Guns and Pie

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Agrreing with the former assualt weapon ban demostrates a distinct lack of either

1. Knowledge

2. Thinking ability

The Assualt weapons ban, did not ban anything, least of which assault weapons which were already classed under the NFA. The law as it was, placed a 10 year moratorium on the manufacture of new rilfes which resembled assault rifles. The removal of certain cosmetic features allowed the same rifles to be made all along. Take off the bayonet lug (this prevents the crime of drive by bayoneting) and you are good to go.

The law exempted ANY rilfe receiver or magazine made before the law went into effect and gave a two month warning of when it would go into effect. All amnaufacturers jumped onto making magazine bodies (stamped from sheet metal at the rate of hundreds per hour) and rifle receivers, again, only the rough reciver hand to be milled or cast, they could be finished later.

The law was a complete and total joke, ihad no possibility of reducing crime in any way. The only good thing about the law was that it got both houses of congress away from the Democrats for a decade or so.

Really, you have to have a screw loose to think the assualt weapons ban was ever anything except political vomit. During the whole period, there was no shortage of the same rilfes, magazines, etc which were "banned"

To argue they are not good for sport is just blind stupidity. The AR-15 is by far the most popular rifle used in competition, not even close to being a question. 2nd most popular is the M1A, another so-called assault rilfe. Nealry every major firearms manufacturer now makes an AR-15 platform including Ruger and Remington. A whole entire line of cartridges designed to work in these reifles and specifically designed for hunting deer size animals has been introduced. The AR platform is perhaps the most popular in the country for all purposes and the after market accessories available for them are unmatched by any other rifle.

You also have to be completely blind to history to make such dumb statements. US sportsman have ALWAYS lagged behind the military in weapons technology but always catch up. In the late 1890s it was the bolt action that was considered the "unsporting killing machine" whre a "real hunter" used a single shot rifle or lever action. Semi auto hunting rifles, though available as early as 1906 simply did not catch on until after WW2 when 12 million or so men were introduced to semi-autos by Uncle Sam. Bolt actions had caught on by the mid-1930s, despite the depression, though this is some 40 years after the US military adopted one as it's standard rilfe in 1892. Ironically, they US hunter caught onto the bolt action craze about the time the military dropped them for semi-autos. The Ar-15 series rifles had a lot of problems at first and those were worked out about 1983 with the A2 model. Since then the AR has climbed to the top of the charts, literally, with US sportsmen. I have been shooting rifle competition since the eraly 70s, when all we used were M1s or M1As, the AR was a joke. I witnessed the climb to popularity and then got bit by the bug myself and now regularly use an AR platform match rifle and AR Service rifle for both types of competition. There is nothing comparable. As much as I like walnut and steel and the general handling of the M1A, there is no comparison in competition abiltiy. And the AR is so easy to modify with off the shelf accessories, no expensive gunsmithing needed to make it shoot accurately.

Given an adequate cartridge, of which there are now many, the AR could very well be an ideal hunting rilfe. They are becoming extremely popular for small game and varmint rifles, again eclipsing nearly all else, and for good reason, there simpley is not a more accurate rifle out of the box than an AR.

[slim 1,525]

NRA club stuff, sure, I don't like it any more than you do, but I'll say this, the NRA isn't pushing to control every gun range - they're "offering" to cover ranges with their liability protection, etc. The huge difference between the NRA (and some other big companies/orgs) is they "offer" instead of "mandate." Big Govt. doesn't "offer" anything - they pass bills at 1:00 AM on Christmas Eve.

I'm not a fan of making clubs 100% member-affiliates, but there's nothing anywhere that says you have to join a club to shoot your gun. You can always shoot on your own land or a pubic range if you have one. - And if none of those are available, make them available through a vote or membership in a group.

Obama's 2nd amendment record, you see a guy who's seen so much violence on the streets of his city, and has bent over backwards trying to figure out a way to both get guns out of the hands of gangbangers while simultaneously supporting our 2nd amendment rights. He doesn't have a perfect record, but that's a damn hard row to hoe when you're dealing with mothers who have lost their children because they were wearing the wrong colors or got caught in the crossfire of some stupid turf war. You try telling that mother all about how it's just a tool, how having more guns makes us safer

Obama looks like a guy who still thinks crime is caused by inanimate objects - and only certain types of inanimate objects at that. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country already, yet there's still a huge number of gun-related fatalities. His own "gun dealers dumping guns in the inner-city" has little, if anything, to do with gun crimes in Chicago.

Dare I say he should try to focus on something like job creation and anti-poverty legislation - perhaps that would be just as ineffective, although it wouldn't affect the rest of us in nearly the same negative way.

There is an entire crowd of people (and I'd include you in this one, mox) that think gun crimes are caused by poeple having guns. "If we could get the guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals, they'd stop killing each other." There is no evidence from anywhere in the world to support this theory. None. Yet politicians and the media keep this theory alive and make otherwise sensible people (that'd by you again, mox) buy into the hype that certain guns cause crime and eliminating those certain types of inanimate objects would somehow stop people with no respect for the law or regard for human life to stop breaking other laws and murdering, assaulting, raping and robbing each other. "No, it's not the criminals' fault. It's the guns! If there were no more guns, they couldn't be criminals."

While I don't make it a habit to associate with criminals, the one thing they have going for them is they are incredibly resourceful. Do you think they won't figure out (as the criminals in AUS, UK, elsewhere have done) there's more than one way to skin a cat?

you're considering voting yes on allowing people to keep illegal weapons in their homes.

Keeping "illegal" guns in their homes is a different issue than what you're making it out to be. You're insinuating these are criminals who have stolen and/or illegally purchased weapons they're not supposed to own in their homes.

This issue isn't about folks "illegally" possessing firearms, it's about local ordinances prohibiting them from possessing otherwise legal firearms in their own homes when it would be perfectly legal elsewhere in their county or state. For instance: Chicago's handgun ban. While it is illegal for someone to possess a handgun in their home, they could legally possess it outside Cook County. If they were "illegally possessing it" inside their own home, Billy Badass came in to rob them and they shot him, then they're now a felon because they're illegally possessing a banned firearm.

Legislation to stop this from happening is the heart of this issue, not stopping people who are already under disability from being allowed to possess them. This is where the media and anti-gunners gain a lot of support. For instance, here in Cincinnati we have local municipal codes that ban the possession of certain types of arms. However, state-wide, they're perfectly legal. When the issue has been raised, the media and local "leaders" have raised alarm not about citizens legally exercising their Rights in their own homes but about "allowing criminals to possess certain types of firearms." See, the big misconception is when you legalize something for "everyone" that you're opening it up for the criminals (or those under disability) to partake as well. That's simply not true. Lifting a handgun ban in Chicago or D.C. wouldn't allow criminals to own guns anymore than implementing a mandatory "you must own a Sherman tank and Stinger missile" rule. Criminals still wouldn't be allowed to do it.

