Guns and Pie

[justashooter 430]

requiring people to obtain "training" to exercise their second amendment right is a violation of the basic right just like requiring stipulations upon the exercise of the right to vote. training can be made prohibitively expensive or difficult to obtain, thus an effective barrier to the exercise.

some states require training prior to the issuance of a LTCF. florida is a 2 hour course, IIRC, and florida's permit is valid in 30-40 states, even if you obatin it as a non-resident. utah has a similar widely accepted permit and training requirement. pennsylvania requires only legal age and no criminal background.

[slim 1,523]

Unless a fully armed populace heard the shot and decided to involve themselves.

Where I'm from, if you hear a shot when exiting 7-11, you don't involve yourself in anything - YOU RUN!

That's where our 1st amendment rights come in. And since I'm beating the anti-NRA drum anyway, why isn't the NRA madder than hell about this issue?

It's a separate issue, and one that is negated if citizens retain their Right to keep and bear arms. We could have 10 million military, paramilitary or law enforcement groups and it wouldn't matter at all as long as each citizen was armed with a battle rifle.

Exactly why they should be commissioning independent organizations to conduct these studies. Something like that would carry an unbelievable amount of weight, and then what would anti-gun activists be able to say? All they'd be able to do is whine about scientific accuracy or twist the objectives of the study. But the facts would be on the NRA's side, and that is powerful stuff.

The facts are already on the NRA's side. Law-abiding citizens simply do not break the law (minor offenses excluded) whether it's with a gun or otherwise and when new laws are passed, they don't affect those who ignore laws we already have. If the true reason to pass gun control laws is to reduce crime, then why hasn't crime been reduced anywhere gun control laws have been passed?

Charleton Heston standing in front of screaming throngs of cammo wearing fans holding up a rifle while croaking "from my cold dead hands" is pretty goddam scary if you're not in the club.

I so wish he would've held up an AR-15 instead of that old flintlock. Sure, it's scary to those who don't know any better... but they're going to be a lot more scared when those men with guns actually do something.

This is why it's so hard for "gun nuts" to argue. There's reality and then there's the perception of the "what if the world was perfect" crowd who've never thought about what they'd do if faced with a situation where they may have to defend their own lives or the lives of their families. How are they going to do it? Oh, wait, I forgot - it's never going to happen.

At what point do you decide the government needs overthrowing, and why do you get to make that call? The government isn't just going to turn against us Red Dawn style. It's going to turn against us Walmart parking lot style. This is a fight much more geared towards our 1A rights than our 2A rights.

I absolutely agree with you... for now.

My only question is, "why do they have to listen?" When everyone starts tooting that horn of "we have a right to peacably assemble and petition for redress" I don't know if they've fully considered why we're able to do so. There's one reason why the government HAS TO listen to our petitions. We're one of the only countries on earth where it's mandatory for our government to submit to our will, not the other way around. We've forgotten about how it's supposed to work, and we may end up being forced to remember that one day in our lifetime.

It's happening right now, WalMart parking lot style. What folks fail to understand is WalMart parking lot style leads to Red Dawn style on a long enough timeline. Where do we draw the line? Why do I get to make the call? - I don't. And I don't know where that line is going to be drawn. But, what I do know is fat lazy people can't stay fat and lazy when they don't have money. Since they also don't know how to fend for themselves they're going to be really hit hard when basic necessities start to dry up. Maybe they'll just wait in the WalMart parking lot for the benevolent big brother to come save them. Hopefully their petition will still be heard.

I know mine will.

Surely they could put their heads together to come up with a solution that works for everybody. They could certainly start by educating a dumb and frightened public.

I will almost agree with this. It's an excellent idea except for the fact that you can't expect a dumb and frightened public to pay for it's own education - especially when considering the fact that we still have to pay our elected officials at the same time.

If you mean shooting a violent criminal during the commission of a violent crime, then hell yeah.

That's what I mean. It's time we start recognizing the fact that a criminal has ZERO rights to life when attempting to victimize someone in a violent crime. What gets me is when reporters list the criminal as "the victim" of a shooting. There needs to be more accuracy in reporting - "the criminal" was shot while attempting to victimize the law-abiding citizen. Call them what they are, and don't feel sorry for them when they get dealt with.

If you want to feel sorry for them, do it before they become criminals. Wake them up and take them to work every day. Help them hang around with positive people. Make sure they do good things in their spare time. That takes a lot of work, I know. That's why I think we should just shoot the ones who won't do it on their own.

And second, if you're doing a scientific study, you can't cherry pick the data. The sampling is intentionally wide-reaching.

How is the NRA using this study to further it's agenda? Did it post it on the NIH's site? As far as I know, they're doing their best to rebuke the thing, not use it to support themselves.

OK, since you can't cherry pick the data, why not use a study that takes into account ALL shootings in the U.S., not just those in one urban area? Or how about one that includes a better representation of ALL people in the U.S., not just those in an urban environment?

