At the risk of angering some folks..... we have way too many guns in US streets

[nadinbrzezinski]

or rather, we live in a society that enjoys the violence that goes with them

Yes, we will see gun control of some sort... like we have seen in previous periods of US History... no, it is not un-American... it is actually part of US History... OH NO... it could not be!

It is...

Gun control existed in many a Western town during the Western Expansion... no, historical statistics on gun ownership do not support the Western image of everybody armed to the teeth, thank you Hollywood!

Nor were cowboys allowed to strut in the middle of the streets fully armed. Towns, yes look it up, such as Dodge City, had gun control laws where people were kindly asked by the local sheriff to turn their guns in and people did... I know the horrors... them pesky historians I know... they look into stupid shit like wills and actual town laws, and find stuff like this in dusty places called archives... what will we know next? That people didn't have that many guns at home during the age of the war of independence? OH NOEESSS what's next?

We have had, until recent years, two upticks in weapon ownership. The first was during that pesky war of Independence, and the second during the Civil War, or actually after both wars were over

After all, many folks who raised a regiment armed these Regiment, and when the war was over, many a trooper was allowed to keep his rifle and go home with it... in fact Grant included a horse in the deal, especially for confederate troops. WIth the union it got a little more complex, but units raised by local figures, many went home with their Henry's as well.

The next uptick was during prohibition, when you too could order a Tommy Gun over the mail... but after many an abuse by the bad guys, and both local police and Federal Forces being outgunned by the bad guys (BAR and Tommy) well that was regulated... in fact it was demanded by a population that was getting tired of the cross country fire fights in main street... yes they did happen, and yes people got killed, bystanders.

There is more... these days a gun is dirt cheap... you read right. Due to mechanization and other issues, when compared to other periods of US History, buying a gun is a lot less of your yearly income than ever before in History. It took upwards of at times six months of your salary to buy a gun in the 19th century and ammo was down right expensive as well... why the Army used to have troops fire three rounds a year for practice. At times it was a full year's salary for a gun

These days both of these are cheap...

But here is where lessons from history come in... like the 1930s people are increasingly getting tired of this cowboy mentally, that has precious little to do with the wild west... see about gun ownership and how it wasn't that common?

So at the risk of annoying some of our local resident gun nuts... history is a guide... and history will repeat itself

Now to me... you want to have a gun at home, by all means... but there are certain limits and those will be discussed as history repeats itself... and as history repeats itself the NRA and other organizations will increasingly find themselves crowded out from the discussion... because their only solution is no law whatsoever and going back to a mythical wild west, that never existed...

Oh and just like you have now local CW legislation in time you will see that bounce back... if anything humans are very predictable critters... and yes I will call it now... we will see an ASW ban sooner or later, for the same reason the BAR and the Tommy cannot be ordered over the mail

Oh and I do expect a firefight, no pun...

/Rant off

[Critters2]

1. I agree, Nadin, the violence needs to stop,

and people will come to their senses, if only temporarily.

In the meantime, I hope you're wearing flame-retardant jammies!! :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I'm just going to reach for the popcorn

at this point you will not convince anybody

:popcorn:

Want some?

[cliffordu]

3. My wife and I are eating the real thing.....

but I'll have some virtual, too.....

:popcorn:

[ddeclue]

7. I would actually like to see a reasoned conversation about this issue between you and Fire Medic Dav

I don't oppose gun ownership but I do oppose gun ownership by hotheads and crazies. Most people aren't killed by strangers but by someone they know - often times over an argument like getting fired or divorced or domestic violence or cheating on a spouse.

I think that besides the criminal background check they need to ask you a few questions (not necessarily disqualifiers but they should raise flags):

1) Have you been fired recently?
2) Have you been divorced recently?
3) Have you ever been treated for PTSD?
4) Do you take prescription medications or illegal drugs of any sort?

and

5) Why do you want this gun?

I think you should also have to give the names and addresses of:

1) Your parents, brothers, sisters etc.
2) Your last three girlfriends/boyfriends/spouses
3) Your brother in law/sister in law
4) Your boss.
5) Three coworkers.
4) Three non-work friends who will vouch for you.

These people should be called by someone who isn't gonna make money selling the gun and interviewed to find out whether they would feel comfortable with you having a gun and how likely you would be to "go postal" on them.

I think you should have to pass a gun safety and marksmanship class as well.

I think you should have to wait a week to get your gun as well.

I think there should be no loopholes for gunshows or private sales either.

I think ammo should have to have id tagging put into it so that the ammo ownership can be traced - right now you have to find the gun to find out who the shooter is.

I think there should be limits on how many guns you can buy at a time and reasonable limits on how many you can own. I'm not saying 3 but I really don't see the need to own hundreds of guns as some do. Perhaps 20 guns? That's a pretty high number for most people anyways.

I think you should have to carry mandatory liability insurance to own a gun. That would also help weed out the crazies because who is going to knowingly insure them. I have to have liability insurance to drive a car - why should guns be exempt?

It really shouldn't be harder for me to get a private pilot's license than an AR-15. Right now it is much much harder. I can't even get checked out in anything over 12,500 lb without an FBI background investigation.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. i hate to say it, but I don't believe we can have a reasoned conversation

some issues are way too hot... no pun, this is one of them

The conversation, and it will happen. will occur away from DU, but it will occur, and the NRA (on one side) and the whoever represents the absolute bans, (on the other) will not have a place at the table when it finally occurs.

[1]

23. what is your solution?

[JerseygirlCT]

177. Me too! nt

[Wiley50]

4. Yes, get them off of the streets. Bring them back indoors

indoors is where they will be needed

When, because you are found out to be a leftie

because you were at some demonstration or headed some committee

or just had an Obama sign on your lawn.

An the wingnuts come after you

because Rush taught them to hate liberals

and Glenn Beck told them it was time to do it

They will come looking for you

And that is when those guns are your best friend

when no other can help you

Get the guns off the streets

Bring them back indoors

and hide them (somewhere you can quickly get them)

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. That's a whole different issue... aka the civil war some of us expect

:-)

And if history is a guide, after that one is over, you will see another uptick in ownership

:hi:

[NYC_SKP]

5. I've never needed to use a gun in self-defense or to resist oppression...

And I've never had to invoke my fifth amendment rights in a court of law.

But I'm convinced that having both are important.

As to the details of gun-ownership, sales, etc, I'll leave that to the "enthusiasts" on both sides of the issue.

:popcorn:

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. There you go, and that is why I am not for banning guns

but just pointing out to our fellow gun fans... that regulation of some sort actually follows a historic pattern

Usually it comes after major abuses of whatever freedoms people enjoy

And also pointing out that gun control is actually part of US History... just that most people in this country, fans of guns or not, know the myths, not the actual history

Which is way more fascinating

Share some of that will ya

:popcorn:

Feel free to reach for the butter or the cheese sauce by the way

[RoyGBiv]

10. Springfield ...

Sorry to be pedantic, but I feel compelled to offer a few bits of explanation.

It was the Springfield most commonly used by Union troops. The Henry, a breach-loaded repeater, actually wasn't officially adopted by Federal authorities and not widely distributed. It was popular with front-line soldiers though, for the obvious reason you could load more than one shot and fire them off, greatly increasing the standard 3 shots per minute with a muzzle loader. A lot of Henrys did in fact make it home with soldiers, largely because either the soldiers themselves had purchased them, or they had been presented to the soldiers of a company or regiment by people at home who raised money for their purchase.

Regarding Confederates keeping their weapons, you're referring to officers being allowed to keep their personal sidearms. At the surrender at Appomattox, the surviving Confederate soldiers were required to stack arms and ammo to be received by a Union official assigned to the task. Then the soldiers were pardoned and sent home, but without their weapons. Confederate cavalry were allowed to keep their horses as well as their sidearms. This was a term of surrender Lee insisted Grant accept on the rather absurd grounds that they needed the horses to go home and start farming. (A great number of Confederate cavalry had never been and never would be farmers ... plantation and slave owners, yes, but not farmers.) Grant for whatever reason accepted this, so you did have columns of former Confederates riding home, armed to the teeth, in full possession of their war horses.

And guess what group formed a large core of the emergent KKK in subsequent years ... You get three guess, but the last two don't count.

Anyway ... sorry to pick. I agree with and appreciate the larger point you're making, especially the part about how Hollywood has developed for us this stereotype of western towns being filled with men walking around with guns on their hips as a matter of course. Hell, a lot of what Wyatt Earp did was enforce gun control laws.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. You are right, I typed Henry since I happen to like that damn rifle

from an engineering perspective it is a beauty.

And as to the KKK absolutely true...

We also had a guerrilla war ongoing in the deep south, places like TN for example, that lasted throughout Reconstruction

[RoyGBiv]

18. I should add this ...

I intended to do so when I started writing the above, but I got sidetracked ...

Your point about the Civil War serving as a point of departure for a high upswing in gun ownership is well received. But the reason for this is rather complex.

Gun ownership during the war increased in large part because people *at home* started acquiring weapons, and those weapons were there when the soldiers returned home. This happened both North and South, but it was more significant in the South. Most Northern locales, except on the borders, saw little violence. In the South, violence was both an ever-present occurrence and a threat. From Union soldiers occupying captured territory to Southerners trying to fend off their own inner-civil war with Confederate commissaries and conscript enforcers to fears of slave uprisings, the people on the home front found dozens of reasons to bring a gun into homes that had never before seen them. Or, if they had seen them, they had genuinely been used for hunting and were smooth-bore muskets at best. Rifles were too expensive except for wealthy folks, and they generally either carried sidearms that were largely ornamental or had people around them who were armed and served as protection. Overseers of slaves were mostly not permitted to carry or even have access to weapons due to too much risk of the potential of killing a slave in a fit of rage or overzealousness. Wouldn't want to hurt the profits, donchaknow.

You mentioned the next part of this equation just now ... the guerilla war, which happened along several fronts: race-based violence, resistance to federal authority, and shiftless former soldiers who found themselves at odds with society and increasingly turning to crime, e.g. the James brothers and others of Quantrill's gang of thugs. The so-called Battle of Liberty Place illustrates the complexity rather nicely. Former Confederates were intent on overthrowing the duly elected Republican regime in Louisiana, but they didn't have any weapons of note. Weapons were then smuggled in, and one shipment was caught, leading the Metropolitan Police Force, a predominantly black police force in New Orleans led, ironically, by James Longstreet to intercept the gangs of newly armed individuals storming the statehouse. Both the criminals and those against whom this violence was directed began arming themselves as all this reached a fever pitch. Violence as a means to an end itself experienced a striking level of increase in the post-Civil War years, one among many of the tragic consequences of a country having gone to war with itself.