Seriously, where would you draw the line if you were made King of America? Would you stop at automatic weapons, or are mortars ok? How about land mines to protect your property? Helicopter gunships? Tactical nukes under a certain tonnage? There's got to be a line somewhere, right? The 2nd amendment guarantees our right to bear arms, so either that means we should all be limited to the technology of the day, i.e. muskets, or there should be no restrictions since no restriction was ever mentioned in the amendment.

I'm a firm believer in every community maintaining a crew-served weapon. When our Constitution was written, our forbears had cannons that were regulated (and regulated doesn't mean "had rules about" it means "practiced with") by the community militias, so why shouldn't we have weapons similar to that today?

As far as helicopter gunships, Stingers, etc., most advanced weapons systems are covered by international treaties and laws, not by U.S. Constitution. As to where we draw the line - see next reply.

You should be outraged that a special permit needs to be had for these specialized weapons. I should be able to walk into Martin Marietta or Northrup Grummon and buy the latest and greatest helicopter gunships or surface-to-air missile without so much as a freedom-infringing background check. Now I do concede that for people like us, the cost may be somewhat prohibitive, but if I am a naturalized citizen from, say, a wealthy Saudi Arabian family, I should be able to walk straight into my local missile emporium and walk out with as many Stinger missiles as my tricked out Hummer can carry--again, sans background check. Right? And furthermore, said citizen should be allowed to openly carry (or conceal carry with a permit I suppose) his Stinger missile in public, perhaps even around an airport where the President's plane is due to land for a major speech on health care reform, as long as he's packing that Stinger safely. Am I right?

This is your best point to date, and I see where you're coming from. So, where do we draw the line?

I think it's important for us to realize the true intent of the 2nd Amendment. You've raised the point, time and again, that we should have a right to firearms for hunting, sport, and home defense. However, I will agree to disagree with you on the true intent of the Amendment. The forefathers wrote that amendment shortly after overthrowing their own government and they knew in order to guarantee ALL of our Rights, we had to have the means to resist tyranny once more. How do you resist tyranny? By having armed men - armed with the equivalent of their own military - capable of overthrowing that government by force if necessary.

We don't need helicopter gunships or Stinger missiles to overthrow the government. Should we have them? I don't see why not but I also wouldn't say advanced weapons systems such as those are in line with "arms" as defined by the 2nd Amendment. They'd be classified under other legal means such as international statutes. "Arms" would be organic weapons such as rifles, machine guns, mortars, etc. Stingers and the like would be "weapons systems" much in the same way an aircraft carrier would be.

Back to topic - "Arms" as the founders intended them are the means for a community to come together and guarantee their Right to vote and petition for redress, etc., is heard. Without arms, that's simply not possible. Without arms (and once again I'm talking military equivalent here, not grandaddy's shotgun or your SR9) the populace simply makes a suggestion to their government. With arms, they ensure their "requests" are heard.

Where do we draw the line? I personally believe EVERY CITIZEN (and LPR) should own a rifle similar to what the military uses. At minimum, we're talking about a standard issue M1903A3 all the way up to an M-16A4 and/or M-203. The more wealthy among us would have an M82A1 and each zone (modeled after the "training bands" of the 1770s) would have it's own crew-served weapon, be it an M-60/M-240B, M-2, Mk-19, M-252, etc. Don't think that would work with the type of people we have in America today? I don't either, that's why I think we should do it. The type of people capable of maintaining these weapons in a responsible manner are also capable of doing things like going to work every day, paying taxes, not killing each other for sport, etc. Should be just the kind of "change" we can believe in!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Not what I'm talking about, Gary. Of course there are exceptions, but nobody here is talking about exceptions, we're talking about your average citizen and his right to bear arms, and not just as an exhibition curiosity.

You should be outraged that a special permit needs to be had for these specialized weapons. I should be able to walk into Martin Marietta or Northrup Grummon and buy the latest and greatest helicopter gunships or surface-to-air missile without so much as a freedom-infringing background check. Now I do concede that for people like us, the cost may be somewhat prohibitive, but if I am a naturalized citizen from, say, a wealthy Saudi Arabian family, I should be able to walk straight into my local missile emporium and walk out with as many Stinger missiles as my tricked out Hummer can carry--again, sans background check. Right? And furthermore, said citizen should be allowed to openly carry (or conceal carry with a permit I suppose) his Stinger missile in public, perhaps even around an airport where the President's plane is due to land for a major speech on health care reform, as long as he's packing that Stinger safely. Am I right?

Or are there in fact limits to our 2nd amendment rights?

(but yes, firing a Sherman main gun would be a kick in the asss that even somebody as frugal as me would be tempted to lay out the cash for.)

I am outraged about the special permission required, especially since it has done nothing to reduce crime. I am also outraged since, here in Vermont anyone can carry a concealed weapon without a license or permit, no special training...nothing other than being 18 years old. Yet we have very little crime and have always had very little crime, and the law has been this way since Vermont was made the 14th state. Unless residents of other states are somehow lacking the mental capacity of Vermonters, then everyone could do the same. I am outraged, as a Vermont resident that I cannot carry concealed in other states because I don't have a stinking permit! I don't need one. (two states I know of, Indiana and Kentucky, accept a Vermont drivers license as a temporary concealed carry lisence) Though Vermont allows anyone from any state to carry concealed. Or openly for that matter, your choice.

Yes, restrictions on our rights have never controlled and will never control criminals, it only disarms law abiding citizens. The person that wants to assinate the President, with a missile, a gun, a knife or a remote control bomb carrying model airplane is not going to seek a permit from the government to do it.

[visaveteran 1]

Slim is right to look at the historical need for an armed citizenry. Owning guns is not primarily for fun, sport, hunting, or self-defense...it is to defend the founding principles and to discourage tyranny and oppression in our society. All the rest is secondary.

Since the 1930s, the government has wrongly felt it could defeat criminals and control people by taking away certain guns or gun rights. So we have seen the steady decline in the types of weapons we can possess. You can't own an automatic rifle without a big hassle and getting in bed with the AFT bureaucracy. You can't own a sawed-off shotgun. You can't own a street sweeper (once legal). You can't even carry a knife beyond 3" in length.

[mox 298]

NRA club stuff, sure, I don't like it any more than you do, but I'll say this, the NRA isn't pushing to control every gun range - they're "offering" to cover ranges with their liability protection, etc. The huge difference between the NRA (and some other big companies/orgs) is they "offer" instead of "mandate." Big Govt. doesn't "offer" anything - they pass bills at 1:00 AM on Christmas Eve.