What I'm getting at here is the NIH is saying you're 4.4 times more likely to get shot if you have a gun in your possession based on the facts of their study. Well, they're absolutely right if you live in Philadelphia and if you consider "in your possession" as being in your house, car, or another place under your control. Well, what if they would've included Baltimore, New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit, NYC, LA, Houston and many other big cities in their report too? I bet they'd still see similar results.

But, what if they would've broadened their field to include, oh, I don't know, North Dakota, Iowa, Vermont, etc., and then limited their "victims" to those who physically possessed a gun on their person at the time of the shooting?

Dare I say there'd be a completely different result. And since we wouldn't be cherry picking (because we'd include all data) then it would be a perfectly legit study, right?

All I'm saying here is you can tailor a study to achieve whichever results you so desire, provided your search requirements only include (or disqualify) certain data. Saying you're 4.4 times more likely to get shot during an assault if you own a gun is simply false. Well, that is unless you live in Philadelphia.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The beauty of the 2nd amendment, Mox, is that as long as we have it, and it is strong, we will never need it. IF the government remains in fear of the armed populace, we will never have to overthrow it by force. Our forefathers did not have a second amendment (or WalMart) yet somehow they KNEW when the time had come.

The NRA is also a strong supporter of the first amendment. They opposed the McCain-Feingold Act on first amendment grounds among other things. The first amendment is not their primary responsibility, it IS a private organization answerable to its members...ME. If they divert too much from the stated cuase which we voted for at the members meeting then I am going to have a problem. I do not care if you and other non-paying, non-voting people have a problem with that.

The NRA has been extremely effective in the last few years and unless you live in one of two or three states which always allowed concealed carry, I can state that they were influencial in your being able to have a concealed carry lisence. Theyhave been exceedingly successful in beating back restrictive legislation, in passing concealed carry, ending frivilous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, shooting range protection laws, hunter harrassment laws...and YES, even the instant background check we now have was promoted by the NRA and it was NRA backed congressman that got the instant check incorporated into the "Bardy Bill", something Bill Clinton and other "Brady" supporters fought tooth and nail. They wanted an old fashioned waiting period, which could be manipulated, played with, extended and other wise used to oppress people. The NRA managed an amendment that substituted instant checks for the waiting period, and essentially phased out the Brady Bill after the checks were implemented. The Brady Bill has now been phased out completely, with the exception of the NRA supported instant checks which the NRA had long supported as the alternative to the Brady Bill. The ironic thing is the NRA was criticized, as usual, for opposing the Brady Bill and it was seen as a "victory" over the NRA when in fact the law which Clinton signed was the NRAs dream come true! LOL

The firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 was another big victory and is the reason you can travel with your firearms without fear of being arrested in a more oppressive state. It also ended the ludicrous provisions of the GCA '68 requiring the record keeping of 6 billion rounds of ammunition every year which never resulted in the assistance of solving even ONE crime in 18 years.

The NRA is firearms owners best friend.

I see one of the major threats of the second amendment as being liberals who think the price of membership is buying a politically correct gun and obtaining a concealed carry lisence (available only through the efforts of the NRA) and then trying to throw some "ugly guns" under the bus in the hopes that his other liberal friends will then go away. They won't.

Liberals owning and using guns is nothing new, they have always done it. Carl Rowan wrote that anyone wishing to own a handgun should be put in a mental institution for having such thoughts. Good liberal he was. But when HIS home in Washington DC was broken into, Carl Rowan SHOT the intruder with a handgun, illegally owned. I guess those laws didn't apply to him. he has since changed his tune on gun control and joined the NRA, but what was that charade about? Your signature about being a concealed carry liberal is not even surprising...big deal. Lots of liberals have concealed carry lisences and still think they know which guns should be owned by who.

Vermont is frewquently labled the "most liberal state" yet we have always allowed concealed carry. It was originally a liberal I dea, a TRUE liberal idea. I consider myself a true liberal, I am pro choice...on EVERYTHING

Charelston Heston holding a rifle and proclaiming from my cold, dead hands is SUPPOSED to be scarey to people taht would take away guns.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Gary and Alla

[mox 298]

I see one of the major threats of the second amendment as being liberals who think the price of membership is buying a politically correct gun and obtaining a concealed carry lisence (available only through the efforts of the NRA) and then trying to throw some "ugly guns" under the bus in the hopes that his other liberal friends will then go away. They won't.

LOL. What's a politically correct gun Gary?

"Liberals" like me with our politically correct guns and our fancy little conceal carry permits that we show off to our rich latte drinking friends at our Moveon.org gun banning parties are actually what brings sanity to this whole national discussion. It's just unfortunate that there aren't more of us. If you think I'm repugnant, you should see what a real anti-gun liberal would have to say about me. I know it would be a lot easier on you if I really was trying to take away your guns, but I guess since I don't think exactly like you do, I'm close enough.

This is a country built on compromise, and if by shouting from the far right you want to call me a liberal because I stand in the center, then more power to you. In this country you have the right to be willfully ignorant.

Liberals owning and using guns is nothing new, they have always done it.

