REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Gun Control Spin

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Sunday, November 25, 2007 09:08
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4545
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 3:48 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important



Hello True Believers,

Ugh. The newspapers are at it again. I just read an article called "Cops find themselves in arms race with criminals" on CNN. Knee-jerk alarmism at its worst. I'll quote you the parts that bother me first, and then I'll attach the whole story. Election year is coming up, Democrats are coming back into power, and here comes the gun control articles. This one will precede many others, and the topic is 'assault weapons.'

"Across the country, at least 62 police officers have been gunned down this year"

That's horrible. Now, how many of those 62 officers were gunned down by 'assault weapons?' Strange that the article doesn't say, since this statistic is meant to support the article's premise that the police are out-gunned, and that proliferation of 'assault weapons' are the reason why so many officers have lost their lives.

""We're having more than one officer shot and killed a week. It's just outrageous that officers are being targeted," he said. "It's something I think all Americans should be outraged about." He lays the blame squarely on lawmakers who allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004."

I am indeed outraged that so many officers are being killed in the line of duty. It is very troubling. However, I'm not sure what this has to do with the lapse of the The Assault Weapons ban... a ban which banned no assault weapons. Since the article declines to tell me how many officers of the 62 were killed by 'assault weapons', it's hard to say.

"Designed to be fired from the hip, assault rifles such as the AK-47 can spray at a rate of up to 600 rounds a minute in full automatic mode. It is the weapon of choice for guerillas and gangsters."


Designed to be fired from the hip? You can shoot any rifle from the hip, but it's hardly optimal to do so. I know of no military (including the Russian military) that recommends shooting your rifle from the hip. The US army played with the idea briefly about 5 or 6 decades ago, but discarded it as a bad idea. An AK-47 would have abysmal accuracy when fired from the hip. Further, it's not convenient to fire from the hip when inside a vehicle. (Which is how the weapon might be most ably used by criminals: In a drive-by.) Finally, fully automatic AK-47's are still illegal. (This is the weapon that shoots 600 rounds a minute, not the civilian semi-automatic version.) There is no need for an 'Assault Weapons Ban' on that weapon. The only way to own an automatic weapon legally is to pay a 200 dollar fee to the Federal government and subject yourself to a weeks-long detailed background investigation. I don't think gangsters are doing this. Most law-abiding citizens who might qualify to do this don't bother. It's a big hassle and usually an unnecessary expense, especially when semi-automatic versions of the weapons are available. Criminals don't bother to do this either, but for different reasons. As criminals, they freely ignore the law and acquire illegal weapons anyway. If the Assault Weapons Ban was to be re-enacted, it merely means the criminals would be forced to ignore two laws instead of one.

""The streets of South Florida are being flooded by AK-47s and assault weapons from old Soviet bloc countries. It's driven the price down, making the availability greater," said Chief Timoney."

I'm sure there are lots of inexpensive AK-47's in Florida. However, the commonly available AK-47 is not an assault weapon. It is a civilian semiautomatic rifle. I'd not be surprised to learn that some are being converted to fully-automatic via illegal modifications. You can do this to ANY semiautomatic weapon. That includes any pistol that was never designed for automatic fire. It is always illegal to do so, unless you have a special permit from the Feds. I doubt criminals are getting these permits.

"Chief Timoney says he started noticing an increase since the federal assault weapon ban lapsed in 2004. Since then, he says homicides in the city of Miami involving assault weapons have been up -- 18 percent last year and 20 percent this year."


Interesting. The Assault Weapons Ban did not ban assault weapons. Instead, it banned civilian weapons that bore physical resemblance to military weapons. The ban was purely cosmetic. Weapons with identical cartridges and capabilities to an AK-47 existed and were widely available, but were cosmetically inoffensive. So, what this article is really suggesting is that weapons which are cosmetically offensive are involved in more homicides than before. I'm sorry that the weapons killing people are scarier looking than before. Still, you'd think that police would focus their ire on the majority problem, not the minority problem. This article could have as easily said, "Only 20 percent of homicides are caused by scary looking guns. 80 percent are caused by innocent looking guns and non-guns."

"The Miami Police Department said 15 of its 79 homicides last year involved assault weapons, up from the year before. So far this year, 12 of 60 killings have involved the high-powered arms."

So, last year it was about 19%. This year it's about 20%. But it is also November. Unless there is a shooting spree during the next two months, overall homicides will actually be down. Shall we then conclude that 'assault weapons' decrease homicides? I doubt that's the conclusion they wish us to reach. But I'm sure if overall homicides were to increase, they'd conclude that assault weapons resulted in more overall homicides. Quaint.

"There's no doubt that urban street warfare, aided by a proliferation of cheap automatic weapons, has come even to Palm Beach County, once high society's vacation mecca and a retirement destination for northern snowbirds."


Did people stop vacationing and retiring in Palm Beach? I didn't know that. But I am again angered by mention of the 'proliferation of cheap automatic weapons.' Automatic weapons aren't cheap, and they aren't legal without special permission from the US government. The weapons being widely proliferated through Florida and elsewhere in the country are semiautomatic rifles. Intrepid individuals may turn a semiautomatic rifle into an automatic one. They might also turn liquid Drano into plastic explosive. But the guns don't come fully automatic without an expensive permit and background check. Even without the 200 dollar tax, legal automatic weapons are prohibitively expensive. Legal automatic weapons are not a problem. They aren't now, they weren't before the assault ban, and they weren't during the assault ban.