That, then, has a tie-in to the era of Gilded Age crime which in turn brings us to Prohibition era, organized and unorganized criminal activity. It was, overall, an internal form of MAD. The criminals and terrorists are armed, so we have to arm ourselves, so the criminals have to arm themselves more, so we have to arm ourselves more ... and then you get Chicago.

[RoyGBiv]

20. P.S.

The Henry was a damn fine piece of machinery.

I dare say had it been adopted officially and widely distributed, the war would have been over much sooner. A regiment (or company ... I forget) had them at Chickamauga, and in large part due to their use, the Federals having been routed by Longstreet's wing, were able with a very small contingent that took positions on what was basically a small hill to fight back the entire rebel assault and prevent the Union army from being cut off from Chattanooga. Had Rosecrans been trapped like that, you don't get Grant's campaign later in the year, nor Sherman's march afterward, and that changes a lot of things.

[Thothmes]

178. Not quite correct

Confederate officers in infantry, cavalry and artillery could retain their side arms. Enlisted men in the infantry, cavalry and artillery turned in their weapons. In addition to calvarymen, artillerymen could claim a mule or horse. After four years of war, how many sons of plantation owners do you think were serving as privates in confederate cavalry outfits. Also, Lee did not "insist" on men retaining their horses. When Grant said that all public property was to be surrendered, Lee mentioned to Grant, that unlike the Federal army, confederate cavalrymen owned their own horses. Grant said that he was not aware of that and would tell the officers accepting the surrender to allow any confederate that claimed or horse or a mule to keep it. That provision was not written in the surrender document that Lee signed.

[RoyGBiv]

184. Interesting ...

This is what I get when I try to ramble off detail about military aspects of the war without looking it up. :) It's been awhile since I went over the details of the surrender document and so will defer to your knowledge of the situation.

I guess it depends on who you read. I know I've come across accounts of Lee "insisting" on the retention of horses, but as with most things from that war, the "reality" often changed depending on one's perspective, and primary documents such as diaries and letters require much scrutiny.

I'm not sure what your comment "After four years of war, how many sons of plantation owners do you think were serving as privates in confederate cavalry outfits?" means. I don't know of a comprehensive study of Confederate cavalry that traces the demographic makeup of Confederate cavalry as a whole, tracking changes throughout the war. However, muster rolls of individual units that surrendered at Appomattox show a higher-than-the-infantry percentage of the so-called elite classes.

The "sons of plantation owners" is an unnecessary distinction. Individuals in the Confederate cavalry throughout the war tended to be from the upper and what served as middle class strata of southern society, regardless of whether they were directly involved with a plantation. They reacted harshly and pro-actively to social and economic pressures after the war and tend to fill the ranks of lists of individuals involved with violent post-war resistance and race riots. These were the people who, along with the officer class generally, formed the "gentleman's clubs" that turned into organizations like the KKK, Knights of the White Camelia, etc., and they preyed on the fears and economic destitution that ravaged the place of lower class white southerners to incite hatred and provoke violent resistance to federal authority.

The original KKK in its first stages was dominantly a "club" composed of former cavalrymen, most famously Nathan B. Forrest who was himself not a plantation owner, rather an almost illiterate slave merchant prior to the war. Some of their first acts in the immediate post-war years involved riding around the countryside terrorizing former slaves and those who had been Unionist sympathizers or, lately, had shown acquiescence

[Thothmes]

185. The versions of the surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia

I have read are General Grant's memoirs and Col Parkers memoirs. Parker actually wrote the surrender documents as they were being dictated.

[RoyGBiv]

186. Oh, that's not in question ...

You're certainly correct about that.

I was relying on memory of accounts of the negotiations regarding what Lee wanted, etc.

[mgnmd]

11. its a price we have to pay now

I say let every able-bodied civilian be trained in the upkeep and firing of these so-called assault weapons. When the shit hits the fan we might need a few guns. I thought that day would come when my children were middle aged but I'm not so sure anymore. Private ownership of guns is the only insurance we have against what's bound to happen.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. And what is that?

:popcorn:

And would you like to address the history of this... aka gun control is part of US history

OH NOEESS

[FLyellowdog]

27. What's bound to happen?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. Yes we do, and every time I say something about it, the gun nuts come out screaming as if I'd said..

I was going to burn down their house or something.

I guess it's because I lived in Europe and felt safer than I do in these gun-infested streets of the U.S. that I feel this way. I suspect gun nuts either have never been further than the local 7-11 or have been abroad only on a visit or with the military, which means they didn't get the feel of living in countries that aren't wall-to-wall guns.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. One note, most of the military I know

are not that pro gun... especially since they ahem, probably used them in anger

Though you will find a difference between those who served in a wartime military, and close to the front lines

Or those who served in a peace time military or in rear areas

But history will repeat itself... it always does

Why those who refuse to learn from it, well you know the rest

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. Well I know 2 cops, and the fact that this country is filled with gun nuts

makes them crazy. It endangers them and doesn't allow them to do their job properly because the whole frikkin' country is armed to the teeth.

[Ghost in the Machine]

120. Your continued use of the derogatory term "gun nuts" makes anything you say irrelevant..

Are you able to carry on an intelligent debate without resorting to name calling? If so, please try to do so if you wish to be taken seriously...


Thanks,

Ghost

[Sarah Ibarruri]

181. Gun nuts? Well, how about this.....

"Heston answered his critics in a now-famous pose that mimicked Moses' parting of the Red Sea. But instead of a rod, Heston raised a flintlock over his head and challenged his detractors to pry the rifle "from my cold, dead hands.""

http://www.latimes.com/la-me-heston6apr06,0,3675317.story

[silverojo]

30. Clearly, you've never been the victim of a violent crime

If you ever were, you'd know that you're never more terrified and helpless, as when confronted by an armed criminal. How lucky anti-gun people are, to live such charmed lives that they've never experienced this feeling. The NRA is filled with former anti-gun people who faced a criminal, and then realized just how important it is to have an equalizer.

The USA isn't "wall to wall guns" by any stretch of the imagination. I live in a redneck Republican town, and most of my neighbors don't even own guns. The ones who do usually just have rifles for hunting, no handguns at all.

You want to find a lot of guns? Go to the cities where gun laws are the strictest. Those laws haven't done anything to stop gangbangers and thugs from getting their hands on guns.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

84. The reason people are confronted by armed criminals is because

this country is WALL-TO-WALL guns. It's an armed country. Europeans constantly discuss that fact.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. Assumptions will get you far son

I have not only been assaulted for real... more than once, and I wish all of them were just verbal... alas not my luck.

But been in more shootouts than I care to remember... hell at times I wake up at four in the morning drenched in sweat... due to them country side firefights.

Hell, that line in a movie about the AK making a very particular sound is very true... from experience

It also has a very particular pattern when fired in your general direction

Any other assumptions you care to make?

Of course lets not go into the victims of violent crime I took care off either...

what is that about assumptions?

[Critters2]

131. I've been mugged, and the mugge'rs companion was holding a gun.

I know how I felt with a gun pointed at me. I committed myself to never causing anyone to feel the way I did. Far from being motivated to get a gun by that, I came to understand how guns make crime and violence more possible. Being a crime victim had the opposite effect on me than you seem to think it should have.

[county worker]

161. Don't say gun nuts OK?

You give yourself away more than you know.

In a way you are the nut here since you represent the extreme here.


:spank:

[Hippo_Tron]

16. The ASW ban was useless

It sought to eliminate weapons that are commonly associated with urban violence. The problem is that after the ban was passed, they just made new weapons that did the same thing and didn't violate any of the specifications of the AWB. If you want to ban "assault weapons" you really have to ban semi-automatic weapons altogether. Any gun control advocate knows that banning semi-automatic weapons and handguns is a political non-starter.

The American President and the West Wing episode Five Votes Down deal with this topic extensively. They are fiction, but Sorkin didn't make up the plot-lines out of thin air. The Clinton Administration knew they were passing a toothless bill and in the end it wound up costing them politically due to NRA backlash.

If you want to talk about the policy merits of banning handguns or semi-automatics then I'm all for having that discussion. But the AWB was just a bill for politicians to make it look like they were doing something.

[ddeclue]

19. The problem isn't as much the type of gun as it is the type of gun owner.

Nuts shouldn't have guns.

That said though there's no need for teflon bullets and the cops shouldn't be outgunned.

[1]

22. so what is your solution?

[ddeclue]

24. See my previous post #7... I give details of my version there.

I just want the guns out of the hands of the hot heads and crazies.

[1]

29. i see that. but post #7 only addresses law abiding folk. what is your solution to the real problem

those people that don't obey laws. those people that cause most of the gun violence.

the bad guys.

tell me how you deal with that?

[ddeclue]

34. False premise... the "bad guys" don't do most of the killing with guns..

Most people are killed by someone they know, not a total stranger.

It's also a fatalist (pardon the pun) argument to say just because we can't confiscate every bad guys gun we shouldn't take common sense steps to control gun violence.

Suppose we adopted that approach to health care: He's gonna die of something some day so why try to treat him today?

Part of the ILLEGAL guns problem is the sheer volume of guns available to be stolen and/or sold privately that short circuit the attempts to regulate guns.

Part of the problem is a lack of ownership liability insurance requirements - if you had to have liability insurance for your gun then the insurance company would make you go to a lot of trouble to protect it from being stolen when you weren't around and would go to a lot of trouble to track who you sold it to.

Part of the problem is the ease with which you can obtain ammunition for guns and the generally untraceable nature of ammunition right now. If ammo was tagged with ID's (as I mentioned in #7) tracing of guns and ammo used in crimes would become much easier.

Doug D.

[1]

41. again with the childlike thoughts...

[ddeclue]

44. Sorry but your reply is simply a non-sequitir and debunks nothing

WHY are they "childlike" and what is wrong with them?

You can't debunk them so you aren't really trying.

[Leftist Agitator]

87. "If you had to have liability insurance for your gun"

If you had to have liability insurance for your gun, then in short order, nobody would be able to obtain such insurance coverage except those that the government deems desirable. Government and corporations have this nasty habit of hopping into bed together, especially in order to abridge the rights of the citizenry to the advantage of the government.

Either that, or such insurance would be prohibitively expensive in order to prevent gun ownership by anyone other than the privileged class of rich, mostly white guys.

Sorry, but your idea is just not well thought out.

[jmg257]

193. Fact: 90% of gun offenders in Chicago have criminal histories. Are you saying they aren't "bad guys"

just 'cause they might be an acquaintance of the person they shoot?

Fact: A study in New Haven showed that "MOST gun offenders have serious criminal histories"; 1/5 of offenders had been arrested for a prior gun offense, and 3/5 had a history of drug charges. Over 1/3 of the offenders were on probation at the time of the new gun-related offense. Approximately one-third of offenders or victims associated with murders and armed assaults were members of neighborhood "groups" believed to be involved in other illegal activities."