Remember that this is how our system of government works. There's nothing unique about how the health care bill was pushed through, the Republicans (who absolutely refused to participate in the process) were doing it when they had the majority too. But at least the Democrats weren't basically being the President's beeyotches like the majority Republican congress. Obama didn't get close to what he wanted, and although I do wish a more comprehensive health care bill would have passed, at least our government was working the way it should, which is debating and give-and-take.

But I digress, and you didn't vote.

There is an entire crowd of people (and I'd include you in this one, mox) that think gun crimes are caused by poeple having guns.

You're right, by definition. Gun crimes are committed by people with guns. But like you, I don't believe guns in and of themselves are what cause gun violence. I do believe, however, that there is a causal relationship that has to be addressed. "Guns don't kill people, people do" is a really catchy slogan, but it's not 100% of the truth, and it's a convenient way of dodging the issue. I do not believe that more guns creates a safer populace. I don't think it would hurt for more people to be legally armed, but I think we'd reach a point of diminishing returns pretty quickly. Which is fine...because legal gun ownership still isn't hurting anybody. But there *is* a causal relationship between the number of guns on the market, and the number of guns in criminal hands, and that needs to be studied more so that we can get our politicians to legislate sensibly.

I'm a firm believer in every community maintaining a crew-served weapon. When our Constitution was written, our forbears had cannons that were regulated (and regulated doesn't mean "had rules about" it means "practiced with") by the community militias, so why shouldn't we have weapons similar to that today?

We do, it's called the National Guard. You know, those guys in Iraq. But if you're talking about something more informal, forget it. The "Patriot" groups groups that have been arising since 2001 are the biggest threat to national security since not having them.

Anyway, since my earlier points about the NRA haven't been addressed, I'll say it again: If you (the NRA) feel you have to lie and distort facts to your membership in order to make your point, one wonders how stable the foundation of your position really is. And I wonder what else the NRA is lying to us about...maybe the causal relationship between guns and criminals?

[slim 1,525]

I am also outraged since, here in Vermont anyone can carry a concealed weapon without a license or permit, no special training...nothing other than being 18 years old. Yet we have very little crime and have always had very little crime, and the law has been this way since Vermont was made the 14th state.

How can that be? With all those guns and all those people carrying guns.... no way! Surely the NRA must be lying about that. I bet the DOJ through the FBI is also lying when it counts gun-related crimes and publishes them annually. Surely somewhere like Chicago or Washington D.C. - with their strict gun control laws - would have way less crime.

That just doesn't make any sense at all.

There's nothing unique about how the health care bill was pushed through

So they usually vote at 1:00 AM on Chrstmas Eve? This "transparency" we're growing accustomed to sure seems pretty unique to me.

least our government was working the way it should, which is debating and give-and-take.

If this is the way it's supposed to work - give-and-take at 1:00 AM on Christmas Eve - it's time for us to "vote" again.

But I digress, and you didn't vote.

I didn't vote on this issue, no. However, I voted in November for the first time ever. (Is that what you're referencing?) I've also contacted my Congressman to let him know how I feel, and whether I vote or not, he's still supposed to represent me and all the rest of his constituents. Congress, by and large, ignored their constituency - and much in the same was as they ignored us when they passed the assault weapons ban in 1994, they'll see some "change" after the next election cycle because of it.

You're right, by definition. Gun crimes are committed by people with guns. But like you, I don't believe guns in and of themselves are what cause gun violence. I do believe, however, that there is a causal relationship that has to be addressed. "Guns don't kill people, people do" is a really catchy slogan, but it's not 100% of the truth, and it's a convenient way of dodging the issue. I do not believe that more guns creates a safer populace. I don't think it would hurt for more people to be legally armed, but I think we'd reach a point of diminishing returns pretty quickly. Which is fine...because legal gun ownership still isn't hurting anybody. But there *is* a causal relationship between the number of guns on the market, and the number of guns in criminal hands, and that needs to be studied more so that we can get our politicians to legislate sensibly.

This is a classically-liberal answer to any problems we have nowadays - "We'll (spend taxpayer money to) study it more, then we'll make 'sensible' legislation to make more laws that we know (because we have a study, remember?) will stop the problem."

In theory, that almost makes sense. Almost. More laws should stop the problems. Gun violence is almost always (there are studies) carried out by someone who's breaking the law so naturally, another law will stop them from doing so. I'm still a big proponent of making murder, assault, rape, robbery and drugs all illegal first before we start banning guns. If we'd outlaw those things, then people would stop doing them. Well, they would, right? I mean, after all.... they'd be illegal!

The whole problem with guns - and gun violence - is you can't stop it with laws. Libtards have been beating their heads against the wall since the 1930s trying to figure out a way to stop criminals (people who don't heed laws we already have) from using guns in the commission of crime and the simple answer is, there is no good way for them to do it. The only thing that stops armed people from committing crimes with guns - IS ARMED PEOPLE. Until the libtards can get that sad fact through their head, they will not do anything to combat this issue. The more gun bans and restrictive laws they pass - the easier it is for criminals to conduct their business. If they truly want to stop gun crime, they need to do two things:

1. Encourage EVERYONE to carry a gun at all times.

2. Pony up enough cash to keep criminals (those who survive) locked up for the duration of their sentences.

Since that'll never happen, I'd also like to suggest some major welfare reform and transformation of the inner-cities to include tax breaks for businessess that come back. Maybe we could sneak that through at 1:00AM on Christmas Eve?

We do, it's called the National Guard. You know, those guys in Iraq.

I LOVE this argument. "We don't need guns or a militia because we have a state-sponsored militia called the National Guard."

OK, so let me get this straight... we have a military group of individuals controlled by the government.... and they're supposed to protect us from the government?

You guys really are making this easy.

Anyway, since my earlier points about the NRA haven't been addressed, I'll say it again: If you (the NRA) feel you have to lie and distort facts to your membership in order to make your point, one wonders how stable the foundation of your position really is. And I wonder what else the NRA is lying to us about...maybe the causal relationship between guns and criminals?

When has the NRA lied and distorted facts? I'm not saying they haven't, just saying I'm not aware. Also, this is what happens when you base all your information on "studies" and "reports." It's not too hard to find a study or report somewhere to support your cause, whatever it is. Does that mean it's not a fact? Not necessarily. But, you can argue both sides of an issue all day long using the exact same "facts" when you custom design "studies" to your liking. Wayne LaPierre wrote a good commentary on that one in the Dec. issue of American Rifleman. Bottom line - "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."

