NationStates Jolt Archive

The "protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms" passed the house w/ the President saying he'll sign it.

The house passed a bill to overturn DC's gun ban.

PETA got pwned in a debate w/ the NRA.

The CEO of the Brady Campaign resigned due to recent setbacks.

The "protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms" passed the house w/ the President saying he'll sign it.

The house passed a bill to overturn DC's gun ban.

PETA got pwned in a debate w/ the NRA.

The CEO of the Brady Campaign resigned due to recent setbacks.

And I bought a Remington 870P and a Browning Gold shotgun. One for critters of the two-legged variety, and one for the critters of the feathered variety.

I'm not usually a fan of shotguns, but I already have rifles and pistols, and I thought it would be good to get something different.

The "protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms" passed the house w/ the President saying he'll sign it.


I like it to a point. There's the mandatory "tax" with the forceful sale of a gun lock with each firearm. I believe this is how mandatory seat-belt laws got started. A gun lock renders the weapon useless for everyone--even those trying to defend themselves.


The house passed a bill to overturn DC's gun ban.


THAT would be something to celebrate if it passes the Senate.


PETA got pwned in a debate w/ the NRA.


That sure was pretty.


The CEO of the Brady Campaign resigned due to recent setbacks.

And the cherry on the top. :D The amount of disinformation that the Brady organization spews is just astronomical.

And I bought a Remington 870P and a Browning Gold shotgun. One for critters of the two-legged variety, and one for the critters of the feathered variety.

I'm not usually a fan of shotguns, but I already have rifles and pistols, and I thought it would be good to get something different.

I just recently got into the shotgun scene myself--have a Charles Daly semi-auto 12 ga. (wanted to see if I liked it before I purchased anything more expensive), and now have a Beretta AL390 12ga.

Love shooting them both! Clays rock. :)

And the cherry on the top. :D The amount of disinformation that the Brady organization spews is just astronomical.

No kidding, I looked at thier page the other night, all thier arguements are based on scare tactics. They heavily twist laws and statistics into thier favor. They are about as low as peta in thier lies.

I just recently got into the shotgun scene myself--have a Charles Daly semi-auto 12 ga. (wanted to see if I liked it before I purchased anything more expensive), and now have a Beretta AL390 12ga.

Love shooting them both! Clays rock. :)
I've been thinking of getting a shotgun to start duck hunting again. Anyone have any opinions on the C-Z guns?

I've been thinking of getting a shotgun to start duck hunting again. Anyone have any opinions on the C-Z guns?

I have several CZ rifles, and they are truly sweet. I would buy one of their shotguns if I didn't already have such a major preference.

I've been thinking of getting a shotgun to start duck hunting again. Anyone have any opinions on the C-Z guns?

Only their pistols, unfortunately. Love those.

I've heard nothing but good stuff on the shotguns, though.

No kidding, I looked at thier page the other night, all thier arguements are based on scare tactics. They heavily twist laws and statistics into thier favor. They are about as low as peta in thier lies.

That pretty much sums it up.

I've been thinking of getting a shotgun to start duck hunting again. Anyone have any opinions on the C-Z guns?
I hear they have an outstanding reputation for quality.

By the way, you may want to check out Russian hunting guns. They make heaps of them lately, and good ones.

I've been to the website (http://www.shipunov.com/eng/str/hunt/hunt1.htm) of the KBP company. Their guns look plain awesome and original. Especially that four-barreled combo gun (I assume by 9mm they mean their 9x53 big game cartridge)- any game you meet, you can take. The revolver shotgun also sounds like a neat idea, perhaps better for hunting purposes than the underbarrel tube.

Where can I find out more on this debate...like a transcript or a rebroadcast.


The "protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms" passed the house w/ the President saying he'll sign it.

The house passed a bill to overturn DC's gun ban.

PETA got pwned in a debate w/ the NRA.

The CEO of the Brady Campaign resigned due to recent setbacks.

Where can I find out more on this debate...like a transcript or a rebroadcast.
The NRA will probably sell it to you . Check www.nra.org I didn't see it on the front page, but it's probably there, somewhere.

The "protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms" passed the house w/ the President saying he'll sign it.

The house passed a bill to overturn DC's gun ban.

PETA got pwned in a debate w/ the NRA.

The CEO of the Brady Campaign resigned due to recent setbacks.

Does this mean that Joe Dirt Alcoholic can get his hands on a Mac-10 again...?

Does this mean that Joe Dirt Alcoholic can get his hands on a Mac-10 again...?

No. And you're sadly misinformed on the legality of fully automatic firearms in the US.

You can only buy one in 35 states, have to pay a non-refundable transfer tax in advance of your FBI background check (which takes months). And you surrender your right to privacy - the ATF can come to your house any time of the day or night and make you show them the fully automatic weapon and the safe it's in.

You'll also be one of about 100,000 collectors of such firearms.

Since the National Firearms Act of 1934 went into effect, no firearm registered to an owner (fully automatic weapons and silencers) has been involved in a SINGLE crime. Ever.

Every fully automatic weapon you have heard of in a crime in the US was either illegally modified, or smuggled in. Period.

No. And you're sadly misinformed on the legality of fully automatic firearms in the US.

You can only buy one in 35 states, have to pay a non-refundable transfer tax in advance of your FBI background check (which takes months). And you surrender your right to privacy - the ATF can come to your house any time of the day or night and make you show them the fully automatic weapon and the safe it's in.


Plus you need a local law-enforcement agent's approval. That usually makes trouble, if you're in a larger city.

I like it to a point. There's the mandatory "tax" with the forceful sale of a gun lock with each firearm. I believe this is how mandatory seat-belt laws got started. A gun lock renders the weapon useless for everyone--even those trying to defend themselves

Stupid yes, but you don't have to USE the lock.



THAT would be something to celebrate if it passes the Senate.

I give it 50/50.



That sure was pretty.

Watching the PETA people get all pissed off was priceless. I especially liked the vegetarianism is a sign of the end times bit. :)




And the cherry on the top. :D The amount of disinformation that the Brady organization spews is just astronomical.

And on thier site they talk about "scare tactics" the NRA is using and then go and pass out fliers stating Floridians will shoot tourists.

Does this mean that Joe Dirt Alcoholic can get his hands on a Mac-10 again...?

Someone's been listening to the Brady Bunch again.

Im looking to become a colector of fine arms

whats a good one to start with?

Im looking to become a colector of fine arms

whats a good one to start with?

I'm back from a 1-month forum ban guys, what a welcome you guys gave me ;) !

My suggestion is a Kalashnikov. They're EVIL, look bad, reliable, and good for putting holes in paper and protecting your family.

I have always like the AK-47, I might start with that,

Now if only california could get some republicans who actually are against gun control!

(Or some democrats against control, preferably).

Too bad the AWB going away had no effect on us in the deep south of the United states of canada...

The house passed a bill to overturn DC's gun ban.
Actually this could be bad news for "gun nuts", if DC's murder rate starts to climb again, after dramatic reductions in the past few years.

Like many other large cities, Washington, D.C., has enacted a number of strict gun control laws. Handguns have been outlawed (unless registered as of February 5, 1977), carrying guns (concealed or not) is prohibited, and all guns and ammunition must be registered [1]. Critics, citing numerous statistics, have questioned the efficacy of these restrictions, and some consider the ban a violation of the 2nd Amendment protections on bearing arms. The combination in Washington of strict gun control laws and high levels of gun violence is sometimes used to criticize gun control laws in general as ineffectual. Critics using this example fail to mention that it is relatively easy to obtain guns in neighboring states with laxer gun control laws, especially Virginia. There are no mechanisms in place to prevent guns obtained outside the city from being bought into D.C. (such as checkpoints, etc.). Therefore, the inflow of guns purchased outside the city in states where gun control laws are less stringent compromises the city's own strict regulations. Regardless, due to its prominence as the national capital, its strict gun control laws and its reputation as the former "murder capital" of the U.S., Washington has become something of a popular example in the wider debate on gun control.

Nation's Murder Rate Hits 40-Year Low (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051018/ap_on_re_us/crime_rates)

Blumstein said Chicago with a decline of 150 murders and Washington, D.C., with a decline of 50 accounted for 51 percent of the net nationwide drop. St. Louis, on the other hand, saw an increase of 39 murders.

With gun control, Chicago and DC started to see significant reductions in the murder rates.

St. Louis rates went up. I wonder if it has anything to do with this:

Missouri Will Allow Hidden Weapons (http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/postdispatch9_12_03.cfm)

September 12, 2003

The Missouri Legislature handed Gov. Bob Holden a historic defeat Thursday when it agreed to allow Missourians to carry concealed weapons....

Burn baby burn.:(

Actually this could be bad news for "gun nuts", if DC's murder rate starts to climb again, after dramatic reductions in the past few years.

Like many other large cities, Washington, D.C., has enacted a number of strict gun control laws. Handguns have been outlawed (unless registered as of February 5, 1977), carrying guns (concealed or not) is prohibited, and all guns and ammunition must be registered [1]. Critics, citing numerous statistics, have questioned the efficacy of these restrictions, and some consider the ban a violation of the 2nd Amendment protections on bearing arms. The combination in Washington of strict gun control laws and high levels of gun violence is sometimes used to criticize gun control laws in general as ineffectual. Critics using this example fail to mention that it is relatively easy to obtain guns in neighboring states with laxer gun control laws, especially Virginia. There are no mechanisms in place to prevent guns obtained outside the city from being bought into D.C. (such as checkpoints, etc.). Therefore, the inflow of guns purchased outside the city in states where gun control laws are less stringent compromises the city's own strict regulations. Regardless, due to its prominence as the national capital, its strict gun control laws and its reputation as the former "murder capital" of the U.S., Washington has become something of a popular example in the wider debate on gun control.

Nation's Murder Rate Hits 40-Year Low (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051018/ap_on_re_us/crime_rates)

Blumstein said Chicago with a decline of 150 murders and Washington, D.C., with a decline of 50 accounted for 51 percent of the net nationwide drop. St. Louis, on the other hand, saw an increase of 39 murders.

With gun control, Chicago and DC started to see significant reductions in the murder rates.

St. Louis rates went up. I wonder if it has anything to do with this:

Missouri Will Allow Hidden Weapons (http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/postdispatch9_12_03.cfm)

September 12, 2003

The Missouri Legislature handed Gov. Bob Holden a historic defeat Thursday when it agreed to allow Missourians to carry concealed weapons....

Burn baby burn.:(

You have been constantly, constantly shown that there is no corrolationg between gun control and murder/etc rates. You point out certain examples, and leave out many other ones that contradict it. You simply refuse to accept that there is no real corrolation.

You have been constantly, constantly shown that there is no corrolationg between gun control and murder/etc rates. You point out certain examples, and leave out many other ones that contradict it. You simply refuse to accept that there is no real corrolation.
And you people "constantly, constantly" maintain that more people with guns makes the world a safer place. I am sorry but the facts do not support your case.

And you people "constantly, constantly" maintain that more people with guns makes the world a safer place. I am sorry but the facts do not support your case.What is your interpretation of the events in Kennesaw, Georgia? (I don't care if the number of burglaries went up a decade after the law was passed.)

And you people "constantly, constantly" maintain that more people with guns makes the world a safer place. I am sorry but the facts do not support your case.

You are going to argue against statistics, where the lowest numbers are 100,000 people using guns defensively a year(from pro-gun control people)? The gun murder rate is what, 12k? And other crimes a bit higher. So, even taking the absolute lowest statistic, it about breaks even(but it still a bit safer, because many criminals could still get guns with gun control).

Actually this could be bad news for "gun nuts", if DC's murder rate starts to climb again, after dramatic reductions in the past few years.


Nation's Murder Rate Hits 40-Year Low (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051018/ap_on_re_us/crime_rates)

Blumstein said Chicago with a decline of 150 murders and Washington, D.C., with a decline of 50 accounted for 51 percent of the net nationwide drop. St. Louis, on the other hand, saw an increase of 39 murders.

With gun control, Chicago and DC started to see significant reductions in the murder rates.

St. Louis rates went up. I wonder if it has anything to do with this:

Missouri Will Allow Hidden Weapons (http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/postdispatch9_12_03.cfm)

September 12, 2003

The Missouri Legislature handed Gov. Bob Holden a historic defeat Thursday when it agreed to allow Missourians to carry concealed weapons....

Burn baby burn.:(

That's nice CH. You , as usual ,fail to mention that more traced guns come from highly restrictive Maryland than Virginia into DC.

Now you're blatantly lying. Chicago and DC saw MORE murders and crime for years following their gun bans. Since you've (once again) claimed causality, what "gun control" measures were put in place that directly preceeded their drops in crime?

And once again you ignore every other factor that affects crime in order to proclaim absolute causality. It's nice to know that even though you keep proclaiming you don't want to ban guns, you constantly use every arguement for gun bans that there are.

The only thing that's "burning" is your facade of just wanting "reasonable gun control". Your name wouldn't happen to be Sarah would it?

Im looking to become a colector of fine arms

whats a good one to start with?

That depends on what you're wanting to get into.

Rifles
Pistols
Shotguns

Antiques(then what era)
Modern

Here's a pretty baby you might like:

http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/r3342.htm

What is your interpretation of the events in Kennesaw, Georgia? (I don't care if the number of burglaries went up a decade after the law was passed.)
You are talking about one small town of 25,000 people. You can't make an argument out of that.

That's nice CH. You , as usual ,fail to mention that more traced guns come from highly restrictive Maryland than Virginia into DC.
You are nit picking here. 30% of crime guns in DC are traced to Maryland and 28.7% come from Virginia. A difference of 13 guns. Maryland is highly restrictive?

Now you're blatantly lying. Chicago and DC saw MORE murders and crime for years following their gun bans. Since you've (once again) claimed causality, what "gun control" measures were put in place that directly preceeded their drops in crime?
The gun control measures are in place and now the law enforcement is catching up, but the controls are necessary for the other to work.

And once again you ignore every other factor that affects crime in order to proclaim absolute causality. It's nice to know that even though you keep proclaiming you don't want to ban guns, you constantly use every arguement for gun bans that there are.
Simply not true.

The only thing that's "burning" is your facade of just wanting "reasonable gun control". Your name wouldn't happen to be Sarah would it?
If I am Sarah, then you are Calamity Jane, or Annie Oakley?

If you'll excuse me, I'll be over here bemoaning the spread of lethal weapons umongst a trigger-happy populace.

*grumbling* In 2000, there were 55,087 emergency rooms firearm injuries, 21,187 emergency room bb-gun injuries, and 12,077 non-suicidal gun deaths (source) (http://www.jointogether.org/gv/resources/facts/reader/0,2055,568574,00.html). Gun deaths have risen 5% since then, after decreases in 1993-2000, notable as the time when a Democrat was in charge. Women are five times more likely to be killed in domestic homicides if a gun is in the home (source) (http://www.cagved.org/gunfacts.htm). Aye, truly firearms are good and safe to own...

Never mind the facts that pepper spray, clubs, tazers, and martial arts are all non-lethal alternatives that actually do fit into circumstances of self defense... After all, if someone already has a gun aimed at you, you're screwed anyway. Not to mention that one of the basic elements of gun control, gun regestration, is an invaluable tool in tracking down murderers who use guns... *scowls*

Someone's been listening to the Brady Bunch again.

Speaking of the Brady bunch, their fearless leader up and quit:

CEO of Brady Campaign resigns, citing stress of losses
Posted by David Hardy · 19 October 2005 08:20 PM
ENOUGH TO MAKE YOU QUIT? For Gun Control Advocates, a Losing Streak in Congress

By Daphne Retter, Congressional Quarterly Staff
CQ Today
October 19, 2005

Congress may decide in conference to ease District of Columbia gun restrictions (H.R. 3058). The House will vote Wednesday on shielding gunmakers from liability suits (S. 397). And last year, Congress let the assault weapons ban (P.L. 103-322) expire.

It's enough to make a gun-control advocate quit.

"It's not an easy job to get up every day and duke it out with the gun lobby," Michael Barnes, president and CEO of the Brady Campaign and Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said Tuesday, "but it's very important."

Barnes resigned this week...

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/10/gun_mfr_protect_1.php

These have been stressful times for the Brady fools. Assault weapons ban repealed, now the gun mfr. liability bill. The spectre of loosening gun ownership in DC was the final straw - if he didn't resign he probably would have been fired! I speculate that DC will lighten up.

We were on the defensive so long. It feels much better being on the offensive, doesn't it? On the offensive and winning.

I hear they have an outstanding reputation for quality.

By the way, you may want to check out Russian hunting guns. They make heaps of them lately, and good ones.

I've been to the website (http://www.shipunov.com/eng/str/hunt/hunt1.htm) of the KBP company. Their guns look plain awesome and original. Especially that four-barreled combo gun (I assume by 9mm they mean their 9x53 big game cartridge)- any game you meet, you can take. The revolver shotgun also sounds like a neat idea, perhaps better for hunting purposes than the underbarrel tube.

Radical concepts. Did you see this MTs28? I've never seen anything like it, an over-under with a .223 on top and 20 gauge below -- but semi-auto, clip fed, with 3 shots for the rifle and 2 for the shotgun!

http://www.shipunov.com/eng/str/hunt/mts28.htm

I've been thinking of getting a shotgun to start duck hunting again. Anyone have any opinions on the C-Z guns?

Obviously, their reputation precedes them. Look like nice lively field guns, quite light. I prefer side-by-sides in the woods, though I first reach for a pump or semi for ducks and geese.

I've had good luck with Remington 1100's and 11-87's. Most of my buddies are moving to Benelli's these days, and they are an impressive and reliable semi-auto. They function reliably with anys shell, from 2 dram equivalent 3/4 ounce loads to slugs.

The old Model 12 Winchester is as fine a pump as was ever made for duck hunting. Super slick action, and one of the few that can be slam-fired. The extra weight helps soak up the recoil on a long day of shooting heavy loads.

Radical concepts. Did you see this MTs28? I've never seen anything like it, an over-under with a .223 on top and 20 gauge below -- but semi-auto, clip fed, with 3 shots for the rifle and 2 for the shotgun!

http://www.shipunov.com/eng/str/hunt/mts28.htm
I am not sure if it's .223, I think it's 5.6 Rimfire, to be honest.

The trouble with Russian catalogs is that they aren't using a unified system of designations. 9mm can be a 9mm Luger, or a 9x53, or a 9x39. A 7.62 may be the 7.62x54, or the 7.62x39, or the .308 Winchester, etc.

But yeah, the Russians are experimenting with some pretty radical designs. Baikal (a.k.a. IzhMash) makes a shotgun that can be fed from a detachable box and an underbarrel tube interchangeably, by just flipping a switch. Now that's handy.

If you'll excuse me, I'll be over here bemoaning the spread of lethal weapons umongst a trigger-happy populace.

*grumbling* In 2000, there were 55,087 emergency rooms firearm injuries, 21,187 emergency room bb-gun injuries, and 12,077 non-suicidal gun deaths (source) (http://www.jointogether.org/gv/resources/facts/reader/0,2055,568574,00.html). Gun deaths have risen 5% since then, after decreases in 1993-2000, notable as the time when a Democrat was in charge. Women are five times more likely to be killed in domestic homicides if a gun is in the home (source) (http://www.cagved.org/gunfacts.htm). Aye, truly firearms are good and safe to own...

Never mind the facts that pepper spray, clubs, tazers, and martial arts are all non-lethal alternatives that actually do fit into circumstances of self defense... After all, if someone already has a gun aimed at you, you're screwed anyway. Not to mention that one of the basic elements of gun control, gun regestration, is an invaluable tool in tracking down murderers who use guns... *scowls*

It´s a sad fact that most of the world will not listen to reason...but look, you didn´t even get some flames, there is hope at all

Blumstein said Chicago with a decline of 150 murders and Washington, D.C., with a decline of 50 accounted for 51 percent of the net nationwide drop. St. Louis, on the other hand, saw an increase of 39 murders.

With gun control, Chicago and DC started to see significant reductions in the murder rates.