"Assault weapons have been used to kill eight people and wound 25 here over the last two years. Authorities estimate there are about 160 gangs who boast around 7000 members. "They don't have .38s anymore. They have AK-47s. ...They have automatic weapons now," said Sgt. Pfeil."


Wow. This is a startling statistic. There are 160 gangs. There are 7000 members. These members are all armed with automatic AK-47's, according to Sergeant Pfeil. And out of 7000 armed gang members, armed with 7000 fully automatic AK-47's, they only managed to kill 8 people in 2 years? What are they doing with all these fully automatic AK-47's, exactly? Mounting them on the wall for show? Perhaps they are, since AK-47's are extraordinarily inconvenient weapons to conceal. You couldn't walk down the street with one, unless you wanted to draw attention to yourself.

"But it takes time and money to arm everyone. In the case of Palm Beach Sheriff's office, about one-third of its deputies carry assault weapons. It could take a year to get everyone equipped. Some officers aren't waiting."


Well, I wouldn't wait either. I think every officer should have either a shotgun or rifle in their car. (A shotgun slug will go right through both doors on a car, and will injure someone even if they are wearing body armor that 'stops' the slug. Of course, the Police Dept. head honchos might not be bright enough to equip their officers with both Buckshot AND Slugs. Certainly during the California bank robbery, it didn't look like the police were firing a lot of slugs at the culprits. That is too bad, since it might have ended the engagement sooner.)

What I don't understand is why they can't arm the entire force with rifles right away. The article claims that the evidence rooms are chock-full of assault weapons captured from criminals. I know from previous articles that these weapons are destroyed after they are no longer needed as evidence. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a gunsmith look at the captured guns, verify their viability, and issue them to officers as needed? Sure it would. But they don't do it.

Okay, here's the article. Decide for yourself and comment as you like. I may not agree with folks who want to ban 'assault' weapons, but I will defend to the death their right have opinions I consider wrong. I support all of the top-ten amendments, even when they are inconvenient.


--Anthony

--------------

Quote:

WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- The war on the streets is escalating. As gangs and other criminals pack more firepower, police departments say they find themselves in an arms race.



The officers say they need to level the playing field to survive. And so, on a bright October day about a dozen Palm Beach County sheriff's deputies brought out their big guns at the local firing range.



Rifles crackled. Shell casings flew. Bullets sailed at 3,200 feet per second through paper targets set up a football field's length away.



The sharpshooters weren't training for a SWAT team. These were the deputies who patrol the streets and roads from the glittery Gold Coast to the swamps of the Everglades.



The fatal shooting in September of a Miami-Dade police officer by a man using an assault weapon put all South Florida police departments on edge. Several other officers were wounded by the gunfire.



"It's not nice we have to arm ourselves like the soldiers in Iraq," said Sgt. Laurie Pfeil, who supervises a sheriff's road patrol in Palm Beach County and is now certified to carry a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle on the job. It's the civilian version of the military's M-16 used by U.S. soldiers in Iraq.



"We are like soldiers. It is a war, " says Sgt Pfeil.



Across the country, at least 62 police officers have been gunned down this year -- a record pace, said Robert Tessaro, the associate director for law enforcement relations for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.



As a result, the Brady organization supports police officers arming themselves with high-powered weapons "to protect themselves and their communities," he said.



"We're having more than one officer shot and killed a week. It's just outrageous that officers are being targeted," he said. "It's something I think all Americans should be outraged about." He lays the blame squarely on lawmakers who allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004.



Designed to be fired from the hip, assault rifles such as the AK-47 can spray at a rate of up to 600 rounds a minute in full automatic mode. It is the weapon of choice for guerillas and gangsters.



Cops prefer to squeeze off single shots in semiautomatic mode because it makes for more accurate shooting. Some semiautomatic weapons can fire with pinpoint accuracy from as far as 100 yards away. The magazines used by law enforcement typically carry 20 or 30 rounds, adding to the ability to better respond under fire.



There's no doubt that urban street warfare, aided by a proliferation of cheap automatic weapons, has come even to Palm Beach County, once high society's vacation mecca and a retirement destination for northern snowbirds.



Assault weapons have been used to kill eight people and wound 25 here over the last two years. Authorities estimate there are about 160 gangs who boast around 7000 members.



"They don't have .38s anymore. They have AK-47s. ...They have automatic weapons now," said Sgt. Pfeil.



So the Palm Beach Sheriff's office, like many others across the county, is training and arming everyone on the force with semiautomatic assault weapons. Many officers say it's about time.



"It's different now. It's shootings on a weekly basis. Ten years ago, that just didn't happen," said Pfeil. "They don't get out and run from us anymore. They stop, and they're shooting at us."



Miami's police department also is in the process of arming every officer with an assault rifle.



"It's a little bit embarrassing that we're engaged in this, but what is the alternative?" said Miami police Chief John Timoney. He said gangs, in particular, are getting their hands on high-powered weapons with apparent ease.