So now gun ownership is a liberal/conservative thing. I thought it was an American thing. I thought the whole point was to help "liberals" understand their 2nd amendment rights. You write "liberals" off at your peril, Gary. If you want to convince other people of your position, then drop the labels. If you just want to dig your heels in and insult those who don't agree with you, then enjoy the sensible gun legislation your state enjoys while you can, because it won't last. You can be right all you want, but perception is what matters.

Carl Rowan wrote that anyone wishing to own a handgun should be put in a mental institution for having such thoughts. Good liberal he was. But when HIS home in Washington DC was broken into, Carl Rowan SHOT the intruder with a handgun, illegally owned. I guess those laws didn't apply to him. he has since changed his tune on gun control and joined the NRA, but what was that charade about? Your signature about being a concealed carry liberal is not even surprising...big deal. Lots of liberals have concealed carry lisences and still think they know which guns should be owned by who.

Carl Rowan doesn't speak for me. I can sling names around too, does Terry Nichols speak for you? Carl Rowan was a hypocrite, and no, he has not changed his tune and joined the NRA because he died in 2000. You are confusing him with this guy.

Edited December 29, 2009 by mox

[visaveteran 1]

Mox, when you say things like "camo wearing" audience you really loose me. You reveal your underlying disrespect for others you never met, and a readiness to stereotype people to underscore your points. You don't like people to stereotype liberals yet you, yourself, play this game.

I've been to the NRA National Headquarters and shot at their state of the art range many times. I rarely saw "camo wearing" shooters. I saw older, white collar professional men and WOMEN shooting. I saw young boys and GIRLS shooting. I saw soldiers and police officers shooting...but the majority looked for all the world like the Washington DC metro elite. In the parking lot I did not see pick-ups, jeeps or Mustangs...I saw Mercedes, Lexus, and Cadillacs.

This is the problem with your style of depiction of NRA members...it is erroneous and unfair as I have seen things. Of course, hunters do wear camo and represent a segment of the membership, and the sport of hunting is under attack far beyond anti-gun folks. For instance, the PETA and animal protection lobby are after them. The NRA protects gun owners from a wider list of enemies than just the "ban the gun" crowd.

The problem with liberals (which are today more and more socialistic radicals hiding behind the more acceptable title--liberal) is they only want the "freedoms" they deem acceptable. The rest the big brother government can sort out...or let the leftist, activist judges do it. They love the ACLU and its nutty 1st Amendment defense of man/boy gay sex groups, transsexual teachers, and atheistic, anti-Christmas nut balls. If you want to look at a once good group gone terribly wrong, let's talk ACLU.

The NRA is far more authentic to American ideals and constitutional edicts than the ACLU, which went way of the reservation a long time go.

[mox 298]

Mox, when you say things like "camo wearing" audience you really loose me. You reveal your underlying disrespect for others you never met, and a readiness to stereotype people to underscore your points. You don't like people to stereotype liberals yet you, yourself, play this game.

Sorry, that's not how I meant it to come across. When I say "camo wearing," I'm describing what a non-informed individual sees. I don't mean it to be an insult, I mean that in the minds of many it represents something scary. It's up to us to make that less scary to win the bigger argument. Heck, I've even got a pair of camo trousers I wear occasionally. (I do the same thing when I say words like "**" and "latte drinking" to describe how some extremists probably see myself.)

This is the problem with your style of depiction of NRA members...it is erroneous and unfair as I have seen things. Of course, hunters do wear camo and represent a segment of the membership, and the sport of hunting is under attack far beyond anti-gun folks. For instance, the PETA and animal protection lobby are after them. The NRA protects gun owners from a wider list of enemies than just the "ban the gun" crowd.

If I've depicted your average NRA member in any way, I didn't mean to. The worst I can really say about your average NRA member is that many of them have been mislead by an organization they've trusted with their hard-earned money, and I think that's a shame. To your other point, yes, the NRA protects (or should protect) our 2A rights from all threats. Earlier I mentioned that our 2A rights are under threat from our Federal government pulling our National Guard troops out from direct control of our State governors. I would like to see the NRA challenge the government on that. I understand that it would be politically risky to do so in this yellow magnetic ribbon "support the troops" climate, but it would be the right thing to do.

The problem with liberals (which are today more and more socialistic radicals hiding behind the more acceptable title--liberal) is they only want the "freedoms" they deem acceptable. The rest the big brother government can sort out...or let the leftist, activist judges do it. They love the ACLU and its nutty 1st Amendment defense of man/boy gay sex groups, transsexual teachers, and atheistic, anti-Christmas nut balls. If you want to look at a once good group gone terribly wrong, let's talk ACLU.

I'll disagree here. The ACLU takes on cases that nobody else in their right mind would try to defend for a reason. In the case of NAMBLA, the ACLU took the case on because it was a free speech matter: however disgusting, revolting, and heinous we may find their speech to be, the Bill of Rights guarantees our 1A rights and allows them to say "I like to have sex with children." In fact, our Bill of Rights guarantees your right to write pamphlets and books on having sex with children if you so wish. The ACLU does not endorse this behavior, but they endorse your right to express those ideas. Now in cases where men have actually acted on these beliefs, the ACLU has *never* defended them, because they understand the difference between free speech and criminal behavior. Part of being a free society means not only having to put up with some pretty disgusting people and their ideas, but being ready to defend those disgusting peoples' rights to say or print those ideas.