St. Louis rates went up. I wonder if it has anything to do with this:

Missouri Will Allow Hidden Weapons (http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/postdispatch9_12_03.cfm)

September 12, 2003

The Missouri Legislature handed Gov. Bob Holden a historic defeat Thursday when it agreed to allow Missourians to carry concealed weapons....
I'm going to go way, way out on a limb here and make this prediction: over the next three years, if the concealed carry law remains in force, the number of violent crimes comitted in St. Louis and in Missouri in general, will drop at least 8 percent.

We've seen this phemonenon in several states which passed concealed carry laws, including my own State of North Carolina.

Since the National Firearms Act of 1934 went into effect, no firearm registered to an owner (fully automatic weapons and silencers) has been involved in a SINGLE crime. Ever.

I'll buy that.

Now ... what about smaller arms? Including statistics in states, such as Texas, where there is no firearm registration.

While I applaud the 100,000 or so folks who own fully automatic weaponry for not being careless, you don't need a fully automatic weapon to murder or accidently kill someone.

Firearms have 1 purpose and 1 purpose only. They are designed to destroy. Period. There is no getting around that fact. If you can show me any other legitimate purpose, then I shall concede. Don't give me that hooey about protection, either, because they protect by destroying (either body parts or will of continuance).

Stupid yes, but you don't have to USE the lock.


For now, at least. Let's hope we can keep it that way.


Watching the PETA people get all pissed off was priceless. I especially liked the vegetarianism is a sign of the end times bit. :)


That had me rolling.


And on thier site they talk about "scare tactics" the NRA is using and then go and pass out fliers stating Floridians will shoot tourists.

pro·jec·tion (pr-jkshn)
n.
Psychology.
1. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others: “Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious projection of clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought with them into the field” (Alex Shoumatoff).
2. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

Now if only california could get some republicans who actually are against gun control!

(Or some democrats against control, preferably).

Too bad the AWB going away had no effect on us in the deep south of the United states of canada...

Well, when an anti-gun republican governor gets voted in....I don't know if you'll get those fluffy-heads that populate your state to wake up....that's going to be tough with all those actors telling them how to think and act, when they have no real lives themselves to base any kind of real life decision on.

Yeah, you need some people that will stand up for the 2nd.

actors telling them how to think and act, when they have no real lives themselves to base any kind of real life decision on.


Like ..... Charlton Heston?

If you'll excuse me, I'll be over here bemoaning the spread of lethal weapons umongst a trigger-happy populace.

*grumbling* In 2000, there were 55,087 emergency rooms firearm injuries, 21,187 emergency room bb-gun injuries, and 12,077 non-suicidal gun deaths (source) (http://www.jointogether.org/gv/resources/facts/reader/0,2055,568574,00.html). Gun deaths have risen 5% since then, after decreases in 1993-2000, notable as the time when a Democrat was in charge. Women are five times more likely to be killed in domestic homicides if a gun is in the home (source) (http://www.cagved.org/gunfacts.htm). Aye, truly firearms are good and safe to own...



Ah, so in typical anti-gun fashion, you're blaming the inanimate object. Brilliant.

Total number of gun related deaths have risen, but have fallen by percentage of population.

ANYONE is more likely to be killed by something if it is present in the home. If you have knives, you're more likely to be killed by a knife. Those with small children are more likely to be killed by choking on a pacifier than those that don't have children. Duh. Guns aren't the problem--the jerks that perpetrate violence are.


Never mind the facts that pepper spray, clubs, tazers, and martial arts are all non-lethal alternatives that actually do fit into circumstances of self defense...


We're seeing the effectiveness of pepper spray being blown out of proportion--people can still fight through it. More and more officers have been noting that in reports. Tazers have been actually KILLING some folks--not to mention you only get one shot. Clubs--do you know how hard to hit without killing someone, or are you going to believe the Hollywood fallacy that just cracking someone upside the skull will just knock them out every time?


After all, if someone already has a gun aimed at you, you're screwed anyway.


Not true. Have you ever tried to shoot a moving target? Once again, don't believe Hollywood.


Not to mention that one of the basic elements of gun control, gun regestration, is an invaluable tool in tracking down murderers who use guns... *scowls*

Sure it is....criminals don't register their guns. So, if the gun's not registered, how you gonna find the criminal? This doesn't work. See, just a LITTLE bit of logic is a good thing. Exercise some.

It´s a sad fact that most of the world will not listen to reason...but look, you didn´t even get some flames, there is hope at all

Too bad it wasn't actually reasonable. It just took me a while to give a rebuttal to their "reason".

Like ..... Charlton Heston?

Heh, touche'.

Took me a while to stop chuckling.

I'll buy that.
Firearms have 1 purpose and 1 purpose only. They are designed to destroy.


There are several guns out there for target shooting primarily. A hammer is primarily used for directing a lot of force at one point--it can be used to kill just like a target gun can.


Period. There is no getting around that fact. If you can show me any other legitimate purpose, then I shall concede.


I'm sorry, but I rather doubt that. The target rifle/pistol/shotgun example has been brought up several times before--and given your post count, I would think you would have seen them.


Don't give me that hooey about protection, either, because they protect by destroying (either body parts or will of continuance).

Hmm. How else do you defend? If you use a tazer, you are destroying. If you use pepper spray, you are destroying. If you use a blunt instrument, you're destroying. If you use martial arts, you are destroying. Just sitting there and taking it is your answer?

You are nit picking here. 30% of crime guns in DC are traced to Maryland and 28.7% come from Virginia. A difference of 13 guns. Maryland is highly restrictive?

Your article said "lax" states "especially Virginia" when , in reality, more come from MD. Yes, MD is restrictive. You've been shown that in many threads.


The gun control measures are in place and now the law enforcement is catching up, but the controls are necessary for the other to work.

Yeah, it only took DC 20 YEARS to catch up and Chicago 15 years with both being in the top 5 of murders during that time. Note that DC's crime was actually DROPPING before the gun ban.So according to your methodology, that shows that "gun control" does not work or that the DC police were completely incompetant for over 20 years.


Simply not true.

Yes it is true. The first thing you do is blame firearms and push for restrictions,not on the criminals committing crimes, but on people who actually follow the law.


If I am Sarah, then you are Calamity Jane, or Annie Oakley?

Both Law abiding sharpshooters who were nationally and internationally renown for their skills.

Forgive me for oversimplifying the whole gun debate, but heres my take on it, evil as it sounds. 1) I don't care if some dumbass leaves a loaded gun laying around, and the kid who no one is watching picks it up.
2) I don't care how many morons kill eachother in gang fights.
3) I don't care how many dumbass's shoot themselves in the foot.
My gun is safe, I'm not in a gang, Ive never had an accident SSOOOOO............................
NO ONE WILL GET MY GUNS! NO ONE! NOT TODAY, NOT TOMMORROW!
NOT EVER!
You can try, but you better be a better shot than me, and have a busload of ammo. And btw, body armor won't even come close to stopping a Weatherby belted Magnum.

Firearms have 1 purpose and 1 purpose only. They are designed to destroy. Period. There is no getting around that fact. If you can show me any other legitimate purpose, then I shall concede. Don't give me that hooey about protection, either, because they protect by destroying (either body parts or will of continuance).

So what about the fact that 98% of defensive gun uses do not involve firing the weapon at all?

You are talking about one small town of 25,000 people. You can't make an argument out of that.You didn't answer the question. Why do you think crime rates plummeted after Kennesaw, Georgia instituted mandatory gun ownership?

Two more questions: Why has the same happened in the other towns across the nation that instituted mandatory gun ownership?
(I don't have their names, but I read something a while ago about them.)

Why do you feel one can one not form an argument out of the town?

I like it to a point. There's the mandatory "tax" with the forceful sale of a gun lock with each firearm. I believe this is how mandatory seat-belt laws got started. A gun lock renders the weapon useless for everyone--even those trying to defend themselves.

Just take the gun lock and throw it in the draw with all the rest of your junk. It's hell when we have to pay a tax to keep our Constitutional rights.

Lets look at the facts:


1. No legal owners of automatic firearms have killed anybody.

2. Since 1993 or so, 100 million new guns have been purchased, etc.

3. I don't have the exact numbers on me, but concealed carry users have crime rates incredibly smaller than the average.

4. Crime rates have gone progressivly down since the 1990's.

5. The assault weapons ban had very little effect on crime.

Make your own thoughts on these.

Just take the gun lock and throw it in the draw with all the rest of your junk. It's hell when we have to pay a tax to keep our Constitutional rights.
You live in a state when you have to pay a tax to keep your Constitutional rights. But if you must buy a lock with your gun, next time the democrats get a majority in congress they'll say "Now everyone has a lock for his gun, so it is not a restriction of the right to keep and bear arms to require that they use the locks" and that'll be logrolled into the law.

You didn't answer the question. Why do you think crime rates plummeted after Kennesaw, Georgia instituted mandatory gun ownership?

Two more questions: Why has the same happened in the other towns across the nation that instituted mandatory gun ownership?
(I don't have their names, but I read something a while ago about them.)

Why do you feel one can one not form an argument out of the town?

Because it doesn't fit into his preconcieved notions. It's OK to compare two cities that are dissimilar, or two states, or two countries if it supports his arguement, but comparing two counties that are nearly demographically identical is wrong.

Actually this could be bad news for "gun nuts", if DC's murder rate starts to climb again, after dramatic reductions in the past few years.

Strict gun control laws do not = a reduction in murder rates. New York has very strict gun control laws and has had for years. Are they more safe than cities with no or few gun control laws? No!

Just take the gun lock and throw it in the draw with all the rest of your junk. It's hell when we have to pay a tax to keep our Constitutional rights.
That's what people thought about seatbelts until a few years ago... :(

But if they ever decide that too many people are simply "throw(ing) it in the draw with all the rest of your junk" they may decide to implement somthing more invasive to "verify" that you are using your "mandated by law" gun lock - "Click-it or Ticket" style. :headbang:

(Note: IMO and in my practice, the only guns in the home that should NOT bet locked up (preferably in a safe) are the one(s) attached to a person. A gun on a shelf is of no less use in time of crisis than one that is locked, and the time required to unlock a locked long-arm in your fall-back position is not going to make any real difference at all. When it's time to fall-back to the FN-FAL, shit is already well out of hand.)

Lets look at the facts:


1. No legal owners of automatic firearms have killed anybody.

2. Since 1993 or so, 100 million new guns have been purchased, etc.

3. I don't have the exact numbers on me, but concealed carry users have crime rates incredibly smaller than the average.

4. Crime rates have gone progressivly down since the 1990's.

5. The assault weapons ban had very little effect on crime.

Make your own thoughts on these.

I'ld like to modify this a little.

1. One crime has been committed w/ a legally owned weapon. By a police officer.

3. Less than 1% of CC carriers have thier licenses removed for ANY reason.

5. No proof has been found that ANY Anti-gun scheme has has ANY effect on crime.

Not to mention that one of the basic elements of gun control, gun regestration, is an invaluable tool in tracking down murderers who use guns... *scowls*

Most criminals who use guns do not take the time to register them. :headbang:

Strict gun control laws do not = a reduction in murder rates. New York has very strict gun control laws and has had for years. Are they more safe than cities with no or few gun control laws? No!

New Yorks' laws were put into place in the 1960's. Until the 90's, NYC was one of the highest crime rates. It's only been since Guliani increased the police by over 1000 and started cracking down on CRIMINALS that the crime rates decreased. It's because of this and dozens of other factors, and not "gun control" that rates have decreased much.

That's what people thought about seatbelts until a few years ago... :(

But if they ever decide that too many people are simply "throw(ing) it in the draw with all the rest of your junk" they may decide to implement somthing more invasive to "verify" that you are using your "mandated by law" gun lock - "Click-it or Ticket" style. :headbang:

(Note: IMO and in my practice, the only guns in the home that should NOT bet locked up (preferably in a safe) are the one(s) attached to a person. A gun on a shelf is of no less use in time of crisis than one that is locked, and the time required to unlock a locked long-arm in your fall-back position is not going to make any real difference at all. When it's time to fall-back to the FN-FAL, shit is already well out of hand.)

I agree. The only way to enforce so called "safe storage" laws would be to implement warrentless property inspections.

You live in a state when you have to pay a tax to keep your Constitutional rights. But if you must buy a lock with your gun, next time the democrats get a majority in congress they'll say "Now everyone has a lock for his gun, so it is not a restriction of the right to keep and bear arms to require that they use the locks" and that'll be logrolled into the law.

The solution to that problem is to make sure the Democrats never, ever get a majority in Congress again. :D

Another question for anybody: Have firearms registration and background checks been shown to have any effect on crime, positive or negative? I know serious criminals can get their guns regardless of the laws, but it seems to me it might reduce violent crime committed w/firearms a bit if (up to now mostly law-abiding) Crazy John Doe knows the government knows his firearm belongs to him or if felons can only get their firearms from other felons. I know the facts can be surprising, though.

You have a TG, Kecibukia.

Most criminals who use guns do not take the time to register them. :headbang:

Well of course not. The only purpose for registration is for the Gov't to know who has them when it comes time to collect them.

Gun Banners, however, will continue to espouse the "benefits" of registration, confusing those who believe the scare tactics, even though it has never been shown to have reduced crime anywhere.

The solution to that problem is to make sure the Democrats never, ever get a majority in Congress again. :D
By voting for anything that wears a republican button? They aren't always better (though they are on gun rights). And in any case there are more Americans who'd never vote anything but democrats than who vote republicans (and vice versa), so you can never be sure about an elections result, even if there was a completely compelling result and a majority who agreed on who should win.

Another question for anybody: Have firearms registration and background checks been shown to have any effect on crime, positive or negative? I know serious criminals can get their guns regardless of the laws, but it seems to me it might reduce violent crime committed w/firearms a bit if (up to now mostly law-abiding) Crazy John Doe knows the government knows his firearm belongs to him or if felons can only get their firearms from other felons. I know the facts can be surprising, though.

You have a TG, Kecibukia.
Yes and no. There are studies that show that they decrease crime, and there are studies that show that removing restrictions and bringing in 'must issue' laws decrease crime. But that kind of sociology/econometrics doesn't really prove anything other than that Mark Twain was smart. 'There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics'.

“The fact that smuggled guns are recovered in crime is not an argument against the effectiveness of licensing and registration. The gap between the murder rates in Canada and the US is one of the strongest cases for the efficacy of gun control. If we compare, for example, murders without guns in Canada and the U.S., we find the rates (the number divided by the population) somewhat comparable – the U.S. rate is less than twice Canada’s. But the rate of murder by firearms in the U.S. is eight times higher than in Canada, and the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times higher.

http://www.gca.org.za/facts/worddocs/Brief%2048%20The%20Canadian%20Experience.doc

I think that says a lot.

?The fact that smuggled guns are recovered in crime is not an argument against the effectiveness of licensing and registration. The gap between the murder rates in Canada and the US is one of the strongest cases for the efficacy of gun control. If we compare, for example, murders without guns in Canada and the U.S., we find the rates (the number divided by the population) somewhat comparable ? the U.S. rate is less than twice Canada?s. But the rate of murder by firearms in the U.S. is eight times higher than in Canada, and the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times higher.

http://www.gca.org.za/facts/worddocs/Brief%2048%20The%20Canadian%20Experience.doc

I think that says a lot.

Now comes the questions.

What were Canadian crime rates and trends BEFORE the various laws? What were the rates and trends AFTER the laws were enacted?

If "Gun Control" reduces crime, why did crime increase after the 1968 gun laws were enacted? Why have crime rates continued to drop in the US even though over two dozen states have enacted CC laws since the early 90's and ownership of personal firearms has increased substantially?

If you're going to source groups such as the "Gun Control Alliance", be prepared to back up the data w/ facts.

It's also interesting to note that South Africa has very strict laws on the private ownership of weapons (to the point that they're now effectively banned) and they have one of the highest crime/murder rates in the world and it's getting worse.

Lets look at the facts:


1. No legal owners of automatic firearms have killed anybody.

.
Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

In FBI files there are reports of guns stolen reaching the 2 million mark as of 1995. Almost a third of the guns traced by the ATF and used in crimes were 3 years old or less. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

Now comes the questions.

What were Canadian crime rates and trends BEFORE the various laws? What were the rates and trends AFTER the laws were enacted?

If "Gun Control" reduces crime, why did crime increase after the 1968 gun laws were enacted? Why have crime rates continued to drop in the US even though over two dozen states have enacted CC laws since the early 90's and ownership of personal firearms has increased substantially?

If you're going to source groups such as the "Gun Control Alliance", be prepared to back up the data w/ facts.

It's also interesting to note that South Africa has very strict laws on the private ownership of weapons (to the point that they're now effectively banned) and they have one of the highest crime/murder rates in the world and it's getting worse.
South Africa is also rife with political problems. I'll be more than happy to look up the things you want me to, but my lunch is over. I'll get back to you.

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

One unconfirmed and one by a police officer.

In FBI files there are reports of guns stolen reaching the 2 million mark as of 1995. Almost a third of the guns traced by the ATF and used in crimes were 3 years old or less. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

And according to the DOJ, there are 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms/ year w/ 2.5 million being reasonable based on data.

There are almost 300 million legally owned firearms and about 80 million owners (US census). Legal ownershiphas increased and crime has decreased. Even the CDC can't find correlation. "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws." A Library of Congress study: ""it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes." Other studies by the DOJ and NAS are unable to find any correlation either.

South Africa is also rife with political problems. I'll be more than happy to look up the things you want me to, but my lunch is over. I'll get back to you.

And disarming the citizens who actually follow the law hasn't helped.

Just take the gun lock and throw it in the draw with all the rest of your junk. It's hell when we have to pay a tax to keep our Constitutional rights.

The problem is, all this restricting of our rights is occurring in baby-steps. Like enforcing the sale of locks with each gun. Soon, the anti-gunners will say, "Since everyone has locks with their guns, we should enforce the mandatory use of them." Just like they did with seat-belts.

And we're letting it happen.

Now comes the questions.

What were Canadian crime rates and trends BEFORE the various laws? What were the rates and trends AFTER the laws were enacted?

If "Gun Control" reduces crime, why did crime increase after the 1968 gun laws were enacted? Why have crime rates continued to drop in the US even though over two dozen states have enacted CC laws since the early 90's and ownership of personal firearms has increased substantially?

If you're going to source groups such as the "Gun Control Alliance", be prepared to back up the data w/ facts.

It's also interesting to note that South Africa has very strict laws on the private ownership of weapons (to the point that they're now effectively banned) and they have one of the highest crime/murder rates in the world and it's getting worse.
The violent crime rate in Canada has fallen 11 percent since 1993.

The homicide rate for Canada went down 7 percent in 2003 to its lowest level in over 35 years. A total of 548 homicides were reported to police.

Saskatchewan had the highest homicide rate in the country, and the four Atlantic provinces had the lowest homicide rates in Canada.

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/crime/a/crimerates2003.htm

In 2003, the crime rate involving gun involved homicide actually went up but
"Ontario’s 19 gang-related murders in 2003 accounted for 45 per cent of killings nation-wide." http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/04032005/n1.shtml

Heh, touche'.

Took me a while to stop chuckling.

Hooray! A sense of humor! :D

So what about the fact that 98% of defensive gun uses do not involve firing the weapon at all?

That's a desctruction of the will of continuance and the freedom of choice. The burglar did not choose to stop burgling, merely was forced to stop burgling you.

Anyone who knows me, knows I support the 2nd Amendment stronger than most Republicons ... but I also support reality.

There are several guns out there for target shooting primarily. A hammer is primarily used for directing a lot of force at one point--it can be used to kill just like a target gun can.

I'm sorry, but I rather doubt that. The target rifle/pistol/shotgun example has been brought up several times before--and given your post count, I would think you would have seen them.


What did that harmless paper ever do to you for you to destroy it so? Even target shooting, whether it's at a paper target, clay pidgeon, stop sign, or dead racoon is a destructive act.