These are not bad guys though?


Silly premise. And talk about "false"...Yeesh. Get your facts straight.

[kristopher]

63. End prohibition. nt

[ddeclue]

64. End prohibition of illegal drugs? machine guns? we've already ended prohibition of alchohol..

Drug prohibition certainly drives a certain class of gun crime that is dealer on dealer / gang war related and changing the drug laws would certainly reduce some of this but I'm not in favor of totally throwing drug laws over board because certain classes of drugs really do a lot of damage to people.

This said, drug crime is only a small portion of gun crime. Most of it is done by someone you know. Even in the case of drug related gun crimes, the victim(s) usually know their killers personally.

As for ending drug prohibition, I'm for legalizing or at least decriminalizing marijuana to the extent that you can smoke it in your home if you want and putting it more or less on par with tobacco. I would also add that there should still be a restriction on driving under the influence of marijuana just as there is for alchohol and that employers should be allowed to discriminate against marijuana users just as they do tobacco users.

I MIGHT be for decriminalizing certain other drugs to a limited extent such as X but I'm certainly opposed to legalizing speed/meth, crack, cocaine, and opiate derived drugs and synthetic opiates and drugs like GHB, LSD, PCP and other "designer" synthetic drugs.

I think the penalties for mere drug use should be drastically reduced because there are far too many people in jail for mere drug use - but I still think distribution and sales should be punished harshly for meth, crack, cocaine, and opiates.

If you mean guns, I'm NOT for ending the prohibition on machine guns and submachine guns however.

:)

[kristopher]

70. The discussion has centered on an assault weapons ban

and some level of control of guns on the "street". The general view is that domestic violence and "street" violence are two different issues; one related to economic competition, the other to human dysfunctionality.

Just as defining terrorism incorrectly led to a wrong and ineffective solution to that that problem (military vs law enforcement) so too does defining the problems associated with drug abuse as a criminal problem instead of a public health problem lead to wrong and ineffective solutions to that problem.

I would also suggest that the issue of domestic violence is wildly exacerbated by our draconian pursuit of a criminal solution to a public health problem. While your cited stat may be true in that interpersonal relationships are a larger factor in gun violence than economic competition, I would wager that substance abuse is inextricably intertwined with the problem of gun violence generally. If we pursue the wrong solution to a problem it means that the underlying issue isn't addressed, right? So people who would get help under a public health approach are left on their own to cope with their dysfunctional lives. This leads to a self perpetuating problem across generations.

All IMO.

[Leftist Agitator]

88. employers should be allowed to discriminate against marijuana users just as they do tobacco users.

Employers should be allowed to discriminate against diabetics. And against those fucking wheelchair people. And against the fat. And against anyone taking heart medication.

:sarcasm:

Now do you see how fucking stupid your position is?

[Hippo_Tron]

25. The cops generally aren't outgunned anymore

After the North-Hollywood incident, departments have upped their standard issue weapons quite a bit.

And while I agree that nuts shouldn't have guns, I don't know how one legislates that.

[ddeclue]

32. Require liability insurance to own a gun is a good start..

see my post #7.

and yes the cops are still outgunned from time to time as we saw this week -especially if the cops only have a sidearm and a shotgun vs. some guy at a distance with a high powered rifle or with an assault rifle.

The pro gun people keep glossing over the facts and keep pretending that a semi-auto rifle isn't really a "military" class weapon but consider that the current generation of M-16 fires three shot bursts - not full auto "rock and roll" as it did in Vietnam and that during WW-2 and Korea, most U.S. soldiers carried the semi-automatic 8 shot M1 Garand and most Germans (Mauser 98) and Japanese we faced didn't even carry semi auto rifles but rather had bolt action rifles.

The M1 Garand served as the main battle rifle of the United States Army from 1936-1957, continued in large numbers in service until 1963 and even saw limited service in Vietnam until 1966. It was an 8 round semi auto that fired 7.62x51mm NATO rounds.

By comparison the AR-15 you can buy at a gun dealer in your town fires the smaller 5.56 mm rounds and can be equipped with a 20 or 30 round magazine. For urban/suburban situations, the AR-15 is a far more lethal weapon than the M1 especially when the ammo doesn't have to be steel jacketed military style rounds. The AK47 and AK74 derivative semi autos you can get also seriously outclass the M1 Garand which won World War II and Korea for us.

The fact is that semi autos can kill a lot of people pretty quickly. If you can't get off a 20 round clip in less than 20 seconds, you aren't really trying.

Doug D.

[1]

37. exactly how do you get the bad guys, with their illegal guns, to sign up for liability insurance?

every one of your proposed solutions does not address the real problem.

they only penalize the law abiding citizen.

why don't you just go all the way and confiscate every legally owned weapon. this would be the perfect test for your childish solutions.

gun violence would continue. and then you would be forced to address my original questions.

the problem is not law abiding citizens. stop proposing these "rainbow and unicorn" penalties.

its obvious you don't get it. you don't want to get it. you are not the solution.

you are the problem...

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Where do you think the illegal guns come from in the first place?

Hint: If your answer is, "Obviously they all come from Mexico", then you've been listening to Pat Buchanan too much.

[ddeclue]

45. Nope.. they are either sold into the blackmarket in private gun sales or they are stolen.

and I don't listen to Uncle Pat.

Actually the illegal guns are flowing the other way FROM the U.S. TO Mexico.

Doug D.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. Yes they are, but you aren't the one I was asking...

[ddeclue]

53. Sorry.. my mistake...

I thought you were replying to me.

:blush:

[ddeclue]

43. You are WRONG about the "real" problem..

We don't have an epidemic of strangers killing strangers.

People are by and large killed by people they know so I reject your argument.

And "law abiding" isn't a sufficient standard - if so every Tom, Dick and Harry ought to be entitled to buy and fly a Lear Jet if they can afford to buy it too.

We certainly don't consider that a sufficient standard for access to classified information or a sufficient standard to practice medicine or any other number of things for which the government grants a LICENSE.

We have higher standards for LICENSES.

The right to own a gun is not an unlimited unregulated right - the SCOTUS has decided that point again and again and common sense tells you so. The Constitution says the right to "bear arms". Arms are not simply "firearms" but cover anything from a claw hammer and pocket knife to a broadsword to a machine gun to a fighter plane, nuclear submarine, B52 bomber or nuclear weapon.

If you were to simply say that the right to "bear arms" was an unlimited unregulated right then I as an engineer have the technical skills to design and build a whole host of weapons far more deadly than a firearm. A rich man like Bill Gates could buy his own nuclear ballistic missile submarine if he wanted. Does common sense tell you that this would be "OK"?

No.

The "right" to bear arms is every bit as limited as my free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater or to slander or libel someone. It is limited by the balancing test where it impinges on others rights - the right to life, the right not to live in fear or be injured.

The right to bear arms was written into the Constitution for the purpose NOT of providing YOU with a gun but rather with providing the STATES with their own citizen militias so that there would not be a strong standing professional military which the Founders viewed as an anathema to liberty - the British Redcoats and Hessian Mercenaries they faced during the Revolution were the hallmark of the tyrannical power of standing armies of kings and they wanted to prevent this in their new government.

The standard is NOT law abiding but rather should be:

Do the people around you whom you are the most likely to kill with your gun trust you with that gun and does an insurance company trust you with it?

You are trying to shift the argument and change the premise because you know this will take the guns out of the hands of a lot of nuts who nobody really trusts to own them.

You have a right to own a gun but your friends, family and neighbors have a more basic right: the right to life. You right to own a gun has to be balanced against their right to stay alive when they perceive you to be too untrustworthy to own that gun.

[1]

54. and i reject your pollyanna approach to the subject...

"We don't have an epidemic of strangers killing strangers."

the fuck we don't. you have no idea what you are talking about.

and stop with the "ballistic missile submarine" and the "lear jet" and the "practicing medicine" bullshit. i hate the word "strawman" but your entire argument is made of straw.

the right to bear arms was written into the constitution for the EXACT purpose of providing me with the right to own a gun. as THAT has been proven time and time again throughout the history of this nation. without fail. so fuck your "citizen militia" argument which has never, ever held up in court. i don't care how YOU read the constitution. the supreme court of the united states has throughout its entire existence agreed that i do have such a right. regardless of what YOU think the constitution says.

its actually funny. you and i agree that we do have a problem with too many illegal guns out on the street. yet every time i ask one of you "anti-gun" nuts what the solution to that might be, you inundate me with all sorts of measures to fuck with the law abiding citizens who legally own guns. and you have not one word, not one possible solution, not one answer to the real problem. the illegally owned guns out on the street.

your solutions are what i would expect from a child in the second grade. they don't address the problem, they are of the "we have to do something, so let's just do the easiest thing and say we tried" variety instead of actually approaching the problem as a problem and looking for real solutions.

sleep tight, cupcake. i hope the bad guys don't get you tonight. because there are bad guys. as much as you protest that there are not...

[ddeclue]

58. Ridiculous, condescending and wrong.

"We don't have an epidemic of strangers killing strangers."

the fuck we don't. you have no idea what you are talking about.

:rofl: Dude I lived in downtown Atlanta GA for 12 years during the 1980's when it was supposed to be the murder capital of the country. Most murders are NOT stranger murders. You don't know what you are talking about.

and stop with the "ballistic missile submarine" and the "lear jet" and the "practicing medicine" bullshit. i hate the word "strawman" but your entire argument is made of straw.

:rofl: Nope. Read the ACTUAL constitution. If we are to use your literal interpretation, it says ARMS, not FIREARMS so not a strawman at all.. Are you OK with me building a nuclear weapon in my garage or a cruise missile or any number of other things which I could do as an engineer which most people would have no idea about? Are you OK with Rupert Murduch having his own ballistic missile sub?

the right to bear arms was written into the constitution for the EXACT purpose of providing me with the right to own a gun. as THAT has been proven time and time again throughout the history of this nation. without fail. so fuck your "citizen militia" argument which has never, ever held up in court. i don't care how YOU read the constitution. the supreme court of the united states has throughout its entire existence agreed that i do have such a right. regardless of what YOU think the constitution says.

:rofl: Nope the Supreme Court again and again has held that you do NOT have an unlimited right and indeed the Founders DID create the second amendment for the purpose of a citizen militia - try reading the Federalist Papers sometime.

its actually funny. you and i agree that we do have a problem with too many illegal guns out on the street. yet every time i ask one of you "anti-gun" nuts what the solution to that might be, you inundate me with all sorts of measures to fuck with the law abiding citizens who legally own guns. and you have not one word, not one possible solution, not one answer to the real problem. the illegally owned guns out on the street.