The NRA is far more authentic to American ideals and constitutional edicts than the ACLU, which went way of the reservation a long time go.

In addition to defending sex perverts, did you know that the ACLU defended Oliver North when his 5th Amendment rights were violated? In 2006 the ACLU defended a North Carolina library when they refused to block pro-gun websites from its computers. They have been a vocal opponent of the PATRIOT act, they argued that the government should not have access to Rush Limbaugh's (perhaps the ACLU's most vocal opponent) medical files during his drug abuse trial, and they have filed a law suit against the NSA for warrantless wiretapping. In July of this year, the ACLU filed suit on behalf of a New Orleans man who was arrested but not prosecuted, because the city refused to return his gun, violating his 2A rights. All of this happened within the last 10 years. I don't think the ACLU have lost their way, I think they're just getting started.

I'm not going to try to make a case that the ACLU is somehow better than the NRA (they've certainly made a few bad decisions too), but I've shown several examples of the NRA being "unauthentic" to American ideals, namely spreading their message through fear and distortion of facts. If the NRA is going to represent us, let them represent us by carefully presenting the truth.

[mox 298]

Where I'm from, if you hear a shot when exiting 7-11, you don't involve yourself in anything - YOU RUN!

Hehe, good point. But if you feel your life is being threatened, you're also going for your gun.

It's a separate issue, and one that is negated if citizens retain their Right to keep and bear arms. We could have 10 million military, paramilitary or law enforcement groups and it wouldn't matter at all as long as each citizen was armed with a battle rifle.

I don't see it as a separate issue, any more than if you formed your private militia and the Federal government appropriated it for their own purposes. We already have State militias, the National Guard. Why would we just shrug our shoulders and make a new one when the Feds come in and take it? (and if you want to argue that the Feds can come take your private militia from your cold dead hands, then why aren't we making that same argument when they came and took the militia we already had?

The facts are already on the NRA's side. Law-abiding citizens simply do not break the law (minor offenses excluded) whether it's with a gun or otherwise and when new laws are passed, they don't affect those who ignore laws we already have. If the true reason to pass gun control laws is to reduce crime, then why hasn't crime been reduced anywhere gun control laws have been passed?

EXACTLY my point--the facts are already on the NRA's side. So why is the NRA obfuscating that with scare tactics? As for gun control laws effectiveness, unfortunately there's so much noise out there that nobody really knows if they're effective or not. For example, after the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban went into effect, violent juvenile crimes actually did go down. Gun control advocates point to these laws, while 2A advocates point out that it actually coincides with better prosecution and harsher penalties enacted before the two bills. Who's right? Who knows? Hell, maybe it was sunspot activity.

That's what I mean. It's time we start recognizing the fact that a criminal has ZERO rights to life when attempting to victimize someone in a violent crime. What gets me is when reporters list the criminal as "the victim" of a shooting. There needs to be more accuracy in reporting - "the criminal" was shot while attempting to victimize the law-abiding citizen. Call them what they are, and don't feel sorry for them when they get dealt with.

No argument from me here. When it comes to somebody threatening me, my family, or an innocent, I find myself to be particularly bloodthirsty. I had a discussion a few weeks back with a friend of mine about home intrusion, and he was telling me about proper police-style techniques when you've apprehended a home invader at gun-point. My response was that I thought it was the morgue that took care of home intrusion suspects, or at least that's how it works in my home. You come into my home with ill-intent, and somebody is leaving feet-first, I don't care how much your mommy didn't hug you.

How is the NRA using this study to further it's agenda? Did it post it on the NIH's site? As far as I know, they're doing their best to rebuke the thing, not use it to support themselves.

Well, to be more accurate, they're mis-using the study. I'd welcome a rebuttal, because that's how science gets better. But this wasn't a rebuttal. This was a hit job, and it completely lacked any scholarship whatsoever.

OK, since you can't cherry pick the data, why not use a study that takes into account ALL shootings in the U.S., not just those in one urban area? Or how about one that includes a better representation of ALL people in the U.S., not just those in an urban environment?

Heh, well the NRA complained about the $6k of your tax payer money for this study, so I doubt they'd be real happy about a national study. But yeah, I'd like to see a study like that too.

But, what if they would've broadened their field to include, oh, I don't know, North Dakota, Iowa, Vermont, etc., and then limited their "victims" to those who physically possessed a gun on their person at the time of the shooting?

Dude, you're preaching to the choir here. I'd personally donate to a comprehensive nationwide gun violence study that was both comprehensive and independent. We have so many gun laws, so many agendas, and so much data out there that has been skewed by one thing or the other. I'd love for organizations on both sides of the issue to come together and work out the parameters of a study that would tell us once and for all what the real picture is.