A hammer is designed to drive nails into wood, holding things together, thus, constructive. As a harmful side-effect, a hammer can be used to kill. But, if you watch old kung-fu movies, so can a tea cup.

Hmm. How else do you defend? If you use a tazer, you are destroying. If you use pepper spray, you are destroying. If you use a blunt instrument, you're destroying. If you use martial arts, you are destroying. Just sitting there and taking it is your answer?

No ... not at all. I'm just asking for acknowledgement that a firearm's primary purpose is destruction. Martial Arts is an excersize, focusses the mind and body, and can be used for defense as well. Most blunt instruments, such as a hammer or baseball bat, were designed with something else specific in mind.

Even pepper spray can enhance an omelet. :D

By voting for anything that wears a republican button? They aren't always better (though they are on gun rights). And in any case there are more Americans who'd never vote anything but democrats than who vote republicans (and vice versa), so you can never be sure about an elections result, even if there was a completely compelling result and a majority who agreed on who should win.

Unfortunatly you are correct and that is one reason independants and other third party candidates can't win in most cases.

“The fact that smuggled guns are recovered in crime is not an argument against the effectiveness of licensing and registration. The gap between the murder rates in Canada and the US is one of the strongest cases for the efficacy of gun control. If we compare, for example, murders without guns in Canada and the U.S., we find the rates (the number divided by the population) somewhat comparable – the U.S. rate is less than twice Canada’s. But the rate of murder by firearms in the U.S. is eight times higher than in Canada, and the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times higher.

http://www.gca.org.za/facts/worddocs/Brief%2048%20The%20Canadian%20Experience.doc

I think that says a lot.

How does the total per-capita murder rate between the two countries compare?

Okay, other than hunting, why is there the feeling that owning a gun is necessary?

Most of the people I know that own guns but don't go hunting are much more likely to shoot themselves than anyone else.

Ah, so in typical anti-gun fashion, you're blaming the inanimate object. Brilliant.

Total number of gun related deaths have risen, but have fallen by percentage of population.

Ah, but what about percentage compared to availability of guns? Anyway, I was also including the injury rates, as that's one of my arguments against guns- it isn't hard to have an accidental firing, and accidents with guns are far worse than accidents with most other objects around the home.

ANYONE is more likely to be killed by something if it is present in the home. If you have knives, you're more likely to be killed by a knife. Those with small children are more likely to be killed by choking on a pacifier than those that don't have children. Duh. Guns aren't the problem--the jerks that perpetrate violence are.

Read the line carefully. It does not say 'women who live in homes with guns in them are 22 times more likely to be killed with a gun, it says, 'women who live in homes with guns in them are 22 time more to be murdered.' Period. In household without guns, women are murdered less often.

We're seeing the effectiveness of pepper spray being blown out of proportion--people can still fight through it. More and more officers have been noting that in reports. Tazers have been actually KILLING some folks--not to mention you only get one shot. Clubs--do you know how hard to hit without killing someone, or are you going to believe the Hollywood fallacy that just cracking someone upside the skull will just knock them out every time?

Be that as it may, these methods are lethal much less often than firearms. Anything can be lethal; however, guns are much more often so. Of course, it's unreasonable to expect every person to be physically capable of defending themselves, which is why I must reluctantly agree that personal firearms shouldn't be completely banned. However, I think that their sale should be severely restricted, buyers should be rigorously tested (including a background check), dealers should be regularly checked to make sure their wares are secure, and each weapon should be registered before its sale.

Not true. Have you ever tried to shoot a moving target? Once again, don't believe Hollywood.

Say you're walking down the street in a straight line. Someone comes up behind you and presses a gun in your back. You're screwed. Say they leap out in front of or behind you, takes aim, and tells you to freeze. Bullets move a lot faster than people, so there's a good chance they'll hit you if you try to spring out of the way. If they don't, then good job- you've rolled. Now what? Either they'll give up and run away (voila! No use for a gun in self defense!), or they'll advance and point a gun straight at your face. Screwed again, unless you're fit enough to leap up and either beat them or draw your own gun (which may not be easy if you're using concealed carry, since it needs to go around your clothes and whatnot). In other words, in this scenario, only the physically fit are skilled enough to actually use a gun if one is already pointed at them; wonderful.

Sure it is....criminals don't register their guns. So, if the gun's not registered, how you gonna find the criminal? This doesn't work. See, just a LITTLE bit of logic is a good thing. Exercise some.

Wait- people can have guns without registering them?! You see, that's what I'm trying to prevent! The dealer and the buyer should have to file the report and the firearm should have to have its traits (such as the unique markings on the bullets) registered before anyone gets their hands on it. A firearm license and mandatory gun safety classes should also be required; the classes should include methods of keeping the gun secure so it can't be stolen. Ideally, a strong police force should be maintained to keep smuggling and trafficking of illegal guns down. We're rather strict about who can and cannot drive; why should we be less so with a gun, which is rather more dangerous?

Okay, other than hunting, why is there the feeling that owning a gun is necessary?

Most of the people I know that own guns but don't go hunting are much more likely to shoot themselves than anyone else.
Maybe to some that is the point. To be able to go out painlessly if they screw up too badly.

To normal people the most common uses for a gun probably is hunting, target shooting (for sport, compare it to chess if you like) and for self defense. Even if it is not likely that you'll need a gun to defend yourself, having it as last recourse can make you feal more secure.

Also if we are talking theory and how a society should be, there should be as many people as possible who have guns and can use them, just to distribute power a little bit. The same goes for cars and various forms of telecommunications gear.

How does the total per-capita murder rate between the two countries compare?
Canada:
Police reported 622 victims of homicide
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm

U.S.
There were 16137 murders in the United States in 2004
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9728174/

That's the number of murders, not the per-capita murder rate.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap <--- unknown accuracy

Hooray! A sense of humor! :D

It's there. I just get touchy when I feel that someone is trying to take my right to defend myself away. :)

No ... not at all. I'm just asking for acknowledgement that a firearm's primary purpose is destruction.


No can do, Kemosabe. :( Sorry. A firearm's primary purpose is to project a small object at very high rates of speed. What the projectile is aimed at, is up the the discression of the weilder.


Martial Arts is an excersize, focusses the mind and body, and can be used for defense as well.


They were designed to be a weapon, when past rulers had disarmed the populace. Aikido (the only wholy defensive martial art) wasn't created until the end of the 19th century/early 20th century. Everything else has an offensive maneuver of some sort. It turns a person into a weapon. The only difference is, you choose to see it in a "good" light as opposed to an "evil" one. It's still force directed at another. You are seeing the benefits of the martial arts. I see the benefits of the firearm. Just like someone practicing restraint with their skills in martial arts, I'm practicing restraint in my use of firearms--I haven't shot anyone. I have perforated many pieces of paper, though. How many 2X4s are you going to allow to be destroyed by displays of martial arts? :D


Most blunt instruments, such as a hammer or baseball bat, were designed with something else specific in mind.


Kubaton? Firearms were originally designed to confuse and intimidate, actually.


Even pepper spray can enhance an omelet. :D

Indeed it can! And leaves that nifty UV dye on your tongue. :D

Ah, but what about percentage compared to availability of guns? Anyway, I was also including the injury rates, as that's one of my arguments against guns- it isn't hard to have an accidental firing, and accidents with guns are far worse than accidents with most other objects around the home.
[quote]

That's not ACCIDENTAL. That is NEGLIGENT. The party that pulled the trigger, regardless of their "excuse" is wholly responsible for what happens.

[QUOTE=Pennterra]
Read the line carefully. It does not say 'women who live in homes with guns in them are 22 times more likely to be killed with a gun, it says, 'women who live in homes with guns in them are 22 time more to be murdered.' Period. In household without guns, women are murdered less often.


I'd really love to see the source of THAT number.


Be that as it may, these methods are lethal much less often than firearms. Anything can be lethal; however, guns are much more often so. Of course, it's unreasonable to expect every person to be physically capable of defending themselves, which is why I must reluctantly agree that personal firearms shouldn't be completely banned. However, I think that their sale should be severely restricted, buyers should be rigorously tested (including a background check), dealers should be regularly checked to make sure their wares are secure, and each weapon should be registered before its sale.


Holy crap, you really DO think the government is here to help, don't you? Wow. That's horribly naive.


Say you're walking down the street in a straight line. Someone comes up behind you and presses a gun in your back. You're screwed.


Um, that's the case with ANY weapon, dude.


Say they leap out in front of or behind you, takes aim, and tells you to freeze. Bullets move a lot faster than people, so there's a good chance they'll hit you if you try to spring out of the way.


You've never fired a gun, have you? Or at least not at a moving target, let alone the person FIRING the gun doing the moving. This is rich. You are totally speaking out of your ass--your lack of experience is GLOWING. Wow.


If they don't, then good job- you've rolled. Now what? Either they'll give up and run away (voila! No use for a gun in self defense!), or they'll advance and point a gun straight at your face. Screwed again, unless you're fit enough to leap up and either beat them or draw your own gun (which may not be easy if you're using concealed carry, since it needs to go around your clothes and whatnot). In other words, in this scenario, only the physically fit are skilled enough to actually use a gun if one is already pointed at them; wonderful.


ROFLMAO! Are you a screenplay writer by chance? :D You have so much movie in your explanation, it's positively oozing with cinematic presentation. And completely not how it works in reality. Criminals aren't confident, they aren't practiced, and a person carrying concealed is generally more practiced than a typical police officer or government agent. Wow, you need to get out into the real world--or at least do some research.


Wait- people can have guns without registering them?! You see, that's what I'm trying to prevent! The dealer and the buyer should have to file the report and the firearm should have to have its traits (such as the unique markings on the bullets) registered before anyone gets their hands on it. A firearm license and mandatory gun safety classes should also be required; the classes should include methods of keeping the gun secure so it can't be stolen. Ideally, a strong police force should be maintained to keep smuggling and trafficking of illegal guns down. We're rather strict about who can and cannot drive; why should we be less so with a gun, which is rather more dangerous?

We are? I've seen 90 year-olds on the road, driving slow, getting in to accidents. Same with drunk people. Cars are more dangerous and kill many more people a year than any firearm could--even if the driver isn't impared. You really are living in some kind of fantasy world, kid.

Something of note--criminals will NEVER register their firearms.

Time to take the red pill and wake up.

It's there. I just get touchy when I feel that someone is trying to take my right to defend myself away. :)

So do I. I would never make any attempt to take anyone's right to defend themselves away. If I were President and a bill came my way that said "Every adult citizen of the US, who passes proper testing as determined by the State, has the right to own an M-1 Abrams", I'd sign that fucker twice.

Not my choice, mind you. I do not own a firearm. I own swords and a solid wood baseball bat. However, who am I to spit on the US Constitution? I staunchly defend it and the 2nd is part of it. I would no sooner see the 2nd curtailed than I would the 1st, 4th, 9th, or 20th.

The violent crime rate in Canada has fallen 11 percent since 1993.

The homicide rate for Canada went down 7 percent in 2003 to its lowest level in over 35 years. A total of 548 homicides were reported to police.

Saskatchewan had the highest homicide rate in the country, and the four Atlantic provinces had the lowest homicide rates in Canada.

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/crime/a/crimerates2003.htm

In 2003, the crime rate involving gun involved homicide actually went up but
"Ontario?s 19 gang-related murders in 2003 accounted for 45 per cent of killings nation-wide." http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/04032005/n1.shtml

And US murder has dropped over 30% since 1993 and yet US laws "loosened". What Canadian laws were passed in 1993? What other factors do you think could account for a decrease in crime?

You are seeing the benefits of the martial arts. I see the benefits of the firearm.

By Gadfrey Damnit, you're right.

You've convinced me. Argument conceded.

Canada:
Police reported 622 victims of homicide
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm

U.S.
There were 16137 murders in the United States in 2004
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9728174/

And yet the laws have gone to supporting self-defense in the US and crime has still dropped.

Crime rates in Canada were lower before the bans. There is no causality. Banning guns does NOT lead to lower crime.

By Gadfrey Damnit, you're right.

You've convinced me. Argument conceded.

Isn't it nice to have a civilized discussion?

Isn't it nice to have a civilized discussion?

It's a rarity around there parts. Don't let it get out ... the mods will lock the thread. ;)

Actually this could be bad news for "gun nuts", if DC's murder rate starts to climb again, after dramatic reductions in the past few years.

Like many other large cities, Washington, D.C., has enacted a number of strict gun control laws. Handguns have been outlawed (unless registered as of February 5, 1977), carrying guns (concealed or not) is prohibited, and all guns and ammunition must be registered [1]. Critics, citing numerous statistics, have questioned the efficacy of these restrictions, and some consider the ban a violation of the 2nd Amendment protections on bearing arms. The combination in Washington of strict gun control laws and high levels of gun violence is sometimes used to criticize gun control laws in general as ineffectual. Critics using this example fail to mention that it is relatively easy to obtain guns in neighboring states with laxer gun control laws, especially Virginia. There are no mechanisms in place to prevent guns obtained outside the city from being bought into D.C. (such as checkpoints, etc.). Therefore, the inflow of guns purchased outside the city in states where gun control laws are less stringent compromises the city's own strict regulations. Regardless, due to its prominence as the national capital, its strict gun control laws and its reputation as the former "murder capital" of the U.S., Washington has become something of a popular example in the wider debate on gun control.(

Well this is exactly why I oppose gun control. Look the law abiding citizens of DC by obeying the gun control laws are at the mercy of those criminals who are willing to go nextdoor and ignore the gun laws. Essentially you're talking aboout a place where ONLY the criminals have guns.Naturally there's going to be a crime problem.

Canada:
Police reported 622 victims of homicide
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm

U.S.
There were 16137 murders in the United States in 2004
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9728174/

Those are the totals. Canada has fewer people than the US. How do those number break down for the number of murders per 1,000 or 10,000 of the population?

So do I. I would never make any attempt to take anyone's right to defend themselves away. If I were President and a bill came my way that said "Every adult citizen of the US, who passes proper testing as determined by the State, has the right to own an M-1 Abrams", I'd sign that fucker twice.

Not my choice, mind you. I do not own a firearm. I own swords and a solid wood baseball bat. However, who am I to spit on the US Constitution? I staunchly defend it and the 2nd is part of it. I would no sooner see the 2nd curtailed than I would the 1st, 4th, 9th, or 20th.

Listen to yourself Keru; "I would never make any attempt to take anyone's right to defend themselves away. If I were President and a bill came my way that said "Every adult citizen of the US, who passes proper testing as determined by the State, has the right to own an M-1 Abrams", I'd sign that fucker twice."

So you want people who own a gun to pass a test. Then you say; " However, who am I to spit on the US Constitution? I staunchly defend it and the 2nd is part of it."

Now tell me please where it says in the Constitution I must pass a test to have a firearm?

Now tell me please where it says in the Constitution I must pass a test to have a firearm?

It doesn't ... but the 2nd amendment says "a well armed militia". I don't think any drunken retarded Tom, Dick, and Harry should be included in that.

A test is required to drive a car. A test is required to serve alcohol. A test is required to serve in the US Armed Forces. A test is required to pass the minimum High School Equivalency. I believe there should be a simple test to own firearms.

None of these things are enumerated in the US Constitution, but implied by the 9th and 10th amendments. Let's at least make a standardized test!

Those are the totals. Canada has fewer people than the US. How do those number break down for the number of murders per 1,000 or 10,000 of the population?
Canada's rate is 1.9 per 100,000. The US rate is 5.5 murders for every 100,000 people. That means that the average American is 2.89 times more likely to be murdered than a Canadian. The number of Canadians murdered by a firearm was 28% in 2004. In the US it is 67%.

Now tell me please where it says in the Constitution I must pass a test to have a firearm?
Does this mean that a mentally incompetent person who is of legal age can buy a gun in the US?

Does this mean that a mentally incompetent person who is of legal age can buy a gun in the US?

The question was and remains: Now tell me please where it says in the Constitution I must pass a test to have a firearm?

That's not ACCIDENTAL. That is NEGLIGENT. The party that pulled the trigger, regardless of their "excuse" is wholly responsible for what happens.

Well now, doesn't it seem to be a good idea to restrict who gets guns, so that the negligent don't hurt themselves or someone else, like their children?

I'd really love to see the source of THAT number.

I listed my source in a previous post. Voila. (http://www.cagved.org/gunfacts.htm) Ack! I got the wrong number- it's 5 times more likely, not 22. Where the heck did I come up with that number? My mistake, although still rather more than it should be given your arguments. Their source is "Smith T. National gun policy survey of the National Opinion Research Center; research findings. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago; 2001. Campbell J, Webster D, Kozoil-McLain J, et al. Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93:1232-1237."

Ergh, I can't believe I made that mistake; way to go, me, weakening my argument through my presentation rather than the facts themselves...

Holy crap, you really DO think the government is here to help, don't you? Wow. That's horribly naive.

Holy crap, you really DO think the government is here to target you, lord over you, and take all your rights away, don't you? Wow. That's horribly paranoid and arrogant (right, like the government cares about YOU).

Um, that's the case with ANY weapon, dude.{quote pertaining to comment that you're screwed if someone steps out and has a gun to your back)

True, that. It still presents a case where having a gun doesn't help anyone, and can hurt you if they find it.

You've never fired a gun, have you? Or at least not at a moving target, let alone the person FIRING the gun doing the moving. This is rich. You are totally speaking out of your ass--your lack of experience is GLOWING. Wow.

ROFLMAO! Are you a screenplay writer by chance? :D You have so much movie in your explanation, it's positively oozing with cinematic presentation. And completely not how it works in reality. Criminals aren't confident, they aren't practiced, and a person carrying concealed is generally more practiced than a typical police officer or government agent. Wow, you need to get out into the real world--or at least do some research.

You're right. I've never used a gun. I am inexperienced in realistic use of firearms. Now that I think on it, there is at least one scenario in which having a gun aids in your self defense. Which, again, is why I'm not proposing a complete ban- only severe restrictions on who can own one.

We are? I've seen 90 year-olds on the road, driving slow, getting in to accidents. Same with drunk people. Cars are more dangerous and kill many more people a year than any firearm could--even if the driver isn't impared. You really are living in some kind of fantasy world, kid.

I also happen to propose harsher punishments against drunk drivers, such as rapidly-increasing penalties for each incarceration, ending with a complete revoking of the license on the third conviction. Drunks have no business behind the wheel of a car; nor do they have any business holding a gun. One DUI means a complete ban on owning a gun.

For the record, those old drivers rarely get into the accidents themselves- it's more often belligerent younger drivers getting mad and going around them. These also aren't the people you want to have hold a gun.

The difference between a gun and a car? A gun is designed to kill; cars are not. There is no use for a gun other than to kill (with the exception of sport shooting, which really doesn't necessitate private ownership). Logically, then, controls on guns should be harsher than controls on cars, as the use of a gun is far, far more likely to end up with a fatality than any use of a car. The sane, the drug-free, and the never-arrested- these are the only people who should be allowed to own a firearm.

Something of note--criminals will NEVER register their firearms.

Then they should never get the gun. Pay attention now: by my system, AT NO POINT SHOULD A GUN-BUYER TOUCH THEIR SELECTION UNTIL IT HAS BEEN REGISTERED. The dealer keeps it locked up (as they should with all of their guns, using a book showing the guns in stock for the buyer to browse; this limits the incidents of people stealing guns from their shops) until the registration process is complete and the local government sends their OK; only then does the buyer touch the gun. If the buyer doesn't want to register, they don't get the gun. Tell me, what is wrong with this system?

Then they should never get the gun. Pay attention now: by my system, AT NO POINT SHOULD A GUN-BUYER TOUCH THEIR SELECTION UNTIL IT HAS BEEN REGISTERED. The dealer keeps it locked up (as they should with all of their guns, using a book showing the guns in stock for the buyer to browse; this limits the incidents of people stealing guns from their shops) until the registration process is complete and the local government sends their OK; only then does the buyer touch the gun. If the buyer doesn't want to register, they don't get the gun. Tell me, what is wrong with this system?
You can forget about that. In Sweden there is a year of mandatory training before you can buy a 9 mm handgun or bigger (shorter training but otherwise same license rules for lighter guns). After that all guns must be licensed and registered. Guns and ammunition can only (legally) be sold by a few government approved dealers and clubs, who always check your license and does registration before handing out a gun or ammunition. That does not prevent criminals from getting a gun when they want it.

