm not repudiating anything. I was simply quoting something the last president before O'Bummer said in a meeting back in '05.

Or, more pertinent to the current discussion/discourse.

"I disapprove of what you say. But I will defend to the death your right to say it."

No repudiation there BenThere.

Lord Spandex Masher
11th Jan 2013, 16:11
Bad people will try to hurt those of us who wouldn't try to hurt others for their property, their genitals, or just for the hell of it.

potential of my home and family being violated.

Fear of being violated.

It is my choice on how and with what to meet that evil.

should a criminal chase my wife or I down there

Fear of being chased in your own home.

At home I keep three weapons loaded.

Why three weapons? Why any at all? If you're not worried or fearful that something may happen that would require your use of, what is quite frankly, a lot of fire power then why do you have such fire power available?

P.S.
I don't carry much. I generally do when I have to go into Detroit,

Fear of going shopping!?

BenThere
11th Jan 2013, 16:13
That sounded so out of character that I checked it out.

FactCheck.org : Bush: The Constitution a ‘Goddamned Piece of Paper’? (http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/)

Don't think it ever happened, but I'm not surprised you do.

brickhistory
11th Jan 2013, 16:21
Brick, you live in a state of fear. I feel sorry for you.


No, I do not.

I live, or used to, in a free state.

THAT is entirely the point of the Second Amendment and the current struggle.

It is not the government's place nor is it empowered to determine for me whether I can or cannot own firearms.

That I do means I have to take certain precautions and ensure I have done everything I can to protect me and mine as well as taking prudent safeguards regarding the firearms I possess from being mis-used.

As I wrote in a post several pages ago, I am statisically among the least likely to be involved in a violent altercation.

The fact that I am armed turns even that tiny percentage into an even smaller one. The gun is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. I enjoy sport shooting for pleasure. Serious social work is something I hope, pray, and work to avoid. But...

What I choose to posess regarding firearms is not for any one to determine for me.

I'm fairly sure there are some tens, if not a hundred or more, millions who agree with my view.

The 2d Amendment could be repealed via Constitutional methods. The fact that no one is attempting to do so means the national support for such is not there.

Barring that remedy, no one is going to tell me, and enforce it upon me, what I can and cannot own.

It's a great big country with lots of room for storage.

I expect the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and the rivers will become veritable carpets of guns 'lost' in accidents should tyrannical attempt be made to take them.

Then the issue of who will try to enforce such measures. Some state (meaning federal/state/local) agents no doubt will. Others will not.

Court cases by the millions, armed confrontations by the thousands, and the not that unrealistic scenario of civil unrest would be the result.

Look at the facts. Look at the sales. Look at the resistance to the measures as demonstrated in increased NRA and other pro-gun groups. Look at the donations and contacts made to the Congress.

Look to punish those that do evil. I have not killed anyone not as a result of military service. Why punish me for the evil act of a deranged 20 year old?

Do not punish those of us who go about our lives not trying to inflict my opinion upon others.

Don't try to inflict yours upon me.

rgbrock1
11th Jan 2013, 16:22
BenThere:

You throw a link to one single web site and expect me to believe that?
Nice try. If you did a little more research you'll find that not only did Bush say that, his aides admitted he said it, several Republican congressional leaders who were present at the meeting on the day admited he said it and Bush himself - when asked about the statement - never denied it.

rgbrock1
11th Jan 2013, 16:28
brick wrote:

Why punish me for the evil act of a deranged 20 year old?

So, brick, what do we do about what happened in Newtown, CT, nothing?
Is that just the price we pay for our freedom to choose? Sort of collateral damage? Because the Constitution says we have the freedom to bear arms?
Even if that means some ******* nut job decided to exercise his freedom as well?

Let me ask you this brick. Suppose one of those 1st graders who was slaughtered was one of your kids?

And, lastly, what about the f**king freedoms of those kids who were slaughtered? What about them? They didn't get the freedom to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", now did they? No, they had those freedoms taken away from them.

But, alas, that's just the price we have to pay for our freedom.

Lord Spandex Masher
11th Jan 2013, 16:37
Brick,

Evil exists. Bad people will try to hurt those of us who wouldn't try to hurt others for their property, their genitals, or just for the hell of it.

It is my choice on how and with what to meet that evil.

An hour ago you said that. You are afraid of being hurt, being robbed or invaded or losing your knackers (I imagine most blokes are) and you choose to carry a gun, or two...or three, whatever, to negate the possibility of that happening, thus:

As I wrote in a post several pages ago, I am statisically among the least likely to be involved in a violent altercation.

The fact that I am armed turns even that tiny percentage into an even smaller one.

