Would you carry a gun if legal in your area

[red_fists]

Moderator.

Pls, delete.

I forgot to hit the Poll Option, and can't delete the Thread as I get an Error message.

Thanks.

[Metal Fist]

So much for a Poll, but heres my response, I would and I do. It is legal for concealed carry where I live, although it should not have to be a privilage, after all the bearing of arms is a right. Regardless of what the Liberal/Socialists think or say. :D

[fmann]

I would if I could.

[shaolinboxer]

No. I would never carry a gun. Why? The golden rule.

If I carry, I am saying hey everybody, you should carry too.

I have red many books, such as Bill Jordan's "No Second Place Winner" and Col. Atkins "Unrepentant Sinner" that describe times when men fought oftern with their firearms, and it sounds horrible.

No guns for me, thanks.

[azwingchun]

I would and do. ;)

[Budokan]

I don't and it is.

[Jeff Liboiron]

No, never, and besides, guns are a false sense of security

[Majic Sam]

"If you have to carry a gun,you'rejust another pig to me.If you wanna carry a gun,you're just another pig...."-Henry Rollins

Or something like that.Stay out of bars and dark alley's otherwise.

He taunts from a weapon free Canada.(Yea,right)Except for police and armed forces...

[dnc101]

I could.
I don't.
I used to, when I thought I needed to.
As it turned out, I was right.

Proud to be a Pig!

"It's not who's right, it's who's left." Mr. Ed Parker, Senior Grand Master.

[Radhnoti]

I could. I don't. But, I'm a strong believer of my (and others U.S. citizens) right to do so...if I choose.

[myosimka]

Because I am a firm supporter of Kant's categorical imperative. If somebody comes along with a better fundamental moral principle that lets me carry a gun, then I am there.

[JerryLove]

Can and do...


although it should not have to be a privilage, after all the bearing of arms is a right. Regardless of what the Liberal/Socialists think or say. Thanks for the charicterization. I'm liberal and quite pro-firearm.


If I carry, I am saying hey everybody, you should carry too. Good.


I have red many books, such as Bill Jordan's "No Second Place Winner" and Col. Atkins "Unrepentant Sinner" that describe times when men fought oftern with their firearms, and it sounds horrible. Right, when only one has a gun it's not called a fight, it's called a murder. What so much better about only a percentage being armed?


No, never, and besides, guns are a false sense of security Depends on the person, for many, so are martial arts. I suppose you would oppose martial arts as well for giving people that false sense?

I guess (except for MF) it's doesn't matter what you think, you're unarmed ;)

[uncle]

:confused: Can and do,of coarse where I live when I go outdoors, fishing or hunting or whatever I carry as big a piece as I can comfortably pack for the amount of time I'll be out.Guys on the east coast,I would probably be less comfortable on your streets than I would whereI live. I don't usually feel the need to carry in the city unless there will be a chance that I may have to defend my family,I like to play as much as the next guy but where their wellfare is concerned, I don't play. An armed society is a polite society. peace B.B.

[Braden]

I've been mugged a few times, and every time I thought to myself - thank god I'm not carrying a gun.

[TenTigers]

I can and do,I also carry a knife or two. My dad told me "never bring a knife to a gunfight" so I bring a gun to a knife fight instead. If it was not legal, I would do it anyway. I didn't make the law, and no one consulted me when they made it. I never liked the fact that if you make cash deposits of more than $2500. a week, then you can have full unrestricted carry. So what they're tellin ya is that your wife and kids aint worth $2500.? What is the price of a human life?

[Metal Fist]

Jerry Love, my appologies for the "characturization" It comes from the fact that as a Conservative/Constitutionalist, I am characturized" as well. I do know some Libs that are pro-gun(god bless them). So no matter what I say about guns and carrying them, there will be some Lib/Socialist that wants to "demonize" me, so I take the opportunity to do to them the same, it's a two-way street. The closing line is a laugh :D , we are all armed ( in one form or another) regardless of what I think. :cool:

[myosimka]

Ten Tigers-you didn't make a law and noone consulted you and that's your argument????? Nobody asked me about the assault laws. Noone asked me about FAA regulations. None asked me about our tort system. I still obey the laws though. The ones I don't like I do protest and I vote for people that I feel are most likely to change them.
If laws only had application to those individuals who expressly consented to them we wouldn't need them. Duh.

And as to the $2500 carrying law-I don't know your jurisdiction and so I don't know the law much less the legislative intent. But I'd look at it this way-small amounts of money aren't worth dying, killing or risking your family members lives. The mortality rate is higher for gunowners in a mugging than nongunowners. You can argue it may stop total number of crimes (and alot of those numbers are biased so rather than argue it, I'll just grant that guns do prevent some crimes) but the mortality rate for gunowners in armed robberies is higher than nongunowners. Personally I think carrying any amount of money isn't worth dying, killing or risking the lives. Never carry more money than you'd be willing to hand over to keep safe. So I think it's a dumb law but I think that the interpretation that legislative intent was to say that human life is worth less than $2500 is a bit off base.

Metal Fist, see your point but why not follow the golden rule and not making sweeping judgments like that? yes there will be some that demonize but why stoop to their level? How's that ever going to produce a dialogue that gets anything done? This is why decent intelligent people on each side actually hate the other. And please stop using the defense that people will demonize you as a justification for the preemptive strike. As a liberal, I didn't demonize you nor did I see any who did in this series except in response to your post.

[ewallace]

I don't currently own a gun but I plan on purchasing an HK .45 sometime soon. I am definetly going to get as much training as possible. I only feel that I need it in my car and in my house. I usually don't go anywhere that I would feel the need to carry while just walking down the street. My theory is this: I would rather have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

[Radhnoti]

myosimka,

I think that Ten Tigers was saying that someone that can show he carries a large amount of cash with regularity can have "full unrestricted carry" in his area. (I'd be interested to see if that includes full auto.) And that he feels his family is worth far more than any monetary amount. And some would argue that it's a citizen's DUTY to break certain unjust laws or orders, as our forefathers did. You don't think it was legal for the colonists to revolt do you? Shouldn't the Germans involved in The Holocaust have questioned? I have a few african-american friends who feel a great debt to more modern "revolutionaries" like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers.
There is a time to disregard the law and oppose unjust rule, the tough part is deciding...when?