So do I. I would never make any attempt to take anyone's right to defend themselves away. If I were President and a bill came my way that said "Every adult citizen of the US, who passes proper testing as determined by the State, has the right to own an M-1 Abrams", I'd sign that fucker twice.


There's only one problem--the 2nd amendment was designed to defend against the US government. If the government determines the training, as well as keep the list of who has what....they know who to nail first, if it ever gets bad enough that martial law would be declared.


Not my choice, mind you.


And I completely respect that. I'm only looking for freedom of choice, not mandatory gun ownership--but I think you already knew that about me. :)


I do not own a firearm. I own swords and a solid wood baseball bat. However, who am I to spit on the US Constitution? I staunchly defend it and the 2nd is part of it. I would no sooner see the 2nd curtailed than I would the 1st, 4th, 9th, or 20th.

Ditto.

Isn't it nice to have a civilized discussion?

I tend to be civilized with those that are. :) For those that are emotinally reactionary and don't have their facts together...I'm not so good with those. :(

It doesn't ... but the 2nd amendment says "a well armed militia". I don't think any drunken retarded Tom, Dick, and Harry should be included in that.


Every drunken retarded Tom, Dick, and Harry between the ages of 17 and 45 are in the militia, but constitutional historians have gone back and forth on that particular article--most agree that it's just an example, not the basis of the amendment.

Now, some may argue that since all those males in that age range are in the militia, they MUST own a firearm. I'm not willing to go that far.


A test is required to drive a car. A test is required to serve alcohol. A test is required to serve in the US Armed Forces. A test is required to pass the minimum High School Equivalency. I believe there should be a simple test to own firearms.


Unfortunately, all those institutions were created after the Constitution, and originally were left up to the states to decide how to handle them. Most still are--the way it should be. It comes down to a very select few rights that the founders wanted to make sure states couldn't monkey with. Unfortunately, most states (and the feds) do monkey with them still.


None of these things are enumerated in the US Constitution, but implied by the 9th and 10th amendments. Let's at least make a standardized test!

The implication is that states can make their own rules, but cannot override what IS enumerated in the constitution. Like the 2nd amendment.

I'll say it again--if you make a standardized test, you'll have record of who has what in means of defense, so a corrupt government can more easily turn to martial law.

I AM, however, happy that you don't want to stop those from legally owning the tools--it counts for a lot in my book (not that it matters much to others). :D

Well now, doesn't it seem to be a good idea to restrict who gets guns, so that the negligent don't hurt themselves or someone else, like their children?


No. It means we should actually enforce the laws that punish AFTER a person commits a crime. No preemptive punishment of the innocent.


I listed my source in a previous post. Voila. (http://www.cagved.org/gunfacts.htm) Ack! I got the wrong number- it's 5 times more likely, not 22. Where the heck did I come up with that number? My mistake, although still rather more than it should be given your arguments. Their source is "Smith T. National gun policy survey of the National Opinion Research Center; research findings. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago; 2001. Campbell J, Webster D, Kozoil-McLain J, et al. Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93:1232-1237."


Ah...Chicago. Okay. It's a good argument, until you bring up where it was conducted. Wanna talk one of the most anti-gun areas of the country? Okay, okay, I won't poo-poo the source. You done good digging it up.


Ergh, I can't believe I made that mistake; way to go, me, weakening my argument through my presentation rather than the facts themselves...


Everyone flubs at least once, though you still had 5 times--that says something. What, I don't know. Could be coincidence, could be correlation. Though that is tough to swallow, since we have over 300 million firearms LEGALLY owned in the US, by 80 million people. You'd think, given the large proportion of households with firearms, the rate would be higher, given the sheer presence of firearms. Also, what about Canada, with their higher per-capita of gun ownership?


Holy crap, you really DO think the government is here to target you, lord over you, and take all your rights away, don't you? Wow. That's horribly paranoid and arrogant (right, like the government cares about YOU).


Who's the president, controls the legislature, and is about to have a stacked judiciary? I don't think I'm all that paranoid. What the founders of this country were afraid of has come to pass already--huge, corrupt government.


True, that. It still presents a case where having a gun doesn't help anyone, and can hurt you if they find it.


Um, you're the one that assumed we gun-rights supporters think that a firearm is a silver-bullet (pun intended). It can only help in certain instances. There are cases where having an Abrahms tank doesn't help a whit.


You're right. I've never used a gun. I am inexperienced in realistic use of firearms. Now that I think on it, there is at least one scenario in which having a gun aids in your self defense. Which, again, is why I'm not proposing a complete ban- only severe restrictions on who can own one.


Okay, there's already in place rules about mentally incompetent and felons. Who else shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves? Sounds to me like the bases are already covered.


I also happen to propose harsher punishments against drunk drivers, such as rapidly-increasing penalties for each incarceration, ending with a complete revoking of the license on the third conviction. Drunks have no business behind the wheel of a car; nor do they have any business holding a gun. One DUI means a complete ban on owning a gun.


I agree that one DUI should be a felony (thereby taking the right to bear arms away). The meeting of the minds has begun!


For the record, those old drivers rarely get into the accidents themselves- it's more often belligerent younger drivers getting mad and going around them. These also aren't the people you want to have hold a gun.


Can't pre-emptively punish, though. Can't take a license away until someone proves they aren't capable--just like a gun--can't take that away until someone is irresponsible with it. Innocent until proven guilty. No pre-emptive punishment again.


The difference between a gun and a car? A gun is designed to kill; cars are not. There is no use for a gun other than to kill (with the exception of sport shooting, which really doesn't necessitate private ownership).


<smacks head> You have to get that assumption out of your head. 2.5 million crimes are stopped each year, with firearms. The majority are without firing a shot. I'd call that a decent use of a firearm. Also, do you know how MUCH sport shooting (between paper and clay targets, as well as keeping herd populations in check) is done per year? It vastly outnumbers the uses for murder. We had something like 16,000 homicides last year in the US. Just for hunting number alone in Wisconsin, we have hundreds of thousands of deer harvested. In one state you already go up by a factor of 10--and that's not counting the massive amount of target shooting and clay pigeon shooting, nor the other types of hunting in the state. It is overwhelmingly in the minority that firearms are used to kill people.


Logically, then, controls on guns should be harsher than controls on cars, as the use of a gun is far, far more likely to end up with a fatality than any use of a car. The sane, the drug-free, and the never-arrested- these are the only people who should be allowed to own a firearm.


Which is the majority of gun owners today. You're just seeing the individuals that sell papers and TV commercial time.


Then they should never get the gun. Pay attention now: by my system, AT NO POINT SHOULD A GUN-BUYER TOUCH THEIR SELECTION UNTIL IT HAS BEEN REGISTERED. The dealer keeps it locked up (as they should with all of their guns, using a book showing the guns in stock for the buyer to browse; this limits the incidents of people stealing guns from their shops) until the registration process is complete and the local government sends their OK; only then does the buyer touch the gun. If the buyer doesn't want to register, they don't get the gun. Tell me, what is wrong with this system?

Well, for one, you need to see how the gun feels in your hand before you buy the thing. Some don't fit--they're all different.

Also, you've already discovered how, like those that founded this country, I don't trust the government to be on the "for the people" side of things, so much as the "control the people" side of things. If you maintain records of who owns what, the government knows who to go after first. You call it paranoid, I call it looking at who's currently in office. If someone wants to tell me who I can or can't marry, just by gender alone, it's not too crazy to assume that they might want to force a few more things.

It doesn't ... but the 2nd amendment says "a well armed militia". I don't think any drunken retarded Tom, Dick, and Harry should be included in that.

A test is required to drive a car. A test is required to serve alcohol. A test is required to serve in the US Armed Forces. A test is required to pass the minimum High School Equivalency. I believe there should be a simple test to own firearms.

None of these things are enumerated in the US Constitution, but implied by the 9th and 10th amendments. Let's at least make a standardized test!

You are right. With the exception of the right to bear arms, none of those things is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Would you propose we also have a test that people must pass before they can vote? Do you propose we should pass a test before they can have a lawyer? Of course, you don't because they, like the ownership of guns are a right given to us under the constitution.

Oh, and drivers licenses are a privilege that can be revoked by the state.

Those are the totals. Canada has fewer people than the US. How do those number break down for the number of murders per 1,000 or 10,000 of the population?
I don't know. If you find out, let me know.

The question was and remains: Now tell me please where it says in the Constitution I must pass a test to have a firearm?
Please tell me where in the constitution it says you have the right to a fire arm if you are not part of a well regulated state militia?

Please tell me where in the constitution it says you have the right to a fire arm if you are not part of a well regulated state militia?

Okay, say that the militia part is the entire reason for the amendment--which it's not (most constitutional scholars agree on that)--any male between the ages of 17 and 45, as well as anyone in the National Guard (this was added later in the definition of militia, NOT defined in the constitution) is allowed a firearm. Actually, because they are part of the national defense of the US, it can even be said that they MUST own one.

Care to keep going down this path? You're not going to like it. By the way, when the constitution was drafted, the primary definition of "well regulated" meant well practiced--not necessarily a great many rules or regulations. So, you can take your modern regulatory arguments out of the discussion. They don't apply.

Please tell me where in the constitution it says you have the right to a fire arm if you are not part of a well regulated state militia?
The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to be a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment was meant to preserve and guarantee an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to members of an active militia.

Evidence of an Individual Right

In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Maidson in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.

"Because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,' the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era." (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century)

(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published Commentaries on the Laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American Founders.)

Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William Rawle, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.

(In 1791 William Rawle was appointed as a United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years. He was also George Washington's candidate for the nation's first attorney general, but Rawle declined the appointment.)

Yet another jurist, Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote (source):

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

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

As the Tennessee Supreme Court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this "passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."

Story adds:

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

Story laments the people's lack of enthusiasm for maintaining a well-regulated militia. However, some anti-gun rights advocates misinterpret this entire passage as being "consistent with the theory that the Second Amendment guarantees a right of the people to be armed only when in service of an organized militia." (See Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment for an example of reaching that conclusion by committing a non-sequitur.)

The need for a well-regulated militia and an armed citizenry are not mutually exclusive, nor was the right to have arms considered dependent on membership in an active militia (more on that later). Rather, as illustrated by Tucker, Rawle, and Story, the militia clause and the right to arms were intended to be complementary.

More Evidence Supporting an Individual Right

After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

"Coxe's defense of the amendments was widely reprinted. A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear "their private arms." The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).

Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

The Federalist Papers

Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 29, does not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Here, like Story, Madison is expressing the idea that additional advantages accrue to the people when the citizens' right to arms is enhanced by having an organized and properly directed militia.

The Federalist Papers Continued – "The Original Right of Self-Defense"

The Founders realized that insurrections may occur from time to time and it is the militia's duty to suppress them. They also realized that however remote the possibility of usurpation was, the people with their arms, had the right to restore their republican form of government by force, if necessary, as an extreme last resort.

"The original right of self-defense" is not a fantasy. We now examine Hamilton's Federalist No. 28. Hamilton begins:

That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.

Hamilton explains that the national government may occasionally need to quell insurrections and it is certainly justified in doing so.

Hamilton continues:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:

[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

Hamilton concludes, telling us the above scenario is extremely unlikely to occur:

When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.

Again, it is the recurring theme of the people's right to keep and bear arms as individuals, enhanced by a militia system, that (in part) provides for the "security of a free state."

Connecting the Dots...

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . "
--- The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

Though the Federalist Papers were written prior to the drafting of the Bill of Rights (but after the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification), the passages quoted, above, help to flesh-out the relationships that were understood between a well-regulated militia, the people, their governments, and the right to keep and bear arms.

One may counter, since the Federalist Papers were written prior to the Second Amendment, they lack relevance. However, if the Second Amendment is interpreted as protecting an individual right, un-narrowed by the militia clause, then the Founders' writings, regarding the keeping and bearing of arms, are relevant.

The Purpose of the Militia Clause

"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))

For more information about justification clauses see: Volokh, Eugene, The Commonplace Second Amendment, (73 NYU L. Rev. 793 (1998)). (See also, Kopel, David, Words of Freedom, National Review Online, May 16, 2001.)

Parting Shots

There are 3 ways the Second Amendment is usually interpreted to deny it was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms:

* It protects a state's right to keep and bear arms.
* The right is individual, but limited to active militia members because the militia clause narrows the right's scope.
* The term "people" refers to the people collectively, rather than the people as individuals.

Yet, three jurists, who were contemporaries of the Founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the Second Amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period (see Guncite's Is there contrary evidence? and Second Amendment challenge).

Instead of the "right of the people," the Amendment's drafters could have referred to the militia or active militia members, as they did in the Fifth Amendment, had they meant to restrict the right. (Additionally, see GunCite's page here showing evidence that the term, "people," as used in the Bill of Rights, referred to people as individuals.)

It strains credulity to believe the aforementioned three jurists misconstrued the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The only model that comports with all of the evidence from the Founding period is the one interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right for a collective purpose. The militia clause and the right to keep and bear arms were intended to be complementary.

Perversely, gun rights defenders are accused of creating a Second Amendment myth, when it is some present-era jurists and historians who have failed to give a full account of the historical record.

Okay, say that the militia part is the entire reason for the amendment--which it's not (most constitutional scholars agree on that)--any male between the ages of 17 and 45, as well as anyone in the National Guard (this was added later in the definition of militia, NOT defined in the constitution) is allowed a firearm. Actually, because they are part of the national defense of the US, it can even be said that they MUST own one.

Care to keep going down this path? You're not going to like it. By the way, when the constitution was drafted, the primary definition of "well regulated" meant well practiced--not necessarily a great many rules or regulations. So, you can take your modern regulatory arguments out of the discussion. They don't apply.
I'm sorry but that is open to debate.
"Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

IF you are going to have a gun, I'd rather it be regulated far more than say getting a drivers license. If I had my way, anyone who wanted a gun would also have to take extensive classes on Baton Twirling. Not that it would do anything. It'd just piss you off.

I'm sorry but that is open to debate.
"Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

IF you are going to have a gun, I'd rather it be regulated far more than say getting a drivers license. If I had my way, anyone who wanted a gun would also have to take extensive classes on Baton Twirling. Not that it would do anything. It'd just piss you off.
Actually, the case that's discussing is the Miller case. The only clear thing to come out of that case was that to qualify under the 2nd amendment the weapon in question must have military applications. So I guess we'd have to get rid of the .22lr.

I'm sorry but that is open to debate.
"Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

IF you are going to have a gun, I'd rather it be regulated far more than say getting a drivers license. If I had my way, anyone who wanted a gun would also have to take extensive classes on Baton Twirling. Not that it would do anything. It'd just piss you off.

And by using Miller, it can also be argued that civilians should be allowed fully-automatic weapons :"were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Miller, by the way, is a primary case that anti-gun lawyers have used as "precedent" to further erode rights by claiming that any firearm they don't like is "unsuitable". The judges in the case were also misinformed as to history of shortbarrelled shotguns. They were commonly used by the military for training in close in combat. The reason they were against them was due to mobsters using them. They were the "terrorist" mantra of the day. Similar to the way the Brady Bunch and the Less than a Million Moron March claims "terrorists" are buying .22's from Walmart.

There was also no defendant present at the hearing so there was no defense presented.

And by using Miller, it can also be argued that civilians should be allowed fully-automatic weapons :"were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Miller, by the way, is a primary case that anti-gun lawyers have used as "precedent" to further erode rights by claiming that any firearm they don't like is "unsuitable". The judges in the case were also misinformed as to history of shortbarrelled shotguns. They were commonly used by the military for training in close in combat. The reason they were against them was due to mobsters using them. They were the "terrorist" mantra of the day. Similar to the way the Brady Bunch and the Less than a Million Moron March claims "terrorists" are buying .22's from Walmart.

There was also no defendant present at the hearing so there was no defense presented.
The knowledge you all have on this subject is pretty nerve racking for me. Hope slow responses don't make you lose interest in the debate. Seriously, I mean if everyone is this well up on the laws concerning this passion, there wouldn't be much for me to debate about.

The knowledge you all have on this subject is pretty nerve racking for me. Hope slow responses don't make you lose interest in the debate. Seriously, I mean if everyone is this well up on the laws concerning this passion, there wouldn't be much for me to debate about.

Not a problem. This is my primary political issue so I try and keep up. I also try and learn the methods and tactics of my opponents. My ultimate goal is to remain civil and hopefully encourage you to learn more on the topic.

Historically, the 2nd Amendment has always been an individual right. Unfortunately, lawyers,the courts, big gov't etc. have always seen big money and control issues in banning firearms so the majority of court decisions in the last 70 years have been anti-gun. This is slowly changing. Constitutional scholars (not necessarily lawyers) have been making stronger cases and now even the Dept. of Justice recognizes the 2nd as an individual right(http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm). There are also more court cases leaning in that direction (US v Emerson being a primary example).

The whole issue over the 2nd not applying to the states is another legal trick. The 14th stated that the BOR's applied to the states. Another SCOTUS decision invented "selective incorporation" to this. The ONLY one that hasn't been "selectively incorporated" is the 2nd. Convienent eh?

Other court cases and Gov't actions are convincing more people that the owership of a personal firearm for various reasons is a good idea. Did you know that SCOTUS ruled that the police have NO OBLIGATION to protect you , the individual , from crime? Even if you have a restraining order . the police are not obligated to enforce it. Did you know that after Katrina, the New Orleans police used registration records to confiscate firearms from people who legally owned them but didn't attempt to disarm PRIVATE security personnel hired by the rich or connected to protect themselves or thier property?

I'm another one of those that don't claim that owning a gun is the end all be all of crime prevention or personal defense. I do claim that it is a persons right, as a Law Abiding Citizen, to have the choice of a firearm to defend themselves or for any other legal reason.

I'm sorry but that is open to debate.
"Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

IF you are going to have a gun, I'd rather it be regulated far more than say getting a drivers license. If I had my way, anyone who wanted a gun would also have to take extensive classes on Baton Twirling. Not that it would do anything. It'd just piss you off.

The positive point of all this: It's not up to you. :)

The positive point of all this: It's not up to you. :)
Hmmmm... very true. I would have made you all wear pink skirts, as well. Consider yourself lucky. (As I consider myself lucky seeing as you are the ones with the guns but I still have my anonymity.)

Not a problem. This is my primary political issue so I try and keep up. I also try and learn the methods and tactics of my opponents. My ultimate goal is to remain civil and hopefully encourage you to learn more on the topic.

Historically, the 2nd Amendment has always been an individual right. Unfortunately, lawyers,the courts, big gov't etc. have always seen big money and control issues in banning firearms so the majority of court decisions in the last 70 years have been anti-gun. This is slowly changing. Constitutional scholars (not necessarily lawyers) have been making stronger cases and now even the Dept. of Justice recognizes the 2nd as an individual right(http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm). There are also more court cases leaning in that direction (US v Emerson being a primary example).

The whole issue over the 2nd not applying to the states is another legal trick. The 14th stated that the BOR's applied to the states. Another SCOTUS decision invented "selective incorporation" to this. The ONLY one that hasn't been "selectively incorporated" is the 2nd. Convienent eh?

Other court cases and Gov't actions are convincing more people that the owership of a personal firearm for various reasons is a good idea. Did you know that SCOTUS ruled that the police have NO OBLIGATION to protect you , the individual , from crime? Even if you have a restraining order . the police are not obligated to enforce it. Did you know that after Katrina, the New Orleans police used registration records to confiscate firearms from people who legally owned them but didn't attempt to disarm PRIVATE security personnel hired by the rich or connected to protect themselves or thier property?