"The streets of South Florida are being flooded by AK-47s and assault weapons from old Soviet bloc countries. It's driven the price down, making the availability greater," said Chief Timoney.



The Miami police department evidence room has seized AK-47s, AR-15s and an assortment of other automatic and semiautomatic weapons piled on shelves from floor to ceiling.



Chief Timoney says he started noticing an increase since the federal assault weapon ban lapsed in 2004. Since then, he says homicides in the city of Miami involving assault weapons have been up -- 18 percent last year and 20 percent this year.



The Miami Police Department said 15 of its 79 homicides last year involved assault weapons, up from the year before. So far this year, 12 of 60 killings have involved the high-powered arms.



Tessaro said he recently attended a conference for the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Among the crime scene tape, squad cars, and other law enforcement gear offered for sale was the latest in high-powered assault weapons.



But it takes time and money to arm everyone. In the case of Palm Beach Sheriff's office, about one-third of its deputies carry assault weapons. It could take a year to get everyone equipped.

Some officers aren't waiting.



Palm Beach Sheriff's deputy Carl Martin bought his own AR-15 and passed the required training.

When his department offered him one of their weapons, he gave it up to someone else who was on the waiting list. "Because there's not enough to go around," he explained. E-mail to a friend



CNN's Patrick Oppmann, Rich Phillips and Ann O'Neill contributed to this story.


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 4:29 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


The fatal shooting in September of a Miami-Dade police officer by a man using an assault weapon put all South Florida police departments on edge. Several other officers were wounded by the gunfire.

Assault weapons have been used to kill eight people and wound 25 here over the last two years. Authorities estimate there are about 160 gangs who boast around 7000 members.

"They don't have .38s anymore. They have AK-47s. ...They have automatic weapons now," said Sgt. Pfeil.

"It's a little bit embarrassing that we're engaged in this, but what is the alternative?" said Miami police Chief John Timoney. He said gangs, in particular, are getting their hands on high-powered weapons with apparent ease.

"The streets of South Florida are being flooded by AK-47s and assault weapons from old Soviet bloc countries. It's driven the price down, making the availability greater," said Chief Timoney.

The Miami police department evidence room has seized AK-47s, AR-15s and an assortment of other automatic and semiautomatic weapons piled on shelves from floor to ceiling.

Chief Timoney says he started noticing an increase since the federal assault weapon ban lapsed in 2004. Since then, he says homicides in the city of Miami involving assault weapons have been up -- 18 percent last year and 20 percent this year.

The Miami Police Department said 15 of its 79 homicides last year involved assault weapons, up from the year before. So far this year, 12 of 60 killings have involved the high-powered arms.




***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 8:07 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Too many people crowding my planet anyhow, the way I see it Rue. They're just doing Mother Nature's work since technology has allowed us to trump her power.

If nothing else, this news would make any rational person desire the ability to arm themselves even more.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 9:38 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Like the paper said.
Arms.

"What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression."
-Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley, 1898

That bein said, I wouldn't really recommend an AK for home defense, not that it wouldn't do a damned effective job, mind you - but rather in that it would overpenetrate, not to mention as anyone who has ever discharged a firearm indoors in an emergency can tell you, it's a rather, erm... stunning experience.

I have no issue with folks carrying anything they please, so long as that right is universal.

And as long as they are enforcing this type of law, the police should be bound by it, just the same as us citizens are.

If they wanna bitch about it, throw the same bullshit excuses back in their face they throw in ours - see how long such stupidity lasts when their own self defense is hindered by it.

History has a word to describe unarmed people, do you know what it is ?

Victims.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 10:52 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Like the paper said.
Arms.

"What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression."
-Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley, 1898
A term that includes anything from a dagger to a thermo-nuclear device.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 1:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Exactly, and in my opinion, as it should be.

It was the intent of our founders for the citizens to completely outgun any government forces up to and including the military, to act as a necessary check and balance against tyranny.

So what to do they do ?

(UnConstitutionally) Outlaw almost anything more than popguns, and arm up SWAT with body armor, assault rifles, and APCs.

Hear that buzzing sound ? - that's Patrick Henry spinning in his grave.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 5:11 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


To be honest...

If I thought the government would legislate controls to civilian armament that were reasonable, and then STOP, I'd support them.

Unfortunately, the gun control advocates aren't interested in reasonable limitations. They are, by self admission, interested in banning firearms outright. They have proudly proclaimed each new gun law as a stepping stone to disarmament.

How can a reasonable man agree with reasonable controls when he knows that each reasonable control is simply a step closer to the unreasonable monopoly of the government and criminal population over all weapons?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 7:12 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Exactly, and in my opinion, as it should be.

It was the intent of our founders for the citizens to completely outgun any government forces up to and including the military, to act as a necessary check and balance against tyranny.
-Frem
Depends how you look at it. The term "Bear arms" at the time meant "serve in the military", not "own weapons". An arguably correct definition of the 2nd Amendment was allowing anyone to join the Militia, and keeping that Militia from being subject to control of the Federal government.