[Black Jack]

As a gunowner and advocate I will not jump into this conversation as I have found it next to impossible to change a libs mind but I would like to ask a question.

Myosimka,

Where did you exactly get your data when you state that gunowners have a higher mortality rate than nongunowners in muggings.

The whole point of gun/self defense freedom should be left alone, if you don't want to carry, that is your choice, but leave those alone, which is the majority, who wish to take part in there natural born right to keep and bear arms.

[myosimka]

Radhnoti, if you engage in civil disobedience as a form of protest to change laws, yes. Carrying a concealed weapon in an area where it's not legal is not an effort to change the law but simply breaking the law. Certainly stand up to unjust governement. But simply breaking the law is just criminal. Again, civil disobedience with the intent to change the law is one thing. Concealed carry can't really be protest; it's concealed. And the people in question didn't disregard the law, they fought it. There's a difference. Imagine the Boston Tea Party hadn't happened and the participants had all become smugglers. That's the difference.

I understand his point about the law in question. I just offered a different interpretation of the intent. Maybe you shouldn't try armed resistance for small sums of money. Don't risk your family for pocket change. He also didn't say that concealed carry wasn't available for others just that approval was automatic for that case. Without knowing more about the law, legislative intent is tough to speculate which is what he was doing. I was pointing out that saying that human life was worth less than $2500 was probably not the intent. I hope not at least. Who knows? Some legislators are morons.

Black Jack- It's not a natural born right; it's a constitutional one. And the constitution expressly states legislative intent for that matter.
I didn't bring up the selfdefense point I responded to it. The stats come form an old friend who taught an NRA safety course and is a lcocal DA. He got them from FBI numbers and from a mortality rate study done in the Northwest. The Kellerman mortality study is a famous one and highly contested. It's not the most scientific sampling either. That was part of my point about numbers being biased. I never take numbers solely on fase value. You can certainly argue those. Hard to argue the national statistics though compared to other western industrialized nations. But let's not get into a debate on that. Pointless. I am certainly willing to drop it. I personally agree that the Kellerman study is flawed and 43-1 is a gross misrepresentation but if you start eliminating suicides and other categories that are sort of irrelevant you are still left with 4.5 to 1. Lots of people have problems with Kellerman as do I. But it's the only study I know of that actually tracks mortality stats with gunownership as the variable. But again, ceratinly willing to drop it.
And how is that statement not jumping in? Please, avoid the passive-agressive tack to get in the shot about 'libs' and then jumping in anyway. It just makes the discussion acrimonious unnecessarily. Again, I am certainly willing to drop the selfdefense argument. I brought it up in response to other people. If you check my initial post, it's a simple response to the original question. Personally I don't choose to carry as a means of selfdefense. I think if licensed people who have decent safety training want to that's up them but I still go with that 4.5:1 number. Now maybe those gunowners all did something foolish and tried to defend themselves poorly but I don't trust adrenaline. I like the fact that I can't reach for a gun when someone already has a bead on me. You want to make a different choice? Fine. Get the safety training (including situational selfdefense drills) That's your choice.
Oh, in the US there are 65 million gun owners and 290 million citizens. That's a lot but it's no majority taking part.

[crazybuddha]

[deleted]

[JerryLove]

Not a large sample, but the pattern is obvious. I don't know anyone personally who has been shot by someone they didn't know. Conversely, I have no friends and no family memebrs who have been shot. And in fact, I know of only one who has pulled his firearm when the opportunity arose (the others considered it unneccessairy). And there is a descent percentage of gun owners in my "friends and family" (guesstimate about 30%)

Incompitent, disturbed, and irresponsable people kill themselves and their friends with guns.. They also do it with cars, knives, rocks, bottles, chairs, and poison (both intentionally and accidentally). The firearm is not the problem any more than the automobile or rock is; it's the people.

[Leimeng]

~I am of the opinion that all citizens, over the age of 16, who have not been convicted of a felony should be trained and required to be fully armed at all times.
~The states that have wide spread gun owner ship and liberal concealed carry laws have a significantly lower crime rate than those that restrict lawful gun ownership. That is a fact.
~Additionally, the countries that have outlawed guns in the past 30 years or so have seen a dramatic increase in violent and non violent crime after the populous was disarmed. That is another fact.
~Switzerland and Finland both require a citizens militia with most the people being armed. They both have very very low crime rates. (Other factors are involved, but it is clean that widespread gun ownership is not a cause of crime.)
~I do not carry guns because I work on a military installation and we have no rights on that property. But I am armed in some form at all times.

Peace

sinloi

yi beng kan xui

[ewallace]

Originally posted by Leimeng
[B~The states that have wide spread gun owner ship and liberal concealed carry laws have a significantly lower crime rate than those that restrict lawful gun ownership. That is a fact.[/B]

Ever been to Texas?

[Radhnoti]

"I am of the opinion that all citizens, over the age of 16, who have not been convicted of a felony should be trained and required to be fully armed at all times. " - Leimeng

I disagree with this statement. Forcing someone to be armed is as repulsive to me as requiring disarmament. People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as what they do doesn't interfere with other folk's freedoms. Forcing someone to carry a weapon, like forcing them NOT to, makes the assumption that people are too stupid to do the right thing alone without the government telling them what's right.

[red_fists]

I disagree with every one should be carrying a Gun, but I agree that everbody should be trained in their use.

Most Countries do that at the age of 18 using an institution called "national service".

I would say 6mth~1yr should do for the average 18yr old. With 1 week refresher course every 2 years

After that it should be up everyone if he wants to carry or not.