I'm another one of those that don't claim that owning a gun is the end all be all of crime prevention or personal defense. I do claim that it is a persons right, as a Law Abiding Citizen, to have the choice of a firearm to defend themselves or for any other legal reason.
Really, without doing much reading I can't support my opinion that your right to own arms not exclusively suitable to hunting and home defense (rifles or shotguns do that trick in my opinion), I'll let it go until I read up on it more.

But what is the main problem with gun control when it applies to ever more effective background checking and steps to insure that stolen weapons are dealt with? Why shouldn't someone who wants a weapon that is automatic or semi-automatic be required to take a system of mandatory testing and licensing? What is wrong with incorporating signatures into the guns to make identification of who purchased the weapon used in a crime? Mainly I'm concerned about the spirit of a free-for-all access to weapons which are popular with gang members and criminals. Wouldn't it help all involved, both the advocates for guns and gun control, if the system for who was selling guns, who was buying guns and where these guns came from and how they got into the criminal element, made simpler and increasingly more effective as the technology to monitor it increases? I think it would portray gun advocates as less trigger happy and more responsible to the rest of us who do not use guns in our everyday leisure activities but hear the horror stories of the murder and accident rate involving guns. What are the laws, for instance, of being drunk and being in the proximity of a weapon? Is there a law regarding this?

But what is the main problem with gun control when it applies to ever more effective background checking and steps to insure that stolen weapons are dealt with?

The background check system in place now is amazingly effective and computerized.

Why shouldn't someone who wants a weapon that is automatic or semi-automatic be required to take a system of mandatory testing and licensing?
The purchase of automatic weapons has been severely regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934. That's right - 1934. Since that time, it takes an incredible tax, an FBI background check, surrender of your right against unreasonable search and seizure (you sign such a form), and other loss of liberty. Since 1934, no fully automatic weapon under the NFA has ever been involved in a crime - ever.

Semi-automatic weapons carried by people with carry permits are already covered by people taking a class and demonstrating competence in 35 states. If you use your semi-automatic rifle for hunting, you already take a hunter's safety course for demonstrating you can actually hit what you aim at.

I am a civilian - but I am far, far better trained in the use of firearms than most police. Civilians involved in crime-stopping shootings are involved twice as much as police - hit their intended targets twice as often - and are involved in a fraction of the lawsuits that the police suffer. Perhaps this is because the typical gun owner gets literally orders of magnitude more practice than the police.

What is wrong with incorporating signatures into the guns to make identification of who purchased the weapon used in a crime?

Your ignorance of how a firearm is assembled and works is appalling. All of the parts you could possibly mark on a firearm are removable, replaceable, and disposable. Most are easily machined on light machine tools. Right now, we already have excellent ballistic matching technology.

Some of the other signature methods, such as the use of taggants in the propellant, are actually dangerous and can cause death of the user of the gun.
Mainly I'm concerned about the spirit of a free-for-all access to weapons which are popular with gang members and criminals.
According to Department of Justice Crime Statistics, 93 percent of violent crime is committed without a firearm. The so-called "free for all" access you describe is nowhere near that. And firearm violence has dropped 65 percent in the past 10 years - including the same drop in firearm murder - all while increasing firearm possession from 200 million to 300 million guns.

how they got into the criminal element
83 percent of crime guns are stolen. I'm sure that a criminal will fill out a form while robbing your house or local Wal Mart.

I think it would portray gun advocates as less trigger happy and more responsible to the rest of us who do not use guns in our everyday leisure activities but hear the horror stories of the murder and accident rate involving guns.
The murder and accident rates as I have said have plummeted while gun ownership has skyrocketed. It won't matter what gun advocates say - there will be those who will lie and distort and scare you with their stories.

What are the laws, for instance, of being drunk and being in the proximity of a weapon? Is there a law regarding this?
These are local laws, not Federal laws, as they should be.
Most places that allow the carry of concealed or open weapons have laws regarding the combination of guns and alcohol - bars are off limits in most jurisdictions for instance. Also, no shooting range allows people to drink and shoot.

Gun owners - legitimate gun owners - have a much better accident and murder track record than you think.

Your sources are appalling.

Just one such site I've found regarding a "smart gun"
http://www.njit.edu/v2/pwt/reports/VolumeI/10Sect3-Definitions.htm

How about this from 1914:
http://www.detnews.com/2003/specialreport/0312/16/a01-10440.htm

A new computer chip promises to keep police guns from firing if they fall into the wrong hands.
The tiny chip would be implanted in a police officer's hand and would match up with a scanning device inside a handgun. If the officer and gun match, a digital signal unlocks the trigger so it can be fired. But if a child or criminal would get hold of the gun, it would be useless.
http://www.cybertime.net/~ajgood/guns.html

Don't give me this shit that everything that can be done, has been done. The murder rate involving guns in the US is appalling. Either be constructive and recognize that and think of ways to solve it or... why am I talking to you?

Are you saying those should be done, or they could be done? IMO mandatory implants, mandatory "smart guns", mandatory locks that are difficult to operate in a hurry are unacceptable ("Hey, could you stand over there a moment? I need to unlock/put new batteries in my gun/find a gun that'll let me shoot."). Grip safeties are also not unheard of in modern handguns.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS, 12/6/01: In this manual, Al Qaeda terrorists are now told how to use America's freedom as a weapon against us.

DEBORAH AMOS: But what Ashcroft did not point out: these manuals show Osama bin Laden's foot soldiers how easy it is to buy assault weapons in American gun stores and gun shows.

Al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations have exploited numerous loopholes in American gun laws — loopholes that exist because of consistent lobbying by the powerful National Rifle Association to stop any restrictions on gun purchases. Since September 11th, critics say, the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has chosen to side with the NRA at the expense of the war on terrorism.
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gunland.html

I found an actual website that gives you tips on how to get past current government checks:

Illegal Methods
If you want to get an off-paper gun and can't do it legally, you still have plenty of options. First of all, forget all the licensed dealers (including pawn shops, gun stores, dealer tables at gun shows, and especially large retail chains). The chances of finding one willing to sell to you illegally is miniscule. They have a vested interest in keeping their books squeaky clean - any minor infraction can result in the loss of their license and the ability to legally sell firearms for profit. This should be held against them; they do society a lot of good by staying in a barely-profitable sector. But they simply are not the supply niche that you need.

Find an individual seller who is willing to sell without doing the state-required background check (if you live in a state that doesn't require checks for private sales, then this is quite legal). Some sellers who are only casual shooters may be ignorant of the law; some sellers just don't care about these invasive laws, or better yet are actively opposed to them.
Have a friend buy the gun for you from a dealer. This is known as a 'straw purchase'. There's no way for the seller to know about it (unless you make it obvious - so don't) but if it's proven later your friend can get in trouble. Realistically, there are enough sources of legit guns that such proof can only be found after an extensive investigation, and it's not a risk to the casual, peaceful buyer. Still, you can minimize the risk by taking a few simple precautions.
This is obvious - but make sure your friend is trustworthy! The whole plan is pointless if you accomplice gets nervous and tells the cops what you're doing.
Don't be present when the gun is purchased - find what you want, and then have your friend get it and deliver it later. The really paranoid can take the effort to shop around at gun shops other than the one where the final purchase is made, to make sure that you aren't in any way linked to the sale. Also, devise plausible explanations of where you got the gun and how your friend got rid of it. Perhaps he gave it away to a cousin in a state where no transfer check is needed. How about making it a birthday gift for a friend who has since left the state? Don't say it "got lost" - that story sounds really, really hollow. How many guns have you actually lost? If someone told me they just happened to lose a rifle, my first though would be to wonder which park they buried it in. stick to plausible but un-provable stories.
As for your acquisition, often it suffices to claim to have owned the gun for many years. If you can legally own the gun (this includes 18-20 year olds, who are not Federally prohibited from buy owning handguns, but may not purchase them) then simply explain that you bought it in the last state you lived in, where the purchase happens to be legal. Alternatively, it could have been given to you by (18-20 year old pistol owners, this means you) a parent, friend, or other family member.
If you are a felon or have a restraining order against you, no explanation will keep you out of trouble, because mere possession is punishable. So keep it quiet, and do your best to avoid the cops. I would also suggest avoiding crowded or shooting ranges, just to be safe. While it is highly unlikely that you would be caught, the penalty if it does happen is harsh. Try to find an established (so that shooting doesn't arouse suspicion), but generally empty practice location. Better yet, find a friend who will let you shoot on their private land.
The best way to keep your gun off-paper is to combine both of the previous methods. Find a gun for sale privately, and have a friend purchase it for you. This can be tricky to pull off, depending on local laws (it's pretty easy to do at a gun show that doesn't check private sales, for example). Short of finding a gun on the side of the road, it is the most anonymous way to go, though.
Buying Out-of-State
So, you live in Kalifornia and desperately want a FAL but can't find one for sale privately? Well, they're a lot easier to come by over the border in Nevada. Buying (or selling) a gun in a state other than your state of legal residence is illegal, though. It's not enforced much at all, but you ought to take some precautions, just to be safe. Ideally, you should go to the gun show (or private meeting, or flea market, or whatever) in a car with in-state license plates. You should also avoid taking any out-of-state ID with you. Do you have a friend in that state who can take you? Such a person need not be aware of what you're trying to do, and many don't know that out of state transfers are illegal.
http://www.doingfreedom.com/gen/0503/paperlessgun.html

"It's amazing that over 40 people who are on a terrorist watch list legally walked into a gun shop and bought a gun," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday. "What is going on in this country?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/08/terror/main678811.shtml

The Washington D.C.-based Americans for Gun Safety says in Minnesota the past two-and-a-half years, nearly 200 felons and others prohibited from owning guns passed background checks.
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200201/16_olsond_gunsales/

Are you saying those should be done, or they could be done? IMO mandatory implants, mandatory "smart guns", mandatory locks that are difficult to operate in a hurry are unacceptable ("Hey, could you stand over there a moment? I need to unlock/put new batteries in my gun/find a gun that'll let me shoot."). Grip safeties are also not unheard of in modern handguns.
That's what I'm saying.

That's what I'm saying.What's "that"?

Just one such site I've found regarding a "smart gun"
http://www.njit.edu/v2/pwt/reports/VolumeI/10Sect3-Definitions.htm

How about this from 1914:
http://www.detnews.com/2003/specialreport/0312/16/a01-10440.htm

A new computer chip promises to keep police guns from firing if they fall into the wrong hands.
The tiny chip would be implanted in a police officer's hand and would match up with a scanning device inside a handgun. If the officer and gun match, a digital signal unlocks the trigger so it can be fired. But if a child or criminal would get hold of the gun, it would be useless.
http://www.cybertime.net/~ajgood/guns.html

Don't give me this shit that everything that can be done, has been done. The murder rate involving guns in the US is appalling. Either be constructive and recognize that and think of ways to solve it or... why am I talking to you?


Trying to get this discussion back to the "civilized" aspect:

The "implanted chip" concept sends shivers down my spine. The whole thing, firearms aside, reeks of an Orwellian nightmare.

As for "Smart guns". I think the technology should be developed and made available. However, it should not be made "mandatory" for every firearm. Why? Think of the inherent costs of the system. It would then become prohibitively expensive for the average person to own a firearm. The same reasons that "safe storage laws" are implemented. Not to ensure "safety" but to drive up the cost. Reliablilty is also an issue. A failure in the system could mean life or death. The more geejaws you put in something the greater the chances of it breaking.

As to your earlier post. It's been mentioned before that a primary reason yyour "average person" sees gun advocates as "trigger happy" and all the "horror stories involving firearms is because that news sells. Example: A few months ago, a 72 year old man shot and killed a man in an NM Walmart as the man was attempting to murder his ex-wife. It recieved some local attention and mention on "pro-gun sites". Had it been the man shooting his ex, it most likely would have been made national. Example pt 2: we all heard about the NO helicopters being shot at and the stores being looted. How often did you hear on the news about people actively defending their property? Not as often but it didn't garner the attention. Read news reports and editorials and pay attention to how they portray "pro-gun" groups such as the NRA or SAF in comparison to "anti-gun" groups like VPC, HCI, or MMM.

There are things we can do to curb crime. We can work on the causes: improved education, more efficient social programs, drug programs, curbing illegal immigration, etc. That, and actively going after criminals, in lue of punishing those who follow the law, will help deter crime IMHO.

Trying to get this discussion back to the "civilized" aspect:

The "implanted chip" concept sends shivers down my spine. The whole thing, firearms aside, reeks of an Orwellian nightmare.

As for "Smart guns". I think the technology should be developed and made available. However, it should not be made "mandatory" for every firearm. Why? Think of the inherent costs of the system. It would then become prohibitively expensive for the average person to own a firearm. The same reasons that "safe storage laws" are implemented. Not to ensure "safety" but to drive up the cost. Reliablilty is also an issue. A failure in the system could mean life or death. The more geejaws you put in something the greater the chances of it breaking.

As to your earlier post. It's been mentioned before that a primary reason yyour "average person" sees gun advocates as "trigger happy" and all the "horror stories involving firearms is because that news sells. Example: A few months ago, a 72 year old man shot and killed a man in an NM Walmart as the man was attempting to murder his ex-wife. It recieved some local attention and mention on "pro-gun sites". Had it been the man shooting his ex, it most likely would have been made national. Example pt 2: we all heard about the NO helicopters being shot at and the stores being looted. How often did you hear on the news about people actively defending their property? Not as often but it didn't garner the attention. Read news reports and editorials and pay attention to how they portray "pro-gun" groups such as the NRA or SAF in comparison to "anti-gun" groups like VPC, HCI, or MMM.

There are things we can do to curb crime. We can work on the causes: improved education, more efficient social programs, drug programs, curbing illegal immigration, etc. That, and actively going after criminals, in lue of punishing those who follow the law, will help deter crime IMHO.
Your replies are always well thought out. The idea of the cost being prohibitive, one such measure I read as costing just one hundred extra dollars with it being estimated that it would be lowered to fifty if it became more popular. Guns can sometimes do good things. There is a plethora of evidence for that. But there is a problem in this country involving guns. Waiting to get a gun because of exhaustive checking shouldn't be that much of a hindrance to a true enthusiast.
The implant idea did surprise me as well.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS, 12/6/01: In this manual, Al Qaeda terrorists are now told how to use America's freedom as a weapon against us.

DEBORAH AMOS: But what Ashcroft did not point out: these manuals show Osama bin Laden's foot soldiers how easy it is to buy assault weapons in American gun stores and gun shows.

Al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations have exploited numerous loopholes in American gun laws — loopholes that exist because of consistent lobbying by the powerful National Rifle Association to stop any restrictions on gun purchases. Since September 11th, critics say, the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has chosen to side with the NRA at the expense of the war on terrorism.
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gunland.html

Big 'ol *snip*
And it is precidely the NRA's fsult that htere have been so many domestic terrorist ausaults committed with firearms in this county *crickets* *more crickets*

THANK YOU MR. HESTON!

ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS, 12/6/01: In this manual, Al Qaeda terrorists are now told how to use America's freedom as a weapon against us.

DEBORAH AMOS: But what Ashcroft did not point out: these manuals show Osama bin Laden's foot soldiers how easy it is to buy assault weapons in American gun stores and gun shows.

Al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations have exploited numerous loopholes in American gun laws ? loopholes that exist because of consistent lobbying by the powerful National Rifle Association to stop any restrictions on gun purchases. Since September 11th, critics say, the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has chosen to side with the NRA at the expense of the war on terrorism.
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gunland.html

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. Terrorists are NOT buying guns in the US. Why should they bother buying a .22 from Walmart or a semi-auto version of an AK from a gunshop when they can buy the real thing from any vendor in the middle east for a tenth the cost. Like I said, listen to how the media presents itself and you'll find the bias.

I found an actual website that gives you tips on how to get past current government checks:


http://www.doingfreedom.com/gen/0503/paperlessgun.html

And notice that all these methods are illegal. I could also point you to websites on how to steal cars, hack computers, build bombs, etc.

"It's amazing that over 40 people who are on a terrorist watch list legally walked into a gun shop and bought a gun," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday. "What is going on in this country?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/08/terror/main678811.shtml

Sen. Schumer is also one of the most virulently anti-gun politician there is. That "watch list" he mentions includes the names of hundreds of thousands of people. Most of which have never committed a crime. Sen. Kennedy was also on it for awhile (due to an error). Do you feel people should have their rights taken away from them for being a "suspect"? Out of the millions of firearm transactions that have occurred using the NICS, 40 is an amazingly low number. Notice he doesn't mention how many people were prevented from buying firearms.[/quote]

The Washington D.C.-based Americans for Gun Safety says in Minnesota the past two-and-a-half years, nearly 200 felons and others prohibited from owning guns passed background checks.
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200201/16_olsond_gunsales/

AGS is a copy organization developed by some of the founders of Handgun control Inc. after realizing that the phrase "gun control" was working against them. Did you happen to read the rest of the article?

"The vast majority of those people relinquish their firearms," Campion says. "If, in fact, that's the source of that 199 figure, that doesn't mean there's 199 (people) in Minnesota running around with a firearm that shouldn't have one."


This statement is also a lie:

"However, by one estimate nearly half of this country's guns are bought and sold at gun shows or on the Internet, where sellers and buyers often ignore firearms laws."


Only a small fraction of firearms are sold at gunshows that don't have a NICS done on them. What the reality is, is that about half the VENDORS at a gun show don't use NICS, however, that half are also the ones that only sell books, videos, and other paraphernalia that don't involve firearm sales. More media lying.

And notice that all these methods are illegal. I could also point you to websites on how to steal cars, hack computers, build bombs, etc.




This statement is also a lie:

"However, by one estimate nearly half of this country's guns are bought and sold at gun shows or on the Internet, where sellers and buyers often ignore firearms laws."


Only a small fraction of firearms are sold at gunshows that don't have a NICS done on them. What the reality is, is that about half the VENDORS at a gun show don't use NICS, however, that half are also the ones that only sell books, videos, and other paraphernalia that don't involve firearm sales. More media lying.
The topic starts out with the heading, "Illegal Methods." Yeah. I kind of realized that it was illegal. What's being done about it?

If your a private collector or hobbyist, you don't need to do a background check. Right?

Your replies are always well thought out. The idea of the cost being prohibitive, one such measure I read as costing just one hundred extra dollars with it being estimated that it would be lowered to fifty if it became more popular. Guns can sometimes do good things. There is a plethora of evidence for that. But there is a problem in this country involving guns. Waiting to get a gun because of exhaustive checking shouldn't be that much of a hindrance to a true enthusiast.
The implant idea did surprise me as well.

"Cost analysis" can depend on who's analysing it. In the recent measures being pushed by CA, they are trying to have ammunition serialized. They stated that the "industry" has done the testing and that it would only cost about 1 cent /round extra. However , SAAMI, the ones who set the industry standards, have stated that they, nor any manufacturer, have NEVER done testing on it and that it would drive the cost up to DOLLARS/round, putting most ammunition sellers out of business and killing the reload industry.

The only "industry" that did similar testing is a roller-skate manufacturer that wants to get a monopoly on the technology licensing.

I agree that there is a problem involving crime, and that sometimes it involves firearms. However, the majority of problems come from career criminals, not your average firearm owner. The majority of these laws do nothing but attempt to keep those people from owning firearms.

One of the reasons people like me are opposed to many of these measures(as "reasonable" as they may seem in first light) is the ways that they have been abused and expanded in the past. Wash. DC has a full ban of handguns and an effective one on longguns. Did you know that it originally started as just a registration and licensing scheme? Shortly afterwards, the registration offices closed and the licenses became effectively impossible to get. Crime(which had been bucking the national trend by dropping) actually reversed and started rising the year after that.

The same has happened in many states and countries. The laws are increased by nickel and dime steps until the citizenry is disarmed.

The topic starts out with the heading, "Illegal Methods." Yeah. I kind of realized that it was illegal. What's being done about it?

That depends on the situation. "Straw salesmen" are prosecuted severely when caught as well as smugglers, etc. Your local gun shop tends to be very discerning towards it's customers. Unfortunately, in many instances, the police aren't effective or don't have the funding to properly investigate these situations. I support an increase in police funding and training but not in detriment to my privacy or security.