:rofl: Again, I'm NOT an "anti" gun nut - I've shot them before and my dad has owned them and I grew up in a military family where I saw guns all the time and I've worked in the defensse industry in fact on anti-tank missiles so hey I don't have a problem with guns, just gun nuts. As you like to say guns don't kill people, people do. I'm just taking you at your word and wanting to take the guns out of the hands of the crazies who are gonna kill someone with that gun. I'm not out to ban assault rifles or particular kinds of guns outside of true machine guns but I'm certainly out to take them out of the hands of the crazies and the hotheads.

Law abiding isn't a sufficient standard and you know it and I know it. We don't let merely "law abiding" people fly jet airplanes or perform surgery - you have to be licensed and trustworthy and THAT is the standard.

your solutions are what i would expect from a child in the second grade. they don't address the problem, they are of the "we have to do something, so let's just do the easiest thing and say we tried" variety instead of actually approaching the problem as a problem and looking for real solutions.

:rofl: Again you are wrong and you haven't established why my proposals are "wrong" - my proposals address the most common form of gun violence - by someone you know, and address the feeder sources for the illegal gun trade through insurance requirements, closing private sales loopholes, and requiring that ammunition be traceable so that even if the gun is stolen, they'd have to get the ammo from somewhere and it limits how much damage they can do without being traceable.

sleep tight, cupcake. i hope the bad guys don't get you tonight. because there are bad guys. as much as you protest that there are not...

:rofl: As I said I've lived in downtown Atlanta for 12 years and walked around at night and yes I've been a victim of crimes before, even violent ones but hey I stopped a carjacker AND a store robber BOTH without using a gun. I've lived in or around and spent time in a lot of big cities in my life including Atlanta, NYC/Newark, New Orleans, Orlando, St. Louis, Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, Nashville, Huntsville AL, Detroit so you don't need to patronize me and act like I don't know anything about "crime".

I'm much more concerned about a particular girl I know owning a 40 cal semi auto hand gun who has suffered traumatic brain injury in an auto accident and who is prone to fits of rage than I am of some random stranger on the street. If I'm ever shot, she'll probably be the one who does it and hey she's got a CWP here in the State of Florida.

[1]

65. you are right...

adding :rofl: to each paragraph does add so much more to your arguments.

this much more... :rofl: and no more.

you lost me early on your second amendment argument, bud.

i do have the absolute legal right of possession of my weapon. and i always will. the supreme court of the united states has said so for the entire existence of this country. if your "citizen militia" argument had been upheld as you suggest, i would not.

but i do.

so continue to post and tell me i am wrong. tell me how the constitution reads and how i am not allowed to posses a weapon outside of this citizens militia.

but i do.

tell me about these federalist papers. how they define gun ownership. what exactly are these federalist papers? and how do the pertain to the rights of us citizens? oh. i see these federalist papers totally stop me from owning a weapon (except they are just musings with no legal standing)

and still i do.



keep posting your wild ass theories about how YOU think our constitution works. include the federalist papers, the works of kurt vonnegut and any other obscure but irrelevant additions as you will. punctuate your tome with those amusing :rofl: smilies every paragraph to hammer home your point.

i like those smilies. maybe add some glitter. or some stickers.

they accentuate the childlike person you are.

sweet dreams, cupcake. your excitement and bullshit fantasy about the truth does not make it so...

[ddeclue]

66. Sorry but you're wrong...

Firstly:

1) Most crimes are committed by people you know, not strangers:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.htm

In 14% of all murders, the victim and the offender were strangers.

Spouses and family members made up about 15% of all victims.

About one-third of the victims were acquaintances of the assailant.

2) and NO you don't have an unlimited right to bear arms:

http://abajournal.com/news/appeals_court_rejects_militia_organizers_second_amendment_claim/

"The 8th Circuit said in a footnote that Fincher loses under both his militia argument and under an argument he didn’t make: that he has an individual right to own a machine gun under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. The June 26 Heller decision said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a handgun for self-defense in the home, but said the right 'is not unlimited'.

The 8th Circuit cited language in Heller that the Second Amendment does not protect “dangerous and unusual weapons” and said a machine gun falls into that unprotected category. “Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use,” the appeals court said."

[1]

67. is english your first language? can you read?

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

examine the above sentence, the second amendment of the united states constitution. where the fuck are you pulling this "unlimited" word from? what is your fucking fixation with that? tell me one more time when the supreme court of the united states has ever ruled against my right to posses my glock 21.

ever.

EVER!

find me one case in law. prove your point about this "citizens militia" crap that you keep expounding upon. prove it.

if you are right then i cannot possess a firearm. but i do. so what is the answer here, einstein. is the united states supreme court wrong?

or are you?

[ddeclue]

68. You apparently have no clue what you are talking about

The SUPREME COURT interprets the Constitution and it has said over and over, even in the most recent Heller decision that the right to bear arms was not unlimited and common sense - which you lack -would tell you that anyways if you would let it.

You have a right to own a handgun but both the states and the federal government have a right to limit under what circumstances you may do so.

Here in Florida you have to be 21 to buy a handgun and you can't be a felon or a mental case.

Again you can jump up and down and act like a baby about it but facts are facts and you have yours wrong.

Doug D.

[1]

69. nice side-step. so you concede that your entire "citizens militia" argument is bullshit, right?

how quickly you abandon the arguments you cannot defend...

[fascisthunter]

111. people who have lived in urban areas get it more so than those who don't

Those differences between urban and suburban lifestyles is playing itself out right before our eyes...

do we have too many guns on the streets? Hell yes we do... are people killing each other with guns? Yes... who is manufacturing and selling them? I bet they are making a "killing".

[Raskolnik]

136. Are cities more dangerous places than they were 20 or 40 years ago?

What don't non-urban dwellers "get?"

[Hippo_Tron]

39. True, but so can handguns, which are much easier to conceal

And semi-auto rifles are also made for hunting. Different clip sizes sure, but they are still semi-automatics. As I understand it, with the incident last week the guy got his weapons illegally. Banning the AR-15 won't really solve anything, but I think we already agreed on it up-thread that it isn't so much the type of weapons.

Your proposals in #7 probably would drastically reduce gun violence but they would require a drastic change in the way this country views guns. The problem with the plane or the car analogy is that you can still purchase the plane or car without a license, you just have to get someone else to drive/fly for you.

[ddeclue]

49. Actually no the restrictions on car and plane ownership are much more severe than that.

Cars in most states require that you be able to obtain and keep liability insurance.

In some states you have to pass emissions tests annually.

In some states you have to pay ad valorem taxes.

In some states you have to pass safety tests.

In every state the vehicle has to be properly licensed and registered at your expense.

There are limitations on to whom you may sell the vehicle and under what conditions in most places.

In every state there many regulations and laws controlling how you or your chauffeur may operate that vehicle.

and that's just cars.

Airplanes are far far more regulated including buying, selling, maintaining (you have to keep logs, you have to perform certain maintenance procedures on set schedules, you are only allowed to use licensed parts,etc.,etc.) I've got an 800 Page FAR/AIM manual that I have to buy a new updated one every year that just covers the basics of what the average private pilot has to worry about.

Airplane ownership is a highly regulated thing - regulated by the FAA and it's far more stringent than automobile ownership OR gun ownership.

Doug D.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Those regulation only apply if you plan on driving it on public roads

In most states if I buy a vehicle and just let it sit in my garage then I don't have to do most of those things. Maybe register the vehicle depending on the state, but that's something they can't really enforce if I don't ever drive the vehicle.

I'm sure that aircraft sales are heavily regulated but the requirements are different for flying versus owning. And aircraft regulation isn't really something that people think about because most people will never gets a pilot's license or own a plane.

[ddeclue]

62. Code enforcement can come and take your car out of the driveway and have it crushed here in FL

if it isn't properly tagged so that really isn't correct. In fact I recently got cited by Orange County Code enforcement for having one of my cars up on ramps while I was working on it and had to prove to them that it was back in running order or they would have towed and crushed it.

I'm not really sure what your analogy between cars and guns is supposed to be here. If the car is never taken out and driven then the gun can't ever be loaded, fired or handled either if you want to compare apples to apples.

Most people don't own guns either although I concede many more own guns than planes. All in all though a gun is a much more deadly weapon (by design purpose) than an airplane is. (Let's compare apples to apples, if you want to start talking about airliners then I'm gonna start talking about machine guns- real machine guns - and artillery.)

[ddeclue]

51. P.S.:I'm not arguing "banning the AR15"...

I was just comparing it to the M1 which was the main US Army battle rifle during WWII and Korea just to make a point that these things aren't some little pocket derringer.

I'm not for banning it, just for requiring some common sense on who we let have one. We've all got a crazy Uncle Eddy or perpetually drunken brother in law whom we wouldn't trust with a loaded gun and we all know some crazy hothead at work who you wouldn't want to have a loaded gun either.

I'm for gun ownership having the same kind of personal consequences and responsibility that I have to demonstrate as a licensed pilot and which I have to demonstrate as a licensed driver and auto owner. Minimum liability insurance standards would be a good start because they would drive a lot of violence reduction.

As far as hand guns, yeah you can get a lot of semi auto 9mm handguns that hold 15-16 rounds and yes they are more concealable than an assault rifle but that's basically what most cops carry these days so I wouldn't call that "outgunning" the cops, just having parity with them. An assault rifle like the AR15 is good to 400 yards in the hands of a trained skilled shooter and at least 200 yards in average hands which is a significant range advantage over a handgun or shotgun.

Doug D.

[Irreverend IX]

72. Insurance companies are grifting scum.

Why should they have any role in gun ownership?

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. SOME departments now issue AR-15

to SERGEANTS

NOT all... hell my local PD doesn't even have cameras on them squad cars

And before that shootout the Standard Issue side arm was either 9mm, 40 or 45

that hasn't changed

[Squatch]

42. Teflon bullets? Not that shit again.

Teflon bullets so coated do not increase their penetration ability.

Bullet coatings are designed to reduce barrel wear, not to increase penetration.

[ddeclue]

46. They very much do increase penetration.

How many gun barrels really wear out in a persons life time if the gun is maintained?

Get real..

I'm an engineer and I know better than that.

:eyes:

[1]

56. do you own a gun? engineer?

[ddeclue]

59. Are you an engineer or merely a gun owner?

I don't need to own a gun to know a lot about them and how they work but yes I have shot them on occasion in the past but not a big enough thrill for me to justify buying one. My dad owned a 45 1911 ACP for a long time and a little 4 shot 22 derringer piece of crap and still has a double barrel twelve gauge shotgun that someday will probably end up being mine that was his dad's before him.

If I was gonna buy a gun it would be an AR15. If I was gonna buy a handgun it would be the 45 ACP.

Doug D.

[Ikonoklast]

144. I'm on my second barrel on my AR15.

You put enough rounds through it, and you get a certain amount of erosion in the hard chrome. Consequently, accuracy suffers.