[Radhnoti]

Seems the outspoken anti-gun U.N. leader is being accused of having his security armed (illegally) with automatic weapons in the U.S. It's hypocritical stuff like this that makes me sick. Why doesn't he just say, "I only mean the COMMON man shouldn't be allowed such weaponry! Such rules, of course, shouldn't apply to the ruling class." Another such story was the million mom march organizer who was found with a gun next to her bed...Rosie O'Donnell with her gun packing security guards....
It just...sickens me. Here's a link:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020222-74555556.htm

[Sho]

I wouldn't carry a fireweapon (good that they are illegal here). Just don't like them for some reason, no matter how safer feeling it gives. They also cost much.

[Radhnoti]

Ran across this article, in my opinion it helps to show the futility of banning gun ownership. Though I'll readily admit that there are other factors...the article mentions a cocaine boom. It just makes no sense, to me, that people willing to break the law can buy a gun for 200 pounds and law abiding citizens are...well, they're just S.O.L.

"Gun crime trebles as weapons and drugs flood British cities
By David Bamber, Home Affairs Correspondent
(Filed: 24/02/2002)


GUN crime has almost trebled in London during the past year and is soaring in other British cities, according to Home Office figures obtained by The Telegraph.

Police chiefs fear that Britain is witnessing the kind of cocaine-fuelled violence that burst upon American cities in the 1980s. Cocaine, particularly from Jamaica, now floods into Britain, while the availability of weapons - many of them from eastern Europe - is also increasing.

Detectives in London say that the illegal importation of guns started after the end of the Bosnia conflict and that they are changing hands for as little as £200. During the 10 months to January 31, there were 939 crimes involving firearms in the Metropolitan Police area compared with 322 in the 10 months to the end of January, 2001 - an almost three-fold increase.

In Merseyside there were 57 shootings during the 12 months to last December compared with 15 in the same period the year before. Greater Manchester also recorded a 23 per cent increase in gun crime and there have been rises in Nottinghamshire, Avon and Somerset, West Yorkshire and the Northumbria Police area which covers Newcastle.

Gun crimes during the first 10 months of the annual period have trebled in most of the urban areas which have so far submitted statistics to the Home Office. Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said gun gangs were spreading across the country whereas, until recently, they were confined to a handful of London boroughs.

Sir John said: "We have to stem the large number of guns coming in. We know you can buy a gun in London for £200 to £300, and that's frightening. The price of hiring or buying a gun has come down because there are more guns circulating. We are having success; we are taking out about 600 guns a year."

The new gun crime figures also show that handgun crime has soared past levels last seen before the Dunblane massacre of 1996 and the ban on the weapons that followed. The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997, the year after Thomas Hamilton, an amateur shooting enthusiast, shot dead 16 schoolchildren, their teacher and himself in Dunblane, Perthshire.

It was hoped that the measure would reduce the number of handguns available to criminals. According to internal Home Office statistics, however, handgun crime is now at its highest since 1993."
Source word for word:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml

Just to personally comment, it KILLS me that "Sir John" says they have to stop the guns from coming in and claims they're doing well. If they catch TWICE that number of guns, it'll just run up the price of illegal guns...which increases the payoff for gun-runners. Guaranteeing MORE gun-runners. They can only run up the prices of guns in the short term, unless they proportionally increase their attempts to stop the gun runners. Eventually, you'll have an elite gun running black market, making billions, and they WILL figure out who to pay off (cops, politicians, etc.). England isn't just going to have to worry about drug cartels, there'll be gun cartels...assuming the drug runners are too dumb to capitalize on an obvious big money maker. This is lesson our country DIDN'T learn when we outlawed alchohol. The men willing to break the law got rich running liquor from Canada, then used the money to boost their sons into politics (J.F.K. and probably a million others on the local scenes).
Until the world is run by ONE government that outlaws guns there will ALWAYS be a country producing weapons (or allowing production) capitalizing on the obvious profits involved.
Cool! Did I just bring up "One world government"? I bet that'll merit a comment from someone!
;)

[Kristoffer]

I can't..
I don't...
Don't think I would.....

[Radhnoti]

In reviewing this thread, I realized that I never gave kudos to myosimka for his point that the founders openly revolted...not breaking the law, but changing government entirely. Very good point, and not a perspective I'd looked at things from until he brought it up.
Here's a quick list of points I took from a recent article from lewrockwell.com about many of the founding father's ideas for overthrowing tyrannical governments:

"Consider the one principle of the Declaration of Independence that Thomas Jefferson is most noted for, the idea that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever governments become destructive of liberty it is the duty of citizens to abolish that government and replace it with a new one.
The Declaration, after all, was a Declaration of Secession from England. The American Revolution was a war of secession. Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering, who served as George Washington’s adjutant general, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State, once said that secession was "the" principle of the American Revolution – the very right that the revolutionaries fought for.
Lincoln’s political triumph was, if anything, a repudiation of the Jeffersonian philosophy of government and a victory for his political adversaries, the Hamiltonians, who by 1861 had morphed into the Republican Party.
In Jefferson's First Inaugural Address he declared, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this union . . . let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." He was championing the right of free speech here, but also the right of secession.
In a letter to James Madison in 1816 Jefferson reiterated his support of the right of secession by saying, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance in union . . . I have no hesitation in saying, let us separate."
Even Abraham Lincoln voiced support for the right of secession when it served his political purposes. He enthusiastically embraced (and orchestrated) the secession of western Virginia (a slave state) when it joined the Union. And on January 12, 1848, he announced that "any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. . . . Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

So, the question arises...would eliminating gun ownership rights be sufficient cause for a revolution? I'm certain the answer for the founding fathers...even our parent's generation would have been "yes", but now I'm not so sure. What has changed? Are we so much more cowardly than our forefathers? Or has constant negative coverage of guns and those who own them so completely changed public opinion that a gun ban is all but inevitable in the long term?
Pardon the rambling, and please do comment on anything I've said that may have interested you.