The NRA does try to hype up the "gun ban's a'comin!" because they have nothing else to use right now. Like any political organization, they're doing whatever they can to get more money. Do they "lie" to get more members? I wouldn't say they lie about things but I'm sure they've used "studies" for thier own benefit. The whole thing with the NRA is they know Congress responds to numbers. So, you've got membership numbers "We have 3 million members" and then you have money "We'll donate $1,000,000 to your campaign" and that seems to be what Congress cares more about than anything.

If you can find me a more effective guardian of our 2nd Amendment Rights (and I'm not talking about duck hunting) I'll gladly join them and dump the NRA. As I've said before, I'm none to impressed with them either. However, nobody else is doing it right now and if nobody does it . . . it goes away. Since I'm not willing to let my 2nd Amendment Rights go away, I'm willing to contribute a little bit of cash to a political organization like the NRA so at least someone is making my Congressman listen. He doesn't seem to care much for my opinion, but when my opinion is backed by a few million others (who have deeper pockets than mine) he seems to take note.

I'd much rather pay some money now than have to shoot people later.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Remember that this is how our system of government works. There's nothing unique about how the health care bill was pushed through, the Republicans (who absolutely refused to participate in the process) were doing it when they had the majority too. But at least the Democrats weren't basically being the President's beeyotches like the majority Republican congress. Obama didn't get close to what he wanted, and although I do wish a more comprehensive health care bill would have passed, at least our government was working the way it should, which is debating and give-and-take.

But I digress, and you didn't vote.

You're right, by definition. Gun crimes are committed by people with guns. But like you, I don't believe guns in and of themselves are what cause gun violence. I do believe, however, that there is a causal relationship that has to be addressed. "Guns don't kill people, people do" is a really catchy slogan, but it's not 100% of the truth, and it's a convenient way of dodging the issue. I do not believe that more guns creates a safer populace. I don't think it would hurt for more people to be legally armed, but I think we'd reach a point of diminishing returns pretty quickly. Which is fine...because legal gun ownership still isn't hurting anybody. But there *is* a causal relationship between the number of guns on the market, and the number of guns in criminal hands, and that needs to be studied more so that we can get our politicians to legislate sensibly.

We do, it's called the National Guard. You know, those guys in Iraq. But if you're talking about something more informal, forget it. The "Patriot" groups groups that have been arising since 2001 are the biggest threat to national security since not having them.

Anyway, since my earlier points about the NRA haven't been addressed, I'll say it again: If you (the NRA) feel you have to lie and distort facts to your membership in order to make your point, one wonders how stable the foundation of your position really is. And I wonder what else the NRA is lying to us about...maybe the causal relationship between guns and criminals?

The National Guard is included in the original constitution and was further re-inforced by legislation in 1903. The National Guard is a branch of the Federal Government. The reason our forbearers practiced with artillery was to defend themselves and have the measn to defend themselves from the federal government. The National Guard does not atke that role, never did, was never inteded to and was further addressed in the Heller decision and in Miller v. USA in 1945.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to give to the general population the means and ability to defend themselves from an opprerssive government or to overthrow a government if it becomes out of control. It is not a pleasant thought or pleasant intent. It is not about duck hunting, skeet shooting, collecting or other hobbies. It is as applicable to modern weapons as the first amendment is to modern forms of communication and religion. It does not protect the right to own Brown Bess muskets. It protects the right to forcibly overthrow the government or shoot back if they over step their bounds.

Frankly, discussions of stinger missiles, thermo-nuclear devices, nuclear submarines, etc. are a losing proposition for anti-gun people who cannt argue sensibly about thier position. If a gun owner dare to suggest we be allowed to own a modern weapon, of a typw similar to the government soldiers we would be expected to fight, then there comes the cry "Oh, and maybe you want a nuclear warhead also?" As we have seen such weapons are not of the typoe used to subdue and enslave populations, which the 2nd amendment is designed to prevent. Regular citizens with assault rifles are fully capable of subduing oppressive governments and we have seen this many times in recent years. We have also seen many times in recent years when un-aremed populations are over-run and enslaved.

Anyone supporting a useless "assault weapons ban" is wittingly or unwittingly co-operating with the people that would disarm and enslave us. Since the ban, as was imposed, had no possiblitiy of producing ANY tanglible result EXCEPT establishing that the federal government can regulate certain arms. The sunst clause and the political climate of change which occurred after the ban more or less ngated the reason for littigation to determine if the ban were constitutional. Any litigation would have taken longer than the "ban" would take to simply expire. The immediate loss of both houses of congress by the liberals that passed the law may have been worth it, actually.

There will be attempts to resurrect the ban, in stronger terms, when the liberals that want it (including Barack Obama) feel safe politically to do so. That may or may not be in the Obama's term in office. It is distinctly unsafe politically to do so now, which is why so little was made of it when the ban expired in 2004, an election year. Until then they will keep it out of the news, off the agenda.

[baron555 934]

the means and ability to defend themselves from an opprerssive government or to overthrow a government if it becomes out of control. It is not a pleasant thought or pleasant intent.

Thomas Jefferson always stated that, "Blood must be shed for a true democracy to work."

I wonder how many of these liberal "pro-gun" folks would be willing to do that?

[mox 298]

Frankly, discussions of stinger missiles, thermo-nuclear devices, nuclear submarines, etc. are a losing proposition for anti-gun people who cannt argue sensibly about thier position.

I got an extremely hearty LOL out of this one, thanks. Because throughout this discussion, as I've patiently argued sensibly about my position, I've been told that I'm biased by the liberal media, that I'm trying to take everyone's guns away, and that the 2nd amendment is, unlike all other amendments, completely untouchable. I asked a legitimate question: where do you draw the line? I gave extreme examples in order to make the point that somewhere, somehow, there has to be a line...right? Or not? Slim gave a great answer, although I'm sure that had I given an answer that included international law, I'd have been sent back to my good friend Barbara Streisand's Ministry for the Usurpation of the Sovereignty of the United States to try again.

So I *am* arguing sensibly about my position, and at least one other person (Slim) has taken the opportunity to argue sensibly back. You're either just choosing not to listen, or your definition of a sensible argument is that your opponent agrees with you. And hey, that's ok. I understand that it's a lot easier to defend your position by talking past an argument or intentionally misunderstanding the other person's position than it is to actually engage. I understand that everyone here (including me) is pretty entrenched in their beliefs, and that this discussion isn't going to change anything.

Also, I'm not an "anti-gun people." I'm a "sensible-gun people." Because no matter how you try to paint this, it's not a black and white issue. If it were a black and white issue, you wouldn't need a gigantic lobbying organizations defending it.

Thomas Jefferson always stated that, "Blood must be shed for a true democracy to work."

I wonder how many of these liberal "pro-gun" folks would be willing to do that?