I couldn't care less how many guns you have. Carry one or not, I don't care, but realise that you feel safer and, therefore, less afraid because you do so.

BenThere
11th Jan 2013, 16:44
rgb,

Your "quote" was originated by one source only, CapitolHillBlue, a relatively obscure left wing site often challenged for factual credibility.

Don't you think if Bush really said that, Olbermann, Schulz, New York Times et al. would be crowing about it yet today? I never heard of it till you brought it up.

Why don't you post a source like I did. Factcheck is no friend of the right. I don't have time to babysit you. Do your own research. Your quote is not credible.

brickhistory
11th Jan 2013, 16:45
But, alas, that's just the price we have to pay for our freedom


We have laws against murder.

It was by law designated gun-free zone.

How'd that work out?

You insult me and come across as shrill to imply that I am unmoved by the slaughter of those kids by this sick SOB.

I did nothing wrong.

There were 500+ murders in Chicago last year. More than 80% were committed by guns. More than 95% of those were committed by illegal gun possessors as Chicago has laws prohibiting such.

I did nothing wrong.

There are between 700,000 - 2 million, depending on the source, where the use, or potential use of, a firearm, stopped a criminal act upon a citizen doing nothing wrong.

What about them? What about their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

You have your opinion. I disagree with it, but I respect your right to hold it.

I have my opinion. I also have the right to hold it enshrined in our Constitution which is the foundational law of our nation.

You do not have the right, or ability, to impose your opinion upon me.

con-pilot
11th Jan 2013, 16:47
You mean the same Supreme Court which upheld Obamacare? How's that workin' out for ya?

RG

If anything, it shows that the Supreme Court is correct in its ruling 99.9% of the time.

Obamacare is a tax, for the entire time that the Democrats and the Great One Obama were trying shoving this mess down the throats of Americans, they all proclaimed that Obama care was not a tax.

The Supreme Court declared that in fact Obamacare was a tax, therefore legal. (Which after over a year the Obama Administration was telling Americans that it was not a tax, the Adminstration did a 180 in court and argued that Obamacare was a tax all a long. So much for honesty and telling the truth to the American public.)

How's that smaller pay check and higher health insurance cost working out for you? :p

Lord Spandex Masher
11th Jan 2013, 16:52
Can armed citizens stop mass shootings? Examples of armed interventions. - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/12/can_armed_citizens_stop_mass_shootings_examples_of_armed_int erventions.html?wpisrc=obinsite)

The subject of whether more guns and concealed-carry permits could help fight mass shootings is highly controversial. An investigation by Mother Jones concluded that no more than 1.6 percent of mass shootings were ended by armed civilians.

More Guns, More Mass Shootings (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation)

there appears to be a relationship between the proliferation of firearms and a rise in mass shootings: By our count, there have been two per year on average since 1982. Yet 25 of the 62 cases we examined have occurred since 2006. This year alone there have been seven mass shootings—and a record number of casualties, with more than 140 people injured and killed.

west lakes
11th Jan 2013, 16:52
Hypothetical question

So if, that is if, a national referendum was held among the people of the US, and the result of that referendum was that the majority of the people of the US wanted the 2nd amendment removed from the Constitution and the ownership or possession of guns made illegal.

How would the pro gun folk react? The Constitution has been changed by the people so it, I would suggest, must be followed according to arguments on here

rgbrock1
11th Jan 2013, 16:54
brick:

Again we have another example of someone who doesn't understand what a "gun-free" zone by a school means.

It is not meant for anyone other than STUDENTS. Students my not bring firearms to school. Thus, "gun-free" zones.

The smaller pay check, con? It ain't working out for me very well at all.
I definitely took a big hit with the increase in FICA tax: a BIG HIT.

Hey, don't blame me. I didn't vote for the bum this time around.

Which means, consequently, that I have to cut back on my beer consumption.

Which makes me onery.

rgbrock1
11th Jan 2013, 16:56
west lakes:

There is no method of removing an Amendment from the Constitution.
One could amend, or supersede, a specific amendment.

west lakes
11th Jan 2013, 16:58
There is no method of removing an Amendment from the Constitution.
One could amend, or supersede, a specific amendment.

Ah thanks, so to modify my question to "if the 2nd amendment was modified to remove the right to bear arms"

Dushan
11th Jan 2013, 17:01
So, brick, what do we do about what happened in Newtown, CT, nothing?


Nothing you do, especially in haste, will prevent another one. All efforts are concentrated on objects, completely ignoring the person who was involved. As if somehow he didn't make a decision to commit a heinous crime. We give him a free pass because he is dead and concentrate on a piece of sheet metal that can hold 20 or 30 rounds. That is not the answer. You can ban all the "assault rifles" in the world evil will still happen.