Oh, yeah. Here's something I read by a "hacker" on his website recently that I loved:

"Let me see if I understand you here: 1. "the people" in the First Amendment means *the people*;
2. "the people" in the Fourth Amendment means *the people*;
3. "the people" in the Ninth Amendment means, *the people*;
4. ...but "the people" in the Second Amendment (ratified in 1787) means the National Guard (which was created by an Act of Congress in *1917*)."
-Cancer Omega

[Metal Fist]

Radhnoti #1,2,3 are correct, #4 is VERY INCORRECT.
The same people in 1-3 are the same people that are in #4. There are those who wish that the hackers #4 were so, but the Militia are the people of the country, not the week-end warriors, it's verifiable. Some people just don't understand the Constitution.
It's really sad.

[Radhnoti]

I agree with you 100% Metal Fist.

As a side note, there's a thread on the main boards now talking about how the NY legislature wants to regulate martial arts.
Who here votes for a thirty day waiting period, background check and forced classes that instructors have to attend...followed by a brief test of their comprehension? Might make it rough on the guys for whom English isn't the primary language...and people wanting to just pop in to give a seminar are outta luck, but hey, regulation is a GOOD thing...right? Besides, everybody knows that martial artists are more likely to fight...give me a week and I'll dig up (or fabricate) the statistics to prove it! ;)

[Metal Fist]

NY, what can I say! The licensing and registration of MA Instructors is just one more step in the move to control people and what they do. There is no need to do this, although a prospective student wouldn't have to waste time and money finding a qualified teacher. The McDojo's would not proliferate as much. But license and registration, sounds like a car. IKt's ridiculous.:rolleyes:

[Radhnoti]

In my opinion, regulation can only INCREASE the number of "McDojos". Why? McDojos have the money and the larger number of students. This means they will not only control the answers, but they will have a greater input into the questions asked. One example of what might happen: What good can come from adults training to kill in our society? Everyone knows that the only good thing that comes from martial arts is the self esteem it can build in kids. SO, all martial arts instructors must teach children in their classes to qualify for a license. Catering to children is many folks DEFINITION of a McDojo. McDojo's are already geared toward teaching kids, so they'd fully support any such legislation. I picked the kid angle since that's the primary defining characteristic I've heard when people complain about "McDojos", but this can happen with any of the McDojo characteristics. Large number of students (small classes are more likely to become cult-ish), must have big window out front for everyone to see in (what are they trying to HIDE), must wear gis (it's cheap and a good way to gain "uniformity"), etc.
The thing is, when things get regulated those with money decide WHAT gets regulated. None of these things may happen...or all of them, that's the problem and that's why you have to stop a bad idea before it gets rolling.

It's the SAME THING with gun control, little things don't SEEM to matter...registration, waiting periods ... but if you don't stop it now it's impossible to know how far it could go.
That's my take on things anyway.

[Demi @ CSPT]

If you are "anti-gun" you are a fool. Done, end of story!

In the world we live in there are those who want to:

Kill
Rape
Kidnap
Injure to degree
Hold Hostage

These people have no concern for their own well being. Your "backfist" is not going to stop them. Try using a bo/three sectional staff/nunchaku/sword in the hallway in the middle of the night. Now will you have any of those weapons with you at Taco Bell?

If you heard glass break and then a scream, would go into the darkness alone in the middle of the night to get to your children? Yes! Unless your a spinless liberal coward. What would you take with you?

It's not about "fighting". It's about ending violence dead in it's tracks. Firearms are a wonderfull option for defending all that is good, and lovely, and right!

Put yourself behind the power curve and suffer the consequences.

There is no magic. It's about responsibility and training.

Realize your in America. The second ammendment makes the first ammendment possible.

Demi Barbito
The Center For Self Preservation Training
www.DemiBarbito.com

[myosimka]

Thank you for resurrecting a played out thread and rather than expanding upon any ideas, further entrenching people by insulting them. And by the way, I've met plenty of spineless conservatives and closeminded liberals. Stereotypes are generally inaccurate and kind of pointless unless you are trying to enflame rather than sway.

And the first amendment is possible as a result of a social contract that respects it. And oh yeah, numerous nations with more restrictive gun laws also have freedom of speech. So while your tagline makes for a nice little sound byte, it's not actually a causal relationship. But then sound bites are taking the place of reason and logic in modern society.

[Radhnoti]

"...numerous nations with more restrictive gun laws also have freedom of speech." -myosimka

Then I'd say that the free speech rights in those nations exist only at the current regime's whim. When or if it becomes advantageous for them to toss those rights out the window the subjects in those countries will be unable to effectively revolt. They are subjects, not citizens.
Just my opinion.

[guohuen]

I can and I don't. Don't need too here.
If it were illegal I would do it out of principle, so bear that in mind before you go passing any laws! In the rare event I carry a firearm, I have every intention of using it.

[myosimka]

Bit of an extreme opinion and I beg to differ. In western Europe, they certainly have equal expresson freedoms to ours. In fact, I'd say greater because they have fewer puritanical limitations.(ie. the community standard of vulgarity rule in this country) What makes them citizens instead of subjects is that the government is made of individuals who are subject to the laws. That's always been the difference.
Your guns don't protect you from the government. If you view the government as a body that exists apart from the citizenry of this country, then nothing will save you. If the FBI decides to take you down, they can. If the IRS decides to seize your house, they can. What prohibits government tyranny in this and any democratic/republican nation is that the government is in service to, answerable to and composed of the citizenry. When militaries view themselves as separate from the citizenry then there is a problem.
The rights of free press, speech, assembly and sufferage protect themselves.

1 caveat and 1 thought before this post turns into a flood of ire and contention as these are prone to do.
Caveat: I am not in favor of gun bans. Just sensible restriction and legislation. And mostly enforcement of the present laws. If you want to make a slippery slope argument to that point, I state that slippery slopes work both ways and we've already slid down it to one of the extremes. Moderation is a virtue.
Thought: People bring up time and again how tyrannical governments seize guns to restrict the rights of citizens. Well, in every case I have looked into, long before governments have gone door to door and seizing weapons, they imposed restrictions on the press, seized journalists and forbade public protest. Makes the guns a whole lot easier to take. The first amendment protects the others including the second.