I would. I served my country for 6 years.

[mox 298]

So they usually vote at 1:00 AM on Chrstmas Eve? This "transparency" we're growing accustomed to sure seems pretty unique to me.

If this is the way it's supposed to work - give-and-take at 1:00 AM on Christmas Eve - it's time for us to "vote" again.

The original vote was scheduled for 7am Christmas Eve, but the Republicans agreed to hold the vote at 1am so everyone could catch their flights home.

The last time a vote was held on Christmas eve was 1895. However, votes are routinely held during the wee hours of the morning any time one party is trying to put pressure on the other party. The Democrats do it, and the Republicans do it, and the other party always expresses the same outrage when it's done to them, yet has no problem doing it to the other party. As I said, this is the way our government works. If you don't like this, you as a citizen can form a lobbying organization to try to get a bill passed limiting the hours that congressional votes can be cast to, let's say, 9am-5pm M-F, and never within 24 hours of a Federal holiday.

"Transparency" means something completely different than the context you're using it. The vote *was* transparent: it was available to the public via the internet and print. The vote was not a secret back-room vote, it was viewable on CSPAN and streamed on the internet. Every Senators vote was recorded and made available to voters. That's what transparency is.

And really...if the vote had been held during more convenient hours, would you have been sitting there in front of CSPAN watching it?

I didn't vote on this issue, no. However, I voted in November for the first time ever. (Is that what you're referencing?) I've also contacted my Congressman to let him know how I feel, and whether I vote or not, he's still supposed to represent me and all the rest of his constituents. Congress, by and large, ignored their constituency - and much in the same was as they ignored us when they passed the assault weapons ban in 1994, they'll see some "change" after the next election cycle because of it.

Ahhhh, you *did* vote...congratulations! Seriously, I'm glad you did. Because when you talk to your congressman, your concerns carry a lot more weight when you identify yourself as a voter. And I'm glad to hear you were passionate enough to contact your congressman...I think every registered voter should be contacting their representatives at least once a year.

This is a classically-liberal answer to any problems we have nowadays - "We'll (spend taxpayer money to) study it more, then we'll make 'sensible' legislation to make more laws that we know (because we have a study, remember?) will stop the problem."

Who says it has to be tax dollars? Why can't it be NRA dollars? I mean seriously, if the NRA really believed in their position, they'd have no problem shelling out a couple million bucks or whatever to an independent organization to do a definitive study on the links between the availability of handguns and violent crime committed with handguns. I belong to an organization called AOPA, which lobbies for small aircraft pilots in much the same way the NRA lobbies for gun owners. But the difference is, AOPA is constantly funding studies about small aircraft safety because of the libtards who think small airplanes are just a gnat's hair from "falling out of the sky" or that some guy is going to destroy the White House by flying a Cessna 152 into it. AOPA is 100% convinced of their own position, and does not lie or distort facts to advance their agenda. Why isn't the NRA doing these kinds of studies for us?

The only thing that stops armed people from committing crimes with guns - IS ARMED PEOPLE. Until the libtards can get that sad fact through their head, they will not do anything to combat this issue.

On the surface, this makes a lot of sense. If everyone is armed, the second you pull a weapon in anger you're going to have a bunch of barrels curiously pointed in your direction. The deterrent effect sounds like such a truism that it's hard to argue against.

Another seeming truism was "the death penalty will create such a deterrent effect that crimes like murder and rape will plummet." And yet...not so much. The death penalty has been a complete disaster. We are number 6 in the world in executions, and we incarcerate (many MANY) more people than any other country in the world--and it seems to have had no effect whatsoever on crime.

So I don't know that I can buy into the deterrent effect. Humans have proven to be remarkably resistant to deterrent effects. It could be that all we'd really be doing is creating a very skilled class of criminal, and a lot of armed citizens would die. And then perhaps we'd get into some kind of Darwinian death spiral where armed citizens kept getting more skillful to keep up with the criminals, who in turn become more skillful, etc etc. I don't like the urban landscape of gun violence right now, I'm pretty sure I'd really hate it when gangbangers became sharp shooters. (don't expect a vigorous defense of this concept, I'm just thinking out loud...my point being, I don't think the idea that an armed populace makes for less gun crime is a given.)

I LOVE this argument. "We don't need guns or a militia because we have a state-sponsored militia called the National Guard."

OK, so let me get this straight... we have a military group of individuals controlled by the government.... and they're supposed to protect us from the government?

You guys really are making this easy.

Hehe...well there's only one of me. But come on Slim, this is one of those areas you and I should be 100% in agreement on, given our stance on states rights. The whole notion that we should only have a Federal government for a very small number of things, namely foreign trade, dimplomacy, defense, interstate commerce, etc. Our National Guard troops should have NEVER been allowed to be deployed by the President. The National Guard's chain of command should stop with the Governor, no further. It makes me absolutely sick that the Federal government should have so much power as to control our State's primary means of self defense.

If the National Guard did report solely to (and no further than) the Governor, then you'd have more national security than every armed citizen in the country could ever muster. If the Federal government ever got froggy, the States could ally together and reinstate some sanity to the nation. If a state, or group of states, ever got froggy, then the Federal government and other states could intervene. It's the perfect Mexican standoff, and would absolutely accomplish what you're advocating, Slim.

When has the NRA lied and distorted facts? I'm not saying they haven't, just saying I'm not aware. Also, this is what happens when you base all your information on "studies" and "reports." It's not too hard to find a study or report somewhere to support your cause, whatever it is. Does that mean it's not a fact? Not necessarily. But, you can argue both sides of an issue all day long using the exact same "facts" when you custom design "studies" to your liking. Wayne LaPierre wrote a good commentary on that one in the Dec. issue of American Rifleman. Bottom line - "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."

Read this post:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3583666

And biased studies are the reason that unbiased studies are so important. Would you ever trust a study on drug costs commissioned by the pharmaceutical industry? Of course not, unless they had contracted out to a firm known for independent bias, and agreed to publish that study no matter what it revealed.

And LaPierre is EXACTLY right, you are not entitled to your own facts. I said this in another post. If your position takes lies and distortions to back up, then the validity of your position is very, very suspect.

The NRA does try to hype up the "gun ban's a'comin!" because they have nothing else to use right now. Like any political organization, they're doing whatever they can to get more money. Do they "lie" to get more members? I wouldn't say they lie about things but I'm sure they've used "studies" for thier own benefit. The whole thing with the NRA is they know Congress responds to numbers. So, you've got membership numbers "We have 3 million members" and then you have money "We'll donate $1,000,000 to your campaign" and that seems to be what Congress cares more about than anything.