That was at around 15K rounds through it.

Replaced it with a non-plated chrome-moly barrel that is actually bored to the correct diameter instead of over-bored and then hard chrome plated to correct to the proper bore diameter.

[Squatch]

71. Too funny.

Penetration is increased by a bullet's ability to resist deformation. That's why the military's M855 round (standard 5.56 ball round) has a steel core and full metal jacket.

A teflon coating, or any coating for that matter, on a malleable bullet would not aid in a bullet's ability to resist deformation. Bullet coatings merely reduce friction inside the bore extending barrel life. Bullet coatings also have the secondary effect of causing mass hysteria among people such as yourself who do not understand internal ballistics.

And, it is well known that even with maintenance, barrels do wear out, especially in calibers with heavier or hotter loads. (Most wildcat cartridges will quickly erode a barrel, especially around the throat...we're talking in the few thousand rounds ballpark)

I suggest you return to engineering school.

[benEzra]

179. The banned "teflon coated bullets" were made of fairly hard STEEL

(or sometimes hardened bronze) and did indeed need a lubricating coating to avoid excessive rifling wear. You're an engineer, so think about unlubricated steel sliding against unlubricated steel at 500-1000 degrees and 800 mph at the steel-steel interface, when the steel parts in question (bullet and barrel) are a tight compression fit, and then think about that happening over and over and over in quick succession without allowing the barrel to cool. And the failure mode isn't the wearing out of the bore surface, but the rounding off of the leading edge of the rifling, which is small and sharp.

The anti-friction coating was irrelevant to Kevlar penetration, as bullets do not penetrate Kevlar by slipping between the fibers, but by overloading and breaking the net. Unlike conventional handgun bullets, the hard bullets in question did not flatten against a vest, but held their shape and concentrated the impact on a small area (and very few fibers), thereby increasing the per-fiber load by an order of magnitude and allowing the bullets to potentially penetrate vests otherwise rated to stop them.

Handgun bullets made of hard materials like that were banned in 1986, and the ban was extended to cover small and intermediate rifle calibers in 1994. And yes, a teflon coating was irrationally added to the 1986 "cop killer bullet" ban.

FWIW, the primary function for bullet coatings in non AP applications is to increase muzzle velocity, reduce barrel wear, and decrease metal fouling, and all lubricants except teflon are perfectly legal (and rightly so). Molybdenum disulfide coated bullets are widely used in long-range target shooting, for example.

[Statistical]

83. Teflon bullets are an urban legend.

No cop died from having a vest pierced by a so called "cop killer" bullet.
Standard body armor used by LEO will be pierced by ANY rifle cartridge.
To stop a rifle round would require a heavier vest w/ trauma plates like those used by soldiers in Iraq.

The black talon although no longer produced are actually an rather inferior round compared to modern JHP such as Federal HST (used by both civilians & LEO).

Of course it made a very cool story so there was no real reason to get the facts right.

[Leftist Agitator]

86. "That said though there's no need for teflon bullets"

You do know that teflon-coated bullets lack the magical power to penetrate soft body armor any better than copper-jacketed bullets, right?

You also know that their only useful application is preventing barrel wear, right?

Oh, wait, you didn't know that?

Wow, I guess you look must feel like a real idiot talking out of your ass and whatnot...

:eyes:

[1]

21. yeah, yeah, yeah... too many guns. what is your solution?

all of the "anti-gun" nuts i have experienced want to restrict and confiscate guns from regular, law abiding citizens.

i understand the scoff about the "only outlaws will have guns" but there is a lot of truth to that. more than i'm sure you want to admit to.

what is your solution to getting the guns from the bad guys on the street, without simply taking them from the good guys just trying to protect their families?

taking guns from law abiding citizens is a piece of cake. but law abiding citizens are not the problem.

tell me your solution.

i'm all ears...

[silverojo]

26. And anti-gun laws will REALLY keep guns out of criminals' hands

See, they're criminals. They break laws, by nature and by trade. This means, they'll ignore the laws, and keep getting guns. The result? The only people to be disarmed will be honest citizens, who will then no longer be armed against criminals.

Calling people "gun nuts" is pretty inflammatory, as well. "Gun nuts" are insane people like Charlton Heston. Law abiding gun owners, and people who actually understand "the right to bear arms" are not "gun nuts".

Your post was not intended to be informative, but as flame bait, pure and simple. Using phrases like "resident gun nuts" and "rant off" are confessions to this fact. You admit in your own subject line, that you know you're angering people deliberately.

You pretend to back up this flame bait by bringing up so-called facts with no actual sources given. Unless and until you can point to reputable web sites, or else post scans of these "archives", your argument is no different than that of those people who insist that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.

Go to a gun range and get some real education in firearms ownership. Let them inform you about the responsibilities of owning a gun (which includes keeping them in a safe, well away from children). Read real news stories about real people whose guns helped save their lives.

Maybe you'd be a little more educated, if you'd stop lumping every gun owner as a "gun nut", and actually listened to both sides of the gun debate, for a change.

Me, I don't own a gun, and probably never will, because I have carpal tunnel syndrome. I also used to be an anti-gunner. Then I started looking into both sides of the issue for myself, and realized that I had just fallen into the hysteria trap, judging by emotions instead of facts.

That's why I now know that a "semi-automatic weapon" isn't something that can be used to mow down people in the streets (as the media would have you believe). It's just a pistol that uses a different mechanism, compared to a revolver, and can therefore hold more bullets. That's also why I now know that people don't just get guns to kill other people. They are collectors, hunters, and hobbyists who simply like honing their shooting skills at the target range.

Even if you could feasibly take guns away, you'd wind up with gangs building bombs to terrorize people. That would kill a lot more people than a mere gun.

[ddeclue]

35. Fatalist argument to try to short circuit the conversation.

Nothing ever works perfectly.

By this standard we should abandon any government activity whatsoever because there's no way to make it perfect.

By this standard we should give up on all sorts of fields of endeavor. Why practice medicine? People are gonna die eventually no matter what we do to try to save them.

Doug D.

[1]

38. let's require all crack smokers to register their pipes and take crack safety classes...

that will stop the crack problem.

think about what you say before you say it.

please...

[ddeclue]

47. No but hey let's prosecute crack distribution and sales..

you really aren't listening at all and didn't come here to honestly debate this or even remotely admit of the possibility that your right to own a gun isn't totally unlimited and unregulated.

Your reply is reductio ad absurdium and is yet more over simplified fatalism to say let's throw our hands up and do nothing because God forbid it might mean some people shouldn't have a gun.

When you want to debate the issue honestly and seriously you let me know..

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. I am talking of history, that pesky thing, not the NRA possition

which is increasingly becoming a minority one, thougb a loud one

For the record... the same happened in the 1930s... and people made the same exact arguments back then

Tell me...how many BAR or Tommy Guns are in private hands? (Beyond the collectors that is)

[Irreverend IX]

28. What it comes down to is...

Some people are absolutely confident that their governments will always be there to protect them and that their societies will never break down or become chaotic. Others aren't and prepare accordingly. If you have no means to protect yourself and place total reliance on organic entities to do violence on your behalf, you're in a similar position to someone who has their entire net worth invested in companies like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. Such august institutions could never collapse and take your security blanket with them... right?

Also, note that frontier sheriffs had no more regard for the 4th and 8th amendments than they did for the 2nd. They had no problem storming in and searching wherever they pleased and beating confessions out of suspects. There weren't many civil rights lawyers in the old West, and the practices of police during that time should hardly be used as a model for policy today.

[ddeclue]

36. I have news for you - your guns aren't really going to matter

to the guy flying the A-10 or driving the M-1 battle tank.

All this testosterone poisoned belief that you're gonna overthrow the gov't with your guns just sounds crazy to most of us. We decided this issue already back in 1865.

Doug D.

[Irreverend IX]

57. Explain how you would use an A-10 or Abrams tank...

To suppress insurgents who hide among the civilian population. Would you bomb large residential areas of your own country flat?

Also, who was talking about overthrowing the government? I was talking about the potential failure of government to provide for social stability. If you don't think that's possible, ask anyone from New Orleans.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

79. And you lose...

Have you no understanding of how guerilla wars are won.

Support of the local populace.

You flatten a block to kill one American "insurgent" how many citizens who had family members die in that block provide aid to the insurgents? 10? 100? 1000?

How many decide that is enough and join the insurgency? A dozen? Kill one a dozen join.

The US ARMY isn't made of robots. How many will defect after being ordered to kill their neighbors week after week after week?
When they defect how many will take their weapons with them?

How many officers will catch a bullet to the brainpan when giving an unlawful order like that?

Your belief that you can quell an insurgency by brute force has been disproven at least 100 times throughout history.
There is no recorded instance where brute force resolve an insurgency other than genocide.

Are you advocating the genocide of American citizens via its military?

[ddeclue]

61. And that's vastly over blown and antecdotal crap.

The real "gun" problem if there was one in NOLA were the cops who wouldn't let people leave NOLA by crossing the bridge. Most of the crap you heard about on the news was a bunch of racist propaganda.

:eyes:

[jmg257]

81. Other then the gun confiscations, ya mean? Nothing racist - old white women were included.

Lawsuits come and go, but returning the guns to the rightful owners? Not so easy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. I do recomend you start studying

the history of modern civil wars

Yes.. to all your questions.

[Leftist Agitator]

89. Yes, because small arms really haven't made a difference in Iraq.

These Iraqis were no match for our overwhelmingly massive and superior military hardware. We went in and whupped their asses, and all the guns that they had didn't make a whit of difference.

Oh, wait...

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Chew on this little piece of data

Iraq had a higher percentage of ownership than the US

Did I miss the overthrow of one Sadam Hussein?

There are many ways from here to Sunday to cow a population... even one that is armed to the teeth

And rality is... that history speaks of gun control, not gun confiscation, learn the difference

[bridgit]

31. n/t

[MrSlayer]

33. There are too many guns but there is nothing that can be done about it.

That horse has been gone from the barn for a hundred years. An assault weapons ban only keeps those guns out of the law abiding people's hands. That fuckhead that killed the cops in Oakland the other day didn't seem to mind that they were banned in his state. The Crips buy AK's by the crateload, laws be damned. You're not going to get guns away from people that have them. It's sad but there is really nothing that can be done.

[Hekate]

48. Nothing like a reality-based discussion to start a fire we can pop corn with. Thanks Nadin....

... for reality, history, and common sense.

Now, pass the butter. ;-) :popcorn:

Hekate

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. There you go

BUTTER!!!!!!!!!!!!

:popcorn:

[Baikonour]

50. Guns have always existed as instruments of violence.

I don't see the point of their existence, personally.