[Radhnoti]

I'll allow that the first amendment can protect the second, if you can allow that the second also can protect the first. :D
I once heard a first-hand account of the steps Castro used to secure power in Cuba, told by a refugee living in Miami (admittedly on a radio program). Castro won the revolution. Guns were prolific and the citizens knew how to use them. Castro set up a "emergency response" system in which an alarm would sound and everyone would run to a prearranged meeting place (each town had one) with their weapons to receive orders. It was tested quite often for a few months. A bit later he mentioned that everyone would be able to respond quicker if they didn't have to go home to get their guns, and asked everyone to store them at the meeting places. It was done, after all Castro was one of them...a hero of the revolution. Not long after, the guns were locked away and only Castro had the keys. Soon after he began his bloody campaign of silencing opposition. The individual telling the story told of a friend putting up posters in his high school, asking when would the promised elections materialize? He was taken out in front of his school and shot, I suppose as an example. There, now you've heard one story of a dictatorship taking guns first. :(
These are people who'd fought, successfully, one revolution using firearms. Had they been able to hang on to their firearms you have to admit the possibility that they'd have been able to do so again. The danger to my country is not EVERYONE suddenly losing their sense of right and wrong, so much as a minority party, perhaps led by a charismatic individual, taking control and holding it by force. In these cases the government is no longer "in service to, answerable to and composed of the citizenry", instead it's made up of a small group that issues commands that are obeyed either because the propoganda machine has done it's job, or due to fear of punishment...often along the lines of those used by Mr. Castro.
Me owning a gun wouldn't worry a corrupt government gone wrong. Me and millions of others owning guns, and being willing to use them in masse might. At the very least, a leader of a tyrranic regime would have to worry about the possibility of assassination...a worry greatly lessened if no one outside his regime is permitted gun ownership.

[Radhnoti]

Here's the headline of another example of gun ownership opponent's arrogance (in my sometimes humble opinion):

"Gun Rights Group Wants BATF To Investigate Gun Purchase By Sarah Brady"

It seems Ms. Brady (one of the best known and most vocal anti-gun legislation advocates in the country) went and bought a rifle for her son, using her name for the background check (which she and her group helped pass into law). She then gave the rifle to her son as she had intended to do from the start...which apparently violates one of the laws she worked so hard to bring about.
A lawyer for the gun group pressing the matter says, "From all appearances. Sarah Brady exploited one of those so-called loopholes in the Brady Law, for which she arduously campaigned, to get a gun for her son. We think the public deserves to know why she evidently felt it was okay to skirt that requirement for her own son..."

It's the arrogance and assumption of superiority that is so galling to me. She and others like her feel the "little people" are too stupid to be "allowed" such dangerous weapons, but such reasoning doesn't apply to her and the "ruling class".
Of course, not everyone that's anti-gun is a hypocrite like Ms. Brady...but I'll bet a large number of the more high profile ones are just like her, looking down their noses at we "unwashed masses".

:rolleyes:

[Dark Knight]

How can we forget Rosie telling us all we shouldnt have guns, but wanted the police to allow her body guard to carry a gun on school grounds when dropping and picking up her kid.

Do as I say, not as I do

[Radhnoti]

She went on Bill O'Reilly's show and backtracked...maybe in light of so many people buying guns post 9/11.

Rosie said, "...Sept. 11 had changed her. She praised former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a Republican, and said she had gone too far in making anti-gun statements after the 1999 Columbine High School shooting."

Maybe she didn't put any THOUGHT into her opinion...just "My liberal Hollywood friends tell me this is evil, so it must be."

I hope she doesn't revert to her anti-gun propagandizing when the political winds shift again...but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if she did. :rolleyes:

[JerryLove]

What's with all the liberal bashing? Should use phrases like "****phobic, xenophobic, wrong minded neolitich conservitives"?

Some liberals like guns you know. "right to do what you want" is considered a liberal perspective.. I want to carry firearms.

[Radhnoti]

You sound more like my definition of a LIBERTARIAN, than a LIBERAL. :D
By the way, libertarian is where I consider my own political leanings to lead me. People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't step on someone else's freedoms.

[wu_de36]

plenty of republicans who don't like the idea of guns either.

I think Jeff Cooper uses the term "hoplophobe" to describe people who are illogically anti-gun, and I prefer that term as well.

http://members.aol.com/gunbancon2/Frames/Hoplophobe.html

There are plenty of "liberals" in the South who vote pro-gun. Gore and Clinton both did to an extent while they were representaives of their state. Those are opportunistic examples, but there are some dems who support it.

McCain is a great example of a conservative who'd waffle on guns if it suited him enough.

[myosimka]

Again, read the text of the current form of the Brady Bill. The word handgun is used throughout and the term firearm was removed. Ie. the Brady Bill doesn't apply. Sarah Brady is a bit extreme for my tastes but even she has publicly stated that she does not want to see firearms outlawed. I'd be interested to know the source of the story that you listed because it's clearly factually inaccurate.
This is an issue that has been polarized by the extremes on both sides. A desire for sensible gun laws and enforcement of existing laws doesn't mean a desire for a ban. You can believe that or not. I know it to be the case because that's where I fit on the spectrum.
The big problem I have is with the misinformation spread by both sides. People don't make informed decisions about things because the information isn't out there. Like the story that you quote.
And as to the libertarian bit...you find a way to put an invisible shield around my property, my cars, my office, hell my body, then I'll agree that you have the right to own whatever guns you want because "it doesn't step on someone else's freedoms." Gun laws here in Virginia do step on my freedoms. A hunter fired a shot in the woods not 100yards from my house and across my property.
1)It's not illegal to fire across someone else's property. Explain to me how that's not a violation of my rights.
2)The guy probably broke the law because there is no way that shot didn't cross the road but the cop that we called wouldn't pursue it.
This was a perfect example of what galls me about gun laws and enforcement in this country. Enforce the laws that exist and have sensible laws. (I was astonished to find out that firing across someone else's property is not illegal. Personally I think that's a pretty common sense law.) That's what most of the gun control people I know are looking for. And if both sides would stop demonizing the other, maybe we'd reach some common ground.