To be honest the casual disregard for the danger of weapons I've seen or heard of from some American gun owners, I wouldn't want them to have weapons that could cause the sort of destruction as a pound of Semtex, let alone anything more powerful.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 7:15 AM

STORYMARK


Too many people hide their love for guns behind a claim of self-defense, when really, the guns just get them hard.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 7:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Quote:
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.


After they get all the "assualt" rifles, guess they'll be coming after the "arsenal" in my kitchen. I've also got some rather pointy screwdrivers in the shop, along with hammers and handsaws. And the splitting maul I use to chop firewood...oh, dear.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 7:33 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Quote:
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.


After they get all the "assualt" rifles, guess they'll be coming after the "arsenal" in my kitchen. I've also got some rather pointy screwdrivers in the shop, along with hammers and handsaws. And the splitting maul I use to chop firewood...oh, dear.




"Keep the Shiny side up"
How many nuclear bombs do you have geezer? (I mean while we're using the slippery slope fallacy).


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 7:56 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


I'm really torn on the issue of gun control.

I simply do not want crazy people to has access to weaponry that have such final and dramatic results, they can change the course of a couple dozen lives in seconds.

On the other hand, I'd like to support the second amendment as written(and while I grant that it's open for interpretation, the most liberal interpretation is safest),

and in this case as in many, I believe the problem is less with the guns and more with our inability to adress the root of the issue, like poor education and little government assistance for troubled citizens, a generally poor support structure that is the byproduct of our society which cultivates so much alienation, etc.

but in the meantime what is the solution? Heh, as if we were on our way to some greater enlightenment. But given our current condition, and given the imbalanced ability of one man to destroy so much so quickly, I don't have a problem with the spirit of laws that regulate gun access based upon determined sanity, and maybe psychological evaluations...

which of course leads back to the other dangerous prospect that I think has been brought up before....who gets to decide sanity? Can such a process be used as a method of selective control over citizens more likely to be unruly? Maybe they could have a criteria within the test that says if applicant is unhappy with current administration, he is a risk to the community...etc. I'm being a little Hyperbolic sure, but I"m not sure by how much.

The only thing I can suggest, given my current understanding, is that we as citizens give support to our politicians to regulate guns based on the determined sanity of the applicants, but at the same time, we scrutinize diligently the criteria, the hiring process, and the science behind the decisions being made...so that we don't allow our representatives to disenfranchise our fellow citizens unduly. Of course our inability to pay attention is one of those other root problems at the heart of our American crisis.

Some middle ground has to be found on this one...both extremes are well...for once, extreme.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 8:08 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"and the science behind the decisions being made"

FACT-based legislation ???? Oh dear me that's asking way too much.

***************************************************************
That would be like asking for treatment for drug offenders rather than jail, or legalizing marijuana, or mental health screening for convicted perps, or review of taser use, or police car cams ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 8:50 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
"Bear arms" at the time meant "serve in the military", not "own weapons". An arguably correct definition of the 2nd Amendment was allowing anyone to join the Militia, and keeping that Militia from being subject to control of the Federal government.


Seems to me that, historically, at that time, the Minutemen were still in everyone's memory, as was the fact that the new nation was still a frontier society, mostly. To have served in the militia would have meant keeping your gun in your home, and grabbing it and comin'a'runnin' when there was a problem.
That's what the Founding Fathers had experienced, and what they meant.
Times have changed, the situation has changed, maybe the Amendment needs to be changed, but that's what they meant.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 8:55 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


The FF were practical. They really tried to predict how any situation would play out, and forestall potential problems. There is such a thing as being so dogmatic over the particulars that you lose the intent, something I suspect the FF would not be happy to see.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 9:16 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Seems to me that, historically, at that time, the Minutemen were still in everyone's memory, as was the fact that the new nation was still a frontier society, mostly. To have served in the militia would have meant keeping your gun in your home, and grabbing it and comin'a'runnin' when there was a problem.
That's what the Founding Fathers had experienced, and what they meant.
Times have changed, the situation has changed, maybe the Amendment needs to be changed, but that's what they meant.
That situation isn't anaglous to what there is now though.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 9:27 AM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Seems to me that, historically, at that time, the Minutemen were still in everyone's memory, as was the fact that the new nation was still a frontier society, mostly. To have served in the militia would have meant keeping your gun in your home, and grabbing it and comin'a'runnin' when there was a problem.
That's what the Founding Fathers had experienced, and what they meant.
Times have changed, the situation has changed, maybe the Amendment needs to be changed, but that's what they meant.

Shay's Rebellion was a more immediate concern then the legacy of the minutemen.

Yet despite the obvious threat to the State by armed citizens with a grievance, they chose to adopt the protection anyway trusting that a just government would have nothing to fear from its people.

H


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 9:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
How many nuclear bombs do you have geezer? (I mean while we're using the slippery slope fallacy).


None, so far. I haven't found a use for one yet and they're sorta expensive to keep around 'just in case'.

I have found that while cooking I do tend to use a 10" chef's knife or utility knife quite a bit more than a short paring knife. Screwdrivers, saws, hammers, etc. come in handy from time to time as well. My rifle has filled my freezer with all-natural wild game, saving me the cost and risk of hormone-'enhanced' beef. They're all tools to me - ones that I need - and I get the best I can afford.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 9:43 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Righteous, I believe the best course of action is industry self-regulation - given current liability issues cause by sue-happy folk who are scared witless of a mere tool, it's in their own best interest to limit that liability by demanding some evidence of competence prior to sale.