NRA offered a viable first step solution. You poo-pooh it because it comes from "gun nuts". Seems a lot of people are embracing it.

What do we do about what happened, you ask. Let's start with getting rid of PC, liberalism, social engineering the population to think that any kind of behaviour is acceptable, that one is entitled to material and other things regardless of the effort they put into it. Then and only then, and unfortunately it is a long process that we will never see in our lifetimes, will the society start to turn back towards a more civilized one.

I am not very hopeful...

brickhistory
11th Jan 2013, 17:03
rgb, you are showing yourself in public.

And not in a good way.

"Gun free zone" does not only apply to students. As a CCW holder, that is one of the many, many laws taught to ensure no one inadvertantly breaks the law while exercising the right to carry.

That is a federal law.

Private property owners, homeowners and businesses, can make their place "gun free" by simply posting whatever sign the state involved chooses. If I carry there, I am breaking a state law.

The Colorado theater had such signs posted. The evil bastard who shot there avoided closer theaters that weren't so designated. One wonders why?



As to the question about amending the Constitution: IF the process, as specified were carried out, then I would abide.

Or move.

That's a deep question to ponder, but as of now, it is moot. And I don't see it being amended, but who knows?

con-pilot
11th Jan 2013, 17:05
Which means, consequently, that I have to cut back on my beer consumption.


No, no, not that, we have to come up with something to prevent that.

I got it, take a second job in a beer brewery. That'll do it. Then you'll not have to spend any money on beer, it'll be all free. And I'll come a visit, a lot. :ok:

rgbrock1
11th Jan 2013, 17:07
West Lakes,

I don't think anyone would go for a removal of the "right to bear arms". That wouldn't fly at all.

Let's keep a certain premise in mind here. When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the amendments, when they wrote about the right "to bear arms" (assuming they meant for the average citizen to bear arms and not just the well-regulated militia) the weapon of mass destruction at the time was the friggin' musket. You know, that rifle that took about 5 minutes between firing a round? Assault weapons where nowhere to be found and certainly not semi-automatic or automatic weaponry.

So, if the 2nd Amendment were ever to be superseded by another amendment, perhaps a definition of exactly which types of arms the citizenry has the right to bear.

I personally have no problem with Joe or Josephine Blow (Bloggs) having weapons stashed in the house for self defense. No problem whatsoever.

What I do have a problem with is the "right to bear arms" where the arms are of the mass destruction type. The type the military or law enforcement are painstakingly trained with. Those should not be in the hands of your average citizen.

Dushan
11th Jan 2013, 17:08
Hypothetical question

So if, that is if, a national referendum was held among the people of the US, and the result of that referendum was that the majority of the people of the US wanted the 2nd amendment removed from the Constitution and the ownership or possession of guns made illegal.

How would the pro gun folk react? The Constitution has been changed by the people so it, I would suggest, must be followed according to arguments on here

The process to amend the Constitution is a lot more complex that a straight referendum. Learn how it works and you will see ho difficult it would be to do.

As for (an extremely unlikely) case that if does happen, I would suspect law abiding people would accept it, just like they accepted the prohibition, and start working on repealing it like they did with the prohibition.

rgbrock1
11th Jan 2013, 17:09
con:

If I took a second job at a brewery then I'd be in BIG trouble. With the Mrs.
Why? Because I'd never come home!!!!!!

Either that or I'd die drowning in a beer vat.

west lakes
11th Jan 2013, 17:10
I've actually got the answer to my question, I was simply curious

Airborne Aircrew
11th Jan 2013, 17:13
SFFP:

If you need anything bigger than a 9mm to put down the thick as mince MuppetGolly... How you change your tune to try to get a rise out of people. It was but a few short days ago that Joe Public was going to be carved up in the fusillade of laser accurate fire brought down on him by the Special Forces trained bad guy while Joe struggles with the decision to shoot and then finds he's forgotten to take the safety catch off.

Today the bad guy is thick as mince that can be knocked down with a pea shooter without ever firing back.

If you're going to come into these discussions with the sole aim of being obtuse and trolling then you need to try to remember every position you take on things so that you don't make yourself look silly by contradicting yourself.

Dushan
11th Jan 2013, 17:15
If you're going to come into these discussions with the sole aim of being obtuse and trolling then you need to try to remember every position you take on things so that you don't make yourself look silly by contradicting yourself.

A Jewish proverb "Truth is the best lie; you don't have to remember what you said".