Please note that this post was written without vile or name calling or assumptions about public figures or ...

[Dark Knight]

"The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, based in
Bellevue, Wash., is asking the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire
Arms to investigate whether gun-control advocate Sarah Brady violated
federal and state gun laws when she purchased a rifle for her son Scott.
Brady writes about the purchase in her newly released autobiography 'A Good
Fight.'

"'From all appearances,' the group's chairman, Alan Gottleib, said, 'Sarah
Brady exploited one of those so-called loopholes in the (federal) Brady law,
for which she arduously campaigned, to get a gun for her son. The gun was
allegedly a gift, but for someone who has demanded background checks for
every other American before they can take possession of a firearm, we think
the public deserves to know why she evidently felt it was okay to skirt that
requirement for her own son.'"

- UPI's "Capital Comment," 3/26/02

[Radhnoti]

Myosimka,

My source was...I think, called cybercast news service, but it may have been originally from another source as I've seen the same story word for word several places. Here's a link:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200203\NAT2002 0325d.html

YOU don't want handguns outlawed, but many gun-control advocates DO. Yes, I know it's the old "slippery slope" argument, but I feel it is a valid one. History has shown it to be a valid one.
Obviously, this worry of being shot at or around is a major issue for you. Can you look at this from another perspective? I remember walking into the local movie theatre and right next to me a kid threw a high hook kick (head level) toward another teen. It stopped inches from contact, and they both laughed. I noticed when he was putting his foot down he brushed against someone else walking in...who gave him a semi-frightened look before moving on. Obviously, people who had been standing nearby now moved away...afraid another display might occur. I suspect that this fellow was a local TKD student. Your perspective, in this case, would lead to laws and restrictions against TKD students using/practicing/showing their style in public. But, the problem, as I see it, isn't with the TKD...it's the INDIVIDUAL who decided to show off in public. The kid throwing the kick should have been thrown out or warned to not throw kicks while in the theatre. The guy shooting across your property should have been fined or warned, you admit yourself that he probably broke the law, firing across a road. Why would ANOTHER law suddenly make the officer that investigated your case do his job? If someone was firing a weapon across or on property in MY county without permission I believe the local sheriffs deputies would do whatever it took to make sure it didn't happen again, including charges like disturbing the peace...reckless endangerment...tresspassing, etc. Of course, the fact that I'm friends with many of them bolsters my confidence...
I didn't call you any names...don't think that I have previously, in fact this thread has been (comparatively) quite civil. But, I do take gun-control VERY personally. You are saying that you feel people (including me and, well...everyone) will do the wrong thing with guns, and therefore useage must be restricted. My feeling is that this is both arrogant and Unconstitutional. You shouldn't advocate taking rights away from people just because there is a potential they will do the wrong thing. Punish those who DO wrong, not anyone who CAN.

[myosimka]

And this is why I let this thread die time and again.(sigh)




1)I do want enforcement of existing laws. That's number one. But as soon as that starts cries of "jack-booted thugs at the ATF" sprout up. Most pro-gun advocates don't want enforcement of the existing laws. That was one of my complaints. Yes the cop should have enforced the law.

2)There is no law that prohibits firing across someone's property in Virginia. The only reason I thought he broke the law was because we live near an interstate and there is no way that shot didn't cross it. But if it hadn't been towards the road then it wouldn't have been a punishable offense. Again, we do need sensible gun laws. And I think that one is self-evident.

3)I feel that guns used improperly represent a threat to the public safety (including me and well ... everyone)and should be regulated. As are cars, as are medicines, as is fissionable material, as are toxic chemicals....

4)History has also proven that weapons restrictions without bans can work as well. Historical examples are great but remember that there is usually a counter example for everything.

5)You argument ad absurdium is poorly chosen. Show me one case of a completely accidental MA death. Not one where someone meant to hurt someone and killed them by mistake. Not a fight where a competitor died. But a situation where someone screwed around with a technique and someone in the next room died. Or a kid picked up a gi and died. Analogies are a weak debating principle (though they can be entertaining) but let's at least keep them relevant.

6)Attacking my thinking as arrogant is exactly the sort of thing I was trying to avoid in the previous post but you just couldn't resist. So here goes: Your assertion about the constitutionality of an argument that flies in the face of precedent is arrogant. (Hell, virtually any stance that one's position is more valid than others is arrogant to a certain extent) The Supreme Court has held that limitations on gun ownership are not inherently a violation of the second amendment. Legal scholars have debated this question for years, both sides have made valid points. I don't presume to understand constitutional arguments better than generations of supreme court justices. But I would like to point out a thing or 2. Clearly the 2nd amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It also clearly states a specific purpose. Something noticably overlooked in many arguments I hear. The funny thing is the precise wording is "A well regulated Militia". Well regulated. Hmm. Interesting choice of words. It also fails to define arms. And clearly certain arms are proscribed. A stinger missile is an arm. An ICBM is an arm. Most reasonable people agree that fissionable material should be regulated. Perhaps you are not one of them but clearly certain restrictions on weapons do not constitute a violation of the second amendment. And I get tired of listening to people cite the second amendment and ignoring the purpose clause. It's the only amendment that clearly defines a purpose. There is a reason for that.






P.S. I again point out the weapon inquestion was a .30-06 which does not fall under Brady. It may be a violation of Delaware law but I think an oversight on this point doesn't constitute hypocrisy. I don't know every gun law in this state. Going into a shop to buy one, I might violate a law. It doesn't make me a hypocrite. Her push has always been for greater restrictions on handguns. The weapon in question is a different matter. If I lobby for the restriction of automatic weapons and buy a target pistol for a friend it doesn't make me a hypocrite. Different issues. That's why I was looking for the site. Wanted to get specifics before I made any claims.