Exactly. You know why? Because no politician in a position of real power is trying to take your guns. Not Obama, not Pelosi, not Reid. The Democrats really are starting to *get* the 2nd amendment. That's why you had John Kerry in the last campaign trying to erase the stupid goddamned windsurfing photos with the stupid goddamned hunting photos. Right idea, poor execution. But it's more than just trying to curry favor for a few voters, because honestly they'd have a better chance going after the whiny "zomg guns should be baz0r3d!" code pink vote.

I'm a little surprised that you're outraged by 1am votes, but you say the NRA buys votes as if this is just politics as normal. In actuality, both are politics as normal. The 1am thing doesn't bother me too much because I kinda like the idea that a bunch of rich old guys might have to endure a little discomfort, but I'd sure like to see some real campaign reform so that politicians aren't beholden to the likes of the pharmaceutical industry, the NRA, or the ACLU. Maybe they could push that one through at 1am Christmas eve.

If you can find me a more effective guardian of our 2nd Amendment Rights (and I'm not talking about duck hunting) I'll gladly join them and dump the NRA. As I've said before, I'm none to impressed with them either. However, nobody else is doing it right now and if nobody does it . . . it goes away. Since I'm not willing to let my 2nd Amendment Rights go away, I'm willing to contribute a little bit of cash to a political organization like the NRA so at least someone is making my Congressman listen. He doesn't seem to care much for my opinion, but when my opinion is backed by a few million others (who have deeper pockets than mine) he seems to take note.

I'd much rather pay some money now than have to shoot people later.

You make a good point Slim. I would join that organization too. Unfortunately there's not really a whole lot of interest in a sensible defense of our 2nd amendment rights. Extreme elements on both sides have done a pretty good job of making it sound like a black and white issue, so you're either an extremist gun nut or a whiny **. There's no more room for intellectual debate, because the moment you suggest one thing or the other, you're immediately painted as one color or the other.

[mox 298]

Here's another example of the NRA trying to scare you:

http://www.nrapublications.org/a1f/AFFlead.html

The article begins with:

The federal government has resumed the Clinton-era ideological offensive against gun ownership. The opening salvo was fired recently by the federal National Institutes of Health, with a new study purporting to show that gun ownership increases the risk of being shot by 4.5 times.

WOW! The NIH set out to prove that you are more at risk of being shot as a gun owner. I mean, if somebody's goal is to prove you're at risk of being shot as a gun owner, then their political bent is pretty clear, isn't it?

So, 2 observations:

1) Dave Kopel, the author of the article, doesn't actually provide a link to the study. Rule number one of spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt: keep the audience focused. Never let them think for themselves, never provide your source material in context, because they just might read it and start forming their own ideas about things.

2) Discredit any studies, especially government studies, as "propaganda."

3) Scientific studies never seek to "prove" anything. We all learned that in 6th grade science class. You start out with a hypotheses, a question: maybe, "is there a relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time?" Seems to be a fair question to ask, doesn't it? I mean, if you're a gun owner, you'd really want to know this. Because if the answer turned out to be a higher risk, then you'd want to be prepared with that knowledge. And if the answer turns out to be less, then hey, more fodder against the anti-gun crowd.

So I went looking for this study at the NIH website, and it took all of about 30 seconds to find. It's here if you'd like to see it. Like all good scientists, the NIH started with a hypotheses: "We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time."

That sure is a far cry from "purporting to show that gun ownership increases the risk of being shot." The NIH didn't set out to "prove" anything. They set out to find a correlation. I mean, why on earth would the NRA want to withhold this kind of information from you? As a safe and responsible gun owner, this is pretty damn valuable information. Hell, why didn't the NRA commission this study years ago? In fact, why isn't it commissioning this study on a yearly basis so that its membership is educated on the risks involved in gun carrying? It would be like AOPA saying there's absolutely no risk at all in flying a small plane, and anybody who says there's even the slightest risk is trying to take your airplanes away.

The NIH concludes: "On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures."

In other words, if you're in a gun fight you have a higher probability of being shot. So either don't carry a gun, or take precautions.

Mr. Kopel (who, by the way, is an attorney, not a scientist) then goes on to question the scientific validity of the study. This is interesting, because if he really thought the NIH was setting out to "prove" anything, that's all he'd have to say. No study setting out to "prove" anything is valid, and I too would have been outraged if my tax dollars went towards such a study. But instead he tries to pick the scientific method apart:

...This is called the "case-control method." The shooting victim is the "case" and the other person is the "control." Case-control has been used successfully in genuine medical research, most famously in the studies showing that smokers were much more likely to get lung cancer.

Case-control is also widely used in anti-gun research, although with considerably less validity, partly because finding "controls" who really match the subjects is much more difficult.

Another rule of misinformation: asserting "facts" without backing them up. Why are case-controlled studies less valid in "anti-gun" research? Who knows? We'll just have to take Mr. Kopel's word. Also, we've already shown the term "anti-gun research" to be false in this case.

I could go on. The article is nothing but 3 pages of FUD. But the really curious thing about it, is that it's not designed to mislead anti-gun people, it's designed to mislead pro-gun people. Your NRA dollars at work. Nice.

[slim 1,525]

Ahhhh, you *did* vote...congratulations! Seriously, I'm glad you did. Because when you talk to your congressman, your concerns carry a lot more weight when you identify yourself as a voter.

They shouldn't though. The Congressman of an area should be inclined to represent the interests of ALL folks in his region - not just some.

You wanna know the real reason I voted?

So I won't feel so bad when I have to shoot people later. Kind of one of those plausible deniability defenses the govt. is always trying to use on us. "Well, I tried to warn you. I was out voting at each election... but you just wouldn't listen!" Not to be joking about shooting people, but there were already thousands of people who died so I wouldn't have to fight. I figured the least I could do was honor them by casting a vote while we still had one.

As my buddy's avatar says (beneath the picture of his M-1A) "When tyranny reigns, I still get to vote."

Who says it has to be tax dollars? Why can't it be NRA dollars? I mean seriously, if the NRA really believed in their position, they'd have no problem shelling out a couple million bucks or whatever to an independent organization to do a definitive study on the links between the availability of handguns and violent crime committed with handguns. I belong to an organization called AOPA, which lobbies for small aircraft pilots in much the same way the NRA lobbies for gun owners. But the difference is, AOPA is constantly funding studies about small aircraft safety because of the libtards who think small airplanes are just a gnat's hair from "falling out of the sky" or that some guy is going to destroy the White House by flying a Cessna 152 into it. AOPA is 100% convinced of their own position, and does not lie or distort facts to advance their agenda. Why isn't the NRA doing these kinds of studies for us?

Hold that thought....