Seriously, it's a simple, logical solution to many of the problems, have a list of inexpensive basic courses in firearm use and safety that meet the approval of said manufacturer and/or gun store, and require the certification from one of them as a condition of the sale, as is within the right of the businesses involved.

And perhaps offer a discount if one can provide a cert from a more involved/advanced training course, since those folk would have an even lower liability issue, you see.

Honestly, if you were going to buy a powerful tool that could harm or even kill you or someone else if mishandled - wouldn't you make sure you knew what the hell you were doing before you tried to use it ?

That also would keep the Governments filthy paws off the issue, cause they've proven, by the stepping stone analogy above, that they cannot br trusted with it.

Just to make sure no ambiguity exsists in my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I read it as thus, in modern interpretation and phrasing.

"The right of all people to own and carry with them, weapons - is inviolate and shall not in any way be hindered."

And for the "it'll never happen here!" folks, it did happen here, during Katrina - what is to say that such would not happen in case of a fire, flood, power outage or similar disaster in your town someday ?

Even so, I think people attach too much emotion and projected issues to what is a mere tool, an object without will or motivating force of it's own.

I keep a fire extinguisher, first aid kit, and a pistol handy, all for the exact same reason, to handle a situation while waiting for the professionals to get there and assist.

No one (yet) wants to ban the first aid kit, or the fire extinguisher... so from that viewpoint it's just damned silly, isn't it ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 9:53 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Out of curiosity Geeze, and yer not at all obligated to answer if you don't wanna...

What's yer preferred protein collection unit ?

One of my buddies has a right nice Tikka which for it's price impressed me quite a bit, and a couple of the shotgunners have some real nice kit.

I don't hunt per se, being hopeless with a rifle, but for a cut of the bagged game, I'll scout and find ya something to shoot, IF the folks involved meet my standards of basic safety and competency.

Of course that means they gotta actually keep up, and most of us are gettin a little too old and wheezy for that kinda thing anymore, not to mention being dubious of the safety standards of the younger crowd these days.

Tree stands and bait blocks are for lazy bums, lol.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 10:01 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That situation isn't anaglous to what there is now though.


And this is the problem that I have with the people who insist on the literal Second Amendment interpretation. It was written in a time when there was no standing army, wilderness outside almost everyones door and weapons that took quite a while to fire. The only way for someone to kill lots of people in short order would be to load themselves down with dozens of guns making themselves quite conspicuous. In the modern day the killing capacity of weapons (be they semi-auto, bolt action or even break action) is MUCH greater then it was 200 years ago, and the need for guns has decreased.

It is my opinion that if the FF knew the way weapon development would go they would not have made such a broad, sweeping statement. It is also my opinion that if the lawmakers did not feel that they could interpret the Second Amendment in a fashion that lets them reasonably restrict weapons then they would have passed a revised version by now.

That being said I do agree that current gun laws are made by people who don't understand weapons and have goals that are not constitutional. Reasonable gun control is good, the gun control desired by the average gun control advocate is not.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 10:05 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Righteous, I believe the best course of action is industry self-regulation - given current liability issues cause by sue-happy folk who are scared witless of a mere tool, it's in their own best interest to limit that liability by demanding some evidence of competence prior to sale.


Gun shows, private transfers, stolen weapons.

Quote:
Seriously, it's a simple, logical solution to many of the problems, have a list of inexpensive basic courses in firearm use and safety that meet the approval of said manufacturer and/or gun store, and require the certification from one of them as a condition of the sale, as is within the right of the businesses involved.

And perhaps offer a discount if one can provide a cert from a more involved/advanced training course, since those folk would have an even lower liability issue, you see.

Honestly, if you were going to buy a powerful tool that could harm or even kill you or someone else if mishandled - wouldn't you make sure you knew what the hell you were doing before you tried to use it ?


Generally speaking the problem is not the people who accidentally shoot someone so much as the people who intentionally shoot someone. In the latter case competence isn't a good thing

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 10:10 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


That's an interesting approach frem, and one that deserves a folllow-up question. If you think that the industry will regulate itself if pushed by litigation, then are you for placing some blame at the foot of firearms distributors when the person they sold a gun to goes into a school and executes a classroom of children?

I'm not sure exactly how much that flies in the face of my sense of the liberetarian "Personal responsibility" stance,

but I don't think you can hold to your premise without promoting the right and even the need to go after the companies for damages done by their product.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 10:24 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
None, so far. I haven't found a use for one yet and they're sorta expensive to keep around 'just in case'.