Thanks for the site.

[Radhnoti]

Sorry if it takes me a while to answer one of your posts. There's usually quite a bit to respond to... :)

I'll try to present my argument as you did your own. I'm placing in quotes a few arguments "on loan" from guncite.com...which is a great site if anyone wants to check it out.

1) 3) and partially 6) (Where you refer to ICBMs)
My preference would be NOT to have any gun restrictions, simply to punish people for what they DO irregardless of what tool they use. "In Colonial times "arms" meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not."

2)
OK, you say there's no law stopping someone from firing across your property. How about a million other laws that can easily be enforced? Disturbing the peace? Reckless endangerment? What if the guy was throwing rocks across your property? Should there be a law against rocks? A gun is a TOOL, no need to regulate the tool...just regulate the offensive (meaning infringing on your freedoms) actions. In my opinion, had the officer not been lax (perhaps even friends with the hunter?) he'd have been able to do something about your problem.

4)
Yes, but my example points out that the slippery slope argument is a possible one. Why take the chance? It my job, and everyone else who agrees that guns shouldn't be taken from U.S. citizens, to do everything I can to keep the U.S. from sliding down that particular slope.

5)
Issues like these don't always follow the path of logic or reason. The fact that you feel the martial art example has no relevance doesn't mean that others won't see a direct correlation. See my previous post in this thread about New York trying to pass a law requiring MA instructors to be licensed. Not dance instructors, not bakers, or english professors. People see what YOU do as dangerous, and since they DON'T do it they have no problem with passing laws to control it. I don't know of an instance (personally) where someone died in a martial art's accident. But I know several where someone was accidentally hurt...that's enough for some people. Besides everyone knows Mr. Mooney can kill from a distance, SHOULD THAT NOT BE REGULATED! ;)

6 (the long one))
I'm sorry if you took this as a personally attack of some sort...for all I know you're just the kind of person that likes to stir things up and don't believe a word of what you're saying. So, really, don't take it personally.

The Supreme Court: (on occasion) the Supreme Court agrees on the meaning of "the people" as used in the Bill of Rights (Adamson v. California, 1947).
"The reasoning that leads to those conclusions starts with the unquestioned premise that the Bill of Rights, when adopted, was for the protection of the individual against the federal government..."
To portray the Supreme Court as some sort of neutral, unpolitical entity is ridiculous. They are appointed by politicians, and their authority (like the rest of the government) should only be viewed as granted them by the citizenry. One decade they will see things one way, the next another. Words can be twisted and turned until they say whatever you want, and no one knows that better than a lawyer...from which the Supreme Court Justices are taken I believe. If the Supreme Court stepped up tomorrow and told everyone that "the people" throughout the Constitution only meant groups controlled by the government I wouldn't believe them, and I hope you wouldn't either.
"That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day. Where are the quotes from the founders indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is solely a right belonging to the state? None have yet to be brought forth.
The first eight amendments were meant to preserve specifically named individual rights. (The Ninth Amendment was meant to insure that no one would argue that those first eight were the only individual rights protected from infringment.) The people are mentioned throughout the Bill of Rights. Were the Founding Fathers so careless in constructing a legal document that they would use the word "people" when they meant the "state?" "

The "purpose clause" in 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."
One does not have to belong to a well regulated militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause is merely one, and not the only, rationale for preserving the right. The Founders were expressing a preference for a militia over a standing army. Even if today's well regulated militia were the National Guard, the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The militia clause was never meant to limit the right to keep and bear arms. Rather it was the "chief political reason for guaranteeing the right against governmental infringement. Keeping and bearing arms would be protected for all lawful purposes, but self-defense, hunting, shooting at the mark (i.e., target shooting), and other nonpolitical purposes had no place in a federal Constitution which delegated no power to regulate these activities." (Personally, I love this point...there was a time when it was felt the government had NO right to regulate activities like personal gun ownership. Our government has become a bloated monster, passing laws and regulations that filter down into every part of our everyday lives...it's sickening.)

Also: "the word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service. The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Is today's National Guard the militia? It is a PART (emphasis added by Radh) of the well regulated militia, it was not the intent of the framers to restrict the right to keep arms to a militia let alone a well regulated one. "

Your P.S.
So...it's your contention that Ms. Brady didn't actually KNOW the laws that she worked so hard to push through? The hypocrisy is that she expects everyone else to be subject to gun restrictions, but she and her son need not worry about the very laws she has forced upon we "peasents".

[myosimka]

The reason that I have let this die time and again is because you don't actually listen. This will be my last post in this thread regardless for just this reason.

I apologize in advance for the tone of this reply but I am tired of reading posts written for their soundbites as opposed to actual sound debating. But mainly I am tired of people not reading my posts and then countering 'points' I never made.


The case in point near my property. You cannot enforce a reckless endangerment or disturbing the piece statute for these purposes during hunting season. Period. And if you can believe that you can, then you are delusional which explains the problems. Also I don't want to outlaw guns. I would however like a law similar to the statutes about highways that prohibit firing across or onto another person's property. BTW, neither disturbing the peace nor reckless endangerment would apply if I hadn't been in the house. Should he still be able to shoot across my property? Endangering my home, pets, etc. So a sensible gun law is one that proscribes the behavior. Ie. you may not fire across another person's property without express permission. I never asked to outlaw guns or rocks. Again keep the analogies relevant. Again your argument ad absurdia is poorly chosen. And your opinion based on your limited experience with the situation is sort of worthless. The end result is nothing was done. Enforcement and sensible laws. Actually respond to what I am saying.

Fine want to make arguments on the term arm. The term arm in colocnial times would have included stinger missiles, LAWs, grenades, etc. Rockets would actually not have been precluded because the distinction was carried weapons. I have a problem with private citizens with handheld anti-aircraft heatseeking or transponder guided systems. Maybe you don't. And we can play with the definitions but the point is that we can't know what the intent would have been for unconceived of weapons. Hence the desire for flexibility in interpretation. And to presume what the founding fathers would have thought about modern weapons is ridiculous. Gas weapons, biological agents, handheld explosives, automatic weapons, hell revolvers didn't exist.