I don't like the urban landscape of gun violence right now, I'm pretty sure I'd really hate it when gangbangers became sharp shooters. (don't expect a vigorous defense of this concept, I'm just thinking out loud...my point being, I don't think the idea that an armed populace makes for less gun crime is a given.)

If gangbangers were sharpshooters, you'd only have one gang, and then there'd be nobody left to shoot. Gun violence would go down exponentially, especially considering the fact that there'd be no more innocent bystanders getting caught in the crossfire.

If the National Guard did report solely to (and no further than) the Governor, then you'd have more national security than every armed citizen in the country could ever muster. If the Federal government ever got froggy, the States could ally together and reinstate some sanity to the nation. If a state, or group of states, ever got froggy, then the Federal government and other states could intervene. It's the perfect Mexican standoff, and would absolutely accomplish what you're advocating, Slim.

It would be perfect but that's not how it works - that's why they're in Iraq right now on Federal orders. Until we have a citizen militia (not just another extension of the Army that can fill sandbags or confiscate lawfully-owned private weapons if we have a flood) that represents our communities, we're not keeping in line with the true intent of the 2nd Amendment.

And biased studies are the reason that unbiased studies are so important. Would you ever trust a study on drug costs commissioned by the pharmaceutical industry? Of course not, unless they had contracted out to a firm known for independent bias, and agreed to publish that study no matter what it revealed.

Remember above when you said NRA should commission studies like the AOPA? How much credibility do you think the NRA is going to get when conducting their own "unbiased" studies?

you're either an extremist gun nut or a whiny **. There's no more room for intellectual debate, because the moment you suggest one thing or the other, you're immediately painted as one color or the other.

I can tell you right now, without any unbiased studies at all, which side is going to come out on top when the SHTF. There will be one side that "gets it" and then the other side will just be "politely asking for assistance." I think you can figure out which one is which.

What I really want to know is why it's become societally-acceptable to not be an extremist gun nut. Our forefathers were extremist gun nuts in the truest sense of the words. In fact, they would've been labeled as "terrorists" today. I know we've come a long way from those times (and yes, we've stopped slavery, indentured servitude, added womens' suffrage, etc.) but the basis of being liberty-minded is having the means to back it up.

I'll count you as an ally in the fight, mox, because I have no doubt you'd instantly be an extremist gun nut when you needed to be. But, what's leading us down the wrong path is folks like yourself who get weaker and weaker through each generation in the defense of liberty. Not that you don't support gun rights - but that you don't support gun rights for what they're really for. You have no problem supporting our right to defend ourselves in our home, go target shooting, hunting, etc. - but you will not defend our right to overthrow the government. At the core of your 2A stance you believe we have lost the right to do so. Nevermind the fact that we could or couldn't, but that we've lost that inherent right as Americans to have the means to wage a war of independence against our own government. You believe we're not smart enough to make that decision for ourselves anymore and thusly we can't be trusted with the means to do it either. That's why we don't need guns that belong on battle fields.

Now, I know you said you trust me with those arms all day long, so maybe you're OK with regular old white dudes like me and you owning them. Not to make this a racially-divided argument, but why can't EVERYONE own them? I realize there are a lot of good and sensible reasons to not have Billy Banger toting an AK-47 around all day, but how do you stop Billy from toting his AK and not prevent me from toting mine? If that's the argument you're trying to make and just don't have a good answer (for the record I don't either) then I can buy that. But, I hope you realize when you advocate for "sensibly" taking away Billy's AK, you also advocate for taking mine away as well.

The reason the other guys on here aren't "playing fair" and just keep sticking to their stories is because, like in math class, there are laws. It's just a given. Those who understand it are already prepared and don't mind being labeled as extremist gun nuts because they know the only people who'll be going nuts when the SHTF are the whiny libtards who already banned themselves out of owning a gun.

Two things I'd like to hear -

1. "I believe we still have an inherent right to overthrow the government if necessary." (Although I hope we never have to because I'd much rather fight from McDonalds via Wi-Fi)

2. "There really is no good way to stop our current gun problem except by shooting all the violent criminals and if we shoot enough of them, they'll cease commiting crimes." (Or something to that effect.)

So I went looking for this study at the NIH website, and it took all of about 30 seconds to find. It's here if you'd like to see it. Like all good scientists, the NIH started with a hypotheses: "We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time."

Did you also read the part about this study being conducted in the City of Philadelphia and not taking into account the status of each shooting - i.e. whether or not the person being shot was a crack dealer or grandma sitting at home watching the Golden Girls? It didn't account for things like "who" was shot, only that "someone" was shot.

This is why the NRA can't use "studies" to further it's agenda.

I can say without a doubt people in Cincinnati are much more likely to get shot if they have a gun on them. I could also say they'd be much more likely to get shot if they were a young black male with no job and a felony record living in one of a few neighborhoods. However, what I can't say is every person in Cincinnati is more likely to be shot if they carry a gun because that's simply not true. Not everyone increases their odds of getting shot by simply carrying a gun. In fact, the statistics prove much to the opposite of that - your chances of getting shot are actually lessened if you carry a gun. Well, unless you're a young black male with no job and a felony record living in one of those few neighborhoods.

Funny how "studies" seem to leave those facts out and only report on "the issues" at hand. If you want to have a truly unbiased assessment of how effective gun control is, all you have to do is look at Australia. However, the NRA can't use that in it's argument either because then they're "biased."

[mox 298]

Multi-posting again because of dumb quote restrictions.

They shouldn't though. The Congressman of an area should be inclined to represent the interests of ALL folks in his region - not just some.

In an ideal world, perhaps. I too wish it worked that way.

If gangbangers were sharpshooters, you'd only have one gang, and then there'd be nobody left to shoot. Gun violence would go down exponentially, especially considering the fact that there'd be no more innocent bystanders getting caught in the crossfire.

Unless a fully armed populace heard the shot and decided to involve themselves. I mean, in our hypothetical world where everybody carries a gun, if you're walking out of the 7-11 and hear a gunshot, you're very likely to draw your own firearm, which is going to draw attention to yourself from either other bystanders (or the Police) who might think you're the shooter, or other gangbangers who might think you're on the other team. I think one of the side-effects of a fully armed populace might be a lot of itchy trigger fingers. (proper training might help, but as I understand, requiring proper training violates our 2nd amendment rights)

It would be perfect but that's not how it works - that's why they're in Iraq right now on Federal orders. Until we have a citizen militia (not just another extension of the Army that can fill sandbags or confiscate lawfully-owned private weapons if we have a flood) that represents our communities, we're not keeping in line with the true intent of the 2nd Amendment.

I sort of thought we were talking about a perfect world. But yeah, I completely agree with you. State governors should be screaming bloody murder, refusing to deploy their troops, and calling for a Constitutional convention. Instead, our Governors (and Representatives, and Senators) have fallen into lock-step with a Federal government that has been overstepping its authority since (and this is being generous) the end of WW2.