[jmg257]

73. Because 90% of gun offenders in Chicago have criminal histories, I can see the need

for the rest of us to give up more guns. In AWB state California, a rapist and paroled armed assault felon illegally arms himself with what is reported as an (illegal) full-auto AK-47 assault rifle and murders cops? Shit - passing a ban on semi-autos just makes sense!

In cities like New Haven, most gun violence offenders have serious criminal histories, 1/5 of offenders had been arrested for a prior gun offense, 3/5s had a history of drug charges, and over one third of the offenders were on probation at the time of the offense.
Obviously making it much harder for all other citizens to lawfully carry concealed is a great idea!

Having all those treasury agents sitting around needing SOMETHING to do after Prohibition failed, because it did such a good job at decreasing alcohol use and reducing the violence and criminal elements involved with it just shows how well object bans work!


Well - not really - but hey, more bans & laws sure make anti-gun nuts feel good.

[jody]

74. Real problem is too many people abusing freedom of speech. Take away that inalienable right and all

the complaints about guns killing innocent people will disappear -- problem solved.

[Romulox]

75. The source of violence in America isn't guns--it's INJUSTICE and INEQUALITY.

[GTurck]

76. I always wondered....

about those who insist that a gun in the home is for protection how they would feel when it is used and their furniture, walls, carpets, and personal objects are covered with the blood and gore of the person they shot? I don't think they ever think of that because in the TV shows and movies it is never a problem.
We don't have weapons, have never felt the need and really don't know how we would respond to a home invasion but one thing is sure we wouldn't be giving any bad guys more weapons.
:dem: :fistbump:

[jmg257]

77. As long as the walls etc. were covered in THEIR blood & not mine or my kids? I think I would be OK.

Certainly better off, anyway.

[Statistical]

80. No sane person wants to kill someone. Trust me.

I have a weapon in the home for self defense. I also have been in combat as a soldier so I have no interest in having a gun battle in my home.

However if the choice is my blood on the walls (or my wife or my kids) or someone anyone who decided he/she has the right to invade the privacy and safety of our home..... well that is an easy choice.

Taking the life of anyone even a criminal scumbag will haunt you for the rest of your life however you have to be alive to be haunted so given the alternative it is something I am prepared to do.

Guns aren't for everyone and guns should only be one portion of a self defense scenario.
Good neighborhood, good lighting, good doors, good locks, good alarm are also important.

[Critters2]

117. I don't have an alarm, my lighting is okay, but wasn't installed for

security reasons, my doors are okay, and just have basic locks. I'm sure I don't live in what you would call a good neighborhood.

On the other hand, I don't live in an armed camp, as it sounds you do. Most importantly, I don't own anything worth taking a human life for--not my life, not someone else's.

I can't imagine living in such a way as to think that I had any right to take a life to protect the things in my home. I find that sad.

[Statistical]

166. To each his own.

Nowhere did I indicate that I would use lethal force to protect anyTHING.

In most states that would be considered homicide and not protected under self defense statute.

I thought it pretty clear that given the choice between risking injury to myself and my family or risking injuring an intruder I would choose the latter. I guess you would choose the former.

No problem there. I won't seek to eliminate your right to sacrifice your life or you family members life in the name of not taking someone elses life. I would never consider legislation that would make your actions of hoping nothing bad ever happens illegal.

I would just ask that you do the same for me.

[Critters2]

170. So, in your neighborhood, people just wander into other people's homes,

for the purpose of committing murder? I doubt that. Most home invasions are for the purpose of theft. So, your gun is not to protect people--it's to protect property. I own nothing worth killing for. And pretending that you're protecting people when you're protecting things doesn't make your motives noble.

[Statistical]

183. Well you know everything so I guess we are done.

Good thing nobody has ever raped and killed someone.
Good thing nobody ever got nervous durring a robery and killed someone.
Good thing nobody ever walked in on a burglary and never walked out.

Yup good thing the only thing someone invading your home can take is a thing.

Also good thing you can "know" someones intentions. All seeing, all knowing.

Of course I guess it doesn't matter that you are wrong. Even if it wasn't morally wrong I wouldn't kill over property if nothing more than it is the quickest way to go to jail for a long time (after bankrupting your family paying legal bills).

So continue to pre-judge people it is the new progressive thing to do.
All gun owners are looking to kill someone
All gun owners will kill over property
All gun owners are gun nuts
All gun owners have an "arsenal" (how many firearms make up an arsenal?)
All gun owners are liars

Must be fun to like a pre-judged black & white world like that.

[GTurck]

188. I agree...

I don't have anything worth killing for; really don't have anything anyone would want. The Cons have worked hard to make us believe that the choice is between mayhem or acquiescence - that there are so many criminals that we are under siege all the time. That is living in a very unliberal world.
We need to emphasize that we can only exist when there is enough trust and empathy that violent crime is a rare exception and not a common possibility. That is the biggest problem with MSM in that "if it bleeds, it leads" has become the only thing we see.

[RamboLiberal]

93. As long as the blood is theirs not mine

I can buy new furniture, paint the walls, been meaning to throw out the carpet any way. Can't buy myself a new life.

[Critters2]

118. Neither can they. nt

[jmg257]

122. They might want to pick a new career, then. nt

[RamboLiberal]

168. Well they are the ones who chose to break in

Boo Hoo for them. If they want to run out the door - I'll let them run - the legal and mental problems resulting from having to shoot someone is worse than letting them escape.

But I've read too damn many stories of cretins breaking in and murdering or raping elderly or lone women. Just had a 70 year old woman shot in a home invasion this week in county south of mine.

I've already hit AARP age - I have no intention of being a victim if I can prevent it.

[Raskolnik]

78. Leaving the merits of your position aside for the moment,

You clearly are interested in actually discussin historical realities, but I'm not sure that the fairly snotty tone of the first half of your OP ("OH NOEESSS," "So at the risk of annoying some of our local resident gun nuts," etc) helps that along.

Of course, it might get you more replies, and it might get the flames going a little earlier, but I don't think that is your ultimate goal, is it?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

91. +1

:thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. When you slay myths, at times sarcasm is your friend

and lord knows we have way too many myths that need slaying

[Raskolnik]

102. But you're smart enough to know that using language like only polarizes

I think you and I might differ on some aspects of gun control and the Second Amendment and agree on others.

However, referring to people as "nuts" and using too-cute dismissals of anyone who does not wholeheartedly share your conclusions doesn't promote the rational discussion you're looking for--it it only serves to bring out the defensiveness in one side and the self-righteousness in another.

I own/have owned many firearms, and I am extremely suspect of any limitations put on *any* of the rights protected by the Constitution. I think that when the state seeks to limit the fundamental rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it has a very heavy burden to bear, whether it be speech regulations, search and seizure protection, or the right to possess arms. I do not think that makes me a "nut," and the fact that others may place more or less value on different parts of the Constitution should not affect the protection it affords us all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Here is the problem, some people are indeed nuts, or rather, have been propagandized

by people who have certain interests into believing that gun control means gun confiscation

Which is far from the truth

I don't expect to have a conversation with them

Gets worst

When this gun control conversation finally takes place, and it will

The NRA will NOT have a place at the table... on the bright side neither will be the gun confiscation folks

And for some of the nuts, on both sides, that will be a very uncomfortable experience

[Raskolnik]

109. Yes, there are nuts on both extremes.

Which, if that was your point, begs the question why you only referred dismissively on one side of those "nuts" in you OP.

Fair enough, however. Take care.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. I actually addressed it in the OP when I said that neither side would have a

place at the table...

Problem is that this is way too emotional for some folks

But part of the pesky discussion will have to include some history... not myth, why the OP addressed some of that

[Raskolnik]

115. I would argue that some of the most pervasive "myths" associated with gun control discussions

are used by the side advocating for more laws that restrict the Second Amendment in some way. Whether it is the exaggerated concern over "assault weapons," the lack of even a basic understanding about what guns can and can't do, or the pervasive myth that our society is somehow becoming more violent, there are some pretty large dragons to slay on the other end of the spectrum as well, no?

But, I would respectfully suggest that your emotional attachment has led you to precisely what you cautioned against: when you dismiss out of hand anyone who disagrees with the conclusions you've drawn from the historical record with something like "OH NOEESSS what's next?", your caveat that there are some "nuts" on both sides of the debate becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy by virtue of your own polarizing language. Just something to consider.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. Actually the NRA has spread, with hollywood, some of the myths

and that is the problem

Reality is that gun control is part of US history, integral in fact

Reality is that until fairly recently gun ownership was rare in the US... plenty of data from inheritance documents

And most folks who owned guns, was for ahem hunting small varmint at the homestead to supplement their diet

Yep, 22... in the modern period

One amusing one was still listed in 1910... a Kentucky Long, that was still used by the family... until 1910, they finally replaced it with a plinker... exactly for hunting varmint

[Raskolnik]

124. Although I don't think it paints the whole picture, I'm not arguing with your historical data

I'm pointing out that your choice of language is not helpful for your purported purpose. If you want to have a serious discussion about the reality of firearm ownership in the U.S. and how the N.R.A. distorts that history, don't pepper it with "OH NOESSS" and casual dismissals of those you're trying to convince as "nuts." If you're just interested in polarizing people into extreme positions, however, that kind of thing is quite helpful.

Again, just something to think about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. Ok, I also know that no matter what language is chosen

people will raise hell

[Raskolnik]

129. Well, I think you are trying to have it both ways.

If you want to have a rational discussion, don't use inflammatory language that dismisses out of hand those people who don't already agree with you. If you use inflammatory language that dismisses out of hand those people who don't already agree with you, don't be surprised when it polarizes people into exactly the caricatures you say you're trying to avoid.

I think you did yourself a disservice on this one, because I think you have an interesting point to make.

Take care.

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. I'm not trying to have it both ways

But I also realize having this discussion is almost impossible, actually part of the problem

[Raskolnik]

145. But I'm trying to point out that your use of inflammatory language is *part* of the problem

You decry the fact that having this discussion is almost impossible, but you use the exact kind of language that contributes directly to that problem. That's trying to have it both ways.

[LaurenG]

82. I grew up with guns - my father was a soldier and he always owned a gun

He locked his guns and kept the key with him and he taught us just how dangerous a gun can be.

He took us all to the base firing range and let us fire a round or two. I think I shot a 357, I was eleven. I got the point as did my two brothers. Those guns were never used for anything but my father did serve during WWII and he said he thought every home should have a form of protection against a fascist government or an invading army. He taught us well about what Hitler did and told us that no man, government or invading force should ever be allowed to kill us without a fight. Thankfully nothing ever occurred to cause those firearms to be used.

I agree that assault weapons should be banned and that there are many people who should never be allowed to own a weapon. I just can't figure out a way to keep the unstable among us from acquiring them.