So what's your point on the rock and martial arts outlaw arguments? I don't want to outlaw guns. And I have said this repeatedly. Your refusal to speak to issues I explicitly raise and to leap to the conclusion that I am in favor of bans on things is a narrowminded extremist position. That and your incessant attachment to this idea and continuous cries of "Slippery slope!!!!" actually prevent any movement toward resolution. And for the pruposes of political expediency if I can't get reasonable gun control laws by working with gunowners, I will cast my vote with the other extreme. So try not to give the moderates only 2 choices. You may not like the results. And yes if MA had the accidental death rates of guns, I'd be okay with someone regulating it. If nonparticipants died every year accidentally as a function of negligence in numbers equal to gun deaths, then yeah I'd want it regulated. But again that's a ridiculous comparison. I skydive and I support regulations in reference to it. (especially when it comes to bystanders at demonstrations) Not a ban. And the USPA works with the FAA closely to self-regulate. Yes I'd like members of the gun community to play a part in this. They are clearly more educated than non-gunowners on the relevant issues in most cases. But you clearly refuse to self-regulate or to play a part in forming the regulations. The belief that any form of compromise is unacceptable is the reason that gun laws get passed that you find unpalatable.

Your constitutionality arguments are not based in precedent or the wording of the amendment. The individual right shall be preserved to support the collective objective, that's what it states. And if the militia clause is not significant why does it exist in the bill? No other right detailed in the Bill of Rights states an explicit purpose for the right. Why not? You can shrug that fact aside but then you are clearly ignoring facts in evidence that don't support your point. Hell you can make any stance valid that way. And yes, the supreme court is biased as are all bodies. (As were the drafters of the constitution.)


Lastly, this is the third time that I have said it and again you keep ignoring it.
A .30-06 is not covered under the Brady Bill. She did not push for background checks on rifles. Delaware law may require them but she did not lobby to change Delaware law. The gun that she purchased does not fall under the bill she lobbied for in congress. What do you not get about that?? And she has publicly stated that she is not in favor of gun bans. Which her purchase and disclosure in this case clearly support. So despite your paranoid beliefs, gun regulation advocates do not necessarily want gun bans.

[Dark Knight]

"A .30-06 is not covered under the Brady Bill. She did not push for background checks on rifles. "

When the Brady Bill first started rifles and shotguns were not part of it, but it is now.

Also in her state where she bought it, the person it is bought for has to be listed on the application for a check.

[Radhnoti]

So...Sarah Brady was a victim of the "slippery slope" of gun-control? That's classic! :p
Look, myosimka...I've never said I felt compromise between your side and mine was necessary. In fact, I think I've said from the beginnning that compromising (for my side) is the equivilent of LOSING. Because whenever we lose a gun right, it's gone and it ain't coming back. It's a temporary goal that the anti-gun establishment has met and moved past to their eventual goal of a total ban. It's not moderates like you that press for gun restrictions, it's the extremists...and it's not their intention to stop, they've stated as much. Compromise is losing, gun rights activists need to take the offensive and REPEAL a law or two. Are you willing to compromise with me and dump all the laws requiring a background check? No? Why is it that you feel MY side has to compromise then? We've already compromised...or lost... several political battles. I've not seen the sentiment against gun ownership lessen following these "compromises". For you to say, "Really, this is as far as they'll go!" is either extremely near-sighted or manipulative.
If there is no law stopping people from shooting across your property in your community...or (more importantly) law enforcement who will keep things civil, I'm sorry. If I were in your position I'd make it a point to shoot around/toward anyone who shot around/toward me. After all, it's (apparently) not against the law. Not much consolation to someone who doesn't own (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly) a gun, I know. Again, I say, in MY community this would not be a problem. You are asking to outlaw a tool and NOT the objectionable behavior...I don't know how else to respond to your point. No more examples, I think you're wrong. I tried showing you through my examples why I thought you were wrong, but apparently our views are so different there's no common ground. Hand held, non-high explosive weaponry should be protected by the Constitution, in my view this should include automatic weapons. Not biologicals...not nerve gas...not hand held nukes, not grenades, not stingers or LAW rockets which should all be filed away as "ordinance".
Ok, you completely dismiss my argument about Constitutionality as being "not based in precedent or the wording" and you say I'm ignoring the facts? THE PEOPLE is THE PEOPLE for every other amendment, except the second...and I'm ignoring the facts?
I gave, to my mind, a perfectly good reason for your "purpose clause". The founders didn't prefer we have a standing army, they wanted everyone armed so every individual could rise up if needed, very common sense in my opinion. I didn't knowingly shrug any "point" you made aside.
And, yes, the founders were "biased", but their point of view founded this country and guaranteed (assuming we don't get too lazy) we'd have certain rights.
You say I'm ignoring your point of view, when a page or so back in this thread I complemented you for a valid and good point made a bit earlier. I believe that, in fact, it is you who dismisses points made by "the opposition" (that'd be me) as irrelevent, silly or not addressing your REAL argument. If you want me to respond to a specific point you might want to shorten your posts...or ask a specific question, maybe just summarize. I plow through the whole thing and do what I can to interpret your main points, but as we've already discussed my point of view is QUITE different from yours.

And don't you think, in retrospect, that it's a bit silly to pre-apologize for how you're about to say something? If you're coherent enough to know that you're about to be a bit rude, then obviously it's your INTENT to be rude and the apology is not genuine. Right?
I'm as friendly to you as I can be to someone who I feel can't (or won't) see an obvious truth. I'm sure that you feel the same way about me. You're wrong, I know it. I'm wrong, you know it. If my or your wording gets a bit strained from time to time due to the obvious stupidity (not ignorance as we both seem to understand the issues) of the other, I promise not to let it affect the close bond we share. I love you, ya little commie gun-grabber you!

;)