Having said that, I don't believe militias are the answer. We have enough military organizations in this country, and instead of making new ones, we need to make the ones we have work. 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? Why is the NRA beating its "Obama wants to take your guns away" drum on the slimmest of evidence, and yet when Bush basically stepped in and disarmed the States, they said nothing more than "support the troops" and took photo ops with the President.

Remember above when you said NRA should commission studies like the AOPA? How much credibility do you think the NRA is going to get when conducting their own "unbiased" studies?

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.

What I really want to know is why it's become societally-acceptable to not be an extremist gun nut. Our forefathers were extremist gun nuts in the truest sense of the words. In fact, they would've been labeled as "terrorists" today. I know we've come a long way from those times (and yes, we've stopped slavery, indentured servitude, added womens' suffrage, etc.) but the basis of being liberty-minded is having the means to back it up.

As you so artfully said a couple posts back, perception is everything. Our forefathers weren't extremist gun nuts, they were practical. The gun was a tool used for all the things a gun should be used for: hunting, defense, and sometimes (usually for wealthy landowners) sport. Most colonials had a single rifle if they had one at all. They were not gun nuts, any more than they were "mallet nuts" or "plow nuts" or "knife nuts."

It's socially unacceptable to be a gun nut because of perception. Part of it is the fault of the media, but part of it is the fault of the gun community themselves. 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. It looks like insanity. It looks like something Che Guevara or Idi Amin would do. It looks like a man inciting people to violence. It did nothing but set the 2A movement back. And yes, I get the message, and I know for sure you get the message, but it's because you and I are educated on the issue. For those who might be receptive to a sensible explanation of why we fight for our 2nd amendment rights, all it does is drive them further away. Nobody wants to be associated with some dude holding up a rifle who looks to be inciting a crowd to violence. It's all about perception, and the gun community is on the short end of that stick.

I'll count you as an ally in the fight, mox, because I have no doubt you'd instantly be an extremist gun nut when you needed to be. But, what's leading us down the wrong path is folks like yourself who get weaker and weaker through each generation in the defense of liberty. Not that you don't support gun rights - but that you don't support gun rights for what they're really for. You have no problem supporting our right to defend ourselves in our home, go target shooting, hunting, etc. - but you will not defend our right to overthrow the government. At the core of your 2A stance you believe we have lost the right to do so. Nevermind the fact that we could or couldn't, but that we've lost that inherent right as Americans to have the means to wage a war of independence against our own government. You believe we're not smart enough to make that decision for ourselves anymore and thusly we can't be trusted with the means to do it either. That's why we don't need guns that belong on battle fields.

Not true. I just believe that first and foremost the 1A rights we pour out of our throats, keyboards, or pens are more powerful mojo than any caliber bullet you will ever be able to sling out of a piece of metal.

I also believe what you yourself have often said: people are stupid. My idea of the government going too far might be very different than your idea of the government going too far. Hell, back in the 70s we had people willing to go to war with the government over mandatory seat belt laws. Near where I live, the city wanted to condemn a privately owned property so they could sell it to Walmart to build a parking lot. For two years it was tied up in litigation, but eventually the owner managed to keep his property and the city residents voted every member of the City council out that had voted to condemn the property. Now if the owner had decided that the government had gone too far and decided to use guns, there could have been a very different, much more tragic outcome. Public protest, not guns, solved this issue. (and yeah, this exact scenario has gone the other way in other cases, and Walmart, via government intervention, has successfully torn private property from the hands of law abiding citizens. How many people here buy their ammo from Walmart, an organization that has no problem being party to the erosion of our rights as landowners? Why is it only the whiny libtards protesting against them while we smugly and ignorantly support, with our own money, the usurpation of the next landowners rights?)

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.

[mox 298]

2/2

Now, I know you said you trust me with those arms all day long, so maybe you're OK with regular old white dudes like me and you owning them. Not to make this a racially-divided argument, but why can't EVERYONE own them? I realize there are a lot of good and sensible reasons to not have Billy Banger toting an AK-47 around all day, but how do you stop Billy from toting his AK and not prevent me from toting mine? If that's the argument you're trying to make and just don't have a good answer (for the record I don't either) then I can buy that. But, I hope you realize when you advocate for "sensibly" taking away Billy's AK, you also advocate for taking mine away as well.

You've exactly nailed it. I don't have the answers either. If there was some mechanism in place that allowed you, Slim of VJ, to own a fully automatic AK-47, yet kept them out of the hands of Billy Banger, man I'd be all over that like a cheap suit. And this is what's so frustrating to me. I believe the NRA and its membership are the experts in the field. 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.

Two things I'd like to hear -

1. "I believe we still have an inherent right to overthrow the government if necessary." (Although I hope we never have to because I'd much rather fight from McDonalds via Wi-Fi)

In theory, I believe this. As I said, if it all went Red Dawn, I'd be up in the hills, mountains, or woods right next to you. I just don't think it's going to come down to that. I think you exercising your 1A rights over a McDonalds wi-fi is going to be much more useful.

2. "There really is no good way to stop our current gun problem except by shooting all the violent criminals and if we shoot enough of them, they'll cease commiting crimes." (Or something to that effect.)

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

Did you also read the part about this study being conducted in the City of Philadelphia and not taking into account the status of each shooting - i.e. whether or not the person being shot was a crack dealer or grandma sitting at home watching the Golden Girls? It didn't account for things like "who" was shot, only that "someone" was shot.

2 things: first, I did read the whole article, but given a ####### sandwich, I'm not going to dig through and eat the little pieces that still might be good for me. And second, if you're doing a scientific study, you can't cherry pick the data. The sampling is intentionally wide-reaching. And ok, 3 things: the raw data from the study is available. If Mr. Kopel wanted, he could have reconstructed the study using only the gangbanger or grandma data. That's the great thing about scientific studies, especially government studies: the data is available.

This is why the NRA can't use "studies" to further it's agenda.

Ah, but they just did.

[baron555 934]

I think one of the side-effects of a fully armed populace might be a lot of itchy trigger fingers. (proper training might help, but as I understand, requiring proper training violates our 2nd amendment rights)

I think you're purposefully combining agendas to make all as confusing as possible. The media does this job very well.

What you are talking about is a populace that is permitted for carry, not just ownership. There is a world of difference. Requiring some sort of training to be given the carry permit is not a violation of our 2A rights; it makes perfect sense.

Most "normal" citizens would not be allowed to carry; we today do not see the massive shoot-outs in those states where carry has been permitted for many years. It just doesn't happen, regardless of how the media spins it.