If your a private collector or hobbyist, you don't need to do a background check. Right?

If you are buying from a federally licensed dealer or are a federally licensed dealer, you get or do a check on every firearm sold or bought. Private sales between individuals do not need a check but knowingly selling to a felon or other restricted individual is illegal and you can be prosecuted. There are many levels to these laws that vary from state to state.

Brazilians Reject Proposed Gun Ban


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051023/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_gun_referendum

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - Brazilians soundly rejected a proposal to ban guns in a national referendum Sunday, striking down the bid to stem one of the world's highest firearm murder rates following a campaign that drew parallels to the U.S. gun control debate.

Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, but a staggering 25 percent more gun deaths at nearly 40,000 a year. While supporters argued that gun control was the best way to staunch the violence, opponents played on Brazilians' fears that the police can't protect them...

Some Brazilians said they resented the referendum because they feel the government is ducking its responsibility to keep the peace.

"It's immoral for the government to have this vote," said Pedro Ricardo, an army officer in Sao Paulo. "They're putting the responsibility on us, but ... the way to cut down on violence is to combat the drug trade and patrol our borders."


So, if you read between the lines, the main way for gun banners to win is to censor the other side or not let them vote at all.

"As an exercise in participative democracy, it seems badly flawed . Brazilians will vote in a mandatory referendum tomorrow to decide the question, "Should the sale of firearms and ammunition be prohibited in Brazil?"
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/79366e3a-4298-11da-94c2-00000e2511c8.html

Translation: "You shouldn't dare ask the peons what they think! We, their betters, should dictate to them that only we should be allowed to have arms! (After all, it is through our leadership that they've gotten to this state!)"

Hmmmm... very true. I would have made you all wear pink skirts, as well. Consider yourself lucky. (As I consider myself lucky seeing as you are the ones with the guns but I still have my anonymity.)

Good defensive tactic--anonymity helps. However, being online, they already know who you are--at least they have you in a database somewhere. If they ever choose to look at it, you're not so anonymous anymore.

Isn't information security (or lack thereof) grand? It's what I do for a living.

Just one such site I've found regarding a "smart gun"
http://www.njit.edu/v2/pwt/reports/VolumeI/10Sect3-Definitions.htm


Any time you mix electronics with a weapon, you introduce something else that can render the weapon useless in a crisis situation. Just when you need it, the biometrics fry, or give a false negative, or the batteries run out.


How about this from 1914:
http://www.detnews.com/2003/specialreport/0312/16/a01-10440.htm

A new computer chip promises to keep police guns from firing if they fall into the wrong hands.
The tiny chip would be implanted in a police officer's hand and would match up with a scanning device inside a handgun. If the officer and gun match, a digital signal unlocks the trigger so it can be fired. But if a child or criminal would get hold of the gun, it would be useless.
http://www.cybertime.net/~ajgood/guns.html


Anything electronic reduces the reliability of the firearm. It always will.


Don't give me this shit that everything that can be done, has been done. The murder rate involving guns in the US is appalling. Either be constructive and recognize that and think of ways to solve it or... why am I talking to you?

Hey, the rate is going down--certainly in proportion to gun ownership levels.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS, 12/6/01: In this manual, Al Qaeda terrorists are now told how to use America's freedom as a weapon against us.

DEBORAH AMOS: But what Ashcroft did not point out: these manuals show Osama bin Laden's foot soldiers how easy it is to buy assault weapons in American gun stores and gun shows.

Al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations have exploited numerous loopholes in American gun laws — loopholes that exist because of consistent lobbying by the powerful National Rifle Association to stop any restrictions on gun purchases. Since September 11th, critics say, the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has chosen to side with the NRA at the expense of the war on terrorism.
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gunland.html

I found an actual website that gives you tips on how to get past current government checks:

Illegal Methods
If you want to get an off-paper gun and can't do it legally, you still have plenty of options. First of all, forget all the licensed dealers (including pawn shops, gun stores, dealer tables at gun shows, and especially large retail chains). The chances of finding one willing to sell to you illegally is miniscule. They have a vested interest in keeping their books squeaky clean - any minor infraction can result in the loss of their license and the ability to legally sell firearms for profit. This should be held against them; they do society a lot of good by staying in a barely-profitable sector. But they simply are not the supply niche that you need.

Find an individual seller who is willing to sell without doing the state-required background check (if you live in a state that doesn't require checks for private sales, then this is quite legal). Some sellers who are only casual shooters may be ignorant of the law; some sellers just don't care about these invasive laws, or better yet are actively opposed to them.
Have a friend buy the gun for you from a dealer. This is known as a 'straw purchase'. There's no way for the seller to know about it (unless you make it obvious - so don't) but if it's proven later your friend can get in trouble. Realistically, there are enough sources of legit guns that such proof can only be found after an extensive investigation, and it's not a risk to the casual, peaceful buyer. Still, you can minimize the risk by taking a few simple precautions.
This is obvious - but make sure your friend is trustworthy! The whole plan is pointless if you accomplice gets nervous and tells the cops what you're doing.
Don't be present when the gun is purchased - find what you want, and then have your friend get it and deliver it later. The really paranoid can take the effort to shop around at gun shops other than the one where the final purchase is made, to make sure that you aren't in any way linked to the sale. Also, devise plausible explanations of where you got the gun and how your friend got rid of it. Perhaps he gave it away to a cousin in a state where no transfer check is needed. How about making it a birthday gift for a friend who has since left the state? Don't say it "got lost" - that story sounds really, really hollow. How many guns have you actually lost? If someone told me they just happened to lose a rifle, my first though would be to wonder which park they buried it in. stick to plausible but un-provable stories.
As for your acquisition, often it suffices to claim to have owned the gun for many years. If you can legally own the gun (this includes 18-20 year olds, who are not Federally prohibited from buy owning handguns, but may not purchase them) then simply explain that you bought it in the last state you lived in, where the purchase happens to be legal. Alternatively, it could have been given to you by (18-20 year old pistol owners, this means you) a parent, friend, or other family member.
If you are a felon or have a restraining order against you, no explanation will keep you out of trouble, because mere possession is punishable. So keep it quiet, and do your best to avoid the cops. I would also suggest avoiding crowded or shooting ranges, just to be safe. While it is highly unlikely that you would be caught, the penalty if it does happen is harsh. Try to find an established (so that shooting doesn't arouse suspicion), but generally empty practice location. Better yet, find a friend who will let you shoot on their private land.
The best way to keep your gun off-paper is to combine both of the previous methods. Find a gun for sale privately, and have a friend purchase it for you. This can be tricky to pull off, depending on local laws (it's pretty easy to do at a gun show that doesn't check private sales, for example). Short of finding a gun on the side of the road, it is the most anonymous way to go, though.
Buying Out-of-State
So, you live in Kalifornia and desperately want a FAL but can't find one for sale privately? Well, they're a lot easier to come by over the border in Nevada. Buying (or selling) a gun in a state other than your state of legal residence is illegal, though. It's not enforced much at all, but you ought to take some precautions, just to be safe. Ideally, you should go to the gun show (or private meeting, or flea market, or whatever) in a car with in-state license plates. You should also avoid taking any out-of-state ID with you. Do you have a friend in that state who can take you? Such a person need not be aware of what you're trying to do, and many don't know that out of state transfers are illegal.
http://www.doingfreedom.com/gen/0503/paperlessgun.html

"It's amazing that over 40 people who are on a terrorist watch list legally walked into a gun shop and bought a gun," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday. "What is going on in this country?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/08/terror/main678811.shtml

The Washington D.C.-based Americans for Gun Safety says in Minnesota the past two-and-a-half years, nearly 200 felons and others prohibited from owning guns passed background checks.
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200201/16_olsond_gunsales/


There will always be a black market to counteract any kind of "protections" that may be put in place. Criminals will always get guns. The extra laws only hamper and harass those of us who already obey the laws.

What did that harmless paper ever do to you for you to destroy it so? Even target shooting, whether it's at a paper target, clay pidgeon, stop sign, or dead racoon is a destructive act.

A hammer is designed to drive nails into wood, holding things together, thus, constructive. As a harmful side-effect, a hammer can be used to kill. But, if you watch old kung-fu movies, so can a tea cup.

No ... not at all. I'm just asking for acknowledgement that a firearm's primary purpose is destruction. Martial Arts is an excersize, focusses the mind and body, and can be used for defense as well. Most blunt instruments, such as a hammer or baseball bat, were designed with something else specific in mind.

Even pepper spray can enhance an omelet. :D

I've personally saved my own life with firearms - several times in combat, and three times as a civilian.

The women who receive training from me have also been saved by their firearms. Unlike the women who refuse to carry a gun and refuse to get a concealed carry permit, the women I have trained over the past two years have seen their abuse, stalking, and death threats STOP completely.

For them, their benefit is coming without killing or harming anyone.

If you'll excuse me, I'll be over here bemoaning the spread of lethal weapons umongst a trigger-happy populace.

*grumbling* In 2000, there were 55,087 emergency rooms firearm injuries, 21,187 emergency room bb-gun injuries, and 12,077 non-suicidal gun deaths (source) (http://www.jointogether.org/gv/resources/facts/reader/0,2055,568574,00.html). Gun deaths have risen 5% since then, after decreases in 1993-2000, notable as the time when a Democrat was in charge. Women are five times more likely to be killed in domestic homicides if a gun is in the home (source) (http://www.cagved.org/gunfacts.htm). Aye, truly firearms are good and safe to own...

Never mind the facts that pepper spray, clubs, tazers, and martial arts are all non-lethal alternatives that actually do fit into circumstances of self defense... After all, if someone already has a gun aimed at you, you're screwed anyway. Not to mention that one of the basic elements of gun control, gun regestration, is an invaluable tool in tracking down murderers who use guns... *scowls*

I train victims of domestic violence who have left their abusers to carry and use firearms. Unlike the other women who refuse to protect themselves (several of whom have died in our jurisdiction despite "protective orders") none of the women I've trained have EVER had a single repeat episode of threats, stalking, or abuse. And none of them have died, and none of them have been injured. And none of their guns have been misused in any way.

Want to know why? Because if you're the target of a protective order, you're legally considered a lethal threat IN ADVANCE. Given a woman with a protective order and a firearm, she has the legal opportunity to shoot you - with virtually no questions asked - if you violate the protective order.

We tell the men this, and they leave the women alone. These are men who know how to play the system, and know how far they can push before the police will even become involved. No, they don't get guns because it's a violation of Federal law to do so - and most of them know where that limit is and are unwilling to play into it.

Ever seen a man who is used to beating women find out he can't do it because she'll kill him if she tries? I get phone calls from this kind of idiot all day and all night - I'm the son of a bitch who stopped it all.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm

By the way, firearms violence has fallen 63 percent - see the real study at the link above.

Just take the gun lock and throw it in the draw with all the rest of your junk. It's hell when we have to pay a tax to keep our Constitutional rights.

In Maryland, they have a law that says you have to "purchase" a gun lock with every firearm purchase, even if you already have a gun safe at home.

The law is poorly written - so much so that gun stores have a small bucket with gun locks in it.

They pull one out, scan it into the register. You pay ten bucks for the lock (a bonus for the gun store).

After you "purchase" the gun lock, there isn't anything in the law that says you have to keep it. 99 percent of gun purchasers then return the lock to the bucket as an act of protest.

The violent crime rate in Canada has fallen 11 percent since 1993.

The homicide rate for Canada went down 7 percent in 2003 to its lowest level in over 35 years. A total of 548 homicides were reported to police.

Saskatchewan had the highest homicide rate in the country, and the four Atlantic provinces had the lowest homicide rates in Canada.

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/crime/a/crimerates2003.htm

In 2003, the crime rate involving gun involved homicide actually went up but
"Ontario’s 19 gang-related murders in 2003 accounted for 45 per cent of killings nation-wide." http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/04032005/n1.shtml


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm

By comparison, in the US, firearm violence has FALLEN 63 percent over the same time period - while gun ownership went from 200 million guns to 300 million guns over that period.

Our firearm violence has plummeted in comparison to Canada.

Okay, other than hunting, why is there the feeling that owning a gun is necessary?

Most of the people I know that own guns but don't go hunting are much more likely to shoot themselves than anyone else.

I know over 200 women (who I have trained) who carry a firearm at all times because they have been beaten, stalked, and threatened with death by their ex-husbands and ex-boyfriends.

In the time it takes police to respond to a 911 call, women get killed - even if the woman has a protective order - even if the woman calls for help.

None of the women who have taken my class and carry a gun have EVER been stalked, harassed, killed, or beaten ever again.

As an example of what can happen to a woman, there is a recent event in Prince George's County, Maryland (where women cannot carry guns - in fact, no one can). The ex-husband walked into a store where the woman was shopping, doused her with gasoline in front of horrified onlookers (who, being unarmed, were powerless to do anything except call 911). While the police were on the phone, the man set her on fire.

She didn't die - yet. She still might. Want to know how much good the police helped her? The fire department arrived AFTER the store owner put the fire out with an extinguisher. Fat lot of good the "protective order" did her.

This is typical - men see protective orders as an incitement to violence - and they know how much time they have until the police arrive.

In the time it takes police to respond to a 911 call, women get killed - even if the woman has a protective order - even if the woman calls for help.

As an example of what can happen to a woman, there is a recent event in Prince George's County, Maryland (where women cannot carry guns - in fact, no one can). The ex-husband walked into a store where the woman was shopping, doused her with gasoline in front of horrified onlookers (who, being unarmed, were powerless to do anything except call 911). While the police were on the phone, the man set her on fire.

She didn't die - yet. She still might. Want to know how much good the police helped her? The fire department arrived AFTER the store owner put the fire out with an extinguisher. Fat lot of good the "protective order" did her.

This is typical - men see protective orders as an incitement to violence - and they know how much time they have until the police arrive.

And now compare it to this:

A fatal shooting at an Albuquerque Wal-Mart last week was the state's first by someone with a concealed-carry gun permit, authorities said.

Police said Felix Vigil was attacking his ex-wife with a knife near the store's deli counter where she worked when an armed customer intervened and shot him. The woman, Joyce Cordova, was treated for multiple stab wounds and later released from an Albuquerque hospital.

The armed customer, 72-year-old Due Moore, was interviewed after the shooting last Thursday and released.



And some people still think women should rely exclusively on the police and restraining orders.

And now compare it to this:

A fatal shooting at an Albuquerque Wal-Mart last week was the state's first by someone with a concealed-carry gun permit, authorities said.

Police said Felix Vigil was attacking his ex-wife with a knife near the store's deli counter where she worked when an armed customer intervened and shot him. The woman, Joyce Cordova, was treated for multiple stab wounds and later released from an Albuquerque hospital.

The armed customer, 72-year-old Due Moore, was interviewed after the shooting last Thursday and released.


And some people still think women should rely exclusively on the police and restraining orders.


Go people! Nice job.

Police can't be there at all times, and are under no obligation (due to Supreme Court rulings) to protect people. They are only obligated to protect and enforce laws.

So, what do you do? Well, I take the responsiblity for me and my own safety. It's what you're supposed to do in the first place....

This statement is also a lie:

"However, by one estimate nearly half of this country's guns are bought and sold at gun shows or on the Internet, where sellers and buyers often ignore firearms laws."

Only a small fraction of firearms are sold at gunshows that don't have a NICS done on them. What the reality is, is that about half the VENDORS at a gun show don't use NICS, however, that half are also the ones that only sell books, videos, and other paraphernalia that don't involve firearm sales. More media lying.Not only that, there is only one way firearm sales across the Internet are unregulated - in-state classifieds where the buyer and seller are making an in-person transaction after aranging it via internet. Interstate transfer of firearms via Post or common carrier is both illegal and closely monitored. If I were to sell a firearm to Kecibucia, I would have to ship it to a gun dealer in his State/town, who would then do all the required ederal paperwork.

Good defensive tactic--anonymity helps. However, being online, they already know who you are--at least they have you in a database somewhere. If they ever choose to look at it, you're not so anonymous anymore.

Isn't information security (or lack thereof) grand? It's what I do for a living.
You frighten me.

You frighten me.

Luckily for me there's no right to not be afraid guaranteed by the US Constitution. :) Hence the reason you can't prohibit me from owning as many firearms as I would like to possess. I haven't done anything wrong, I have a couple of concealed carry licenses for other states, I have taken a few classes on firearms, and have instructed others in the use of them. So, the last reason to stop me from having one would be your fear--and that's not good enough.

It may frighten you, but I'm pretty sure I have a better handle on what's going on in cyberspace, in regard to your information and information security in general. Like I said, it's what I do for a living. So, if you think that it's not actually happening--you're fooling yourself. Your IP has been pegged (even by just Jolt), which can be traced back to a provider, who has your information out there on your MAC address (number specific to your particular network card), and can be traced back to your house/apartment. All without much work. If you ever have a chance, look up, "Carnivore". That will give you some eye-popping goodness. It's frightening what abuses could be perpetrated with it.

It's a scary world out there, yes. The question is, will you use your fear constructively, or let it cripple you? The choice is yours.

Luckily for me there's no right to not be afraid guaranteed by the US Constitution. :) Hence the reason you can't prohibit me from owning as many firearms as I would like to possess. I haven't done anything wrong, I have a couple of concealed carry licenses for other states, I have taken a few classes on firearms, and have instructed others in the use of them. So, the last reason to stop me from having one would be your fear--and that's not good enough.

It may frighten you, but I'm pretty sure I have a better handle on what's going on in cyberspace, in regard to your information and information security in general. Like I said, it's what I do for a living. So, if you think that it's not actually happening--you're fooling yourself. Your IP has been pegged (even by just Jolt), which can be traced back to a provider, who has your information out there on your MAC address (number specific to your particular network card), and can be traced back to your house/apartment. All without much work. If you ever have a chance, look up, "Carnivore". That will give you some eye-popping goodness. It's frightening what abuses could be perpetrated with it.

It's a scary world out there, yes. The question is, will you use your fear constructively, or let it cripple you? The choice is yours.
YAY for WarDialers and Unsecured WiFi! ;)

Luckily for me there's no right to not be afraid guaranteed by the US Constitution. :) Hence the reason you can't prohibit me from owning as many firearms as I would like to possess. I haven't done anything wrong, I have a couple of concealed carry licenses for other states, I have taken a few classes on firearms, and have instructed others in the use of them. So, the last reason to stop me from having one would be your fear--and that's not good enough.

It may frighten you, but I'm pretty sure I have a better handle on what's going on in cyberspace, in regard to your information and information security in general. Like I said, it's what I do for a living. So, if you think that it's not actually happening--you're fooling yourself. Your IP has been pegged (even by just Jolt), which can be traced back to a provider, who has your information out there on your MAC address (number specific to your particular network card), and can be traced back to your house/apartment. All without much work. If you ever have a chance, look up, "Carnivore". That will give you some eye-popping goodness. It's frightening what abuses could be perpetrated with it.

It's a scary world out there, yes. The question is, will you use your fear constructively, or let it cripple you? The choice is yours.
Wow. I'm not really frightened of you, you know...
If you really want to steal my identity, or anyone else for that matter, go for it. Maybe you could do a better job managing my affairs....

And how many people here train women to use guns? I've seen at least three different people make this claim... how is this supposed to change my mind on gun control?
There are many other methods and paths for women who are victims of abuse to follow. (Not that I'd mind taking one of your guns and shooting the balls off a rapist)

And how many people here train women to use guns? I've seen at least three different people make this claim... how is this supposed to change my mind on gun control?

I don't "train women" in general but I do make sure that all the women in my life (wife, mother, MIL, and later on daughter) are familiar w/ firearms and know how to use them to protect themselves.