I have found that while cooking I do tend to use a 10" chef's knife or utility knife quite a bit more than a short paring knife. Screwdrivers, saws, hammers, etc. come in handy from time to time as well. My rifle has filled my freezer with all-natural wild game, saving me the cost and risk of hormone-'enhanced' beef. They're all tools to me - ones that I need - and I get the best I can afford.
I think you missed my point. I meant that a ban on guns doesn't mean a ban on kitchen knifes.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I think the gun 'industry' (however you want to parse it) should be held liable for gun deaths. It's their product after all. Once they have a few big lawsuits they'll be more careful about not losing too much money. In practice though what you will need are minimum standards and an impartial arbiter of fault. You wouldn't want the (self-insured) industry deciding on whether or not to pay a claim or how much is reasonable prevention.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 1:34 PM

FREDGIBLET


The car industry should be held liable for car accidents as well.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 1:39 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


How about the fast food industry for fatal heart attacks.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 2:03 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Too late - it's been done.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 2:08 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
How about the fast food industry for fatal heart attacks.


Done all the time

http://www.healthcastle.com/trans_fat_burgerking.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2070417&page=1


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 2:24 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Out of curiosity Geeze, and yer not at all obligated to answer if you don't wanna...

What's yer preferred protein collection unit ?


Savage Model 16 in .300 Winchester Short Magnum with a Nikon 4.5x14 scope. Should work on everything from pronghorn to elk, although I haven't had a chance at elk yet. With a laser rangefinder, computer-generated drop tables, and a bit of practice, I'm comfortable out to about 600yds.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 2:45 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I think you missed my point. I meant that a ban on guns doesn't mean a ban on kitchen knifes.


No. You missed my point. Banning tools because a small precentage of the population misuses them isn't a logical response. Further, it has a disproportinate impact on the majority who use them properly and responsably, and almost no impact on those who willfully misuse them.

Lots of people use the internet to distribute or obtain kiddie porn. Terrorist and racist organizations use it to communicate and plan attacks. Others use it to perpetrate scams and identity thefts. Should we ban the internet, or work to identify and stop those who misuse it?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 2:52 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think the gun 'industry' (however you want to parse it) should be held liable for gun deaths.


Don't forget the long, pointy kitchen knife 'industry'. And the movies Saw I thru IV should let you know the real impetus behind the power tool 'industry'. How about chainsaws?

God forbid an individual should actually be held responsible for their conduct.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 2:56 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Any 'industry', even the gun industry, will always want to expand its market. Kinda like the alcohol and tobacco industries did for many decades advertizing to children and even selling to them under the counter (the AT in ATF ). Between rampant and irresponsible sales and a ban there is middle ground where the gun industry IS responsible.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 3:04 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
How about the fast food industry for fatal heart attacks.


Done all the time

http://www.healthcastle.com/trans_fat_burgerking.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2070417&page=1


Thanks for the links, although that wasn't my point.
I believe Geezer said it best but let me add my 2 cents. Why accept personal responsibility for your actions when you can blame someone else. That just don't sit right with me for some reason. If you want to smoke and drink and eat fatty foods all day so be it. Just don't come crying to me when they cut the wall out of your house to take you to the hospital for chemo followed by a liver transplant.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 3:14 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


It's not so simple. Let's say you have NO regulation on gun sales. Some grade-school kid brings his paper route money and buys an AK-47 and guns down the school (stay with me).

WHO is responsible ?

1) The kid is not of legal (or mental) age to exert that kind of responsibility.

2) The parents would traditionally be though of as 'accountable' but as anyone knows, even if you have an idea your kid might be unstable you can't keep them chained up in the house - even if you try. And there's no law against the kid getting a gun of any type.

3) The gun seller should have exercised better judgment - I mean really, selling an AK-47 to a young kid is just inviting trouble - but in the society YOU propose, they have NO responsibility.

And in real life, they ARE part of the equation, they DO have some responsibility.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 3:35 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yanno, I find it passing strange:

The dollar is sinking like a stone (only faster), we've turned into a debtor nation and lost a lot of manufacturing, the world is overpopulated like crazy, the Bush government has us in a quagmire and thinks it's OK to snoop on anybody without a warrant, and toss people into prison w/o a writ ... and you're talking about using GUNS to solve your problems?????

Bad schools? GET A GUN!
Corporate tyranny? GET A GUN!
Type II diabetes? GET A GUN!

"Arms" are not the end-all and be-all solution that y'all seem to think. They're not even terribly effective for self-defense, unless you're well-practiced (which most of us aren't). I don't particularly want the army and police to have a monopoly on "arms", but unless you guys can get together and organize you'll just be another loony-tune with a gun.

Sheesh.



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 5:44 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hmm...

I'm not sure we advocate having guns for any of those reasons.

Bad Schools? Administer proper funding, or enable people to pay for the private school of their choosing.

Corporate Tyranny? I'm not sure what specifically you mean. Enron? I bet there's a lot of people who WISH guns were the solution to that debacle. I remember people saying the Execs should be lined up and shot.

Type II Diabetes? Diet and Exercise, then pills, then insulin.

Target shooting? Get a Gun!

Personal Defense? Get a Gun!

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 6:24 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It's not so simple. Let's say you have NO regulation on gun sales.

Let's say that's not reasonable under most anyone's world-view.
There is already regulation of gun sales based on age and prior criminal record. Even Fremd the anarchist supports some sort of proficiency qualification, and I'd suspect that most folk understand that parents have some responsibility to supervise their children.

Quote:
Some grade-school kid brings his paper route money and buys an AK-47 and guns down the school (stay with me).