[L0oniX]

85. The anti-gun NUTS have never been assaulted, mugged, had their home invaded or been raped.

When it happens to you let me know how you feel about owning a gun then.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. First nobody is teling you that you cannot have a gun

second

I have been asaulted

And have been in way too many firefights

And history is your friend

GUN CONTROL is part of US history

It is not gun confiscation

We will have, once again, this discusion

Those who want to confiscate will not have a seat at the table, but neither will the NRA

mark my words on that

And when the dust settles a whole slew of weapons will NOT be in citizen's hands

By the way... like over the history of this country... minutemen, armed to the teeth... that's a myth. Reality is the Continental Army had a hell of a time equiping troops

And guess what Wyat Erp was doing? Oh yeah, ENFORCING GUN CONTROL LAWS

Get it now?

[jmg257]

112. "Minutemen armed to the teeth" is certainly a myth (or strawman), that is why it is mandated

by the Constitution that we all arm ourselves - and do so effectively.

The founders learned many lessons from the Revolution, and did their best to prevent them from happening again.

Enumerating a short list securing those basic and individual rights thought absolute was one of them.


BTW, how did it work out for Wyat, Morgan, Virgil, et al, when they tried to enforce the gun control HE codified?

How did gun control work out for all those newly freed slaves? Northern union organizers? New immigrants? Not so well, I think.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. Well regulated militia was included there for a reason too

but here is the truth... gun ownership in the high numbers of TODAY is a very RECENT phenomena, get it now?

Now I understand history is not the strong point of US Citizens, but myth is

As I said, history is 'bout to repeat itself in ways that will make all the nuts on both sides spin...

[jmg257]

128. No arguing that gun ownership has been steadily increasing.

Although recent articles argue that as a percentage of adult population it is dropping.
But no doubt there are more guns.

And I certainly fear more gun control will occur. As do plenty of others.

Nothing you have stated ("facts", history, "myths", control, etc.) is news.

We will have to see if the results, especially of the things you predict will occur, actually change though - meaning for the better.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. Here is an important point, if you believe control is confiscation, you are right to be afraid

if you believe control is part of a historical pattern, there is nothing to be afraid

So if you believe it is confiscation, I understand your fears...

And yes, there are many myths floating on all sides, and some of them involve "history" not history

Why I suggest people try to read the actual history,,, that is a guide to what should happen... which is rational actually

[jmg257]

135. Have read the history. I never totally equate control with confiscation, though I fear BOTH.

Depending on the control attempted of course.

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. That is where we part company

I don't fear rational gun control... it has worked just dandy over the course of US history

[jmg257]

142. Key word being "rational". We would have to get VERY specific then.

[nadinbrzezinski]

150. why do you think the NRA and the Confiscation fans will not have a

place at that table?

[jmg257]

156. Now it makes sense! Though I do like the lobbying power of the NRA.

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. Yeah but they have become way too radical, like the other side

[Critters2]

143. The Consitution MANDATES that we all arm ourselves?!

:rofl:

Then I'm in breach of the Constitution! Somebody arrest me! :eyes:

[jmg257]

147. Members of the Militia of the several states, which back then was an awful lot of the people.

Service was mandatory (males 18-45 give or take), so was providing yourself with arms.

[jmg257]

114. Hmm, so we won't confiscate, but a "slew of weapons will not be in citizens' hands"???

"Those who want to confiscate will not have a seat at the table, but neither will the NRA
mark my words on that
And when the dust settles a whole slew of weapons will NOT be in citizen's hands"


SO how are these weapons going to be taken out of the citizens' hands, if they are not confiscated? Will the state sponsor buy backs programs? Will gun owners turn them in voluntarily 'just because'?

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. The same thing that happened with the BAR and the Tommy

they are rare, in private collections... heard of grand fathering?

Nobody will come to your home to take away your M-1, or for god sakes your AR-15

There will be limits on who or when you can sell, see the BAR and Tommy...

History is your friend... try to read it... because we are going to repeat that history sooner or later, and for the same reasons

[jmg257]

132. Very familiar with history. Not with "reasoning" that provides phrases like

"we won't confiscate", but a slew of guns will not be the citizens' hands".

Then what guns are you NOT confiscating, that won't be in the peoples' hands?

Or are you talking about 'more guns' which will not find their way to the citizens hands???

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. If you have an AR-15 and you are grand fathered,

like the BAR owner you will be able to put it in a will

Just not sell it

Do riddle me this, can I buy a BAR today? What about a Tommy?

Why I said, read history, we are about to go down that road

By the way, trivia for you.. you could order that Tommy through the USPS... these days you cannot ship ammo...

[jmg257]

141. Of course you can buy a BAR and orTommy. If you could afford it..

& assuming you can pass the background check of course.

BTW, you can get plenty of ammo shipped via ground, if you can find any to order! ;)

Sounds like you want to limit the amount of guns over the long haul by attrition. Or force all transactions through a dealer.

Sounds like some of HR45.

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. You can't ship it through the USPS... UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

Try and you will go to jail. Don't take my word for it, go to speak to your local postmaster

Now UPS, or Fed Ex, different animal

as to the BAR and the TOMMY, you said it background checks... and the new collector is also given all kinds of grandfathering rights

I cannot go down to Wally Mart and buy it, now can I? I could do that, at one time, the equivalent that is

Same thing would apply

OWNERS were grandfathered

As to the dealer, it is not me who wants that, but I am betting gun shows will have a lot more background checks once all is said and done

It is not me who wants this. I just pointed to the history. Again, try to keep up

History of the US... gun control has been a constant... and we will have gun control become the norm... sooner or later

And what form it will take? The 1930s are a good guide... and to a point the 1880s...

But this is not about me.. don't try to personalize a HISTORICAL discussion.

[jmg257]

154. Yes yes, we know all this. So basically this 'historical discusion' is about nothing new, except

your prediction about it "repeating itself"?? That there will be more gun control??? HOW STARTLING!!!

Shit - thought I might learn something, or get some intelligent insight from those I disagree with.

Wow - what a waste of time! Which is just as well - must get the kid.

Bye!

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. I know some folks are alergic to history

and love them myths

Bye

[slackmaster]

151. Living in California notwithstanding, you can buy a BAR or a Thompson

If you can come up with a metric shit ton of money.

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. and a metric shit of background checks

hell Hollywood goes through that mess every time they need to get new toys for the studios...

[slackmaster]

169. It's the same background check I went through to get my Federal Firearms License

Any US citizen who can qualify to buy a handgun can pass it.

I got a DoD security clearance once. That was a whole lot tougher.

[fascisthunter]

113. nope... I Grew in the City and Have had ALL happen to me

and I never had a gun nor do I want one. And so it is for most of friends who all grew up in rough neighborhoods around and within the city. Your statement is so not true...

Also, those who think there are too many guns or want to see guns regulated are not necessarily anti-gun.

[Critters2]

119. Guess again.

Mugging victim and anti-gun "nut" here. A gun was used as a threat in my mugging.

[snooper2]

90. Is that why the roads are fucked up in my area?

somebody's been putting guns in the concrete?


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[slackmaster]

92. Violent crime rates have generally been trending downward since the early '90s

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_01.html

There is no need to panic about it.

[TWiley]

133. Abortion has more to do with that than guns do

[slackmaster]

146. Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe we have a Freakonomics fan among us!

:nuke:

http://www.isteve.com/freakonomics_fiasco.htm

[TWiley]

189. What socio-economic factors do you attribute the decline to?

Besides, you have to be an absolute nut to believe anything that Steve Sailer says. He is a nobody trying to insert himself and his mid-evil religious views into a larger discussion. He is a crack-pot.

So, what are the socio-econimic factors that you attribute to the decline in violent crime? Gun sales?

[LanternWaste]

103. We do appear to have the highest per capita gun ownership in the world...

We do appear to have the highest civilian per capita gun ownership in the world. And the U.S. is the world's largest small arms exporter, and also the world's largest manufacturer of small arms. Yet far from making me feel safer, this proliferation of inexpensive weaponry within our country compels me to feel less safe. However, how to actually change this problem for the better through legitimate, moral and legal procedures is quite beyond me (although I realize that many may not see it as a problem at all, and hence no need for fundamental change).


For my part (all other things being equal), the best I can do is simply and consciously avoid civilian gun-owners whenever circumstances and knowledge allows me to. And yet... even that choice, freely made by me which intrudes upon nor offends any other individual, is met with frustration sometimes, often with derision, and sometimes even outright hostility when particular people are made aware of it-- further reinforcing (at least to me) the validity of my choice.

[Raskolnik]

104. You certainly can associate with whomever you choose,

but, but perhaps your particular choice to avoid civilian gun-owners is often met with some derision because you may be offering a less than reasonable justification for avoiding a rather large group of people that don't really pose you much harm.

[LanternWaste]

105. I also avoid conservatives, fundamentalists and mimes...

"avoiding a rather large group of people that don't really pose you much harm...."

I also avoid conservatives, fundamentalists, and mimes who also pose me no harm, and my purpose remains consistent-- all other things being equal, I feel rather uncomfortable in those specific and particular demographics.

I can certainly understand why people may take offense at my discomfort, however I feel my reason (reason rather than justification) is no more, nor no less valid than that of a person who avoids Danielle Steele fans.

[Raskolnik]

108. Like I said--feel free to disassociate from whatever groups of people you choose.

If you don't feel comfortable around fire-arm owners, Jews, or people who like comic books, you don't have to spend any time around them at all if you don't want to. But don't feel surprised when your "discomfort" about being around people that don't fit your ideological checklist causes a few eyes to roll.

If, for example, someone announced that they make every effort to avoid anyone who owns a Prius because they don't like tree-huggers, that would probably result in some deserved eye rolls, no?

[LanternWaste]

116. Eye-rolls? Maybe. Maybe misplaced anger too.

Deserved? Maybe. Maybe not. If one avoids Rush Limbaugh fans out of personal choice, does that deserve an eye-roll? It may be realistic to expect one, but to deserve it? It would take minds much more clever than mine to validly answer that.




(I wouldn't place Jews in that list as one has little choice to be Jewish; and in my own examples, I made a point to list only those demographics in which membership is clearly a choice; however I think I can understand why you listed it...)

[Raskolnik]

121. See, now we're getting somewhere. You think that firearm ownership conveys

the same type of political/ideological traits that being a fan of Rush Limbaugh conveys? If you really think that you can determine someone's politics by whether they own a gun or not, I would suggest that you have an extremely stereotyped (and largely inaccurate) view of those that own guns.

(and, I would argue strenuously that being an adult member of a religion is most definitely a choice...last time I checked, the Jewish faith (or Baptist, Hindu, or any major faith) was not keeping any adult members against their wills)

[LanternWaste]

187. I certainly don't think I can determine politics

" You think that firearm ownership conveys..."
I certainly don't think I can determine politics by gun ownership. That you inferred that is on you. I merely listed examples-- the only common denominator was that were all demographics-by-choice.

"You have an extremely stereotyped (and largely inaccurate) view of those that own guns."
I have little to no view of guns or gun owners. Merely that I don;t want to be around a civilian carrying a gun.


"the Jewish faith (or Baptist, Hindu, or any major faith) was not keeping any adult members against their wills)"
One should be precise in differentiating between the Jewish faith and the Jewish culture.


At this point, you appear to be looking for the worst interpretation of any statements I make, and believing that it is in fact the correct interpretation to better validate your own perceptions-- yet more often than not, you've simply been wrong.



If someone feels offended with the choice I exercise to avoid gun owners, that's on them... as are any incorrect inferences or comparison they may make.

[spanone]

106. yep

[galileoreloaded]

139. My dear friend Nadin. I fully advocate your right to not own a gun.

Or, a knife, a chainsaw, or cigarettes.

Cigarettes are a funny thing, they exist to kill others(I think this has been vetted appropriately), and the user. Slowly for sure, but ultimately.

All three of these things (heck, all four if you include a gun) can kill you. Quickly, slowly, accidentally, or out of anger. As to the efficacy of gun control, the UK has pretty much shot that notion all to hell. Hasn't worked. The populous switched to knives, and they have banned those.

As a matter of principle, I cannot, with good conscious attempt to limit another's liberties, under the guise of my notion of what needs to be done. This is part and parcel of living in a relatively free society, where not all the risks to living can be mitigated. Via societal mandate nor individual.

I could no more tell a person to not smoke ever again, than infringe on this personal liberty (like the many others we "sort of" enjoy).

We will have to respectfully disagree.

[nadinbrzezinski]

140. History has precious little to do with MY owning a gun or two

Try to keep up... HISTORICALLY we have had gun control in one for or another

This is not just now...

What do you think Wyatt Erp and his bodies did?

Gun control, enforcement of such laws

And that is the point...

[marmar]

148. Brave post Nadin.....DU's gun lobby can be pretty ferocious.

and de acuerdo..... :applause:

[Raskolnik]

157. To be fair, don't you think that any discussion of limiting a civil liberty, whether warranted

or not, should be met with a strong defense in presumption of civil liberties?

[nadinbrzezinski]

165. Lobby's of any kind can be ferocious

[county worker]

153. You know what is wrong with your rant in my opinion?

You lump all guns into one category and thus all gun owners too.

There are all types of guns. I agree there are too many guns on the streets such as with gangs. But because there are too many gang killings with guns is no reason to talk about all guns this way.

There are hunters with guns.

Target shooters

Gun collectors.

I target practice with my gun. I don't belong in your rant nor do the vast majority of gun owners.

I might as well say there are too many cars on the road because some people kill others with their car.

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. This is about the HISTORY of ownership and gun control

not specific owners

By history most folks had hunting rifles, and by me, fine have them

[bigwillq]

155. Not too many guns

just too many guns in the wrong hands.

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. Actually HISTORICALLY we have the highest rate of gun ownership

regardless of who owns them

[bigwillq]

162. I am all for people owning guns

if they do it legally, get the necessary training, etc....I have no problem with how many people have them.

I am talking more about the guns that people buy underground, on the streets, that get into the wrong hands (or at least those people using them for all the wrong reasons, like killing each other or an innocent bystander) That's my biggest issues with guns. But I really don't know what we do about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

163. History is your friend

and that is where RATIONAL gun control comes in

And this rational gun control is part of our history

This does not mean that I will not be able to obtain it legally...but it will put some controls as to what is out there in circulation

And if people want to go hunting, go for it

Target shooting, more power to you..

And that is the point

The usual cannard that the bad guys will get them... is actually heavily disputed with the experience of the BAR and the Tommy... alas that was Federal... So perhaps we need Federal laws... not state laws... and I will remind people, that came out of the hew and cry of a population... the same is starting to gel

That said, let me be crystal clear... I am not for confiscating them... for starters it ain't practical... but I am all for rational controls.

[benEzra]

180. The difference is, full-auto Thompsons and BAR's were NEVER common in U.S. homes...

The usual cannard that the bad guys will get them... is actually heavily disputed with the experience of the BAR and the Tommy... alas that was Federal... So perhaps we need Federal laws... not state laws... and I will remind people, that came out of the hew and cry of a population... the same is starting to gel

The difference is, full-auto Thompsons and BAR's were never common in U.S. homes, whereas non-automatic "assault weapons" are now the most popular civilian rifles in America. That horse left the barn decades ago, and 1994 was already too late; "assault weapons" were already mainstream then (look at the popularity of SKS's in the late 1980's/early 1990's), and are dominant now.

Aside from all questions of their functional equivalency to more traditional looking rifles and the rarity of their misuse, the simple fact that more Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt makes a new ban counterproductive and wrongheaded, IMO.

[aikoaiko]

167. We should fight criminal gun usage and possession, but not at the expense of others' civil rights.

Yes, gun control ebbs and flows. Fortunately, its ebbing of late.

People who think banning a few guns will solve gun crime are foolish. Criminals will simply use other guns.

[Thothmes]

171. At the end of the Civil War

Soldiers of the Union army being discharged had the option to buy the government issued weapon they carried for the sum of $3.00. When the Army of Northern Virginia surrendered at Appomattox, the Confederat officers were permitted to keep their side arms. Enlisted men in the Confederate army gave up their weapons at the surrender ceremony. They were not allowed to keep them. Confederate artillerymen or cavalrymen were allowed to keep one horse or mule if they claimed one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

174. And as was covered way above, the officers of the CSA were the backbone

of the KKK in years to come

But that is one of the periods that saw an uptick for many valid reasons

;-)

[TBF]

172. I agree about too many guns - I'd like to see all violence banned.

How do we get them off the streets though. Would a ban be enough? I moved down here to Texas 6 years ago and you would be shocked at how many people carry the things. All the soccer moms I know are armed, at the very least with a stun gun. It's something else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

175. That's partly laws... CWP were much harder to get at one time

and partly culture....

It will change only after a bad outcome...

(read cop coming to scene and citizen with CWP gets shot by mistake.)

In fact a few of those... in my and the opinion of some LEO's I know off.

That is truly one of their nightmare scenarios

[Coffee and Cake]

173. I never owned a gun, but I support the 2nd Amendment

I have never felt threatened by a lawful American owning a gun. I wonder why you do?

I am more concerned that our army has lost 200,000 weapons in Iraq than I am about gun ownership. Governments proliferate arms sells and your beef is with individuals. Looks like you are placing the mule before the cart.

[nadinbrzezinski]

176. Read the OP again, and try to understand I am talking about HISTORY

Oh and enjoy your stay

(For the record kiddies this has nothing to do with fear, but this is a classic tactic by one of the two sides to try to derail the discussion)

[Canuckistanian]

182. I would suggest watching "Bowling for Columbine"

MM's main point was not the number of guns in America, but rather the tendency of Americans to USE guns.

Speaking as a foreigner, you DO have a more violent culture, more tolerant of using violence to "solve" your problems -and I include capital punishment in that definition.

IMHO, the cultural attitude to punishment BREEDS citizen violence.

Excessive jail time, vengeance motivated punishments and a "fortress mentality" are the cause of SO MANY
domestic murders.

I just don't get the "kill 'em all" attitude on this board when people are faced with serious crimes.

[conspirator]

190. So you prefer only BLACKWATER and RICH people's private armies have guns? nt

[Edweird]

191. 1) Basing your premise on "how it was done once" is incredibly stupid.

2) If it does happen the only thing it will accomplish is putting (R)'s back in power.


Gun grabbers make excuses for the failure of gun control. "It doesn't work in California because there isn't any in Nevada". "It doesn't work in Great Britain because there isn't any in Ireland". "Doesn't work in Mexico because there isn't any in the US". Well, based on that, it isn't going to work ANYWHERE, EVER unless EVERYBODY ON EARTH gives them up. Care to guess how likely that is? About as likely as the civil war prediction you already took a 'victory lap' for.

Am I angry? About your rant? Not even a little bit. This kind of stuff amuses me. The reality is out there in black and white. Written by the legislative branch, interpreted by the judicial branch, signed sealed and delivered. You can whine about how things aren't the way you want them, but that doesn't change anything. You might as well argue about the intent of a stop sign based on the position of the bolts holding it up.

[Paladin]

195. If Everything Is So Slam-Dunked And Squared Away.....

....why don't you Gun Nuts shut the fuck up about it?

[Edweird]

198. You first. :)

[Paladin]

196. Duplicate, Slow-Moving Computer. Sorry.... (n/t)

[X_Digger]

197. LOL!!

"You might as well argue about the intent of a stop sign based on the position of the bolts holding it up."

I'm saving that one :)

[marano35]

192. My $.02

I am a cop. I have been for the last eighteen years. I have worked in just about every aspect of law enforcement. In my experience criminals don't walk into gun shops and buy guns. For the most part they obtain them illegally, i.e., stolen, traded for drugs, etc. So there are already laws on the books to stop criminals from obtaining guns. Now some people as in the recent mass shootings in this country commit crimes with legally purchased firearms due to the fact that they were not criminals before committing these crimes, due to mental illness, rage and such. This type of crime is not nearly the problem in the U.S. that it is portrayed to be in the media. It has always existed in this country and is not something new. Mental illness is more prevalent because we now have more people.

I have always supported common sense gun legislation, but we have reached about as far as we can with laws concerning firearms ownership. We simply can not and should not go any further with firearms restrictions, it will only affect mostly people who have every right to own and enjoy firearms. I know there will be mentally ill people who will do bad things with guns, so we should make treating mentally ill people a bigger priority. I live in the deep south and I know that it is different here than in some parts of the country as far as opinion on gun ownership and legislation, but there are many people here who would more than likely be democrats today if the gun thing was not so conveniently hung around the party's neck. Well meaning but misinformed democratic politicians have stuck the party with the anti-gun label and it feeds the liberal pansy meme. We don't need it and it is not necessary. We have a lot bigger fish to fry, we do not need to pass any more laws that are essentially useless, hurt only law abiding citezens and weaken our party. Criminals will always have guns, we outlawed machine guns and they still have those, trust me I have taken several in drug raids. And oh yeah, we need to legalize Marijuana.

[chemenger]

194. The gunfight at the OK Corral was ultimately about gun control

The law in Tombstone did not allow weapons to be carried inside city limits.

November 1881

Ordinance No. 9:
"To Provide against Carrying of Deadly Weapons" (effective April 19, 1881).

Section 1. "It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person to carry deadly weapons, concealed or otherwise within the limits of the City of Tombstone.

Section 2: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.

Section 3: All fire-arms of every description, and bowie knives and dirks, are included within the prohibition of this ordinance."