One of the primary reasons those who want to ban guns give for getting rid of them is that women should rely on the police/authorities/courts etc. to protect them from violence, domestic or otherwise. As the authorities have NO obligation to do this, w/ or w/o a restraining order, the point the posters are trying to make is that they encourage self-empowerment of women who have become victims and the results are positive.
There are many other methods and paths for women who are victims of abuse to follow. (Not that I'd mind taking one of your guns and shooting the balls off a rapist)

Sure there are, and if the women choose to follow those instead, that is their right. However, when there is an active and potentially lethat threat against you, the purchasing of and training on a firearm gives you the edge. Organizations such as HCI, VPC, and even the MMM and NOW ironically would take that right and capability of empowerment away from the victims. They actually encourage the "victim mentality".

Wow. I'm not really frightened of you, you know...


Good--'cause you're not supposed to be. However, your arguments point to a large fear of what MIGHT happen, as opposed to what actually happens in real life. Just an observation. The truth: There are over 80 million gun owners in the US, with over 300 million legally owned firearms. They're not the ones committing the crimes. So those that would obey the laws and register, train, etc., AREN'T the ones causing the problems. Your solution won't work to stop those that won't. It's just more useless and ineffective hoops for the law abiding to jump through and Joe Taxpayer to fund. That is illogical.


If you really want to steal my identity, or anyone else for that matter, go for it. Maybe you could do a better job managing my affairs....

You confuse the intent of what I said. I'm saying watch the government, not me. I'm not looking to steal anything. I'm the one that wants people to have what they work for. I'm not trying to steal rights, pre-emptively punish with regulations, or allow a corrupt government to get away with what they are currently getting away with. The government doesn't watch out for us. They watch us.

And how many people here train women to use guns? I've seen at least three different people make this claim... how is this supposed to change my mind on gun control?
There are many other methods and paths for women who are victims of abuse to follow. (Not that I'd mind taking one of your guns and shooting the balls off a rapist)

It won't. You're scared of the gun--at least your Hollywood-induced impression of the gun, anyway. It comes through loud and clear with your "reasoning" for registration.

You won't change your mind until you stop fearing the object. It doesn't change someone. It's not evil. Just like ANY other tool out there, it can be used for good or ill. And no, they're not all designed to kill.

My best advice--get out and shoot a bit, and you'll see how reality works with firearms. You may be less scared of the unknown--or at least you'll be able to make a better-informed decision through experience.

It won't. You're scared of the gun--at least your Hollywood-induced impression of the gun, anyway. It comes through loud and clear with your "reasoning" for registration.

You won't change your mind until you stop fearing the object. It doesn't change someone. It's not evil. Just like ANY other tool out there, it can be used for good or ill. And no, they're not all designed to kill.

My best advice--get out and shoot a bit, and you'll see how reality works with firearms. You may be less scared of the unknown--or at least you'll be able to make a better-informed decision through experience.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that bullets hurt.
I'm not afraid of inanimate objects. It's some of the people that use them that scare me. And no, I'm not a coward. I've had a gun pulled on me and dealt with the situation and it ended non-violently.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that bullets hurt.
I'm not afraid of inanimate objects. It's some of the people that use them that scare me. And no, I'm not a coward. I've had a gun pulled on me and dealt with the situation and it ended non-violently.

A bullet doesn't hurt. It's the bullet going into you through a previously non-existant orifice that hurts. :)

Good for you. I wish more cases would end like that. I wish crime would go away completely. Unfortunately, the criminal mentality seems to get more violent as the years go by. It's becoming more and more common for people to get hurt/killed even w/o defending yourself.

You'll have to excuse the reactions to some on this board. We/they tend to get a little testy. It's common for people who oppose firearms to blame anything and everything on firearms or even on the US and just repeat the same "create-a-victim" arguements over and over. Most have no intention or desire to debate or learn anything, just spew hatred towards firearms and those who enjoy them legally.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that bullets hurt.
I'm not afraid of inanimate objects. It's some of the people that use them that scare me. And no, I'm not a coward. I've had a gun pulled on me and dealt with the situation and it ended non-violently.

I never called you a coward. I said that you were letting your fear of what might happen control your reactions.

Many situations involving firearms end non-violently. Most of them, actually.

BTW, I'm glad you weren't hurt, regardless of your position on firearms and gun control. You're a human being, and no one deserves to be assaulted.

Okay, so it's the people that might use them in an illegal fashion against you or someone else, right?

Your odds are very high that you will never be shot--ever. Even if confronted by a firearm (your experience has already borne that out). You have a much better chance of being hit by a car. So, given the odds of bad things happening from different sources, shouldn't we be concentrating on the things that kill more than others (regardless of need for the population to use them), in the hopes of stemming the greater perils?

So, given the odds of bad things happening from different sources, shouldn't we be concentrating on the things that kill more than others (regardless of need for the population to use them), in the hopes of stemming the greater perils?


You're right! Ban all Governments!

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that bullets hurt. Not if the person was aiming... and if their aim was off it only hurts after the shock has worn off... ;)
I'm not afraid of inanimate objects. It's some of the people that use them that scare me. And no, I'm not a coward. I've had a gun pulled on me and dealt with the situation and it ended non-violently.Well, every time I've had to pull a gun it's ended non-violently too.

Question though, did "dealing with it" mean handing over your wallet, jewelry, car, house keys, PINs etc? That's usually the only way one non-violently "deals with" having a gun pointed at them... unless the one pointing the gun was doing so in response to somthing you did and you had the good sense to stop doing it...

You're right! Ban all Governments!

Heh, between governments and religions....you have two huge ones right there.

However, government is a necessary evil. I would maintain that the government needs to be there, but it needs to be REALLY small.

And you can't in good conscience regulate spirituality (especially since it can't be proven or disproven).

Not if the person was aiming... and if their aim was off it only hurts after the shock has worn off... ;)
Well, every time I've had to pull a gun it's ended non-violently too.

Question though, did "dealing with it" mean handing over your wallet, jewelry, car, house keys, PINs etc? That's usually the only way one non-violently "deals with" having a gun pointed at them... unless the one pointing the gun was doing so in response to somthing you did and you had the good sense to stop doing it...
It's not something I like to talk about. I lost nothing from it, though.

I don't mean to hijack, but this seems to be a good thread in which to pose a question:

To all the "gun nuts" out there, why is it that you like guns? I'm not anti-gun, let me be really clear about that, I've just never been particularly interested in guns. I grew up in an area with a huge hunting community, and I've lived in major urban areas for the last 15 years or so (areas where crime rates are relatively high compared to over-all averages), yet I've never personally wanted to own a gun. So I am honestly curious: what is it about guns that you find appealing?

I don't mean to hijack, but this seems to be a good thread in which to pose a question:

To all the "gun nuts" out there, why is it that you like guns? I'm not anti-gun, let me be really clear about that, I've just never been particularly interested in guns. I grew up in an area with a huge hunting community, and I've lived in major urban areas for the last 15 years or so (areas where crime rates are relatively high compared to over-all averages), yet I've never personally wanted to own a gun. So I am honestly curious: what is it about guns that you find appealing?


For me it started out as a historical thing. I got involved into a WWII re-enactment group and bought a K98K mauser rifle to use in it. A relative bought some live ammo for me and I found I enjoyed target shooting. I was going to take a class on shooting so my dad gave me his .22 rifle and pistol. Since then I've gotten much more proficient at shooting and enjoy it. By reading up on social and political issues, I've gotten involved in support of the "gun lobby".

I actually grew up in a suburban area and only "experienced" firearms once when my dad and an uncle took me and my cousins out shooting out in the country (ironically near where I live now). I still don't hunt but support hunting.

For me it started out as a historical thing. I got involved into a WWII re-enactment group and bought a K98K mauser rifle to use in it. A relative bought some live ammo for me and I found I enjoyed target shooting. I was going to take a class on shooting so my dad gave me his .22 rifle and pistol. Since then I've gotten much more proficient at shooting and enjoy it. By reading up on social and political issues, I've gotten involved in support of the "gun lobby".

I actually grew up in a suburban area and only "experienced" firearms once when my dad and an uncle took me and my cousins out shooting out in the country (ironically near where I live now). I still don't hunt but support hunting.
Okay, I can understand that. Again, out of curiosity, what are your reasons for supporting hunting? I support it myself, provided there are protections for habbitats and animals (which hunters tend to also support, since they want there to be a next hunting season!), but I've been surprised by the number of gun owners I've met who don't believe guns should be used on anything other than people.

I've always supported gun rights as sort of an abstract, even though I've never personally wanted to exercise said rights, but I've sometimes been alarmed at the kind of gleeful gun-crazies that will crop up from time to time. I know not all gun owners are like that, but y'all have to admit that there are some very loud and scary folks making the average gun owner look bad...hell, around this forum I've encountered people acting like there's nothing more fun than blowing shit up and making animals bleed, and that kind of talk doesn't inspire much confidence :P.

I don't mean to hijack, but this seems to be a good thread in which to pose a question:

To all the "gun nuts" out there, why is it that you like guns? I'm not anti-gun, let me be really clear about that, I've just never been particularly interested in guns. I grew up in an area with a huge hunting community, and I've lived in major urban areas for the last 15 years or so (areas where crime rates are relatively high compared to over-all averages), yet I've never personally wanted to own a gun. So I am honestly curious: what is it about guns that you find appealing?
Precision craftsmanship. (cheap guns suck - except for historical value)
The rigors of Training and Competition.
Hunting.
Reloading/Ballistic research.

A fundamental understanding of human/animal nature and the biological imperative to survive by using the best tools available.
A fundamental understanding of Governments and Tyrany and the desire to be able to oppose it/them.
I've been extensively trained in many variants and I want to try them all.

Precision craftsmanship. (cheap guns suck - except for historical value)
The rigors of Training and Competition.
Hunting.
Reloading/Ballistic research.

A fundamental understanding of human/animal nature and the biological imperative to survive by using the best tools available.
A fundamental understanding of Governments and Tyrany and the desire to be able to oppose it/them.
I've been extensively trained in many variants and I want to try them all.
Hm, I suppose I can understand those...I feel that way about particular sports, and I certainly understand the fun in studying human tool-using behaviors (I have a bizarre interest in the development of the compass across history for some reason).

If you don't mind my asking, were you reared in a family that valued gun ownership or emphasized the importance of weapons proficiency?

I'm mostly just trying to figure out why I never developed an interest in guns, despite growing up in a community where gun ownership was encouraged (and in a family that was essentially gun-neutral), and despite seeing a great many close friends become passionate gun owners. Maybe I'm just a freak of psychology :P.

Okay, I can understand that. Again, out of curiosity, what are your reasons for supporting hunting? I support it myself, provided there are protections for habbitats and animals (which hunters tend to also support, since they want there to be a next hunting season!), but I've been surprised by the number of gun owners I've met who don't believe guns should be used on anything other than people. .

Hunting primarily for the environmental issues but also due to the fact that "anti-hunting" is used as another excuse to remove firearms. "not needed, too big, too small, too much, dangerous to environment, etc".

I've actually encountered very few gun owners who feel that "guns should be used on anything other than people. " Maybe it's the company you're keeping. :)

I've always supported gun rights as sort of an abstract, even though I've never personally wanted to exercise said rights, but I've sometimes been alarmed at the kind of gleeful gun-crazies that will crop up from time to time. I know not all gun owners are like that, but y'all have to admit that there are some very loud and scary folks making the average gun owner look bad...hell, around this forum I've encountered people acting like there's nothing more fun than blowing shit up and making animals bleed, and that kind of talk doesn't inspire much confidence :P.

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly and those people need to be thwacked. That's why I try to remain calm and reasonable in most instances emphasizing that they are the absolute minority. I also take anybody touting an extremist view like that on the net w/ a grain of salt.

I'm mostly just trying to figure out why I never developed an interest in guns, despite growing up in a community where gun ownership was encouraged (and in a family that was essentially gun-neutral), and despite seeing a great many close friends become passionate gun owners. Maybe I'm just a freak of psychology :P.


Then you're in good company. :)

Each to his own. Most of my friends and male family members were heavily into cars, sports, etc neither of which I have any interest in while one of my sisters is a big-time Baseball fan.

Interestingly enough, I didn't even become a "gun nut" until our lovely governor pushed for a bill that was so vague that EVERY gun I owned, except the pistol ,could have been banned and confiscated as an "assault weapon" w/o grandfathering or re-imbursement and very nearly passed.

Okay, I can understand that. Again, out of curiosity, what are your reasons for supporting hunting? I support it myself, provided there are protections for habbitats and animals (which hunters tend to also support, since they want there to be a next hunting season!),Considering that Hunters have put more money and personal time into Conservation than all of the EcoGroups combined... but I've been surprised by the number of gun owners I've met who don't believe guns should be used on anything other than people. They are fools.
I've always supported gun rights as sort of an abstract, even though I've never personally wanted to exercise said rights, but I've sometimes been alarmed at the kind of gleeful gun-crazies that will crop up from time to time. I know not all gun owners are like that, but y'all have to admit that there are some very loud and scary folks making the average gun owner look bad... And this is different than Radicals of any type in what way? Most USians wouldn't care at all about someone's sexuality if it weren't for leather-thong-wearing NAMBLA Flamers marching down mainstreet... hell, around this forum I've encountered people acting like there's nothing more fun than blowing shit up and making animals bleed, and that kind of talk doesn't inspire much confidence :P.
Um... I'm an ex pyro. I was blowing ponds and stumps with ANFO when I was 12. I was detatched to an EOD unit when I was in the service. Blowing shit up (in a controlled safe way) is fun. Without guys like me 4th of July would be boring.

But making things bleed (unless you are going to eat it or it was trying to eat you & yours) is a different thing entirely.

Hunting primarily for the environmental issues but also due to the fact that "anti-hunting" is used as another excuse to remove firearms. "not needed, too big, too small, too much, dangerous to environment, etc".
Yeah. Plus I hate PETA, and I get a petty satisfaction out of ticking those guys off.


I've actually encountered very few gun owners who feel that "guns should be used on anything other than people. " Maybe it's the company you're keeping. :)

That is entirely possible. I tend to hang around with an odd sort. :)


Oh, I agree whole-heartedly and those people need to be thwacked. That's why I try to remain calm and reasonable in most instances emphasizing that they are the absolute minority. I also take anybody touting an extremist view like that on the net w/ a grain of salt.
Naturally I don't take people too seriously on the net, but it still can be a bit spooky to think of crazy people who are ARMED. That's disconcerting no matter what your feelings on gun ownership. I typically figure that the average gun owner hates those gun-crazies even more than I do, much like how I hate the crazy feminazis who run around blaming males every time they get a hangnail; the embarassing fringe members of our own "movements" are the ones that tend to get under our skin the most, because it feels like they are embarassing us by association.

If you don't mind my asking, were you reared in a family that valued gun ownership or emphasized the importance of weapons proficiency?

Nope. I'm the weird one. My Brother is a Uni Prof/IT Wonk and my sister has an MA in Costume Design. I was on the Highschool Small Bore Rifle Team and joined the Army.

My Parents would not let me own a gun, but they did buy me a Bow, and would let me go hunting with a neighbors rifle.

OTOH, I can't fix a car to save my life, (The most complicated thing I can almost figure out is my '68 VW) and have never been able to relate to team sports.

Each to his/her own.

Yeah. Plus I hate PETA, and I get a petty satisfaction out of ticking those guys off..

Then I reccomend you get a copy of the PETA/NRA debate when it comes up for sale. Twas most entertaining.

It's also not just PETA. Anti-gun groups of all ilk use those reasons to close ranges, restrict hunting, etc. "Lead poisoning" is a popular one right now.


That is entirely possible. I tend to hang around with an odd sort. :).
You do hang out here. :)


Naturally I don't take people too seriously on the net, but it still can be a bit spooky to think of crazy people who are ARMED. That's disconcerting no matter what your feelings on gun ownership. I typically figure that the average gun owner hates those gun-crazies even more than I do, much like how I hate the crazy feminazis who run around blaming males every time they get a hangnail; the embarassing fringe members of our own "movements" are the ones that tend to get under our skin the most, because it feels like they are embarassing us by association.

We do. Interesting that you should mention that. I just read an article on a paper written by some PETA associated "feminists" that state hunting is just a surrogate for wanting to abuse women.

Considering that Hunters have put more money and personal time into Conservation than all of the EcoGroups combined...

Really? That seems odd to me, considering the number of millionaire celebrity tree huggers who always seem to be throwing money at the rainforests.


They are fools.
Well, I guess I can kind of see both sides; on the one hand, there are people who like guns but either don't like hurting human beings or prefer to use the guns only as a food-getting tool. On the other hand, there are people who like guns (often for self-defense purposes) but don't like shooting animals for whatever reason.


And this is different than Radicals of any type in what way? Most USians wouldn't care at all about someone's sexuality if it weren't for leather-thong-wearing NAMBLA Flamers marching down mainstreet...

Oh, to be sure. But crazy people in general aren't quite as scary as crazy people with weapons, so I'm more afraid of a crazy person who is in love with guns than a crazy person who is in love with (for instance) jello. It's just an instinctive reaction, not really a rational one.


Um... I'm an ex pyro. I was blowing ponds and stumps with ANFO when I was 12. I was detatched to an EOD unit when I was in the service. Blowing shit up (in a controlled safe way) is fun. Without guys like me 4th of July would be boring.

See, it's the CONTROL part that you've gotta remember. Also, I'm willing to bet you believe there are better things in the world than exploding things (sex? love? rock and roll?). If not...well, I guess that's still okay, so long as you don't forget that CONTROL bit :).


But making things bleed (unless you are going to eat it or it was trying to eat you & yours) is a different thing entirely.Yeah, that's true. I mostly get alarmed by the "blow stuff up" type because where I lived they usually graduated to "blow living stuff up." The guys who started with bottle rockets in the alley moved on to tying rockets to neighborhood cats' tails, and so forth. That kind of thing gives me the willies, and I've got a fairly strong stomach. So it's probably just negative association in my mind. Lord knows I love the Fourth and the fireworks and all that...there's a good kind of KABOOM!. ;)

Nope. I'm the weird one. My Brother is a Uni Prof/IT Wonk and my sister has an MA in Costume Design. I was on the Highschool Small Bore Rifle Team and joined the Army.

Wow, your parents really got a sampler pack, didn't they! :)

My Parents would not let me own a gun, but they did buy me a Bow, and would let me go hunting with a neighbors rifle.
That's cool...I went through a stage where I desperately wanted to learn archery, but I totally sucked at it and finally just gave up. Yeah, I'm a big quitter.


OTOH, I can't fix a car to save my life, (The most complicated thing I can almost figure out is my '68 VW) and have never been able to relate to team sports.

Each to his/her own.I've been kicking myself for year for not learning more about gun safety, since I think it's a useful skill. I took the time to learn to fix my car (in the most general sense) and to fix my plumbing, but I never got around to learning how to safely handle a gun. Granted, I've never randomly been in a situation where I needed that knowledge, but I've never fallen out of a boat either and I still took the time to learn to swim :).

Then I reccomend you get a copy of the PETA/NRA debate when it comes up for sale. Twas most entertaining.

It's also not just PETA. Anti-gun groups of all ilk use those reasons to close ranges, restrict hunting, etc. "Lead poisoning" is a popular one right now.

My best friend's grandpa is a long-time turkey hunter who also helps run the largest organization for turkey protection in the US, so I've always been a bit annoyed at people who claim that all hunters are trying to wipe out animals. I've got separate reasons for hating PETA, but they're not making matters any better with the crap they pull surrounding gun rights.


You do hang out here. :)

Well, I've found that people here are the fun kind of freaks. :)


We do. Interesting that you should mention that. I just read an article on a paper written by some PETA associated "feminists" that state hunting is just a surrogate for wanting to abuse women.
See, that's the crap I'm talking about. Not everything in life is about male-versus-female, for crying out loud, and I'm sick of hearing people tell me that everything is all about which set of genitals a person has. I don't know about you, but I sometimes go as long as 10 minutes at a stretch without thinking about sex, so I'm convinced there can be things in life that are non-sex related.

*hops down off soapbox*

Really? That seems odd to me, considering the number of millionaire celebrity tree huggers who always seem to be throwing money at the rainforests.