Can't stay with you, since this isn't possible based on current law, or the generally accepted concept that parents are responsible for their children's behavior.
Quote:
WHO is responsible ?

1) The kid is not of legal (or mental) age to exert that kind of responsibility.

True. But since the kid can't buy an AK-47 under current law, it's a moot point. If the parents buy one for the kid,and he/she wastes the school, it's pretty much the fanily's fault.

Quote:
2) The parents would traditionally be though of as 'accountable' but as anyone knows, even if you have an idea your kid might be unstable you can't keep them chained up in the house - even if you try. And there's no law against the kid getting a gun of any type.

Sorry, but there is law against the kid buying an AK-47, just as there is a law against the kid driving a car at 14. You're proposing a completely spurious scenario which has nothing to do with a total gun ban.

Quote:
3) The gun seller should have exercised better judgment - I mean really, selling an AK-47 to a young kid is just inviting trouble - but in the society YOU propose, they have NO responsibility.

Nope. You're the one proposing that parents and others have no responsability. I'm just opposing a flatout ban.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 6:32 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yanno, I find it passing strange:

The dollar is sinking like a stone (only faster), we've turned into a debtor nation and lost a lot of manufacturing, the world is overpopulated like crazy, the Bush government has us in a quagmire and thinks it's OK to snoop on anybody without a warrant, and toss people into prison w/o a writ ... and you're talking about using GUNS to solve your problems?????


I'm talking about using guns to shoot holes in paper from far distances and to get my family meat that's not full of chemicals.

As long as I buy American, the dollar still buys pretty much the same amount of stuff. Overpopulation will solve itself in unfortunate ways. The Bush government will be gone in 14 months and we'll see if the Dems will be less quagmiry.

Let's not react to short-term events with decisions that'll impact us forever.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 6:33 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I hope your gun aim is better than your logical aim. Unless you guys organize you're just a fart in am empty pair of pants. Otherwise, you're just a nut with a gun. Easily picked off. But somehow the just owning a gun seems to be important?

A gun is just a symbol. It's not a real answer to much of anything. If you could organize well enough the beat an army, you could organize well enough to beat someone politically. The point is to organize. But y'all are so wedded to individualism that you'll hang onto an outmoded symbol to prop up your dysfunctional ideology.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 6:34 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
As long as I buy American
Yeah good luck on that.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 6:48 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer

Some people here believe the 'gun industry' bears NO responsibility. It's ALL personal and individual.

So what I concocted was a hypothetical (I assume you know what that means), used to try and figure out where responsibility might be cultural, legal, or personal.

And indeed, the 'gun industry' does bear some responsibility in the whole question of gun control.


"meat that's not full of chemicals"
Wanted to point out the problem with wasting disease.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 7:01 PM

FREMDFIRMA


" If you think that the industry will regulate itself if pushed by litigation, then are you for placing some blame at the foot of firearms distributors when the person they sold a gun to goes into a school and executes a classroom of children?"

Nope.

I am saying it would give the manufacturer and the shop legal defense against the idiotic and commonly held "It's all the guns fault" maniacs - by showing that THEY made a good-faith effort to not sell to obvious lunatics.

I am sayin it would be a better solution than government intervention, is all, cause my opinion of the folks who'd sue a weapon manufacturer for misuse of the device, well...

It would be winded, profane and about as offensive to those people as I could possibly make it, but i'm too lazy to type it all out at the moment.

In all honesty, it's not a bad idea in and for it's own sake.


As for the lunacy I see expressed here...

A huge part of the problem rests with the profound stupidity of folk believing words on paper will stop an established criminal from obtaining and possessing a firearm - I don't know what kind of bizarre mental contortions are required to believe that shite... but I know for sure that I do not subscribe to them.

There's always gonna BE crooks with firearms, it's GONNA happen, ain't no preventin it, ain't no stoppin it - and up against some gangbanger who's gonna have to pull his nine out of them baggy pants to shoot me with it, I rather think a bullet would answer the problem more effectively than politely asking him to hold his water while I call 911 and wait for the cops to arrive.

And sure, the possibility exists even for someone who is armed, of being outgunned or outnumbered, same as if you weren't, and in such a case they better hit me with the first one right between the eyes, cause imma take em with me otherwise.

Look, there's no guarantee of personal safety in a free society, it just can't happen, it's not even possible, ok - so all *I* am asking, all that I desire, is the right to have an effective argument at hand when that ugly reality everyone seems to be denying, rears it's head in my path.

And what you are saying to that, collectively, is that you do not trust me to defend myself, that I should hand that simple, basic, unalienable right over to the state, which has proven time and time again to be a damned piss-poor caretaker of such things.

It's an insult beyond measure, and if you wanna play that game with me, let's go quid pro quo on it, theoretically, ok ?

I'll hand over the piece, YOU hand over your drivers license and car keys.
You don't trust me to defend myself, I won't trust you to drive a car.

And while you're busy suing colt arms, I'll be busy suing ford, and we can all snark at each other as the state shovels us into little rubber rooms between our corporate service and we're all nice and safe...