By the way, just to clarify my 2A stance, I *do* believe that one of the intents of the framers was that an armed populace would deter government tyranny. I think Adams even said as much, maybe it was Jefferson. I just think tyranny's gotten a lot smarter over the last couple centuries and works through Walmart parking lots instead of soldiers coming into our homes. And hell, maybe tyranny got smarter *because* of our 2A deterrent effect.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

LOL. What's a politically correct gun Gary?

"Liberals" like me with our politically correct guns and our fancy little conceal carry permits that we show off to our rich latte drinking friends at our Moveon.org gun banning parties are actually what brings sanity to this whole national discussion. It's just unfortunate that there aren't more of us. If you think I'm repugnant, you should see what a real anti-gun liberal would have to say about me. I know it would be a lot easier on you if I really was trying to take away your guns, but I guess since I don't think exactly like you do, I'm close enough.

This is a country built on compromise, and if by shouting from the far right you want to call me a liberal because I stand in the center, then more power to you. In this country you have the right to be willfully ignorant.

So now gun ownership is a liberal/conservative thing. I thought it was an American thing. I thought the whole point was to help "liberals" understand their 2nd amendment rights. You write "liberals" off at your peril, Gary. If you want to convince other people of your position, then drop the labels. If you just want to dig your heels in and insult those who don't agree with you, then enjoy the sensible gun legislation your state enjoys while you can, because it won't last. You can be right all you want, but perception is what matters.

Carl Rowan doesn't speak for me. I can sling names around too, does Terry Nichols speak for you? Carl Rowan was a hypocrite, and no, he has not changed his tune and joined the NRA because he died in 2000. You are confusing him with this guy.

First, as I said, I AM a liberal, though I have no need to announce it in my siganture as if it is something strange or unusual. Most of my social policy views are way off to the left. I live in a very liberal state surrounded by very liberal people who all have a gun in their car or purse or under their shirt. Big deal. Owning firearms is only liberal or conservative if you say so...and you do...in your signature. It is about freedom or slavery if you ask me and as I recall being in favor of freedom and against slavery was a liberal (if not Democratic) idea. Being "pro-choice" as opposed to pro-abortion (most people who claim to be "pro-choice" are nothing of the sort, they are pro-abortion) means I beleive in everyone's right to choose their own preferred firearm and it matters not a whit to me if my neighbor owns a Remington M700 or an AR-15, I have nothing to fear from him if he is law abiding, if he isn't he can certainly assault the ####### out of me with a Remington M700. I would prefer to be shot by neither, thank you.

Carl Rowan's incident happened long before 2000. Late 70s as I recall, may have been early 80s.

Politically correct guns are anything the gun ban people are not trying to ban today...they will get to them tomorrow if we let them ban the ones on their list today. You need to define it, not me, as you believe in banning selective non-politally correct guns, I do not have such criteria based on appearance.

And yes. I feel it is important you learn the meaning of the 2nd amendement and that it means more than having a concealed carry lisence and agreeing that certain people should be able to own certain guns (only you can tell us what os on YOUR approved gun list, we know whatever YOU consider an assult rifle is not on that list)

[slim 1,523]

Hehe, good point. But if you feel your life is being threatened, you're also going for your gun.

No doubt. But, I feel a lot less threatend when there's distance between me and a threat. Brick walls, cars, etc., make me feel good, but there's nothing like a few city blocks between me and the shots. In the everyday "carry" scenario of hearing a shot while walking out of a convenience store, I'm probably just going to run to my Jeep or down the street as quickly as possible.

I hear so many people making the "stand your ground" argument in relation to carrying. "Stand your ground" is how you get shot at. The whole reason I carry is to get me out of a getting shot at scenario. If I have to shoot to get out of that situation, well, then I have to shoot. But, I'd much rather exit the area and let the guys who get paid do the clearing.

I'm all for being secure and standing my ground as I go about my everyday business - but I'm also broke and don't have a legal defense team on standby. Plus, I'm pretty fast if I want to be. I remember watching this high-speed training video the NRA sent me (some scam to order more videos) anyway, this guy was presenting all these shooting scenarios and in one of the scenarios he pulled out his wallet and handed it to the robber. His advice, "if you can avoid shooting someone - do it. So what if they got away with your wallet? Unless you can afford the legal defense fees and time away from work, family, etc., or unless you really feel an immediate threat to your life, give them your $2. If you don't feel threatened, let law enforcement do their job." I was shocked! Probably the best advice on the whole video.

The main thing I worry about is how my wife would react in a situation. I've never, ever, ever seen her scared of anything in her life so, if anything, she'd be the one daring someone to shoot her. I can only hope she'd follow my lead and unass the AO ASAP. I feel a lot better now that Ohio's changed it's law because the way it was worded last year was you had a duty to flee. That meant if my wife and I were walking down the street and someone attempted to victimize us, we BOTH had to run away before we could shoot the assailant. Now, not saying I can't communicate with my wife, but we haven't practiced the contingency action plan to that degree just yet. When they changed the law it's worded now to where the person carrying can protect someone else if they're being threatened, whereas before they had to just run away. I'll be damned if I run away so they can victimize my wife while I go call 9-1-1 from a safe distance.

She's pretty fast too though and like she says, "somebody mess with me it will be they so sorry @$$, blat."

I don't see it as a separate issue, any more than if you formed your private militia and the Federal government appropriated it for their own purposes. We already have State militias, the National Guard. Why would we just shrug our shoulders and make a new one when the Feds come in and take it? (and if you want to argue that the Feds can come take your private militia from your cold dead hands, then why aren't we making that same argument when they came and took the militia we already had?

The Feds can't come in and take privately-owned anything, that's why we need a militia that protects us as citizens, not just another unit of the Army. Back when they took over the NG (what was that, 1903?) I wasn't around so I didn't have much to say about it. However, I know for a fact that right now, the NG is not what's stopping our federal government from being tryrannical, it's us.

The National Guard has never been a unit to protect us from the federal government and probably never will be. Why aren't people in an uproar over that? Because the National Guard (and ANG) is a good thing when you think about it. It is, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have it. What I'm arguing is it's not a militia "of the people" to protect us from the federal government which is what the true intention of the 2A was. It is an Army unit through a State that can be used by a state too. Nothing more, nothing less. It's supposed to be a State's unit that the feds can borrow... but that's not really how it works.

Plain and simple, the National Guard is NOT a militia, it is an Army unit.

obfuscating that with scare tactics? As for gun control laws effectiveness, unfortunately there's so much noise out there that nobody really knows if they're effective or not.

+10 for big words!

Scare tactics aren't used to convert the uninitiated, they're used to reinvigorate the apathetic. The NRA isn't out there turning antis into supporters, they're doing their best to hold on to whatever support they have left. I'd love to see more of an effort to enlighten the masses, but it's just not an effective tactic - regardless of studies and data. People just don't listen to facts!

No argument from me here. When it comes to somebody threatening me, my family, or an innocent, I find myself to be particularly bloodthirsty. I had a discussion a few weeks back with a friend of mine about home intrusion, and he was telling me about proper police-style techniques when you've apprehended a home invader at gun-point. My response was that I thought it was the morgue that took care of home intrusion suspects, or at least that's how it works in my home. You come into my home with ill-intent, and somebody is leaving feet-first, I don't care how much your mommy didn't hug you.

As much as I'd love to support that, I can't afford to. On GP, sure, I'm with you. But, in real life, the scenario's going to have to dictate for me.

In all actuality, my wife would probably already have them scalped with our tomahawk before I could even get a shot off.

I'd love for organizations on both sides of the issue to come together and work out the parameters of a study that would tell us once and for all what the real picture is.

DOJ and GAO do all types of studies and statistics every year. As far as I'm concerned, that should be authoritative enough.

By the way, just to clarify my 2A stance, I *do* believe that one of the intents of the framers was that an armed populace would deter government tyranny. I think Adams even said as much, maybe it was Jefferson. I just think tyranny's gotten a lot smarter over the last couple centuries and works through Walmart parking lots instead of soldiers coming into our homes. And hell, maybe tyranny got smarter *because* of our 2A deterrent effect.

Jefferson described our OBLIGATION to overthrow the government as "obedience to God."

Washington said, "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."

Sam Adams (not to be confused with cousin John - who also has some very good quotes) said, Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”

These men knew it wasn't the foreign soldier (or our own soldiers, for that matter) that would enslave future generations of Americans. It was our own government and our own way of life. That's why they advocated so heavily for us to have a means to resist it.

Sure, the "other side" has also realized over the years what works and doesn't work and they've adapted tactics as well. However, the bottom line comes down to this - as long as we retain our means to resist, it'll never happen. Once that means is taken away... There will be no avoiding it.

Politically correct guns are anything the gun ban people are not trying to ban today...they will get to them tomorrow if we let them ban the ones on their list today. You need to define it, not me, as you believe in banning selective non-politally correct guns, I do not have such criteria based on appearance.

Let me jump on mox's team for a minute here and make it known that just because mox is arguing a certain point doesn't mean it's necessarily his point. Mox has been known to play 's advocate for a couple of rounds before dropping the bomb that yes, he is actually on the same team as the rest of us. (Keep in mind he has a Russian wife so that must mean he's a fat old lazy rich bald guy - so he can't be all bad!)

I think what he's saying over all these posts isn't an anti-2A argument, it's a "how do we stop criminals from using the same arms we're allowed to possess?" argument. Sure, it sounds like a "I don't mind giving up a little bit of my freedom since I'm a run-of-the-mill white dude and have freedom to spare" argument (and we know that's wrong) but he's also saying, "there's no good way to do it... so why isn't the NRA coming up with a good way to do it? Wouldn't that be a lot more effective than just paying Congressmen?" And that's a good argument too.

However, as we all know.... it's broke, and there aint no fixin it. The only difference is how you position yourself for the final outcome. Do you want to appear as the crazy gun nut the whole time... or do you want to be the "surprise, I really am a crazy gun nut too - I just didn't want anyone to know."?

And yes. I feel it is important you learn the meaning of the 2nd amendement and that it means more than having a concealed carry lisence and agreeing that certain people should be able to own certain guns (only you can tell us what os on YOUR approved gun list, we know whatever YOU consider an assult rifle is not on that list)

I believe mox understands it - it's just that he lived in Kalifornia for so long he's been conditioned to resist it because it's still somewhat taboo to be a "crazy gun nut."

Dec. 17th, 2010. Yep.

[baron555 934]

No doubt. But, I feel a lot less threatend when there's distance between me and a threat. Brick walls, cars, etc., make me feel good, but there's nothing like a few city blocks between me and the shots. In the everyday "carry" scenario of hearing a shot while walking out of a convenience store, I'm probably just going to run to my Jeep or down the street as quickly as possible.

I hear so many people making the "stand your ground" argument in relation to carrying. "Stand your ground" is how you get shot at. The whole reason I carry is to get me out of a getting shot at scenario. If I have to shoot to get out of that situation, well, then I have to shoot. But, I'd much rather exit the area and let the guys who get paid do the clearing.

I'm all for being secure and standing my ground as I go about my everyday business - but I'm also broke and don't have a legal defense team on standby. Plus, I'm pretty fast if I want to be. I remember watching this high-speed training video the NRA sent me (some scam to order more videos) anyway, this guy was presenting all these shooting scenarios and in one of the scenarios he pulled out his wallet and handed it to the robber. His advice, "if you can avoid shooting someone - do it. So what if they got away with your wallet? Unless you can afford the legal defense fees and time away from work, family, etc., or unless you really feel an immediate threat to your life, give them your $2. If you don't feel threatened, let law enforcement do their job." I was shocked! Probably the best advice on the whole video.

The main thing I worry about is how my wife would react in a situation. I've never, ever, ever seen her scared of anything in her life so, if anything, she'd be the one daring someone to shoot her. I can only hope she'd follow my lead and unass the AO ASAP. I feel a lot better now that Ohio's changed it's law because the way it was worded last year was you had a duty to flee. That meant if my wife and I were walking down the street and someone attempted to victimize us, we BOTH had to run away before we could shoot the assailant. Now, not saying I can't communicate with my wife, but we haven't practiced the contingency action plan to that degree just yet. When they changed the law it's worded now to where the person carrying can protect someone else if they're being threatened, whereas before they had to just run away. I'll be damned if I run away so they can victimize my wife while I go call 9-1-1 from a safe distance.

She's pretty fast too though and like she says, "somebody mess with me it will be they so sorry @$$, blat."

Please read and re-read Slim's comments, coming from a "trained" gun user and carryer. Notice the tone of his training!

What the media and the antis don't want you to know is that this is the "training" that you get; how not to use the gun. Don't ever use the gun, unless you really really have to . Then the other training will allow you to do that.

I don't see anything anti 2A about this tone of training for gun use. I see it as very wise training.

I am sure our founding fathers would agree with this.

[mox 298]

First, as I said, I AM a liberal, though I have no need to announce it in my siganture as if it is something strange or unusual.

And I don't feel the need to plaster my wife's photo up in my avatar space and links to her in my sig just to let the VJ crowd know I got my money's worth, but hey, some of us do some inexplicable things for reasons unknown. I "announced" it in my signature because I thought it'd be funny. Other people understood this, so maybe I don't know, learn the concept of earth humor or something.

Politically correct guns are anything the gun ban people are not trying to ban today...they will get to them tomorrow if we let them ban the ones on their list today. You need to define it, not me, as you believe in banning selective non-politally correct guns, I do not have such criteria based on appearance.

That's such a straw man Gary. "I just called you out on something I just made up, but it's up to you to define it." Christ. "Politically correct" is what you say when you don't like something but you lack the ability to say why. It's so 1990's Rush Limbaugh that I'm surprised it's even still in use.

And yes. I feel it is important you learn the meaning of the 2nd amendement and that it means more than having a concealed carry lisence and agreeing that certain people should be able to own certain guns (only you can tell us what os on YOUR approved gun list, we know whatever YOU consider an assult rifle is not on that list)

I just find it fantastically funny that you're so offended by somebody exercising their 2A rights because they don't do it in a manner approved by you. You're not a liberal, you're a self-righteous bully. You're worse than the anti-gun crowd because at least they're not pushing like-minded people away. You don't like my stance on assault weapons. I get that. You and I are about 90% on the same side, but because of one or two differences of opinions I'm all of a sudden I'm the enemy of freedom. I'm just glad there are some "gun nuts" around here with a little more sanity.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Please read and re-read Slim's comments, coming from a "trained" gun user and carryer. Notice the tone of his training!

What the media and the antis don't want you to know is that this is the "training" that you get; how not to use the gun. Don't ever use the gun, unless you really really have to . Then the other training will allow you to do that.

I don't see anything anti 2A about this tone of training for gun use. I see it as very wise training.

I am sure our founding fathers would agree with this.

Slim's points are good. The purpose of being armed is not to kill someone, but be able to kill someome before they kill you. I haven't heard of any man on the street incidents of an armed citizen killing bad guys in Vermont. It isn't like I have to shoot my way out of the grocery store. I DID on one occasion produce and display my .45 to a guy that decided he needed to assault another driver for cutting him off in traffic and starting an altercation at the next stoplight with a long handled ice scaper. (the other thing all Vermonters carry around) I think he was as surprised as I was and jumped back in his car and fled when faced with the business end of Ol' Loudmouth. The cell phone was in the oither hand and I was talking the police right into the guy, who was finally apprehended. No wasted bullets. Do not bring an ice scraper to a gun fight

The presence of armed citizens and the knowledge of other people that there ARE armed people out and about pretty much keeps the place peaceful and boring. Starting trouble with an unsuspecting Vermonter is not high on the list of healthy things to do. People know this and don't do it. I mean, they can always drive to Boston or NY or some other place where the slaves are disarmed. Most of our TV news is "imported", not much happening here, maybe some crazy guys taking a dip in frozen lake Champlain or another cheese fest of some sort, but other than that, pretty quiet.

The ownership and use of firearms is not any more likely to make someone violent or agressive than a knowledge of martial arts. I have had the privilege to know a lot of people very skilled in martial arts that could no doubt kill you in milliseconds with their bare hands...yet they are quiet, confident and polite people. Why not? No reason not to be.

Changing laws, like Ohio's and putting the RISK on the bad guy will ultimately reduce crime and increase freedom for all people. Ohio, like every other state that has allowed concealed carry is not having a rise in crime or street shootouts because of it. Big surprise. The people of Ohio were ALWAYS capable of handling freedom just as well as the people of Vermont, Florida, etc. I still cannot understand how Illionois and Wisconsin can still not allow concealed carry? When will the people of those states say "Hey, we want to have lower crime also!" I mean it is long past speculation, it is a proven fact in nearly every state. More guns = Less crime.

The fact is, whenever there is a crime, people call other people with guns. what stops crime or ends crime? Guns. The Colombine massacre...who did they call? men with MORE guns. The bad guys had guns, so we need some good guys with guns to shoot the bad guys with guns. it is a simple concept. Crime always involves three people...victim, criminal, police. The police are always the last ones there, but always the ones called, because they have guns. How can a 5' 2" woman cop subdue a 6' 3" man with words alone? She has a gun that can kill him. He knows she has a gun and at some point that SHE decides can end any BS by simply killing him. He doesn't want to die, so he goes along.

[mox 298]

Please read and re-read Slim's comments, coming from a "trained" gun user and carryer. Notice the tone of his training!

What the media and the antis don't want you to know is that this is the "training" that you get; how not to use the gun. Don't ever use the gun, unless you really really have to . Then the other training will allow you to do that.

I don't see anything anti 2A about this tone of training for gun use. I see it as very wise training.

I am sure our founding fathers would agree with this.

110% agreed barron. I think it's a damn dirty shame that Slim isn't gainfully employed as a gun safety expert.

[baron555 934]

She has a gun that can kill him.

This fact alone is why the violent crime is lower in those states. The criminals know that they might be messing with someone who has leveled the playing field. Here in Illinois, and especially in Chicago, they know they hold the upper hand.

The ownership and use of firearms is not any more likely to make someone violent or agressive than a knowledge of martial arts. I have had the privilege to know a lot of people very skilled in martial arts that could no doubt kill you in milliseconds with their bare hands...yet they are quiet, confident and polite people. Why not? No reason not to be.

Me too. A very good former worker and friend is a multiple level black belt in Karate and Judo and Jui Jistu (sp?). I have seen his skills in action; faster than you can blink and you are down and possibly exterminated. With all his skills, his training dictates that he remain calm and collected. I have seen him run up against big ornery drunkards and it was amazing to watch his composure and restraint. He had to since his hands and feet and body were lethal weapons. What was the best advice he could give when confronted with a dangerous situation? Run, quickly, away.

There is tremendous pride and manliness to being able to survive until another day.

Hollywood and the medial would make you think otherwise.

[mox 298]

This fact alone is why the violent crime is lower in those states. The criminals know that they might be messing with someone who has leveled the playing field. Here in Illinois, and especially in Chicago, they know they hold the upper hand.

It sounds like a reasonable conclusion to come to, but there's nothing definitive out there that shows this one way or the other. No scientific and independent study I know of has concluded that an increase in gun ownership lowered violent crime. (if it exists, point me to it please, I'd love to eat my words on this one) As a quick, off-the-top-of-my-head example, many liquor and convenience store owners have guns behind the counter, but I heard earlier this week on the radio that bank and liquor store robberies are up nationally.

There is a similar philosophy that the death penalty and longer/harsher jail terms are deterrent effects, but crime continues to rise. Many states have enacted the "3 strikes" rule, but there's no evidence to show its deterrent effect either.

I don't think the deterrence effect of guns is wrong, I just don't think it's necessarily a truism.

Edited December 30, 2009 by mox