I wonder how much they charge to be at those functions?


Yeah, that's true. I mostly get alarmed by the "blow stuff up" type because where I lived they usually graduated to "blow living stuff up." The guys who started with bottle rockets in the alley moved on to tying rockets to neighborhood cats' tails, and so forth. That kind of thing gives me the willies, and I've got a fairly strong stomach. So it's probably just negative association in my mind. Lord knows I love the Fourth and the fireworks and all that...there's a good kind of KABOOM!. ;)

Those types also tend to end up in jail and are often prohibited from legally owning a firearm. I loved bottle rockets as a kid (still do) but I've accidentally hurt myself more often than I even thought about hurting an animal w/ one.

If you like the 4th kind of KABOOM, we really need to get you to a range. You sound like would enjoy the experience but are still "in the closet".

I've been kicking myself for year for not learning more about gun safety, since I think it's a useful skill. I took the time to learn to fix my car (in the most general sense) and to fix my plumbing, but I never got around to learning how to safely handle a gun. Granted, I've never randomly been in a situation where I needed that knowledge, but I've never fallen out of a boat either and I still took the time to learn to swim :).
All you have to do is ask. If you live anywhere near somebody like Me or Zaxon (or a half a dozen other Gun Nuts here) and you'll get all the Safety instruction you want, and no instructions you don't want (here, try my .454 .. snicker...)

All you have to do is ask. If you live anywhere near somebody like Me or Zaxon (or a half a dozen other Gun Nuts here) and you'll get all the Safety instruction you want, and no instructions you don't want (here, try my .454 .. snicker...)


Agreed. I can put you in touch w/ someone willing to teach you just about anywhere in the US.

I wonder how much they charge to be at those functions?

There was some U2-related dealie that came through my parents' town a while back that was charging over $1000 a plate. I love the rainforests and all, but I love paying my rent, too.


Those types also tend to end up in jail and are often prohibited from legally owning a firearm. I loved bottle rockets as a kid (still do) but I've accidentally hurt myself more often than I even thought about hurting an animal w/ one.

Yeah, it just sucks because they're the ones you notice. Ain't that always the way?


If you like the 4th kind of KABOOM, we really need to get you to a range. You sound like would enjoy the experience but are still "in the closet".
Well, I do enjoy the Die Hard trilogy...:)

Really? That seems odd to me, considering the number of millionaire celebrity tree huggers who always seem to be throwing money at the rainforests.
A handfull of noisy rich people who never go out in the woods without their posse just can't compete with a couple of million people buying Tags (goes to conservation), Stamps (ditto), dock fees, Ducks Unlimited, Safari Club, etc, while going out into the woods and picking up trash, putting out feed, culling the herds, submitting carcases for health testing, etc.

We care more than money. :cool:

Agreed. I can put you in touch w/ someone willing to teach you just about anywhere in the US.
Well jeepers if you aren't all the friendliest of sorts! It's great to see some nice, helpful, vocal representatives of the gun owning community. You guys should consider sacking Charleton Heston and taking his job :).

The thing is, I work in DC and have several coworkers who are either in the Army or in the FBI; they all of chide me for my general cluelessness about weaponry and would be glad to alleviate it, so I really have no excuse for failing to get some freaking gun safety skills. It's just one of those things I put off and put off...stupid, but I do the same damn thing when it comes to writing my mother and doing my laundry.

A handfull of noisy rich people who never go out in the woods without their posse just can't compete with a couple of million people buying Tags (goes to conservation), Stamps (ditto), dock fees, Ducks Unlimited, Safari Club, etc, while going out into the woods and picking up trash, putting out feed, culling the herds, submitting carcases for health testing, etc.

We care more than money. :cool:

IIRC, PETA puts only about 12% of it's budget towards any form of animal rescue. The rest goes towards admin and PR stunts.

They also oppose hunting considering the idea of humans needing to manage wildlife to be "arrogant" while at the same time "euthanizing" over 2/3rds of the animals it "rescues" because there are too many.

Well jeepers if you aren't all the friendliest of sorts! It's great to see some nice, helpful, vocal representatives of the gun owning community. You guys should consider sacking Charleton Heston and taking his job :).

The thing is, I work in DC and have several coworkers who are either in the Army or in the FBI; they all of chide me for my general cluelessness about weaponry and would be glad to alleviate it, so I really have no excuse for failing to get some freaking gun safety skills. It's just one of those things I put off and put off...stupid, but I do the same damn thing when it comes to writing my mother and doing my laundry.
If you want to learn from someone else, then call your friends and impress the hell out of them, then TG Sierra BTHP - It's one of the things he does... ;)

IIRC, PETA puts only about 12% of it's budget towards any form of animal rescue. The rest goes towards admin and PR stunts.
My personal favorite PETA moment:

I used to do research in the biology department of a university, and our lab used a form of salt-water crustacian. A PETA chapter broke in to our department's animal housing fascility and trashed everything one night, stealing or "freeing" all the animals they could get to. This included "freeing" our brine-loving test animals...into a local freshwater lake. Where they immediately died.

Well jeepers if you aren't all the friendliest of sorts! It's great to see some nice, helpful, vocal representatives of the gun owning community. You guys should consider sacking Charleton Heston and taking his job :)..

Most gun owners would be happy to teach someone willing to learn.

Actually, Chuck's retired for health reasons. The current president is Sandra Froman.

Most gun owners would be happy to teach someone willing to learn.

Actually, Chuck's retired for health reasons. The current president is Sandra Froman.
Crap, shows what I know. Of course, I was surprised to hear (yesterday) that Frank Sinatra died. I am a bit of a space cadet.

My personal favorite PETA moment:

I used to do research in the biology department of a university, and our lab used a form of salt-water crustacian. A PETA chapter broke in to our department's animal housing fascility and trashed everything one night, stealing or "freeing" all the animals they could get to. This included "freeing" our brine-loving test animals...into a local freshwater lake. Where they immediately died.

There is a case right now where several PETA members have been indighted for taking animals (specifically a mother cat and kittens) from a local vet w/ the promise to find them homes then immediately killing them and dumping them in a dumpster.

PETA got pwned in a debate w/ the NRA.

This is a cause for EVERYONE to rejoice, not just gun nuts.

Can anyone please get a link to the debate? When PETA is humiliated, the world is a better place.

This is a cause for EVERYONE to rejoice, not just gun nuts.

Can anyone please get a link to the debate? When PETA is humiliated, the world is a better place.


Syniks is working on a transcript but the full effect has to be seen. The PETA people (who looked like they'ld never spent a day outdoors in their lives) were fuming and yelling by the end of the debate.

This is a cause for EVERYONE to rejoice, not just gun nuts.

Can anyone please get a link to the debate? When PETA is humiliated, the world is a better place.
Not yet. It still has a couple of Pay Per View runs.

You can get it from the NRA in a few weeks.

The debate between the NRA and PETA will become available from the NRA on DVD, VHS, and on tape (audio). Please call 1-800-672-3888 option #2 Mon.-Fri. 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM (EST) and they will be happy to assist you further.

They will ask you for a "donation". It cost me $5, (pre-order) but I've heard of people acceeding to a $20 donation. Up to you.

Kecibukia sent me a copy on VHS and I need to get home to watch it. I am planning to do a transcript & report... hopefully before 2006. ;)

It's just one of those things I put off and put off...stupid, but I do the same damn thing when it comes to writing my mother and doing my laundry.
Shame on you. You should never put off writing to your mother. But I'm sure she has explained that, already.

Shame on you. You should never put off writing to your mother. But I'm sure she has explained that, already.
Explained...thrown shoes at me when I visit home for the holidays...call it what you will.

Hmm, now that I think of it, that's actually the first good reason I can think of to totally prohibit gun ownership for anybody...my mom can already do enough damage without a gun! (Love you, Ma!)

Forgive me for oversimplifying the whole gun debate, but heres my take on it, evil as it sounds. 1) I don't care if some dumbass leaves a loaded gun laying around, and the kid who no one is watching picks it up.
2) I don't care how many morons kill eachother in gang fights.
3) I don't care how many dumbass's shoot themselves in the foot.
My gun is safe, I'm not in a gang, Ive never had an accident SSOOOOO............................
NO ONE WILL GET MY GUNS! NO ONE! NOT TODAY, NOT TOMMORROW!
NOT EVER!
You can try, but you better be a better shot than me, and have a busload of ammo. And btw, body armor won't even come close to stopping a Weatherby belted Magnum.

Ah the voice of reason...:rolleyes:

I don't mean to hijack, but this seems to be a good thread in which to pose a question:

To all the "gun nuts" out there, why is it that you like guns? I'm not anti-gun, let me be really clear about that, I've just never been particularly interested in guns. I grew up in an area with a huge hunting community, and I've lived in major urban areas for the last 15 years or so (areas where crime rates are relatively high compared to over-all averages), yet I've never personally wanted to own a gun. So I am honestly curious: what is it about guns that you find appealing?

1. Target shooting: It's a challenge to be accurate with something that puts out that much force. This is what I use it for most.
2. Personal defense: It's a very effective tool in stopping violence or robbery against oneself. This is the primary reason I got into pistols.
3. Hunting: I'm not a hunter myself, but should the need ever arise for me to have to harvest my own food, I'd like to know I'd be able to survive.

Again, out of curiosity, what are your reasons for supporting hunting?


I'm not a hunter, but I also support hunting. We've screwed up the ecosystem so bad, that deer populations cause all kinds of problems (at least in Wisconsin). I understand that in some more remote areas, that's the primary source of meat, too.


I've always supported gun rights as sort of an abstract, even though I've never personally wanted to exercise said rights, but I've sometimes been alarmed at the kind of gleeful gun-crazies that will crop up from time to time. I know not all gun owners are like that, but y'all have to admit that there are some very loud and scary folks making the average gun owner look bad...hell, around this forum I've encountered people acting like there's nothing more fun than blowing shit up and making animals bleed, and that kind of talk doesn't inspire much confidence :P.

There are crazies on pretty much every issue. :(

If you don't mind my asking, were you reared in a family that valued gun ownership or emphasized the importance of weapons proficiency?


I know this was directed at Syniks, but I'd like to chime in anyway. My uncles were into hunting. My dad wasn't. I had gone shooting a couple of times--target shooting. I never really got into the firearms scene until I was an adult, actually.


I'm mostly just trying to figure out why I never developed an interest in guns, despite growing up in a community where gun ownership was encouraged (and in a family that was essentially gun-neutral), and despite seeing a great many close friends become passionate gun owners. Maybe I'm just a freak of psychology :P.

Probably not. :) You're just another individual.

(here, try my .454 .. snicker...)


EVIL! :D

All you have to do is ask. If you live anywhere near somebody like Me or Zaxon (or a half a dozen other Gun Nuts here) and you'll get all the Safety instruction you want, and no instructions you don't want (here, try my .454 .. snicker...)

I've already managed to get at least one NS member into pistol shooting. She got a Glock 19 for her first. :D She's having a blast (pun intended)!

I know this was directed at Syniks, but I'd like to chime in anyway. My uncles were into hunting. My dad wasn't. I had gone shooting a couple of times--target shooting. I never really got into the firearms scene until I was an adult, actually.

Interesting. I know this sounds weird, but I think it would actually inspire more confidence in the gun-nervous crowd if gun owners got the word out about people who weren't reared in vehemently gun-loving families. Anti-gun activists tend to paint a picture of gun lovers growing up in families that stockpile weapons and have their kids shooting guns before they can walk. It could probably do a lot of good to remind people that plenty of gun lovers arrived at their hobby the same way most people come by any other hobby, and it's not like all gun owners are brainwashed from babyhood. Sometimes that's the message that gets out there.

Probably not. :) You're just another individual.
Gasp! How dare you insult me thusly! :)

Interesting. I know this sounds weird, but I think it would actually inspire more confidence in the gun-nervous crowd if gun owners got the word out about people who weren't reared in vehemently gun-loving families. Anti-gun activists tend to paint a picture of gun lovers growing up in families that stockpile weapons and have their kids shooting guns before they can walk. It could probably do a lot of good to remind people that plenty of gun lovers arrived at their hobby the same way most people come by any other hobby, and it's not like all gun owners are brainwashed from babyhood. Sometimes that's the message that gets out there.


Yeah, it would be nice. Problem is, the media and anti-gun groups don't allow something like that to propagate. The media doesn't like to associate "sane" and "gun ownership". I think it's in one of their manuals or something. :(


Gasp! How dare you insult me thusly! :)

I try. :D

Yeah, it would be nice. Problem is, the media and anti-gun groups don't allow something like that to propagate. The media doesn't like to associate "sane" and "gun ownership". I think it's in one of their manuals or something. :(

Believe me, I feel your pain. I'm a non-Christian equality-minded scientist...according to the media, I worship the Devil while having promiscuous unprotected gay sex and cloning human fetuses.

Believe me, I feel your pain. I'm a non-Christian equality-minded scientist...according to the media, I worship the Devil while having promiscuous unprotected gay sex and cloning human fetuses.

ALL AT THE SAME TIME?!?!?! You ARE the DEVIL!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!! :eek:

:D

Explained...thrown shoes at me when I visit home for the holidays...call it what you will.

Hmm, now that I think of it, that's actually the first good reason I can think of to totally prohibit gun ownership for anybody...my mom can already do enough damage without a gun! (Love you, Ma!)
Funniest image ever. Every home equipped with a Bottle'sMom to keep you safe from criminals at night. Don't miss our new, improved travel version. Fits neatly into even small trunks and needs only half the food of the home model.:D

Believe me, I feel your pain. I'm a non-Christian equality-minded scientist...according to the media, I worship the Devil while having promiscuous unprotected gay sex and cloning human fetuses.

I'm a Pentacostal Christian equality-minded bisexual (semi-retired) who has promiscuous sex (along with my wife and a few friends) and I support the legalization of marijuana, the right for women to have abortions, and the right for law-abiding individuals to keep and bear firearms.

I'm a Pentacostal Christian equality-minded bisexual (semi-retired) who has promiscuous sex (along with my wife and a few friends) and I support the legalization of marijuana, the right for women to have abortions, and the right for law-abiding individuals to keep and bear firearms.
Well clearly you aren't a Devil worshipper, because you must be Satan himself!! :)

But I admit, you've got me beat...I never can seem to find the time to be promiscuous.

Well clearly you aren't a Devil worshipper, because you must be Satan himself!! :)

But I admit, you've got me beat...I never can seem to find the time to be promiscuous.

M wife is a very organized person. If you want to be promiscuous, you have to schedule these things.

M wife is a very organized person. If you want to be promiscuous, you have to schedule these things.
Yet another reason for me to buckle down and start using my day planner. My sex life is far too inefficient.

Yet another reason for me to buckle down and start using my day planner. My sex life is far too inefficient.
Between my wife's scheduling, and sites like Adult Friend Finder, it's easy to schedule.

PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNS "PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT"
LANDMARK VICTORY NOW LAW

(Washington, DC) - President George W. Bush today signed into law the National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (S. 397) ending politically motivated lawsuits designed to bankrupt law-abiding American firearm manufacturers and retailers. S. 397 passed both chambers in Congress with broad bipartisan support.


but of course the Brady Bunch are going to try to sue more.

Excellent.
BTW, for previous posters who are clamoring for mandatory registration? The Supreme Court has upheld that felons cannot be made to register thier firearms, as it is a violation of the 5th Amendment self incrimination.

PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNS "PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT"
LANDMARK VICTORY NOW LAW

(Washington, DC) - President George W. Bush today signed into law the National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (S. 397) ending politically motivated lawsuits designed to bankrupt law-abiding American firearm manufacturers and retailers. S. 397 passed both chambers in Congress with broad bipartisan support.


but of course the Brady Bunch are going to try to sue more.

Well, at least those NOT responsible for stupid people and criminals are now protected.

Well, at least those NOT responsible for stupid people and criminals are now protected.

Oh, I'm sure they'll find more ways to blame those who actually follow the laws for crime in order to disarm the public.

Oh, I'm sure they'll find more ways to blame those who actually follow the laws for crime in order to disarm the public.

They ARE rather persistent, aren't they?

They ARE rather persistent, aren't they?

I like the irony that's ussually involved. On the Brady Bunch website, they have an article titled "Hoping to Ram Bill Through Senate, NRA
Supporters Use Phony Scare Tactics"

next to this are articles stating "Cop Killer Gun Available to the Public" and "How terrorists exploit our weak gun laws" .

The latest (and weakest) fads are "concerns w/ the environment" using lead as the new enemy when ranges and hunters put more into supporting the environment than most environmental groups.

I like the irony that's ussually involved. On the Brady Bunch website, they have an article titled "Hoping to Ram Bill Through Senate, NRA
Supporters Use Phony Scare Tactics"


Have you noticed how they love it when you point that kind of thing out to them? They go ape-shit.


next to this are articles stating "Cop Killer Gun Available to the Public" and "How terrorists exploit our weak gun laws" .


Last I checked, any gun has the chance to kill anyone, when properly utilized, regardless if they are a police officer or not. I'm assuming they're referring to the hype over the FiveSeven? Terrorists--yeah, they're just buying firearms by the bundle from us....right. Yup, definitely scare tactics without any kind of logic behind them.


The latest (and weakest) fads are "concerns w/ the environment" using lead as the new enemy when ranges and hunters put more into supporting the environment than most environmental groups.

That one always pisses me off. Last I checked lead came out of the ground, and some of us just put some of it back. :D

Have you noticed how they love it when you point that kind of thing out to them? They go ape-shit.





They also like to state that most of the US supports them when they have a membership 1/80th of the NRA and have been outed for adding names to petitions w/o the persons consent.

Last I checked, any gun has the chance to kill anyone, when properly utilized, regardless if they are a police officer or not. I'm assuming they're referring to the hype over the FiveSeven? Terrorists--yeah, they're just buying firearms by the bundle from us....right. Yup, definitely scare tactics without any kind of logic behind them.
The five-seven is only dangerous if you have the right ammo and are extremely accurate. Since most criminals and terrorists are shitty shots and would have a hard time hitting the broad side of a barn using a sawed-off 12 gauge with birdshot, I don't think the cops have much to worry about from the five-seven.

The five-seven is only dangerous if you have the right ammo and are extremely accurate. Since most criminals and terrorists are shitty shots and would have a hard time hitting the broad side of a barn using a sawed-off 12 gauge with birdshot, I don't think the cops have much to worry about from the five-seven.

That, along w/ the fact that the AP ammo is not produced nor imported into the US.

They also like to state that most of the US supports them when they have a membership 1/80th of the NRA and have been outed for adding names to petitions w/o the persons consent.

Heh, I didn't know that....interesting....

The five-seven is only dangerous if you have the right ammo and are extremely accurate. Since most criminals and terrorists are shitty shots and would have a hard time hitting the broad side of a barn using a sawed-off 12 gauge with birdshot, I don't think the cops have much to worry about from the five-seven.

Hence my use of the word, "hype". :D

Heh, I didn't know that....interesting....

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1643

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1648

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1657

Makes you wonder how many other names have been added over the years.

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1643

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1648

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1657

Makes you wonder how many other names have been added over the years.

Yikes, dude!

In a Brady Bunch press release:

All Americans now have a little less protection from wrongdoing than we had before, and a little less freedom to seek justice. We are all less safe from the dangers posed by irresponsible gun companies. We are all diminished by this craven act."

But they're not talking about the fact that SCOTUS has ruled the police have no obligation to protect you or enforce a restraining order, they're talking about that the elected congress has passed a bill to prevent litigation designed to bankrupt an entire industry.

To them, a "craven" individual is one who stands up for themselves and doesn't rely on the Gov't to provide everything and a "heroic" individual is one who passively accepts becoming a victim (as they endorse).

In a Brady Bunch press release:

All Americans now have a little less protection from wrongdoing than we had before, and a little less freedom to seek justice. We are all less safe from the dangers posed by irresponsible gun companies. We are all diminished by this craven act."
Next comes "Irresponsible Distillers...." Oh wait.. we tried that... it didn't work then either.