It's insane, and I am done discussing it - we're not gonna agree, there doesn't seem to be one speck of common ground to meet on, besides the fact that I view with intense suspicion and downright hostility anyone who would want me rendered helpless by their edict.

Wouldn't you ?

-Frem

BTW - That's a nice piece, Geeze it's got potency, versatility and more range than one would expect, thanks for the reply.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 7:08 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Coming from different places, we agree on the fact that the gun industry needs to be proactive and forgo a small amount of profit to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal, the irresponsible, the inept, and the insane.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 8:07 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Coming from different places, we agree on the fact that the gun industry needs to be proactive and forgo a small amount of profit to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal, the irresponsible, the inept, and the insane.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."


I'm with you there, Rue. Unfortunately, that's the beginning of what gun control advocates wish to accomplish. It is not the end. Equally unfortunate, it can be the means to that end.

If everyone would agree to my right to keep and bear arms, I could agree with reasonable controls over that right.

SignyM, I think I remember reading a post from you where you suggest that gun owners get organized. I assure you, the need to organize has been recognized, and caused us to band together in organizations. Some of the organizations we embrace fully, some hesitantly. They are a means to political power, the power to protect our rights.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 8:07 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Coming from different places, we agree on the fact that the gun industry needs to be proactive and forgo a small amount of profit to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal, the irresponsible, the inept, and the insane.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."


I'm with you there, Rue. Unfortunately, that's the beginning of what gun control advocates wish to accomplish. It is not the end. Equally unfortunate, it can be the means to that end.

If everyone would agree to my right to keep and bear arms, I could agree with reasonable controls over that right.

SignyM, I think I remember reading a post from you where you suggest that gun owners get organized. I assure you, the need to organize has been recognized, and caused us to band together in organizations. Some of the organizations we embrace fully, some hesitantly. They are a means to political power, the power to protect our rights.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 9:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
SignyM, I think I remember reading a post from you where you suggest that gun owners get organized. I assure you, the need to organize has been recognized, and caused us to band together in organizations.
Such as....?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 10:09 PM

JARHEAD


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

3) The gun seller should have exercised better judgment - I mean really, selling an AK-47 to a young kid is just inviting trouble - but in the society YOU propose, they have NO responsibility.



(Please understand I have not begun to take the time to read all of these posts, so if I cover a few already covered points, etc. I appologize in advance.)

Also understand that the details are everything in this article... The Miami police are blaming the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban on the flood of illegal AK-47s? Not illegal to own(if they were made prior to 1986 and in the registered within the grace period in compliance with the NFA amendment of that year), I mean illegal to IMPORT.

If those are full auto AK's "hitting the streets", the argument that legitimate gun dealers that cross their "T"s, dot their "I"s, endure regular inspection from the BATFE and what is in effect a basic forfeiture of their Fourth Amendment rights, If you are saying that these people are in any way responsible for the deaths of some officers, then you really to get schooled on firearms laws in the US.

Long story short - the American firearms industry has nothing to do with AK-47's - for that you are going to need to look to China, Russia, Romania, and whoever it is that has figured out how to SMUGGLE them into Florida. I( say smuggle, because Customs won't allow their import, and FEDERAL FRAKIN LAW won't allow their sale. Regan signed that law into effect for Pete's sake.

The assault weapons ban did not cover the automatic AK-47s. It had no effect on this, whatsoever.

And I just realized that this is Miami we're talking about. Oh gee, assault weapon crime in major entry city for cocaine traffickers. To quote Gilbert Gottfried, I might have a heart attack and die of NOT-SURPRISE.



I’m never serious. Serious means something bad is about to happen.

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 10:34 PM

JARHEAD


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think the gun 'industry' (however you want to parse it) should be held liable for gun deaths. It's their product after all. Once they have a few big lawsuits they'll be more careful about not losing too much money. In practice though what you will need are minimum standards and an impartial arbiter of fault. You wouldn't want the (self-insured) industry deciding on whether or not to pay a claim or how much is reasonable prevention.


Should we start holding the car industry responsible for people using a car a a murder weapon? Why not, it's their product, they should have checked a bit more thoroughly before they sold the car to someone.

How about the chemical industry? People are poisoned every year, and if they didn't make household cleansers, if would be much tougher, have to start using paint or maybe breaking old mercury thermometers. It's their product, so we should hold them accountable.

You know we should go after the makers of five gallon buckets like paint comes in - you know how many toddlers drown every year in those?

No, really, I can totally see where you're coming from. A few lawsuits and we can save the world.

Or just maybe we can look at this from a common sense perspective - the person that pulled the trigger is responsible for pulling the trigger. The fat kid should stop guzzling 64OZ big gulps. Drunk drivers are responsible for hitting the road plastered. Cigarette smokers are the ones that held the cancer stick to their own lips and amazingly got cancer. In short the reason that we only hold the individual responsible is because THEY ARE THE ONES THAT DID IT.



I’m never serious. Serious means something bad is about to happen.

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 2:55 AM

ARCLIGHT


"...If you could organize well enough the beat an army, you could organize well enough to beat someone politically."

What makes you think we're not organized enough to beat someone politically? Remember the 2000 Presidental election? It's beginning to look like WE may have to steal another one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 17:10 - 4778 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL